# Alternative Energy Sources?



## FeXL

With some reservations (because some idiot will try to open this thing with a blue wrench or try to turn it into a bomb...) this is fairly attractive.

Local Mini Nuclear Reactors to Power US Homes within 5 Years



> Powered by low-enriched uranium fuel, each Hyperion Power Module will produce enough clean, safe and environmentally friendly energy to reliably power 20,000 standard American homes for 10cents per kilowatt/hr. Linked together they have the capacity to power much larger enterprises.


Link to Hyperion.

edit: Link to Hyperion added


----------



## SINC

Too bad the anti-nuclear crowd will likely be the biggest hurdle this technology has to hurdle. Those dopes want clean air but refuse to embrace the clean production of energy. Go figure.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## adagio

Hey, I'm all for it. This is exactly the kind of technology we need!

They can put one outside my door.


----------



## eMacMan

I remember back in the 60s my Physics prof saying that waste was the biggest issue with nuclear power and that was something the techs should be able to solve in a very few years. We are still waiting. Carbon dioxide is not the only thing that makes a power source dirty. This is still enriched uranium and waste will still be a major issue. Trading relatively harmless CO2 for poison is not a real solution.


----------



## adagio

Did you bother to read the story?

"To add to their eco credentials, *each module will produce a mere softball-sized amount of recyclable waste every five years* and will release nothing in the way of greenhouse gas emissions, unlike 'traditional' fossil fuels."


----------



## SINC

Underground storage of nuclear waste is the solution. For example, there are millions of dry oil wells in the world to put waste far out of reach of doing harm to any human.

People who oppose nuclear energy seldom think it through.


----------



## bryanc

There are also good technologies for firing projectiles loaded with nuclear waste into space (e.g. rail guns and light gas guns).

While the attitude of "we'll just throw this stuff away" is what got us in trouble ecologically in the first place, you really can't pollute space, and if you pick a trajectory intelligently, you can be sure the stuff you get rid of this way will never come back.

But all that would be moot if we could get decent fusion reactors working. Properly controlled fusion generates helium as a waste product (or any other element you want... but for anything heavier than iron you have to put energy into the system).

With controlled fusion, our only remaining problem (apart from overpopulation, which is fundamentally the root cause of almost all problems) would be heat pollution.

Cheers


----------



## SINC

Good points bryanc.

Seems to me that nuclear is the way of the future with many options that allow mankind a cleaner environment.

I just don't understand why people oppose any form of nuclear power.


----------



## adagio

SINC, the problem is most people don't have a clue what our current energy needs entail, never mind the future. If we're going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels then ALL forms of alternate energy must be on the table.

We in Canada don't live in a stable climate zone. Things like wind and solar cannot be relied upon to meet our needs in total. They are certainly part of the package but not the whole story. 

This isn't simply about CO2 emissions, it's about being self reliant and not beholden to the whims of OPEC and oil speculators.


----------



## EvanPitts

FeXL said:


> With some reservations (because some idiot will try to open this thing with a blue wrench or try to turn it into a bomb...) this is fairly attractive.
> 
> Local Mini Nuclear Reactors to Power US Homes within 5 Years
> 
> 
> 
> Link to Hyperion.
> 
> edit: Link to Hyperion added


The advantage is that the fuel is in the form of Uranium Carbide - which even if stolen, would be very, very hard to "grind up" in order to enrich it enough for even a dirty bomb. It is one of the most difficult materials known to machine, even with the best diamond based cutters; and has a very high melting temperature, which would make it very difficult to melt down into some kind of machinable form.

Of course, the problem facing Uranium Carbide fuels is the very problem of disposal or reprocessing, which would tax current state of the art technologies; but disposal is the problem that all state of the art reactor designs are facing.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> There are also good technologies for firing projectiles loaded with nuclear waste into space (e.g. rail guns and light gas guns).


Yeah right! And blow the whole flippin' moon out of orbit?


----------



## Max

Hey, there's one from out of the memory banks! Love that retro-futuro font. Very 70s... in a good way! Loved them insectile Eagle landers they had. Gotta get me one of those some day.


----------



## Adrian.

A big problem is terrorism. They would most likely have some fairly intense air protection around those bad boys. 

Many speculate the reason that one of the 9/11 flights went down in Pennsylvania was because it shot down since the army thought it was heading towards the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. That would have taken out the entire eastern seaboard including southern ontario and the clouds would have taken out of the rest of us in due time...


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> A big problem is terrorism. They would most likely have some fairly intense air protection around those bad boys.
> 
> Many speculate the reason that one of the 9/11 flights went down in Pennsylvania was because it shot down since the army thought it was heading towards the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. That would have taken out the entire eastern seaboard including southern ontario and the clouds would have taken out of the rest of us in due time...


Smacking a plane into a reactor building wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion.


----------



## Sonal

Tangentially related to this, I was at a meeting at the City today discussing some city-related issues surrounding geothermal. 

Interesting stuff... I do hope we see more of it.


----------



## Macfury

I would like to see utiities offering geothermal systems on a predictable interest loan over the long term, and paying them back on the utiity bill.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Smacking a plane into a reactor building wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion.


That's just what _they_ want you to believe. The masses remain hoodwinked... conditions are ripe for their plan.


----------



## iJohnHenry

Macfury said:


> I would like to see utiities offering geothermal systems on a predictable interest loan over the long term, and paying them back on the utiity bill.


Let's all stick an A-coil in the sewer system in front of our houses.

Never freezes down there.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

iJohnHenry said:


> Let's all stick an A-coil in the sewer system in front of our houses.
> 
> Never freezes down there.


A lot of work being done in that area in terms of heat recovery. The False Creek Olympic development is heavy into recycled heat from sewage.


----------



## kps

As I plan on building a home in the next few years, I've been doing some research into what new technology has to offer. The plan is to be "off-the-grid" as much as possible and to use as many alternative sources of both energy and construction methodology to reduce consumption and improve efficiency.

One site I found that has a very good overview of what is currently available is the tech inventory at toolbase. Plenty of ways to go.


----------



## FeXL

Good news!

Solar at Sea: Chinese Cargo Ships Will Have Solar Sails.



> The Australian company, Solar Sailor, has signed a deal with the largest Chinese shipping line COSCO to outfit their tankers with large solar-powered sails controlled by a computer that angles them for maximum wind and solar efficiency and the company claims that the sails will pay for themselves within four years.


----------



## SINC

Perhaps we've judged China too quickly? They seem to be trying.


----------



## Lichen Software

*Fission is always a problem*

Fission always has the problem of long term storage, like 5000 years long term storage.

There will be people who want to bury the waste deep underground, away from populated areas. The problem is that typically, populated areas are at the bottom of water sheds and the "remote" storge areas are at the top. So any leakage poisons the whole watershed for thousands of years.

To get what the Ontario mind set would be, one just has to look at Toronto garbage.

First they wanted to put it in Innisfil, just south of Barrie, not quite out of sight out of mind and adjacent to Lake Simcoe.

When this did not fly, it was send it to the Adam's mine in Kirkland Lake and put it in a 400 foot hole. This is right at the top of the the watersheds feeding both the Ottawa River system going to the St. Lawrence and the Moose River System feeding down to James Bay. Any toxic leakage would have been a catastrophe.

When that didn't fly, well they just shipped it to the states.

What's wrong with Etobicoke, or Scarborough, or even better, North York? ... NIMBY - and Because We Can.

It would be the same with these reactors.

Fusion when possible is the way to go. The holy grail of power production.

What I do like on this proposal is the scale change. It will make OPG shake in their boots. You could actually have independant grids, lack of control, resulting drops in salary..... and on and on.

Renewable is coming. Much of the technology is there and more coming every day. What is lacking in North America is political will. There is a lot of money at stake in not having a well distributed, multiple small scale power source. MY fear is that as Europe embraces renewable and puts money into it, we will be left irrovacably behind as a mere last chance purchaser rather than as a designer, manufacturer and distributor of these products.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> I would like to see utiities offering geothermal systems on a predictable interest loan over the long term, and paying them back on the utiity bill.


From the sounds of things, you are more likely to see something from other groups, like the CMHC or the OPA or something... there are some financial incentives out there, but trying to find them can be confusing, and then in some cases the application process is difficult.

The mandate for encouraging geothermal is still in its infancy.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting take on Obama's plan for an Energy "Quick Fix":


Obama's energy quick fix bound for the slag heap



> "And now Al Gore is telling us," Prof. Smil says, "that the United States can completely repower its electricity generation in a single decade ... can produce 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable, carbon-free sources within 10 years." He does the math to show that such a transition would cost more than $4-trillion (U.S.) - and would still fail. It is physically impossible, he says, to do six decades of rebuilding in 10 years. Such romanticism, he says, is delusional: "None of the promises for greatly accelerated energy transitions will be kept."


Also revealing were the stats on coal vs oil usage.


----------



## MacDoc

While the article makes decent points it ignores the fact that it is only a handful of nations that are the issue - not the entire world.

Bringing undeveloped nations and even most developing nations into the analysis is dishonest.

Sweden is committed to complete carbon neutral by 2025 and their record of achieving goals is clear - leading the world year after year.

Could the US do it??....maybe on a war footing ( which just might be forced on them )...

Can it be done without nuclear?? - a ridiculous idea as Sweden acknowledged by cancelling it's plan to retire nuclear stations. France is along way toward carbon neutral with their nuclear/electric train system and much lower carbon footprint.

Smil is bang on with this...



> merely eliminating the most obvious forms of waste from U.S. energy use -- making us as efficient as Europe -- would accomplish the same thing far more cheaply and far more rapidly (with considerable health benefits from reduced pollution, I might add).


Energy at the crossroads | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Efficiency is the low hanging fruit.

Ontario is in a position very similar to Sweden with base load mostly covered by nuclear and hydro.

A Portland Orgeon 
Portland near the top in reducing carbon footprint - Portland Business Journal:

type of program to change building codes and eliminate inefficiency ( retrofits etc ) could be undertaken here if the dumbass politicos could actually agree on something. 

There is a ton of economic activity to be generated in doing so.



> Monday, September 8, 2008
> Report: ‘Green’ investment could add jobs in Oregon
> Portland Business Journal
> 
> A $100 billion investment in the green economy could mean $1.2 billion and more than 27,000 new jobs for Oregon, according to a report to be released Tuesday.
> 
> The report, entitled “Green Recovery — A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy,” was prepared by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the Center for American Progress.
> 
> The effort — backed by a variety of interests, including labor unions, think tanks and environmental groups — examines how private and public investments in a transition to clean energy could spark economic growth.
> 
> A $100 billion program combining tax credits and loan guarantees for private businesses, along with direct public investment, could create 2 million U.S. jobs over two years, according to the report.
> 
> In Oregon alone, it says 27,307 new jobs could result.
> 
> The effort has a list of big-name backers. They include John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and current CEO of the Center for American Progress; Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers International.


The obvious place for Canada to start is Toronto with the both the light rail plan and retrofitting all the multiple occupancy buildings.


----------



## FeXL

Salt solution: Cheap power from the river's mouth



> "Salinity power" exploits the chemical differences between salt and fresh water, and this project only hints at the technology's potential: from the mouth of the Ganges to the Mississippi delta, almost every large estuary could produce a constant flow of green electricity, day and night, rain or shine, without damaging sensitive ecosystems or threatening fisheries (see map). One estimate has it that salinity power could eventually become a serious power player, supplying as much as 7 per cent of today's global energy needs.


Very interesting.


----------



## Sonal

MacDoc said:


> The obvious place for Canada to start is Toronto with the both the light rail plan and retrofitting all the multiple occupancy buildings.


Good luck with the retrofitting.  Seriously, it's a ugly issue... and you can't sell it as "right thing to do." 

Upfront costs are big, no one can guarantee payback periods, incentive programs are scattered and very cumbersome, the options for retrofitting are confusing, organizing large renovations are difficult, tenants get really pissy about living in a building under construction, plus it's often the tenants who have a huge influence on the efficiency of a building.... there's a longstanding joke in this business about tenants keeping the heat turned up on high and then opening the windows.

Believe me, we do a lot a retrofitting, probably more than the average Toronto landlord, and it's a headache.

Institutional investors aren't necessarily in it for the long-term game... a longer than expected payback is not okay. Cheaper to sell than fix it, plus they are frequently too far from the day-to-day to know what can be done. 

Single investors may not have the means or knowledge or time to do it.... or even care. Lots of family landlords in Toronto--many are dying off and leaving the buildings to the kids, who neither know what to do with it nor care... we acquired one such building, it had the original 50 year old single pane windows on it. Owner did not care about improving the cashflow, only about having to fork over the money to fix it. Not many people wanted to buy this building because so much work was involved in cleaning it up.

On a more positive note, however.... have you see the Mayor's Tower Renewal plan? A very interesting read. It sets some overall goals for retrofitting multi-unit buildings.


----------



## monokitty

Adrian. said:


> Many speculate the reason that one of the 9/11 flights went down in Pennsylvania was because it shot down since the army thought it was heading towards the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.


No 9/11 plane was shot down...


----------



## Adrian.

Lars said:


> No 9/11 plane was shot down...


Says who Lars, CNN?


----------



## FeXL

Some news on producing coal based synthesis gas in Alberta.



> Alberta will be the site of a $30-million demonstration project aimed at unlocking the clean energy potential of the province's vast coal reserves.
> 
> The province is contributing $8.83 million toward a $30-million underground coal gasification demonstration project that taps into coal seams that are too deep to be mined economically -- and would otherwise sit idle--to produce clean, synthesis gas for power generation.
> 
> The demonstration project, with Calgary's Swan Hills Synfuels LP, is the first of its kind in North America and, at roughly 1,400 metres below the surface, the deepest under-ground coal gasification ever conducted in the world.


----------



## eMacMan

Lars said:


> No 9/11 plane was shot down...


Which of course clearly explains why one of the engines was found 2 mile from the crash site.

Also the official explanation that Major Gibbons was flying a big wig from Montana to Washington in his F-16 does seem even more unbelievable than Rumsfeld admitting that he (Gibbons) shot down the Pennsylvania flight.

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane <br>'shot down' in Pennsylvania


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
Not surprising, ever since MacDonnell-Douglas invented the technology in the 70's that allows engines to break off of a jet at any time, which was a similar kind of engineering task mastered by Ford when they designed the explode on command Pinto, and GM with the burst into flames whenever Vega...


----------



## gordguide

" ... I would like to see utiities offering geothermal systems on a predictable interest loan over the long term, and paying them back on the utiity bill. ..."

SaskPower (what you guys would call "~Hydro") offers $25,000 at 6~7% (depending on the term of the loan) for Geothermal Conversions if you currently have electric heat, with payments via your utility bill. They also offer another $25,000 loan to install a "renewable electricity" generating system (solar, wind). You can combine the loans for a total of up to $50,000. Minimum loan is $5,000.

If you are using natural gas (and probably heating oil ... nobody in Sask does), you need to finance it yourself but are eligible for $10K in grants, and government grants are also available for Geotherm if your new home is built to R-2000 standard. In addition to the government aid, SaskPower will kick in a $3,500 grant for any R-2000 compliant home.

Each province decides how they want to organize their home energy grants, but the Feds offer matching grants if your province comes to the plate.

Net Metering projects (you tie into the grid and send excess electricity to the utility) that have a capacity of 100kW or less are eligible for a grant of 35% up to a maximum of $35,000 from SaskPower. Eligible projects can be wind, solar, biomass, heat reclaim, low-impact hydro, or flare gas. SaskPower provides electricity to most of the province, but the cities of Saskatoon and Swift Current own their own utility. All three allow Net Metering systems.

One interesting thing about the SaskPower Net Metering grant is the prominent notation that all grants from all sources cannot exceed 100% of the cost of the project, implying that other money is available.

Large scale wind isn't feasible in Saskatchewan because along with Manitoba it's the North American goose and duck flyway, so small scale wind is the only option here.

As for the small-scale nuclear generator, we won't be seeing these in homes within 5 years even if everything was 100% Go right now ... it takes 15+ years to get past the regulatory hurdles for our current nuclear projects; the factory would take a very long time to go from startup to production, and who knows how long before you could actually install the thing in your house. Around here it takes 2 years to get a plumber.


----------



## eMacMan

gordguide said:


> " ......
> 
> Net Metering projects (you tie into the grid and send excess electricity to the utility) that have a capacity of 100kW or less are eligible for a grant of 35% up to a maximum of $35,000 from SaskPower. Eligible projects can be wind, solar, biomass, heat reclaim, low-impact hydro, or flare gas. SaskPower provides electricity to most of the province, but the cities of Saskatoon and Swift Current own their own utility. All three allow Net Metering systems.
> 
> One interesting thing about the SaskPower Net Metering grant is the prominent notation that all grants from all sources cannot exceed 100% of the cost of the project, implying that other money is available.
> 
> Large scale wind isn't feasible in Saskatchewan because along with Manitoba it's the North American goose and duck flyway, so small scale wind is the only option here.
> ...


Really wish similar regs were in place in AB. Our overall energy use is fairly low. A wind generator 1-2 KWH would largely offset our use, but having to store in batteries and switch back and forth makes it a bad tradeoff.

Other big thing would be to force those privatized energy companies to drop the gouge fees. They discourage energy conservation as the end user sees little or no benefit from reducing use as the gouge fee tends to mask the drop.


----------



## gordguide

" ... Really wish similar regs were in place in AB. ..."

It's not all that simple to set up and insure safety, and any utility is perfectly correct to take the time to make sure you are not, for example, energizing the public line during an outage when real people with real hearts and real families are working on the lines. It's not trivial or a matter of just drawing up some regulation.

BC Hydro did a lot of the leg work a few years ago and most Canadian utilities can just grab their approval specifications and modify them to any particular local situations. For example, in Saskatoon the entire downtown runs off a 600V line, which is non-standard. But it's safety first, and nothing will happen without every little thing being looked at and solved.

I would inquire with your local utility and see how they are coming along with the process. Certainly they are looking at it; they all are. They save a lot in capital cost expenditures when you generate your own; it's a win for them financially.

But, you have to realize you are tying to the grid, and they won't just "trust you" when a fairly small private power generator can potentially take down the whole grid (from Ontario to the US midwest, as happened a few years ago).

A 1~2 kW system probably doesn't offer enough savings to justify paying for the necessary equipment to safely tie into the grid; really you're talking a 1-way system that just reduces your bill instead of selling back to the grid.

You get to take home the satisfaction that you are more efficient (distance plays a huge role) and will save the planet a tonne or perhaps two of CO2 a year over your utility's footprint. That's equal to roughly 6 months of driving a reasonably new car.


----------



## KC4

SINC said:


> Underground storage of nuclear waste is the solution. For example, there are millions of dry oil wells in the world to put waste far out of reach of doing harm to any human.
> 
> People who oppose nuclear energy seldom think it through.


It's not that cut and dry, unfortunately SINC. While the technology already exists to reintroduce matter deep into the ground via disposal wells, WHAT goes into them is carefully monitored for contaminants and toxicity. These subterranean zones travel for miles and small cracks and fissures allow disposal water to widely disperse. That's how the oil and gas got IN there in the first place. 

What is injected deep into one well can show up in someone's drinking water miles and miles away if the proper precautions are not taken or for whatever reason fail. 

Having endured my fair share of grillings/beatings at regulatory hearings to get mere oil & gas projects approved, I can't even fathom the day when we would get approval to inject highly radioactive material into the ground. If it was approved, it would likely have so many conditions burdening it, it still may not be able to actually fly.


----------



## SINC

Well duh, you don't just dump waste in the ground without proper preparation. The wells would obviously have to be sealed off before any such move was made. Underground storage is a safe option when done properly.


----------



## KC4

SINC said:


> Well duh, you don't just dump waste in the ground without proper preparation. The wells would obviously have to be sealed off before any such move was made. Underground storage is a safe option when done properly.


My sincerest apologies if I inadvertently insulted anyone's intelligence. It was not my intention. Some that have not been born, raised and worked in oil & gas territory may not understand the possible properties of reservoirs, and I was merely explaining my post.

You are right, there probably are millions of D&A wells in the world, but not very many of them would be attached to secure contained reservoirs large enough for this type of operation. Many of those are already in use as gas storage units. 

That said, I agree that it's a good idea, and reservoirs can be contained and secure or made to be that way. 

You come and stand with me while we both explain to the EUB and the millions of potentially impacted, interested citizens and interest groups why it is safe to inject radioactive material deep into the ground in the neighborhood, village, district, province, country where they live, work and travel and raise their families and livestock. And just to top it off, we will also explain why it is in all of their best interests for them to stop opposing it and start supporting our project. 

You bring the coffee - it's going to be many long days/weeks/months/years.

I'll bring the band-aids: We're gonna need 'em.


----------



## eMacMan

KC4 said:


> My sincerest apologies if I inadvertently insulted anyone's intelligence. It was not my intention. Some that have not been born, raised and worked in oil & gas territory may not understand the possible properties of reservoirs, and I was merely explaining my post.
> 
> You are right, there probably are millions of D&A wells in the world, but not very many of them would be attached to secure contained reservoirs large enough for this type of operation. Many of those are already in use as gas storage units.
> 
> That said, I agree that it's a good idea, and reservoirs can be contained and secure or made to be that way.
> 
> You come and stand with me while we both explain to the EUB and the millions of potentially impacted, interested citizens and interest groups why it is safe to inject radioactive material deep into the ground in the neighborhood, village, district, province, country where they live, work and travel and raise their families and livestock. And just to top it off, we will also explain why it is in all of their best interests for them to stop opposing it and start supporting our project.
> 
> You bring the coffee - it's going to be many long days/weeks/months/years.
> 
> I'll bring the band-aids: We're gonna need 'em.


Yes and No!

This has to be sealed not for years but for Millennia. We also have to assume that at some point mankind will lose track of these sealed reservoirs meaning they may be accidentally breached. There is no way to seal things to be completely earthquake proof. Once sequestered safe recovery would be very difficult if a better solution than sweeping it under the crust is found.


----------



## bryanc

What's the problem with launching it into space? Cheap, permanent, safe.


----------



## Max

1. Ridiculous amounts of energy getting it past the tug of Earth's gravity. Gonna have to work on that one. Yo, space elevator people! Step it up!

2. Great. We get to be known as the species who uses space as their own private dump. Neighbours are gonna _love_ us.


----------



## Adrian.

bryanc said:


> What's the problem with launching it into space? Cheap, permanent, safe.


I haven't put much thought into this, but wouldn't the fuel required to launch these ships into space (I am assuming fossil because I don't electricity can launch thrusters) outweigh any benefits of even having nuclear as an alternative. Imagine how many ships we would be sending. An insane amount certainly, and considering that they can't really carry that much weight, it seems like a game of diminishing returns. 

A space elevator, and shoot them towards the sun and we are talking


----------



## KC4

eMacMan said:


> Yes and No!
> 
> This has to be sealed not for years but for Millennia. We also have to assume that at some point mankind will lose track of these sealed reservoirs meaning they may be accidentally breached. There is no way to seal things to be completely earthquake proof. Once sequestered safe recovery would be very difficult if a better solution than sweeping it under the crust is found.


Yup, exactly. While we are technologically advanced enough to do just about anything we apply or minds to, the one thing that continually vexes and humbles us is Mother Nature. Every time we think we've got her mastered and in control, she shows us who's boss. 

And our inability to prove/guarantee control over her for the millennia, would be our achilles heel in trying to get such a project proved. 

The EUB/public would not likely even accept a documented industry "guarantee" as one of conditions of approval, because they aren't stupid either and would know that Force Majeure would apply.


----------



## gordguide

Radioactive contamination of ground water is really not much of an issue. It's a Red Herring that "seems logical" but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If someone starts talking about radioactive contamination of your water, it's a clue that they might be fear-mongering.

Water is an excellent radiation barrier ... that's why they use it in nuclear power plants to cover the waste (and our current storage method is storing it all at the nuclear generating plant under water. Working for 50+ years so far, but is not a "permanent solution").

Although they do use "heavy water", it's more a case of "because we can" than "we must". Heavy water is slightly more effective than natural water ... means you need a few feet less of it, and I do mean "a few", to do the job.

Radioactive ground water is very, very common; many hot springs and spas spew or contain radioactive water, for example. How? Because Radon gas is everywhere in the Earth, and water exposed to it absorbs some radioactivity.

But, the amount is small (seeing as water is surrounded by ... you know ... water, a very effective barrier) and dissipates so quickly that if you don't measure it right at the spring, and instead transport it somewhere, by the time you get to where you're going, it's dissipated into the air and you have perfectly ordinary water that won't make a counter even murmur.

Quack cures of the 20's promised radiation cures, and at first they were water-based. At one point the US American Medical Association (AMA) stepped in and insisted that if the water didn't emit at least 2 microCuries of radiation over a 24 hour period, it could not be advertised as being a radioactive cure.

Few products could; even the infamous "Revigator", which was a radium containing crock you were supposed to add water to and let sit overnight, and then drink, and which most certainly did contain real radium, could not manage to create AMA-legal radioactive water.

By way of comparison, your home smoke detector can emit 5 microCuries, and a commercial detector, probably a few where you work, are allowed to emit 100 microCuries.

Later, because of that particular issue, quacks began selling the Radium itself; perhaps suggesting you wear a chunk of it "like a jockstrap". You could buy Radium bearing toothpaste, salves, chocolate bars, soaps, suppositories, ear plugs and even contraceptives.

The Radioendocrinator, for a cool $150 in 1920's dollars, was a radium cube encased in 14 carat gold. You wore it against whatever part of your body was ailing.

That's when people started to keel over dead. US amateur golf champion Eben Byers, took up the habit of drinking 3 bottles a day of a drink called Radithor. Although water based, it contained suspended particles of Radium metal 226 and 228. He died in 1932. It was guaranteed to emit either 1 or 2 microcuries, depending on who you read.

A famous Wall Street Journal article entitled "The Radium Water Worked Fine Until His Jaw Came Off" brought about the end of the radiation quack cures and led to the strong regulatory power of the FDA.

Headlines like that can add to the confusion; metal-carrying "Radium Water" is not the same as "radioactive water" alone.

It does properly illustrates the real dangers; radioactive metal stays in the body, and continues to do it's damage forever.

That's the kind of stuff you need to worry about ... eating radioactive heavy metals, which is very, very bad, and breathing radioactive dust particles, which still does embed in the lungs, and is merely "very bad".

For an interesting time-waster, check out the Radioactive Consumer Products Page at Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Note that your IP will be logged and your surfing might be monitored; it's a Government domain.


----------



## bryanc

Max said:


> 1. Ridiculous amounts of energy getting it past the tug of Earth's gravity. Gonna have to work on that one. Yo, space elevator people! Step it up!


Rail guns, light weight gas guns, and scram guns can all launch small (few kg) projectiles fast enough to get out of orbit, so a space elevator isn't necessary. The amount of energy necessary is trivial compared to the amount of energy harvested from the expended fuel pellet before it needs to be gotten rid of.



> 2. Great. We get to be known as the species who uses space as their own private dump. Neighbours are gonna _love_ us.


I know you're being facetious, but this is really the only semi-rational objection I can think of, and it's based on a very serious misconception regarding how big space is. If we ground up the whole planet and spread it all over the solar system, there'd be effectively no change in the density of the debris.

The only constraint I can think of on this approach is that you'd have to make sure you didn't accidentally hit satellites on the way out.

Cheers


----------



## KC4

^^^
Excellent Post Gordguide! 

You're hired to stand with SINC and I at the regulatory hearings! Bring sandwiches, but skip the radioactive metal fillings....they will surely be provided anyways by some special interest groups. 


(chuckle) radioactive toothpaste.... "for that GLOWING smile"


----------



## EvanPitts

Adrian. said:


> I haven't put much thought into this, but wouldn't the fuel required to launch these ships into space (I am assuming fossil because I don't electricity can launch thrusters) outweigh any benefits of even having nuclear as an alternative. Imagine how many ships we would be sending. An insane amount certainly, and considering that they can't really carry that much weight, it seems like a game of diminishing returns.
> 
> A space elevator, and shoot them towards the sun and we are talking


You would be correct, since it takes about 3.5 tonnes of fuel to launch 1 kilogram of payload into orbit, and an even greater amount of fuel in order to have a payload escape the gravitational well of the Earth.

Perhaps the only benefit of most rockets (barring the solid boosters used on the Shuttle) is that they are propelled by burning hydrogen and oxygen - which creates water as the exhaust, and hence, is only a source of pollution to those adverse to water. (Of course, the preparation of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen creates pollution.)

Launching garbage is not only crazy wasteful, failed launches would make a big mess, especially in orbit where there is already enough junk floating around. It was only this week when the Shuttle had to do a stunt in order to keep the ISS from colliding into large bits of a failed Chinese rocket.


----------



## Max

bryanc said:


> I know you're being facetious, but this is really the only semi-rational objection I can think of, and it's based on a very serious misconception regarding how big space is. If we ground up the whole planet and spread it all over the solar system, there'd be effectively no change in the density of the debris.
> 
> The only constraint I can think of on this approach is that you'd have to make sure you didn't accidentally hit satellites on the way out.
> 
> Cheers


You're right; I was being facetious. And I do have a fair idea of the size of space - it's, like, rilly rillly rillly ginormous.

I think the rail guns thing is still a ways off, don't you? Same with scram, bam, thank you ma'am... aren't there billions of dollars of investment and test tech sitting between us and the practical, routine use of some of those tools?

Besides which, blasting our garbage off-planet still strikes me as lazy thinking - yet more of the old soil-the-backyard mentality that's landed us in some of the worst environmental problems. Why can't we do more to radically minimize our waste footprint and find efficient, profitable ways to recycle most everything?


----------



## kps

Max said:


> You're right; I was being facetious. And I do have a fair idea of the size of space - it's, like, rilly rillly rillly ginormous.
> 
> I think the rail guns thing is still a ways off, don't you? Same with scram, bam, thank you ma'am... aren't there billions of dollars of investment and test tech sitting between us and the practical, routine use of some of those tools?
> 
> Besides which, blasting our garbage off-planet still strikes me as lazy thinking - yet more of the old soil-the-backyard mentality that's landed us in some of the worst environmental problems. Why can't we do more to radically minimize our waste footprint and find efficient, profitable ways to recycle most everything?


Remember the last guy trying to build a big gun...a Canadian no less? No one was interested, except Sadam Hussain and then...Bang!.. assassinated by the Masad. I quess we'll have to keep burrying all that nu-clear waste.


----------



## Max

Yes, I do remember,kps. Gerald Bull, if memory serves. A whoppin' big gun it was, too. Seems quaint now, in our era of pilotless drones and spy satts up the wazoo.

If there's a way to turn cutting-edge tech into weaponry, we seem to be keen on doing that stuff. Heck, much of the great tech we rely on today percolated down to us from the military.


----------



## kps

Max said:


> If there's a way to turn cutting-edge tech into weaponry, we seem to be keen on doing that stuff. Heck, much of the great tech we rely on today *percolated down to us from the military*.


Including this wonderful thing called the internet...lol


----------



## Max

Affirmative.. DARPANET or sometin' like dat!


----------



## KC4

*Earth Hour 2009*

To participate, you can turn off your lights at 8:30 p.m. (whatever time zone you are in) 
on March 28th.

This would be interesting to watch from a satellite imaging perspective. I hope that those who have access to those images do a time-lapse clip and share it. 

Earth Hour 2009


----------



## Dr.G.

Thanks for the link, KC4. If the freezing drizzle and rain keep up, we won't have to turn anything off on Sat. since the power lines will be down and we will be in the dark. Still, I shall do it again this year if we do have power.


----------



## FeXL

Cold fusion breakthrough?



> Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called “cold fusion” that may promise a new source of energy.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Cold fusion breakthrough?


Sounds like a lot of the Popular Science/Mechanics articles, not very likely to get there in my lifetime.beejacon


----------



## gordguide

" ... Remember the last guy trying to build a big gun...a Canadian no less? No one was interested, except Sadam Hussain and then...Bang!.. "

Well, I wouldn't go so far as saying no-one was interested. We were, as were the Americans.

Gerald Bull was hired by the US Navy to improve the efficiency of their naval guns before the US officially became involved in Vietnam. Seems the guns could only fire about 16 miles, too short to stay out of Vietnam's 20-mile limit and still nail Hanoi. The US wanted to hit the North Vietnamese without actually declaring war or getting caught in an act of war. There was a close call with the Tomkin Gulf incident, where the US was doing exactly that. They were very worried about China entering the war.

They asked him if he could somehow get the guns to go 20 miles without retrofitting them all.

He did. 24 miles. Deniable naval bombardments of Hanoi were now possible.

The "big gun" you speak of was being researched at a private base that straddled the Canada-US border ... in the 1970's. It even had it's own Border Guards, but no-one was allowed inside. No-one before or since had ever been given such a site, (clearly it would be impossible now).

They built versions of the big gun and did research, but lost their contracts when the US pulled out of Vietnam and reduced military spending. Right from the beginning, Bull's research was aimed at using artillery to put objects into space orbit. It was his obsession and true belief that it could be done. He did military stuff to pay the bills, because no-one took him seriously about the ability to go into space with artillery.

What happened is after the Vietnam war was over, some genius in Congress noticed that Bull had been given total access to classified documents against US law in order to improve the naval guns; he was a foreigner and was ineligible for the necessary clearance (Canadian). They quietly passed a bill making him a US citizen, which requires unanimous consent of the House and Senate, by the way. Problem solved.

Later, he went to work making howitzers (field artillery) for the Austrians. The gun he developed is, to this day, 30 years later, the best field artillery piece you can get, in any army.

Then South Africa began manufacturing the Austrian field artillery. South Africa became subject to an embargo. Bull consulted for the South African manufacturer (because he cared about artillery, not politics). Now that he was a US citizen because he helped the US when asked to, the US threw him in jail.

He became bitter and vowed never to work for the US or Canada again, as long as he lived. That's why he ended up working for Saddam.

The US military took all Bull's research when they invaded Iraq during GW1, and the big gun project itself was subject to repeated secret raids by Israeli military during the 1980's. His "big gun" worked, and worked very well. Had he finished it, there is no doubt amongst the experts that he would have been able to hit Israel.

Note that Bull's work is 60's, 70's and 80's stuff; calculations happened mostly in his head and on paper; he never really had the use of computers capable of replacing his brain. Through out history, mastery of Artillery always goes to the guys who can do the math; it's all about the math.

Gerald Bull was a genius, in the true sense of the word. His work even today can't be completely replicated by anyone else.

And he was our genius, but we turned our backs on him and left him to fend for himself. You can only imagine what we might be doing now if he had been treated differently and been funded to continue his work in the 70's rather than forcing him to go scrounging for money.

He never wanted to make guns, but whether it was Canada, the US, or Saddam, that's all anyone was willing to pay him to do.


----------



## KC4

^^^^
Interesting read Gordguide, thanks....never knew about this before!


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah incredible story.....sort akin to building the Blackbird with slide rulers but THIS was one guy.

There was some talk of an orbital capable "gun" based on his designs for payloads that could withstand high gee acceleration.


----------



## Adrian.

> One of the great criticisms of electric vehicles is the power they rely on often comes from fossil fuels, leading critics to question how "green" they are. A British firm has a solution for that — a carport topped with photovoltaic cells that can charge an EV.
> Specialty glass and plastic manufacturer Romag says the PowerPark is just the thing for parking lots where electric vehicles may one day compete for spots to plug in. The first PowerPark was installed at the company's headquarters, and Romag says additional installations are planned around the United Kingdom.
> "Interest has been received from supermarket chains, schools, airports, train stations, hospitals [and] commercial office buildings in the U.K., Middle East and Far East," Kevin Webster, the company's technical director, told Wired.com. "The U.S. would be an excellent market for the canopy."
> About 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from fossil fuels, according to the Energy Information Agency. Still, the Electric Power Research Institute says shows plug-ins and EVs could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 450 million metric tons annually by 2050. That's the equivalent of eliminating 82.5 million gasoline vehicles — about a third of the number currently on the road in America. That figure will only climb as renewable sources become more common, EPRI says.
> Romag wants to help that along. Each PowerPark canopy is rated at 1.5 kilowatt peak, a measure of a photovoltaic system's peak output. Even in misty, foggy Northern England, the company estimates each parking space could generate about 1,100 kilowatt hours of electricity annually. The canopies are linked to the electric grid so energy "can be generated for use in the associated buildings when cars are not being charged," Webster said. "No electricity is wasted."
> PowerPark is a great way to promote broader acceptance of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. It provides emissions-free charging without taxing the existing electrical grid. Plus, it's got a distinctive shape that advertises itself and just might end up the most attractive piece of engineering in a Walmart parking lot. It could even help to drive sales, as customers might linger a little longer in the store waiting for their Aptera to charge.
> So far, the cost of installation and materials varies based on volume and location, but Webster said that the canopies could be purchased singly or in groups. Pricing "should be competitive with other forms of BIPV." That's Building Integrated Photovoltaics, for those of you who are really off the grid.


I am really liking the decentralisation of power production. This is a great step towards that. 


Solar Carport Gives Plug-Ins a Charge | Autopia from Wired.com


----------



## MacDoc

I noticed Shell has bailed on solar and wind.....makes sense....
This looked VERY intriguing



> *'First Economical Process' For Making Biodiesel Fuel From Algae*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This is the feedstock transferring system for algae biodiesel. (Credit: United Environment & Energy LLC)_
> 
> ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2009) — Chemists reported development of what they termed the first economical, eco-friendly process to convert algae oil into biodiesel fuel — a discovery they predict could one day lead to U.S. independence from petroleum as a fuel.
> 
> The study was presented recently at the 237th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.
> 
> One of the problems with current methods for producing biodiesel from algae oil is the processing cost, and the New York researchers say their innovative process is at least 40 percent cheaper than that of others now being used. Supply will not be a problem: There is a limitless amount of algae growing in oceans, lakes, and rivers, throughout the world.
> 
> Another benefit from the "continuously flowing fixed-bed" method to create algae biodiesel, they add, is that there is no wastewater produced to cause pollution.
> 
> "This is the first economical way to produce biodiesel from algae oil," according to lead researcher Ben Wen, Ph.D., vice president of United Environment and Energy LLC, Horseheads, N.Y. "It costs much less than conventional processes because you would need a much smaller factory, there are no water disposal costs, and the process is considerably faster."
> 
> A key advantage of this new process, he says, is that it uses a proprietary solid catalyst developed at his company instead of liquid catalysts used by other scientists today. First, the solid catalyst can be used over and over. Second, it allows the continuously flowing production of biodiesel, compared to the method using a liquid catalyst. That process is slower because workers need to take at least a half hour after producing each batch to create more biodiesel. They need to purify the biodiesel by neutralizing the base catalyst by adding acid. No such action is needed to treat the solid catalyst, Wen explains.
> 
> He estimates algae has an "oil-per-acre production rate 100-300 times the amount of soybeans, and offers the highest yield feedstock for biodiesel and the most promising source for mass biodiesel production to replace transportation fuel in the United States." *He says that his firm is now conducting a pilot program for the process with a production capacity of nearly 1 million gallons of algae biodiesel per year.* Depending on the size of the machinery and the plant, he said it is possible that a company could produce up to 50 million gallons of algae biodiesel annually.
> 
> Wen also says that the solid catalyst continuous flow method can be adapted to mobile units so that smaller companies wouldn't have to construct plants and the military could use the process in the field.
> 
> _The National Science Foundation funded Wen's research.
> Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAA_S


'First Economical Process' For Making Biodiesel Fuel From Algae


----------



## Dr.G.

Looks interesting, MacDoc. We can't sustain more biofuels from corn.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> Looks interesting, MacDoc. We can't sustain more biofuels from corn.


Sadly the more we learn about GMO corn the more it appears that Biodiesel is the only reasonably safe place to use it.


----------



## Dr.G.

Interesting and alarming point, eMacMan.


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah biofuels from foodstock is a non starter and even tho I think some of the plants are a good in marginal lands idea algae is really a flexible source and a solid state catalyst really puts in into main stream contention.
Still it's a long ways away - your NL oil and gas shall rule a while yet.


----------



## Dr.G.

"... your NL oil and gas shall rule a while yet." We shall see, MacDoc. We shall see.


----------



## FeXL

New Generation Of Solar Cells Promises Efficiency



> The laboratory for photovoltaics of the University of Luxembourg has produced its first thin film solar cells made from compound semiconductors, already reaching a 12 percent efficiency. Thin film solar cells are considered the next generation of solar cells and are expected to be considerably cheaper because they need much less material and energy in their production than today's photovoltaic modules.


----------



## CubaMark

Chief energy economist says oil reserves are drying up more quickly than previously thought - Boing Boing



> Dr Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), says his agency's recent study of 800 oil fields around the world (representing three quarter's of the world's oil reserves) reveal that we are facing a global energy catastrophe even sooner than researchers thought.
> The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.
> This means the pressure will be on to start using enivonmentally-disastrous tar sands in Canada.


(via BoingBoing)


----------



## CubaMark

Engineer builds diesel-gas hybrid engine



(via CBC)


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Engineer builds diesel-gas hybrid engine
> 
> 
> 
> (via CBC)


Interesting article, CM. Thx!


----------



## FeXL

Air-fuelled Battery Could Last Up to 10 Times Longer



> This step-change in capacity could pave the way for a new generation of electric cars, mobile phones and laptops.
> 
> The research work, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), is being led by researchers at the University of St Andrews with partners at Strathclyde and Newcastle.
> 
> The new design has the potential to improve the performance of portable electronic products and give a major boost to the renewable energy industry. The batteries will enable a constant electrical output from sources such as wind or solar, which stop generating when the weather changes or night falls.


----------



## MacDoc

This might be an eye opener....



> Solar power realities – supply-demand, storage and costs
> 
> Posted by Barry Brook on 16 August 2009


BraveNewClimate.com

and in case you wonder about his credentials

Professor Barry Brook | The University of Adelaide Staff Directory

His view and other high profile climate scientists like Hansen on the critical need for nuclear to supplant coal might come as a surprise to many that think renewables are sufficient as alternative energy sources..
...they are not.
....needed?? yes....
...cost effective??....not very as the article shows very clearly
....sufficient.....not a hope.. 

It's good reading including the pro and con comments

Power to the People – Nuclear energy in South Australia BraveNewClimate.com


----------



## eMacMan

Enough of the nuclear crap. Back in the 60s and 70s scientists were assuring us that in no time at all we would have safe disposal methods for the waste. Back then I was dumb enough to believe them. It STILL hasn't happened and no breakthroughs are in sight.

When it comes to being green, getting rid of poisons has to trump CO2 concerns PERIOD.


----------



## frankyg

I totally think those things could work. check this link out for for info on nuclear energy, and other energy sources.

YouTube - MrKeepthelightson's Channel
or
A Better Energy Plan


----------



## CubaMark

New solar battery technology offers household power at 2.5c per kWh


----------



## CubaMark

VW enters the home power market


----------



## gordguide

The best alternative power source, as every Irishman knows, is potatoes.


----------



## eMacMan

I am beginning to believe that the CO2 hysteria drum is not being pounded only to line Al Gore's pockets. Seemingly the nuclear energy industry senses a chance to greatly expand without solving its most basic problem, poisonous polluting waste.


----------



## FeXL

Linky



> Giant conglomerate Samsung is apparently pondering a wind farm comprising 200 turbines on the north shore of Lake Erie but the Ontario government would only confirm Sunday that talks with the Korean-based company are in advanced stages.


Wonder if there is going to be any NIMBY complaints...


----------



## screature

Nuclear *is* the future but it isn't fission, it is fusion (and I am not talking the Holy Grail "cold" variety). I recently watched a documentary on fusion reactors and while economically viable reactors are a couple of generations away, they are definitely the future of a clean sustainable energy source.

Here is a link for a primer on the subject.


----------



## eMacMan

I tend to agree that fusion is the long term solution. It is of course 20-30 years away.

Once the technical issues are resolved a test facility needs to be built to prove to the public that this is indeed safe. Needs to be somewhere that will not harm innocent people should there be a catastrophic failure. Rather than somewhere in France I humbly suggest somewhere on the grounds of Parliament as a logical choice.beejacon


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Once the technical issues are resolved a test facility needs to be built to prove safety. Needs to be somewhere that will not harm innocent people should there be a catastrophic failure. I humbly suggest somewhere on the grounds of Parliament as a logical choice.beejacon


Actually there are test facilities out there now, none operating at a commercially viable level although the largest test facility ever conceived is to be built by a consortium from the United States, Russia, Europe and Japan. It is to be called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France, to demonstrate the feasibility of using sustained fusion reactions for making electricity.


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
We already have access to fusion power, the Sun. There are many applications where solar can step in and reduce waste without needing costly or complex technologies. Think of things like all of the resources wasted on people heating swimming pools, when something as simple as a solar heater can make dramatic reductions in that waste, with inexpensive one time investment and no long term costs for consumption. We can also grow crops that can provide biomass or biodiesel, or even let forests grow and burn wood for heat with scientifically designed, high efficiency stoves.

Our problem isn't a technical one, where all we need is fusion reactors; but rather, that we simply fritter away too much energy on wasteful activities that accomplish nothing. We will pump billions upon billions into extracting oil from the oil sands, but can't seem to get a system into place where someone can just put up a windmill, at least, without rampant NIMBYism and special interests who would prefer that we squander resources on oil sands megaprojects or esoteric and far off research projects.

Tons of things can be done to live smarter, but we need the initiative to do it, and the ability to do it without high levels of frustration.


----------



## screature

^^^ All our electricity needs will never be filled by solar energy. Yes where it can be used to reduce our consumption where it is feasible it makes sense but it is not a large scale solution.

Think of all the coal fuel plant's the ecologically damaging Hydro installations and the potentially disastrous fallout form fusion reactors not to mention what do with their waste. 

For large scale electrical production the development of economically feasible fusion reactors definitely has a place in future energy production.


----------



## Darien Red Sox

Alternative ways of transit such as train and bus will save a lot of energy.
Rail Photos
Not only are they good to ride but they make for good photography opportunity.


----------



## CubaMark

A nuclear battery the size and thickness of a penny












> They might sound dangerous, but nuclear batteries have been safely powering devices such as pace-makers, satellites and underwater systems for years. They have an extremely long life and high energy density compared to chemical batteries. However, they are costly and also very large and heavy. Now researchers at the University of Missouri (MU) are developing a nuclear battery that is smaller, lighter and more efficient.


(read more)


----------



## MazterCBlazter

*.*

.


----------



## CubaMark

“Mystery” Ceramic Could Lead to Cheaper, Stronger Hydrogen Fuel Cells : Gas 2.0





> Solid oxide fuel cells are of interest because they can generate energy without the need for an expensive catalyst such as platinum, which is typically used in hydrogen fuel cells. While nanotechnology is enabling the development of hydrogen fuel cells that use less platinum, with BZCYYb the prospects look good for ditching the precious metal entirely in favor of more sustainable technology—if solid oxide systems can be developed in a commercially viable form, that is.


----------



## screature

*Nuclear Powered Cars*



MazterCBlazter said:


> Ford Nucleon 1958
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cadillac WTF: 100 years without maintenence




*Wouldn't want to get into an accident with one....*


----------



## EvanPitts

screature said:


> *Wouldn't want to get into an accident with one....*


Of course, both companies have such experience under the belt already, like the Ford Pinto:










And the advanced, modern technology employed by GM:










For the corporates, there is added legal protection by destroying everything within a five mile radius, since it will help them in any possible lawsuits - seeing that the litigants would be merrily dealt with. beejacon


----------



## CubaMark

Université Sainte Anne in Church Point, Nova Scotia, has completed its conversion to solar hot water:

University greens up its act with sun, wind and wood - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca



> 118 large solar panels have been hooked up to a hot water boiler. Both systems, the biomass furnace and the solar panel installation, will supply hot water to all buildings on campus.
> 
> In summer, when the biomass furnace won’t be operating at full capacity, solar panels will heat the water for the campus.
> 
> And a 50-kilowatt wind turbine will be installed to reduce the dependency on electricity.
> 
> "As a result of this three-component project we will likely be the greenest university in Canada by the end of this year," he said (university president Andre Roberge).


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## FeXL

*Not so better...*

Rhetoric notwithstanding, the subsidies don't sound very good.



> (McGuinty)'s using taxpayers' money to massively subsidize wind -- paying 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity generated from wind turbines (19 cents for offshore projects) compared to the normal cost of generation of four to five cents.
> 
> Wind companies are scrambling to cash in, building and proposing thousands of turbines across Ontario, massive steel structures as high as 40 storeys.
> 
> The province has been flooded with so many applications for offshore wind farms that Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield announced last week it won't consider any more until next year, just so it can catch up on the paperwork.


I guess if I could get subsidized like that, I'd be all over it too...


----------



## CubaMark

Two stories of note today:

Sharp sets highest solar cell efficiency


> The Sharp Corporation has developed a compound solar cell that has achieved a conversion efficiency of 35.8 percent. Developing a new base layer for its triple-junction compound solar cell has improved on Sharp's previous conversion efficiency by almost four percent.


and

Cell batteries could power nano devices



> Synthetic cells that act as a battery could one day be used to power nanotech devices. Scientists from Yale University and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created a very simple cell model in order to study the way certain real cells generate electric voltages. In the process they produced a minute working battery that converts chemical energy into electrical energy at an efficiency of about 10 per cent - a figure that's high enough to make cell batteries a practical alternative as a nano power source.


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
Pretty cool stuff. A 36% efficiency array would make rooftop solar quite practical - not to mention the savings in weight and size that ciuld be exploited by NASA and other satellite makers. Now if we could improve efficiency of everything else by 4%, we'd have something.


----------



## daddymac

Oh there has been much debate over the future of our energy sources as the quest for the best option for energy. I am a regular reader of blogs on the subject and personally, am a nuclear proponent. I believe that the future of our earth and eco system depend on clean coal technology, (despite much opposition circulating around its economic viability. Read: Its expensive!) Even with that said, it seems that people are still willing to pay more for "greener" homes. Hard as it may be, I think we should all prioritize and cut costs in other areas of our lives to accommodate the bigger picture Issues. 

I'm glad I found this thread. I'll probably be busy going back and reading the earlier posts but if anyone has come across any good blogs (the more unbiased the better - no greenwashers please!) or noteworthy articles, don't hesitate to send them my way.

Here are a couple in my bookmarks:

E N V I R O G Y
A Better Energy Plan


----------



## CubaMark

Oyster - the world's largest working hydro-electric wave energy device




> The world’s largest working hydro-electric wave energy device has been officially launched in Scotland. Known as Oyster, the device, stationed at the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) Billia Croo site near Stromness, was installed this year and is, at present, the world’s only hydro-electric wave energy device which is producing power.


----------



## eMacMan

Too bad the article did not mention the actual cost. Will power 450 homes. At $1000/home/year it would take over 100 years to cover a $50 Million dollar installation.


----------



## FeXL

Team to chemically transform carbon dioxide into carbon-neutral liquid fuels.



> Using concentrated solar energy to reverse combustion, a research team from Sandia National Laboratories is building a prototype device intended to chemically “reenergize” carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using concentrated solar power. The carbon monoxide could then be used to make hydrogen or serve as a building block to synthesize a liquid combustible fuel, such as methanol or even gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.


And



> As an example, he says, coal would be burned at a clean coal power plant. The carbon dioxide from the burning of the coal would be captured and reduced to carbon monoxide in the CR5. The carbon monoxide would then be the starting point of making gasoline, jet fuel, methanol, or almost any type of liquid fuel.


Interesting concept.


----------



## CubaMark

Seems like a good thread to help raise our electrical awarenes...

Orders of magnitude (power) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CubaMark

> Stanford researchers have developed a new low-cost, durable paper battery that's infused with carbon nanotubes and silver nanowires.





> A paper supercapacitor has the advantage of a high surface-to-volume ratio and may be especially useful for applications like electric or hybrid cars, which depend on the quick transfer of electricity.


----------



## Macfury

Here's a simple building product manufactured and invented by Canadians. Pre-cast concrete sewer pipes are pre-fitted with energy capture lines containing ethanol, allowing them to work as geo-thermal systems:

Sudbury News - New geothermal technology could cut energy costs


----------



## CubaMark

*Tiny glitter-sized photovoltaic cells could revolutionize solar power*





> Scientists from Sandia National Laboratories have developed tiny, glitter-sized photovoltaic cells that are ten times thinner than conventional solar cells and could one day be used in a variety of applications – from satellites and remote-sensing, to tents and perhaps even clothing. Yep, these cells could turn the average Joe into a walking solar-battery charger.


(Gizmag)


----------



## CubaMark

Scientist proposes quantum über-battery ? Register Hardware



> That battery incorporates a vast number of microscopic capacitors build from electrodes 10nm apart, separated by an insulator. According to Hubler, quantum effects, present because of nanometre scale of the capacitor, prevent the charge on one electrode jumping to the other when the electric field between the electrodes reaches a critical point.
> 
> The upshot: a capacitor that can hold a monster charge, relatively speaking. Build an array containing billions of these things and you have the makings of an über-battery for laptops, e-cars and the like.


----------



## Dr.G.

Interesting, CM. Sadly, no news of ZENN these days. We shall see.


----------



## CubaMark

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, CM. Sadly, no news of ZENN these days. We shall see.


Indeed. What happened to the "delivery by the end of the year" promise from EEStor? For those living on faith, could be a good time to buy in early January...


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> Indeed. What happened to the "delivery by the end of the year" promise from EEStor? For those living on faith, could be a good time to buy in early January...


We shall see, mi amigo. We shall see. Que sera sera. Paz.


----------



## Macfury

I want to see a mat for the Wii that requires players to move like maniacs to power the Wii itself!


----------



## eMacMan

Ah if we are talking about what we would like, how about a small, reasonably priced wind generator, maybe 2KW or so. Something that doesn't require huge towers, can be installed in an urban setting and won't kill birds or bats.

In a windy area like mine, combined with legislated power buy back and elimination of the gouge fees it would be possible to power my home at no charge.


----------



## CubaMark

*Japanese Inventor Uses Solar Orbs to Power Lights in Home*





> Just take a set of orbs that look like giant light bulbs, install them on your roof and watch them reflecting the light of the sun into your house. This obviously just works during the day, but if you have buildings around your house that block the sunlight, the orbs might help to light up dark rooms and save electricity costs. And they look kind of cool, too.


(original story with detail at CrunchGear)





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G.

Very interesting. We have nothing blocking our windows ............... just a lack of sun.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## CubaMark

*The Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies 
HYDROFILL - personal desktop hydrogen station*




> The HYDROFILL is a small desktop device that plugs into the power supply, a solar panel or a small wind turbine, and automatically extracts hydrogen from its water tank and stores it in a solid form in small refillable cartridges. The cartridges contain metallic alloys that absorb hydrogen into their crystalline structure, a storage method which the company claims offers the highest volumetric energy density of any form of hydrogen storage, even higher than liquid hydrogen.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

Will your next cell phone run on Coke? 



(Dezeen)


----------



## CubaMark

*Cool Your Fridge with Ice from Outdoors?*





> "I was inspired this month to unplug my refrigerator and cool just with ice that I can make outdoors. I can keep the refrigerator at 45 degrees for about five days with a couple of big pot fulls of ice. It had occurred to me how wasteful it was to be cooling something in the winter in a northern climate! It takes more attention and effort than just having a plugged-in refrigerator, but perhaps there are others out there that might also try this if they were given the idea."


(Re-nest.com)


----------



## eMacMan

The winter ice box bit had occurred to me as well. However in cooling the interior the fridge warms the air around it. So in winter there is no waste of energy. 

However if one were to build an old fashioned icehouse, fill it during the winter, and do the icebox bit during the two months that Canadian homes do not need supplemental heating; that would indeed be a net energy saver after you pay off the energy that goes into building and insulating an icehouse.


----------



## FeXL

Our deep freeze is located in our semi-attached unheated garage. Never placed there because of energy reasons (didn't want to haul it to the basement), in the cold of winter it seldom turns on and in the summer it uses less energy because it's in a cooler place to begin with.


----------



## CubaMark

An interesting new technology for the fabrication of solar cells...

BBC News - Solar cells made through oil-and-water 'self-assembly'





> the team borrowed an idea familiar to fans of vinaigrette: they built their two-dimensional sheets at the border between oil and water.
> They first built a device blank as before, with depressions lined with low-temperature solder, designed for individual solar cell elements.
> They then prepared the elements - each a silicon and gold stack a few tens of millionths of a metre across - and put different coatings on each side.
> On the silicon side, they put a hydrophobic molecule, one that has a strong tendency to evade contact with water. On the gold side, they put a hydrophilic molecule, which has the converse tendency to seek out water.
> By getting the densities of the oil- and water-based parts of the experiment just right, a "sheet" of the elements could be made to "float" between the two, pointing in the right direction thanks to their coatings.
> The conveyor belt process is to simply dunk the device blank through the boundary and draw it back slowly; the sheet of elements rides up along behind it, each one popping neatly into place as the solder attracts its gold contact.
> The team made a working device comprising 64,000 elements in just three minutes.


(BBC Science & Nature)


----------



## FeXL

Solar Shingles See the Light of Day



> In October 2009, the chemical giant unveiled its product, which can be nailed to a roof like ordinary shingles by roofers without the help of specially trained solar installers or electricians. The solar shingles will cost 30 to 40 percent less than other solar-embedded building materials and 10 percent less than the combined costs of conventional roofing materials and rack-mounted solar panels, according to company officials.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Solar Shingles See the Light of Day


A start, although price point needs to drop a bit further. Big stumbling block here is the inability to sell back to the power utility + the exorbitant gouge fees that further inflate the power bill. The only way to really benefit is going completely off grid which then means a large bank of batteries which also have to be purchased and maintained.


----------



## CubaMark

*Ontario signs green energy deal with Samsung team*





> Ontario has signed a multibillion-dollar deal with a South Korean consortium, which includes Samsung, to develop green energy in the province.
> 
> The group, which also includes the Korea Electric Power Corp., will set up production facilities to manufacture wind turbines and other renewable energy equipment, and it will also develop large swaths of wind and solar farms.
> 
> The consortium's investment in the project - which promoters say is the largest of its kind in the world - is estimated at between $5-billion and $7-billion.


(National Post)


----------



## Lichen Software

*Hopefully coming soon to your home*



eMacMan said:


> A start, although price point needs to drop a bit further. Big stumbling block here is the inability to sell back to the power utility + the exorbitant gouge fees that further inflate the power bill. The only way to really benefit is going completely off grid which then means a large bank of batteries which also have to be purchased and maintained.


Panasonic apparently already has the bugs out of htis

Panasonic’s new home battery could store a week’s-worth of electricity | VentureBeat


----------



## FeXL

Lichen Software said:


> Panasonic apparently already has the bugs out of htis
> 
> Panasonic’s new home battery could store a week’s-worth of electricity | VentureBeat


Like the sound of this.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> *Ontario signs green energy deal with Samsung team*


CM, what do you think about charges from some people that wind farms are not the way to go?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL, depends on the criticism / problem. I know some people claim there is noise, or feel vibrations, or kill birds, etc., but I see that as just an issue of engineering and design.

For example:
New wind turbine design could triple power

New wind turbine design overcomes drawbacks

and then this innovative design...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Wind power anywhere with MARS


----------



## Dr.G.

And still we wait for ZENN ..................


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> FeXL, depends on the criticism / problem. I know some people claim there is noise, or feel vibrations, or kill birds, etc., but I see that as just an issue of engineering and design.


No, I guess I was heading more along the lines of backup power, subsidies and subsequent effects. Whether or not there are actually advantages in the big picture...

See points I-1 & I-2 here and associated links.

That being said, the links you provided are interesting upgrades from a design standpoint.


----------



## Lichen Software

FeXL, one thing that has shown on a site somewhere is the measurement of infrasonics, low frequency sound waves, with wind mills. This is a known health problem. There are areas where what are known as "Ill Winds" blow, the Mistral being one of them. People have headaches and other affects from them. The cause was found to be infrasonics set up as the winds came through mountain valleys.

However, as CubaMark pointed out, these are design problems. Once the problem is fully recognized, it can be designed around.

I think most of the other things could be classed as NIMBY


----------



## Dr.G.

Sadly, the wind in parts of NL are too strong for wind turbines, the ocean currents too violent and there is a lack of sun for most of our province.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## CubaMark

*Almost Genius: Philippe Starck's New Wind Turbine*





> The Revolution Air, manufactured by Pramac, touts itself as a compact home turbine. With two or three blades, it's designed to spin no matter what direction the wind is coming from. (That's a novel, but not unheralded innovation; several companies have produced similar designs.) Prices will start at $3,500--cheap for a turbine





> Wind might certainly help as a renewable resource--but it's also almost useless in cities and suburbs. There simply isn't enough wind to justify the expense of a wind turbine. It might be un-sexy, but you if live on anything less than a couple acres on a vast plain, you could make a far greener impact by simply weatherproofing your home. (Some have even dubbed doodads like wind turbines as "eco-bling"--the green equivalent of a gold-and-diamond "E.G.O.T." pendant.)


(FastCompany)


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, the wind in parts of NL are too strong for wind turbines, the ocean currents too violent and there is a lack of sun for most of our province.


How are you for Geothermal?


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> How are you for Geothermal?


My neighbor's just put in geothermal and it is great. Since they will be living in the house another 20 years, it will more than pay for itself. We are considering moving in the next 4-5 years, and so, I just try to keep our oil bill down under $1000 a year by conserving.


----------



## CubaMark

*Maxwell and the Promise of Ultracapacitors*





> One of the promises of ultracapacitors is their potential to reduce the size -- and therefore the cost -- of hybrid vehicle batteries. The ultracap provides a way to extend the life of and quickly charge a hybrid vehicle's power unit. Ultracaps offer similar advantages for fuel cell vehicles. However, the tandem use of ultracapacitors and batteries does require additional power electronics, which can increase the cost of the vehicle.
> 
> Using ultracapacitors for regenerative braking improves fuel efficiency in urban driving conditions, as ultracapacitors capture and store electrical energy (generated by braking) and release it quickly for acceleration.
> 
> Compared to lithium-ion batteries, which gradually lose their capability to hold a charge after a few hundred charge/discharge cycles, ultracapacitors can withstand hundreds of thousands of charge/discharge cycles. What's more, ultracaps work well at temperature extremes that hamper battery performance.
> 
> The quick energy jump from ultracapacitors is suited for peak power applications such as elevators, forklifts, consumer electronics and back-up power applications.


(GreenTechMedia)


----------



## Dr.G.

ZENN needs to get back in the game and soon, before people lose all faith in their company. We shall see.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> ZENN needs to get back in the game and soon, before people lose all faith in their company. We shall see.


Actually Dr. G. your faith in Zenn goes way beyond what should normally be expected. They, like our illustrious prez-eye-dent, have reached the point where press releases are useless, only doing something will have any effect at all.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> Actually Dr. G. your faith in Zenn goes way beyond what should normally be expected. They, like our illustrious prez-eye-dent, have reached the point where press releases are useless, only doing something will have any effect at all.


Yes, while I feel that President Obama IS doing things that shall help people, I am not sure about ZENN. I am slowly unwinding my stock position in this company. We shall see.


----------



## CubaMark

I, for one, being bereft of disposable income for investment into potentially wicked stocks, am cheered on a daily basis by Dr. G's continued faith. It's quite Zen. (HAH! "Zen"! Get it? I kill me!)

So something to keep the faith...

*And Now Some Happy Thoughts As We Move Into Feb 2010.*

(TheEESTORy.com)


----------



## CubaMark

> Honda engineers have been able to eliminate the compressor entirely - a world's first for a home use system. This innovation also reduces the size of other key components to make the new station the world's most compact system, while improving system efficiency by more than 25 percent (value calculated based on simulations) compared to the solar hydrogen station system it replaces.
> 
> This will make the unit much more palatable for motorists with smaller-sized garages or apartment dwellers with shared parking facilities.


(GizMag)


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> I, for one, being bereft of disposable income for investment into potentially wicked stocks, am cheered on a daily basis by Dr. G's continued faith. It's quite Zen. (HAH! "Zen"! Get it? I kill me!)
> 
> So something to keep the faith...
> 
> *And Now Some Happy Thoughts As We Move Into Feb 2010.*
> 
> (TheEESTORy.com)


Right on, Brother Mark. Keep on truckin'. Peace, mi amigo.


----------



## CubaMark

*Physicist Discovers How to Teleport Energy*



(TechnologyReview)


----------



## CubaMark

*Who says alternative energy can't be fun?*





> Called the H-Cell 2.0, this hydrogen power kit can be installed on just about any high-end remote-controlled car. That's not all, it "comes with an entire solar powered fuel infrastructure to turn water into hydrogen -- stored in special solid state cartridges."






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(TechEblog)


----------



## CubaMark

> Solar power start-up GreenRay Inc. has developed the SunSine AC “solar appliance” that integrates the complex components of conventional solar power systems into modular, plug-and-play panels for easier installation, reduced cost, and increased safety. GreenRay designed the SunSine AC to produce standard alternating current (AC) electricity that is suitable for use in homes and small businesses, and the company hopes that by simplifying the technology and making it more affordable, it can make solar power more accessible to homeowners.
> 
> GreenRay calls its SunSine AC module the “world’s first solar appliance” because it integrates into a single package the separate components found in typical photovoltaic (PV) systems such as the PV panel, grid tie inverter, mounting hardware, and wiring. Each SunSine AC module contains a proprietary micro inverter that converts the sunlight the unit collects into AC electricity which is then fed into the electrical distribution panel supplying power to the home. According to GreenRay, any unused electricity is sent to the utility, which usually results in rebates to the home-owner.


[/URL

([URL="([URL="http://www.gizmag.com/greenray-sunsine-ac-modular-solar-panels/14072/"]GizMag)"]Full article[/URL])


----------



## CubaMark

*White roofs can cool cities*



> CITIES can battle the "urban heat island" with paint. Highly reflective white roofs could cool cities by an average of 0.6 °C, according to a global simulation.
> 
> Dark city surfaces like roofs and roads absorb and radiate heat, leaving cities up to 3 °C hotter than surrounding areas. A team at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, combined climate models with a simulation of how temperatures are modified by city landscapes.


(New Scientist)


----------



## CubaMark

*My own private... hydrogen power station?*





> The Hydrofill uses electricity from the outlet (as well as solar panels if you're particularly green), and produces hydrogen that can then be stored in refillable cartridges. The system can pump out 2.5 watts of power.
> 
> (And brushing Hindenburg nightmares aside, the company insists the technology is safe.)
> 
> No word yet on the cost. Online chatter puts it at about $200 for the whole kit, but Taras himself is mum on giving an exact number because he's still in talks with retailers. He expects to have it on shelves at the end of the year.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## CubaMark

*Howzabout soccer power?*

*Energy-generating sOccket soccer ball scores a goal in off-grid villages*





> What kid doesn’t like kicking around a soccer ball? Imagine if this fun activity could also provide enough energy to power something useful in a modest off-grid African village, like a reliable light to cook by or an emergency mobile phone. The sOccket is a prototype soccer ball that captures kinetic energy when it is kicked or thrown, stores it in an internal battery and makes that energy available for a myriad of small but useful purposes. In other words, it’s a fun, portable energy-harvesting power source that is designed to take a kicking.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Millimeter-scale, energy-harvesting sensor could operate almost perpetually*

*Millimeter-scale, energy-harvesting sensor could operate almost perpetually*





> Researchers have developed a solar-powered sensor system that is just nine cubic millimeters in size. It is 1,000 times smaller than comparable commercial counterparts and can harvest energy from its surroundings to operate nearly perpetually. The system could enable new biomedical implants as well as building and bridge-monitoring devices. It could also vastly improve the efficiency and cost of current environmental sensor networks designed to detect movement or track air and water quality.


(GizMag)


----------



## Macfury

Death of the wind farms | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog



> Wind farms are dying in the United States as the taxpayer handouts dry out:
> 
> Some say that Ka Le is haunted—and it is. But it’s haunted not by Hawaii’s legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are “Na leo o Kamaoa"-- the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm…
> 
> The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles—but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapin (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world’s best wind sites…
> 
> California’s wind farms—then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills...


----------



## CubaMark

*Less is more for highly absorbing, flexible, cheaper solar cells*





> Using arrays of long, thin silicon wires embedded in a polymer substrate, a team of researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have created a new type of flexible solar cell. Promising enhanced sunlight absorption and efficient conversion of photons into electrons, the new solar cell uses only a fraction of the expensive semiconductor materials required by conventional solar cells, and because they are flexible, they will be cheaper to manufacture.
> 
> Independently each silicon wire is a high efficiency, high quality solar cell. By bringing them together in an array the researchers were able to make them even more effective, because they interact to increase the cell’s ability to absorb light. So much so that the new solar cells have surpassed the conventional light-trapping limit for absorbing materials, which refers to how much sunlight it is able to absorb. The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.


(read more at GizMag)


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Less is more for highly absorbing, flexible, cheaper solar cells*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (read more at GizMag)


Interesting but unlikely to be available in my lifetime.


----------



## CubaMark

*Well... THIS is very interesting!*

*Bloom Unveiling Clean Energy Fuel Cell*



> ilicon Valley startup plans to unveil this week a fuel cell capable of producing clean energy in amounts sufficient to power homes and corporations.
> Bloom Energy gave the CBS news program 60 Minutes a peek at the green technology the company plans to launch on Wednesday. The company is backed by venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, which discovered and funded Amazon, Google, and other high-tech firms.





> One of Bloom's test companies is Google, which has used the company's technology to power a data center for 18 months. Google has been using natural gas as the energy source, but has used only half as much as would be required by a traditional power plant, Sridhar told Stahl. Other companies testing the technology include FedEx and Wal-Mart.





> Sridhar's energy box stems from oxygen-producing technology he invented for NASA so people could live on Mars. Sridhar took his technology into the commercial world after NASA scrapped the Mars mission.
> 
> The Bloom box is not cheap. Sridhar told 60 Minutes each box installed in FedEx, for example, cost from $700,000 to $800,000. In time, Sridhar believes a box capable of powering the average U.S. home could eventually cost less than $3,000.


(InformationWeek.com)


----------



## SINC

You don't need gas at the drag strip:

Oregon Field Guide; Electric Drag Racing Oregon Public Broadcasting


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> Death of the wind farms | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


I love how the wind nay-sayers will always quote the costs in producing a wind generator, but they never compare them to the costs in producing a coal plant - this is to say nothing of the continued reliance on coal and pollution they produce.

This story says to me that we need to improve the design of wind generators, not abandon them. We need wind generators that can operate at higher wind speeds instead of being shut-off. We need to think about being more efficient in manufaturing, and they need to be made more efficient in delivering electricity.

The naysayers simply fear change and can't accept the fact that any newish (only a couple of decades old) technology isn't going to be perfect from the start. There's room for improvement.


----------



## SINC

hayesk said:


> We need to think about being more efficient in manufaturing, and they need to be made more efficient in delivering electricity.


Exactly, there are far too many calories in "manufaturing" anyway. beejacon


----------



## CubaMark

Bloom Energy has released their "*Bloom Box*". 60 Minutes has a profile.


----------



## FeXL

Scientists find way to make cheap gas from coal



> A new refining process being perfected at the University of Texas at Arlington can turn the low-cost lignite coal, also known as brown coal, into oil at a fraction of the cost of importing crude oil from abroad.


Thoughts?


----------



## eMacMan

Lot's of questions that were not asked.

How clean/dirty is the recovery process? By that I refer more to particulates and poisons thrown into the air or water than to CO2.

Obviously if the coal is strip mined as part of the process, environmental impact is increased greatly. So is this process after mining or in place?


----------



## eMacMan

Deleted
http://www.news.com.au/world/scient...-in-the-atlantic/story-e6frfkyi-1225834562266


----------



## eMacMan

*Hybrid fusion: the third nuclear option*

Much as I hate solutions that are still being developed I am posting this because I feel it make a lot more sense than building more fission reactors when none of the problems have been solved.



> Hybrid reactors also sidestep looming shortages of the high-grade uranium required to fuel conventional reactors, as they can run on non-enriched uranium and thorium. Low-grade uranium and thorium are plentiful in most parts the world. And because the fissile material produced in the blanket remains at well below critical mass, hybrid reactors have a much lower risk of suffering an accident than conventional reactors, as runaway reactions and consequent meltdown are impossible.
> 
> 
> Finally, the power output of a hybrid reactor can be easily varied. That would allow nuclear power to be combined with renewables, which are inherently unpredictable, to provide baseload power.
> 
> 
> 
> Hybrid reactors have other advantages too. One is that the fission reaction can burn a range of fuels, including the long-lived high-level nuclear waste produced in conventional fission reactors. It "transmutates" these waste products into isotopes that decay over a hundred years rather than tens of thousands. Not only does this eliminate some of the nuclear industry's waste problems, it also potentially helps to rid the world of plutonium and other weapons-grade materials.




Entire article here:
Hybrid fusion: the third nuclear option - opinion - 04 March 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## CubaMark

*Smart Windows: Good for Seeing Through, Generating Electricity Too*





> Smart Energy Glass panels that generate current from the sun while also acting as like those old-fashioned devices that lets you see right through a wall. But that's not all. Similar to the other up-and-coming LCD glass treatments that let you blank a window at the flick of a switch (removing the need for curtains, blinds or shutters,) these smart windows also have selectable darkness. Darkest is the highest privacy mode, and thanks to a trick of the optics concerned, also leads to the most efficient power generation from solar input. And you can even choose between a range of shades for the glass and also incorporate logos or text into the panels, which will appeal to countless businesses.


(FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

...and then there's always conservation...

*Ford to save over a million dollars by turning off computers*





> If companies and individuals still need an example of the economic and environmental benefits of switching off electrical equipment when not in use, here it is. Ford estimates it will save US$1.2 million annually on power costs alone and reduce its carbon footprint by an estimated 16,000 to 25,000 metric tons annually by implementing a new PC Power Management program. The new program will centrally control the power settings on Windows laptops and desktop PCs to enable a managed shutdown of computer systems not in use, especially overnight and on weekends.


(GizMag)


----------



## eMacMan

> If companies and individuals still need an example of the economic and environmental benefits of switching off electrical equipment when not in use,


Wonderful example of a "Catch 22". Go through a Wally World and and do a quick grid estimate of the number of fluorescent lights. The hourly power consumption will astound you. Here's the Catch 22, those bulbs are fairly expensive and will burn out a good deal more quickly when turned on and off daily. 

Thus:
Saving electricity ≠ saving money 
but:
Saving electricity = more mercury and phosphorous in the landfills = more pollution of streams rivers and lakes...


----------



## CubaMark

*Canada isn't cleaning up on green technology exports*












> Around the world, trade and investment in technologies that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions – such as solar power, energy efficient appliances and hybrid cars – is growing rapidly. Unfortunately, Canadian businesses are largely failing to take advantage of these global opportunities.
> 
> Canada's exports of “climate-friendly technologies” did not grow at all between 2002 and 2008, according to new Conference Board of Canada research. Worse, when we account for inflation, this country's climate-friendly exports fell by 2 per cent annually on average. In short, Canadian businesses have failed to seize new – or even maintain existing – opportunities to sell such technologies globally. Our businesses and individuals have also been relatively slow to import and adopt world-leading technologies from others.


(Read more at the Globe&Mail)


----------



## Macfury

Calling this stuff "climate-friendly" is an embarrassment. How about "energy-efficient?"


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## CubaMark

*Texas Pioneers Energy Storage in Giant Battery*





> Presidio, Texas, has one link to U.S. electrical power, stretching some 60 miles (100 kilometers) from Marfa in the high desert to the banks of the Rio Grande.
> 
> Built in 1948, the transmission line was around when Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean walked Marfa’s streets while filming the epic movie Giant.
> 
> Electrical storms erupt frequently in the rugged expanse between Marfa, nearly one mile (1,600 meters) above sea level, and Presidio, on the Mexico border, “one of the hottest places in the nation,” in the words of city administrator Brad Newton. “It really creates a situation unique to our geographic area,” he says.
> 
> Reliance on a single aging, transmission line in this hostile terrain has made life in Presidio different than in most of the United States.
> 
> Chronic power outages and electrical fluctuations have been the norm.





> The hoped-for remedy is a battery, a Texas-size battery, which could eventually end up playing an important role in wider use of green power generation such as solar and wind. The U.S. $25 million system, which is now charging and is set to be dedicated April 8, will be the largest use of this energy storage technology in the United States.
> 
> The four-megawatt sodium-sulfur (NaS) battery system consists of 80 modules, 8,000 pounds (3,600 kilograms) each, constructed by the Japanese firm NGK-Locke. They were shipped to Long Beach, California, in December and transported to Texas aboard 24 trucks.


(NationalGeographic)


----------



## hayesk

eMacMan said:


> Wonderful example of a "Catch 22". Go through a Wally World and and do a quick grid estimate of the number of fluorescent lights. The hourly power consumption will astound you. Here's the Catch 22, those bulbs are fairly expensive and will burn out a good deal more quickly when turned on and off daily.
> 
> Thus:
> Saving electricity ≠ saving money
> but:
> Saving electricity = more mercury and phosphorous in the landfills = more pollution of streams rivers and lakes...


I'd actually like to see the statistics on that. How much life of a fluorescent bulb is reduced by turning it off and on only once per day?

There is also a technology that can dim fluorescent lights and supposedly does not reduce the life of the bulb at all - I can't remember what it is called but I saw it on Discover Channel a few years ago. This technology also demonstrated that if you dim them even 10% during the day, most people will not notice. Hallways and other areas where reading light isn't critical could dim the bulbs by even more.


----------



## CubaMark

*Tidal power? No thanks*



> Tides created by the moon and sun generate about 3.5 terawatts of power in total. This may sound like a huge amount, but is in fact only about 20 per cent of global energy demand. The amount of this energy that can be used is necessarily lower: to make tidal power viable, the speed of the current has to be at least 1.2 metres per second. This rules out the vast majority of tidal energy because it is found in the open ocean where tidal currents are too weak to be useful, generally less than 0.1 metres per second.
> 
> Viable speeds are only found in the shallow seas around the perimeter of oceans. In fact, there are only about 20 suitable sites in the world, including the north of Scotland and the Severn estuary in the UK. In the Netherlands a test plant is proposed for the Wadden Sea, a UNESCO World Heritage site.
> 
> Unfortunately, these sites are all in extraordinarily rich and ecologically fragile straits and estuaries that are critically important spawning grounds for marine life. Strong tides are what make these waters so productive: their turbulence stirs up nutrients vital for life.
> 
> In total, less than 100 gigawatts of power could be generated by the suitable sites, and it is debatable whether even this can ever be extracted efficiently. Tidal currents vary greatly over time and maximum power-generating currents are only a minor part of a tidal cycle. Even small decreases in current speed have large impacts on electricity generation.


(NewScientist)


----------



## CubaMark

Two items of note. 

*Lunenburg heritage nixes conservation*





> Charlie Farquharson and his partner Annique Bilodeau want to install a solar panel on the roof of their 110-year-old home on Lawrence Street, in the heart of the town's historic district, but were told it would contravene town bylaws. ....Lunenburg's heritage conservation bylaws are designed to protect the town's unique architecture recognized as a UNESCO world heritage site.


*Perhaps these folks aren't up on the latest in solar technology... among others, there are now solar shingles on the market.*


----------



## FeXL

Cheap hydrogen fuel from seawater may be a step closer.



> Conventional catalysts capable of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen are generally too expensive or too weak to work on water effectively enough to produce hydrogen for an inexpensive fuel, but new research has developed a molybdenum catalyst that is robust and cheap enough to do the job, but still requires too much energy to be immediately useful. It does open up new possibilities for scientists to follow in the search for the perfect water-splitting catalyst.


----------



## FeXL

Purple Pokeberries hold secret to affordable solar power worldwide



> The weeds that children smash to stain their cheeks purple-red and that Civil War soldiers used to write letters home - could be the key to spreading solar power across the globe, according to researchers at Wake Forest University's Center for Nanotechnology and Molecular Materials.


----------



## CubaMark

*Piezoelectric generator creates power from shoes*





> Could walking or running generate enough energy to power your cell phone or GPS device? Dr. Ville Kaajakari has developed an innovative piezoelectric generator prototype small enough to be embedded in the sole of a shoe that's designed to produce enough power to operate GPS receivers, location tags and eventually, even a cell phone.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Biomethane project to bring green gas to UK homes*





> British Gas in the UK has announced a new pilot scheme with Thames Water and Scotia Gas Networks to build a plant that will* clean biomethane gas harvested from human waste* and inject it back into the grid for use in kitchens and heating.
> 
> Biomethane is created when bacteria known as anaerobic digesters break down organic material such as human or animal waste, food and household waste to produce a thick, odorless waste plus methane. The waste solids are used for fuel or fertilizer and the process can also be used to generate electricity. In a three-prong approach, spare biogas from the process comprised of methane and a mixture of gases can be cleaned of impurities, upgraded to grid specifications, and an oderant with a natural gas smell applied, before injection back into the gas grid for end use by customers.


(Full story at GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Google Makes First Direct Investment in Utility-Scale Clean Energy*





> Google is no stranger to renewable energy. The search giant has previously invested in enhanced geothermal technology, smart grid ventures, electric cars, and wind power startups. But those investments all came from Google.org, the philanthropic arm of the company. Now, for the first time, Google Inc. has invested in renewable power as a way to "accelerate the deployment of the latest clean energy technology while providing attractive returns to Google and more capital for developers to build additional projects," according to the Official Google Blog.
> 
> The lucky recipient of Google's $38.8 million investment is NextEra Energy Resources' wind energy project in the North Dakota plains--two wind farms that generate 169.5 megawatts of energy, or enough to power more than 55,000 homes. So why this project over all the other renewable energy projects out there? Google reasons that the project uses the latest wind turbine technology to provide ultra-low cost energy to the grid.


(Read more at FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

* Researchers experiment with floating windmills*





> Ten kilometres off the southwest coast of Norway, the 80-metre blades of a turbine spin in the North Sea wind. It's not an unusually large windmill, and its 2.3-megawatt output is unremarkable. Even its location isn't unique — though most wind turbines today are on land, there are a few offshore projects.
> 
> One reason for building windmills that float is that winds are generally stronger and more consistent at sea than on land. (Pascal Rossignol/Reuters)
> 
> But unlike other offshore windmills that are anchored to the sea floor, this one floats.


(Read more at CBC)


----------



## CubaMark

*A nice summer project...*

*Almost Free Solar Hot Air Collector*





> Making a solar hot air collector out of free used 2 x 4 metal light fixtures, free old glass and free black paint to reduce our carbon body tape outline, reduce our untility bills and save money.
> 
> We are building and installing 14 of these hot air collectors on our south wall of our 140 year old house in Onario, Canada. During sunny days in the winter these will completely heat our house for about 6 hours. After we make these, we will join them together venting the cold air from the bottom of the rooms and exhaust the top vents to the top of rooms.
> 
> The fans will help increase the air flow to these rooms. The next collectors that we make will also be insulated and have a metal baffle inside to help concentrate the heat. The collectors then will be conected with flexable dryer
> duct to the side of the house.


(Instructables)


----------



## CubaMark

*Colorado Seeks a Renewable Energy Peak*





> The United States gets only 4 percent of its electricity from wind, solar and biomass, but Colorado thinks it can do better. A lot better. This spring, Democratic Governor Bill Ritter signed into law a program for Colorado to get 30 percent of its power from renewable energy by 2020.


(National Geographic)​


----------



## CubaMark

*Record 19 percent efficiency achieved with low-cost solar cells*





> California-based manufacturer of low-cost solar materials, Innovalight, has achieved record of 19 percent conversion efficiency for its silicon ink-based solar cells.
> 
> The conversion efficiency of a solar cell is the proportion of sunlight energy that a cell converts to electrical energy. Although conversion efficiency of greater than 40% has been achieved in the lab using multi-junction solar cells, the the average conversion rate for mass produced cells usually hovers around the 15 percent mark.


(GizMag)


----------



## FeXL

"Sea Kites" Could Harness Tidal Energy For Future Power Plants.



> A new underwater kite being developed in Sweden could be a low-cost, low-impact method for harnessing ocean energy. Swedish start-up Minesto has obtained $2.5 million to start testing the kite in Northern Ireland next year.
> 
> The kite, called Deep Green, is able to capture tidal energy at 10 times the speed of the water in which it operates.
> 
> It consists of a 3-foot-long turbine attached to a rudder and a 39-foot wingspan, tethered to the ocean floor with a 330-foot cable, according to CNN.


----------



## CubaMark

*Free energy via farming? Tobacco comeback?*





> Tobacco: It's good for more than just giving you lung cancer. Scientists at UC Berkeley recently figured out a way to get tobacco plants to grow extractable synthetic photovoltaic and photochemical cells that can theoretically be sprayed onto a glass substrate to create solar panels.


(Read more at FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

*Low-power LED bulbs coming soon*



> The prospects of replacing today’s inefficient incandescent light bulbs with long-lasting, low-power LEDs are getting brighter.
> 
> Two of the lighting industry’s three biggest manufacturers, Osram Sylvania and Philips, plan to sell energy-efficient LED bulbs this year that can replace a 60-watt bulb, the most commonly used incandescent lamp.
> 
> The third company, General Electric, will sell an LED equivalent to a 40-watt bulb this year, but it will not have a 60-watt replacement ready until 2011.


(Boston.com)


----------



## CubaMark

*Pure platinum alternative promises breakthrough in fuel cell technology*





> One of the most expensive elements used in most fuel cells is platinum, but now researchers have created a unique core and shell nanoparticle that uses far less platinum, yet performs more efficiently and lasts longer than commercially available pure-platinum catalysts at the cathode end of fuel cell reactions.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*"Most Solar Town in America" Will Use 85% Solar Energy*



> It has been just over a year since Skyline Solar unveiled its low-cost, high-efficiency High Gain Solar Arrays (HGS). And today, just a month after being fast-tracked through U.S. Commerce Department’s Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) green-tech patent application process, Skyline announced its latest high-profile project: an 80 kilowatt solar plant that will power 85% of Nipton, California. That's the highest percentage of solar electricity used in any town in the U.S.
> 
> There's just one catch: Nipton only has a population of 20 people. Visitors often pass through the tiny town on the way to Joshua Tree National Park or Mojave National Reserve, so the solar news isn't inconsequential. Energy independence has to start somewhere, so why not a sleepy town in the Mojave Desert?


(Read more at FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

*PG&E's $100 Million Fund Could Help Bring Solar Power to Your House*





> Homeowners do not pay for solar arrays – which can cost more than $30,000 — but sign a power purchase agreement with SunRun that fixes the cost of their monthly electricity payments for as many as 18 years. In exchange, SunRun installs, owns and maintains the solar systems. SunRun and other companies that lease solar energy systems qualify for a 30 percent tax credit against the cost of the arrays. Since most start-ups have no use for such tax credits, they give them to investors in exchange for financing installations.


(FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

*Body as battery*





> A big challenge in the development of wearable and implantable gadgets is how to power them. Years ago, I wrote about efforts to develop a "glucose fuel cell" and other possible technologies to scavenge power from the human body itself. In the new issue of Smithsonian, Michael Belifore looks at the latest developments in that field, much of which is funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)'s Starved Electronics program.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## CubaMark

*St. Lawrence River to become a power plant?*





> The mighty St. Lawrence River will soon be home to an underwater power-generating project that could one day churn in rivers across Canada.
> 
> In the coming days, a pair of 3.2-metre-high river turbines — which resemble giant jet engines — will be plunked into the waves near Montreal as part of a pilot project.


(Read more at MetroNews)


----------



## CubaMark

*Spray-on film turns windows into solar panels*





> Imagine if all the windows of a building, and perhaps even all its exterior walls, could be put to use as solar collectors. Soon, you may not have to imagine it, as the Norweigan solar power company EnSol has patented a thin film solar cell technology designed to be sprayed on to just such surfaces. Unlike traditional silicon-based solar cells, the film is composed of metal nanoparticles embedded in a transparent composite matrix, and operates on a different principle.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Could the World Run on Solar and Wind Power?*





> Today, the total oil and natural gas production provides about 60 percent of global energy consumption. This percentage is expected to peak about 10 to 30 years from now, and then be followed by a rapid decline, due to declining oil reserves and, hopefully, sources of renewable energy that technologies that will become more economically viable. But will there be the technology breakthroughs needed to make clean and exhaustible energy cost effective?
> 
> Nobel prize winner Walter Kohn, Ph.D., from the University of California Santa Barbara said that the continuous research and development of alternative energy could soon lead to a new era in human history in which two renewable sources — solar and wind — will become Earth's dominant contributor of energy.


(Universe Today)


----------



## CubaMark

*Pretty amazing...*

*Retro Car Goes From Canada to Mexico on a Single Tank*





> Craig Henderson and Bill Green designed the Avion, a fuel-efficient sports car, in 1984. Two years later, the vehicle set the Guinness World Record for fuel economy, getting an average of 103.7 mpg all the way from the Mexico border to the British Columbia, Canada, border. Now Henderson has revived the Avion for another jaunt from Canada to Mexico.
> 
> The latest iteration of the vehicle is just 1500 pounds and features an aluminum monocoque frame, a carbon fiber, kevlar and fiberglass body, and Goodyear "Fuel Max" tires. After receiving a sponsorship deal from Goodyear, Henderson decided to go from border to border once again--this time, on a single tank of gas.


(FastCompany)


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm, I'm in the middle of going from border to border on the Hawg, pretty sure I've used more than one tank of gas...


----------



## FeXL

Solar Or Wind Power? Why Not Both?



> Using a massive 8,400-kilometer-wide (5,220-mile-wide) solar sail to harvest the power in solar wind, the team hopes their concept could generate 1 billion billion gigawatts of power, far more power than humanity needs -- if they can get that power back to Earth.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Solar Or Wind Power? Why Not Both?


Interesting concept but no mention of how to keep what is essentially a solar sail from simply being pushed out of the solar system.


----------



## CubaMark

_Whoa.... interesting concept. And hopefully one that could counter the NIMBY problem... though the "wind whistling through the 'trees'" would probably still be enough to push somebody's buttons..._



*Windstalk concept is a wind farm without the turbines*



> Devised as a potential clean energy generation project/tourist attraction for Abu Dhabi’s Masdar City, the Windstalk concept consists of 1,203 carbon fiber reinforced resin poles, which stand 55 meters (180 feet) high and are anchored to the ground in concrete bases that range between 10 and 20 meters (33-66 ft) in diameter. The poles, which measure 30cm (12 in.) in diameter at the base, tapering up to a diameter of 5cm (2 in.) at the top, are packed with a stack of piezoelectric ceramic discs. Between the discs are electrodes that are connected by cables that run the length of each pole – one cable connects the even electrodes, while another connects the odd ones.


(GizMag)


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> _Whoa.... interesting concept. And hopefully one that could counter the NIMBY problem... though the "wind whistling through the 'trees'" would probably still be enough to push somebody's buttons..._
> 
> 
> 
> *Windstalk concept is a wind farm without the turbines*
> 
> 
> 
> (GizMag)


I did like the idea of pumping water uphill as way to store energy generated. This is something sadly lacking with current wind farms.


----------



## CubaMark

Nova Scotia steps up - FINALLY - Net Metering, small-scale projects... the first step in taking back NS from Emera...

*Renewable Electricity in Nova Scotia*



> To help make life better for Nova Scotia's families, the Province has enacted new renewable electricity regulations. By 2015, 25% of Nova Scotia's electricity will be supplied by renewable sources.
> 
> Nova Scotia's Renewable Electricity Plan and regulations chart a clear path: 25 per cent renewable electricity supply by 2015, using only made-in-Nova-Scotia sources. The plan involves the use of a combination of sources like hydro, wind, solar, biomass, and tidal.
> 
> The pay-offs are significant: reduced emissions, price stability, and many new jobs. In fact, the plan is expected to generate roughly $1.5 billion in investment and 5,000 to 7,500 person-years of employment. Many of these jobs have already begun. And opportunities will continue to emerge.


----------



## BigDL

I did like this quote


CBC News said:


> Jonathan Barry, president of Seaforth Energy, said his overseas partners are applauding the move.
> 
> "On a conference call this morning … I was told it's good to see Canada being Canadian again," he said
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: CBC News - Nova Scotia - Power plan targets small wind projects


It's nice to once again to be held in higher regard than we have lately. It's also nice the folks, back home, accomplished this for us.


----------



## CubaMark

A good first step. The next step will be local energy products that cut Nova Scotia Power out of the picture altogether (only problem being distribution). It's an economic tragedy, the privatization of NSP and their monopoly power in the province. Shareholders be damned.... NSP no longer gets to suck us dry.

Hopefully after the near-disaster in neighbouring New Brunswick, Nova Scotians have learned a thing or two (too later, but still...)


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


> A good first step. The next step will be local energy products that cut Nova Scotia Power out of the picture altogether (only problem being distribution). It's an economic tragedy, the privatization of NSP and their monopoly power in the province. Shareholders be damned.... NSP no longer gets to suck us dry.


 :clap: +1


----------



## CubaMark

_*Aw, crap! The fine print always gets ya....*_



> Liberal MLA Andrew Younger said he believes it's a mistake that* solar and geothermal energy projects don't qualify* for the feed-in tariff rate.
> 
> “These are some of the biggest growth areas in Nova Scotia and it makes no sense not to include all renewable energy,” said Liberal MLA Andrew Younger.
> 
> The Ecology Action Centre of Halifax echoes similar concerns.
> 
> “By stating that solar is not cost-competitive or that it is still an emerging technology, the province is being misleading,” Brennan Vogel, the centre's energy co-ordinator, said Friday.
> 
> “Solar has great potential to help us build decentralized energy security and realize widespread economic benefits in Nova Scotia.”
> 
> Energy Minister Bill Estabrooks said the provincial government is not “shutting down” solar and geothermal projects but the government is focused on wind and tidal.
> 
> “I’m certainly aware there is interest there and we will have to follow up with them,” said Estabrooks.


----------



## CubaMark

*Too much of a good thing?*

*Solar power could crash Germany's grid*





> HARNESSING the sun's energy could save the planet from climate change, an approach that Germany has readily adopted. Unfortunately, this enthusiasm for solar panels could overload the country's ageing electricity grid.
> 
> Solar power is intermittent and can arrive in huge surges when the sun comes out. These most often happen near midday rather than when demand for power is high, such as in the evenings. A small surge can be accommodated by switching off conventional power station generators, to keep the overall supply to the grid the same. But if the solar power input is too large it will exceed demand even with all the generators switched off. Stephan Köhler, head of Germany's energy agency, DENA, warned in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung on 17 October that at current rates of installation, solar capacity will soon reach those levels, and could trigger blackouts.


(New Scientist)


----------



## eMacMan

Obvious dilemma.

A more imaginative approach is required. 

Some possibilities:
Solar power used to pump water uphill during peak generation. Water used to generate electricity when solar is not producing.

Solar could be used to highly compress air which is then used to generate electricity at more usable times.

Solar could be used to supplement steam generation. Excess from grid being used to slowly bring steam generators up to pressure. Generators then kick in as solar kicks out. Not independent of coal or gas but would reduce dependence. 

FWIW Finding a way to cleanly coke coal. Any excess heat produced could be used to power a steam generation plant. Coke would of course would also provide a much cleaner source than coal for steam generation. At the moment most of our coking coal is sent in raw form to China or Japan. Worth looking for a clean way to do this at a local level.


----------



## Macfury

+1


----------



## CubaMark

*Turning freeways into electricity generating 'Solar Serpents'*





> With solar power plants requiring large areas which aren't usually available in or close to urban areas, Sweden-based architect Mans Tham proposes cities like Los Angeles take a different road – covering the city’s freeways in solar panels.
> ....
> Tham points out that, due to space constraints, the Los Angeles Solar Program focuses on roofs on private and public buildings within the city and solar plants in the Mojave Desert. By covering the large areas dedicated to roads – Los Angeles County has around 800km (497 miles) – in solar panels, Tham says the city could take advantage of public land with existing points of access for maintenance for use as a large scale solar installation.
> ....
> Aside from capturing solar energy, the “Solar Serpent” would also shade the roads and reduce the need for air conditioning in vehicles traveling under them. It would also allow charging stations to be placed under road overpasses for electric vehicles to recharge in addition to using the locally produced electricity to be used by local households and businesses with minimal transmission costs and loss of electricity due to transmission over long distance power lines.


(Gizmag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Boeing to mass-produce record-breaking 39.2 percent efficiency solar cell*












> When it comes to solar cells, everyone is chasing the highest conversion efficiency. Although we’ve seen conversion efficiencies of over 40 percent achieved with multi-junction solar cells in lab environments, Boeing subsidiary Spectrolab is bringing this kind of efficiency to mass production with the announcement of its C3MJ+ solar cells which boast an average conversion efficiency of 39.2 percent.


(More on the story at Gizmag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Sahara Solar Breeder Project aims to provide 50 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050*





> This is ambition with a capital A. Universities in Japan and Algeria have teamed up on a project that aims to solve the world’s energy problems. Called the Sahara Solar Breeder Project, the plan is to build manufacturing plants around the Sahara Desert and extract silica from sand to make solar panels, which will then be used to build solar power plants in the desert. The power generated by the initial plant or plants would be used to “breed” more silicon manufacturing and solar power plants, which will in turn be used to breed more again, and so on. The ultimate goal is to build enough plants to provide 50 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050, which would be delivered via a global superconducting supergrid.


(Read more at Gizmag)


----------



## CubaMark

*MIT's Dan Nocera Creates Energy From Water & Sunlight*



> MIT Professor Dan Nocera made this discovery 6 months ago and wants to share it with the world, although MIT owns the patent. He has published his breakthrough and made it "open-source." His students are already inventing machines applying this science and he says, "This is the way science works!"


(see Sott.net for the interview (video) _Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:55_)


----------



## SINC

> When it comes to solar cells, everyone is chasing the highest conversion efficiency. Although we’ve seen conversion efficiencies of over 40 percent achieved with multi-junction solar cells in lab environments, Boeing subsidiary Spectrolab is bringing this kind of efficiency to mass production with the announcement of its C3MJ+ solar cells which boast an average conversion efficiency of 39.2 percent.


Boeing to mass-produce record-breaking 39.2 percent efficiency solar cell


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *MIT's Dan Nocera Creates Energy From Water & Sunlight*
> 
> 
> 
> (see Sott.net for the interview (video) _Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:55_)


Do wish he had mentioned the actual catalyst or where to find the published report.


----------



## SINC

> Turning Tailpipe Emissions Into Power
> 
> Where there’s heat, there’s energy — even in the smelly exhaust that emerges from a car tailpipe. The trick is harvesting that energy and converting it to a usable form, and that’s exactly what Purdue University researchers intend to do in a three-year project in collaboration with General Motors.
> 
> The National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy, to the tune of $1.4 million, are funding this effort to develop a prototype thermoelectric generator (TEG) that would charge batteries and power a car’s electrical systems, reducing the engine’s workload and improving fuel economy.


Turning Tailpipe Emissions Into Power | EarthTechling


----------



## CubaMark

*More on Nocera's commercialization of the cheap hydrogen tech:*

*Solar Power Storage Enabled by Dirty Water*



> Sun Catalytix, a company founded by MIT professor Daniel Nocera, is working on a new, cheap solar power system that converts solar energy to hydrogen. The system should be on the market in a year and a half, and costs just $20. India's Tata Group has invested about $10 million in the company, seeing it as a low-cost power provider for poor families in India and elsewhere.


(FastCompany)


----------



## bryanc

*Energy from sunlight and water*

That sounds really interesting, and I hope to see it take off. But just to put it in perspective, that process is what plants have been doing here on earth for billions of years.

Cheers


----------



## CubaMark

*...and nature continues to show us the way...*

Scientists find natural photovoltaic cell in hornet, and copy it





> the Oriental hornet ... the outer layers of its body work as a natural photovoltaic cell, converting sunlight to electricity. The scientists then proceeded to create a cell of their own, using the hornet as their inspiration.





> The yellow cuticle takes its coloration from the pigment xanthopterin, and it turns out that xanthopterin has the ability to change light into electrical energy.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*Thin Film Solar Catching Up To Crystalline Panels On Efficiency?*





> The National Renewable Energy Labratory (NREL) recently tested thin-film solar modules made by MiaSolé, and verified that their energy conversion efficiency rate hit 15.7 percent, up from 14.3 percent last year.
> 
> The company boasted about the number, and several news outlets touted the results. Does it mean the performance gap between thin-film and crystalline solar modules is closing? Could thin-film take a bite out of the market for crystalline panels in the U.S., soon?
> 
> Clean tech analysts and engineers believe that thin-film solar is not likely to catch up to crystalline in terms of efficiency any time soon. Neither will thin-film solar modules steal market share from crystalline in 2011, they predict.


(TechCrunch)


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar firm making return to its Canadian roots*



> Shawn Qu runs one of the ten largest solar panel makers in the world, Kitchener, Ont.-based Canadian Solar Inc., with annual revenue of about $1.2-billion (U.S.). Yet he is almost unknown in Canadian business circles, mainly because the bulk of the company’s manufacturing operations are in China and its customers in more than 30 countries.
> 
> That’s about to change, however, as Canadian Solar gears up to open a large solar-panel manufacturing plant in Guelph, Ont., that will employ 500 workers by mid-2011. The new plant was partly spurred by Ontario’s new Green Energy Act, which pays high prices for solar-generated power if some of the equipment is made in the province.


(CTV)


----------



## CubaMark

*Breakthrough solar reactor makes fuel from sunlight*





> Because conventional photovoltaic panels produce electricity directly from sunlight, the energy they generate must either be used as it is produced or stored – either in batteries or by using the electricity to produce a fuel that acts as a storage medium for the energy. Now U.S. and Swiss researchers have developed a prototype device that directly converts the Sun’s rays into fuels that can be stored, allowing the energy to be used at night or transported to locations where it is needed.


(GizMag)


----------



## CubaMark

*A long read, but worth taking the time...*

*Cool Our Fever*



> Given that Germany is one of the cloudiest countries in Europe, right up there with England—the sun shines for only about a third of the year—it seems crazy that it would have more solar panels per capita than any other country in the world and that it employs more than 40,000 people in the solar power indus- try. But the Germans made it happen.





> They figured out a way to use their existing banking and power systems to begin to shift from dependence on coal and nuclear power to solar. And all it took were pretty small tweaks in the grand scheme of things. A minor recalibration in the way money moves around in the energy and banking sectors has turned the country into a solar powerhouse. Within the past decade, Germany has gone from near zero to producing 8,000 megawatts (MW) of power from solar, the equivalent capacity of eight nuclear power plants in the United States.





> In 1999 progressives in Germany passed the 100,000 Roof Program (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz),8 which mandated that banks had to provide low-interest 10-year loans to homeowners sufficient for them to put solar panels on their houses.


(Truth-Out)


----------



## CubaMark

_*An in-depth discussion about the state of contemporary geothermal...*_





> ...amid the rush to alternative energies, geothermal advocates sense a new chance to mine the heat rising from Earth's white-hot core. They plan to generate man-made steam by pumping water deep underground into hot, dry rocks in what's called enhanced or engineered geothermal systems. They also despair that governments and businesses aren't investing enough in the sophisticated technology needed to unlock the deep-seated energy.
> 
> "There's a window of opportunity where geothermal can play a part in our energy future, and we risk missing it," says David Blackwell, a geophysicist at Southern Methodist University.


(NationalGeographic)


----------



## FeXL

How McGuinty’s windmill dreams became a nightmare.


> Critics of the premier’s ambitious schemes were dismissed as cranks and nutters infected with a not-in-my-backyard syndrome.
> 
> To ensure that these self-seekers and know-nothings didn’t interfere with the government’s bold plans, Queen’s Park stripped municipal councils of their power to regulate wind turbines.





> Trotting around through all of this is the unassuming Bob McMurtry.
> 
> He heads up a new international body of doctors and scientists investigating wind power called the Society for Wind Vigilance. Throughout small-town Ontario, he is in great demand as a speaker.
> 
> “There’s a real level of anger there,” he told me. “Rural Ontario is on fire.”


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article on a gas turbine engine on a chip the size of a quarter.



> The resulting device could run 10 times longer than a battery of the same weight can, powering laptops, cell phones, radios and other electronic devices.
> 
> It could also dramatically lighten the load for people who can't connect to a power grid, including soldiers who now must carry many pounds of batteries for a three-day mission -- all at a reasonable price.


The engineering involved in this would be just...cool!


----------



## Macfury

Nothing beats fossil fuels!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Nothing beats fossil fuels!


Well, here is an interesting twist on that theme:



> UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. Apart from promising a future transportation fuel with a stable price regardless of oil prices, the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification.


I don't know if it's legit or not, but could be very interesting if so...


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> Nothing beats fossil fuels!


Oh my, You are making the Tesla generation cry,
If only Tesla were alive today, He'd find a better way of making energy.


----------



## CubaMark

*Can Beautiful Turbines Help Critics Embrace Wind Energy?*





> With knock-down-drag-out fights erupting over the aesthetics of proposed wind farms from Cape Cod to Canada, it stands to reason that the turbines themselves could use a makeover. Leave it to NL Architects -- the Dutch design brains behind this ingenious flipper bridge and this insane rotating amphitheater -- to dream up something terribly clever: wind turbines that could moonlight in an art gallery.





> Their idea is to cluster egg-beater turbines on a lanky fixture to evoke delicate buds on a tree. Far from the eerily isolated wind farms of California and beyond, the trees would be "planted" smack dab in the middle of cities -- in parks, along boulevards, and around homes. Think of them as the new family oak for an environmentally minded age.


(FastCoDesign)


----------



## eMacMan

dolawren said:


> Oh my, You are making the Tesla generation cry,
> If only Tesla were alive today, He'd find a better way of making energy.


Some folks at Colorado College where he worked for a while maintain that he did, but chose not to pursue it as he felt it would end up being used as weaponry.

Who knows?


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Can Beautiful Turbines Help Critics Embrace Wind Energy?


Making them "prettier" isn't going to address the inherent flaws in the whole system.

So, no...


----------



## FeXL

More on hydrogen storage technologies...



> Now, scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have designed a new composite material for hydrogen storage consisting of nanoparticles of magnesium metal sprinkled through a matrix of polymethyl methacrylate, a polymer related to Plexiglas. This pliable nanocomposite rapidly absorbs and releases hydrogen at modest temperatures without oxidizing the metal after cycling—a major breakthrough in materials design for hydrogen storage, batteries and fuel cells.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Making them "prettier" isn't going to address the inherent flaws in the whole system.
> 
> So, no...


Agreed. The turbines are just a green wet dream.


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar Power Breakthrough Claimed By Stanford Researchers*





> It’s the Holy Grail at clean energy research labs all over the world and something which could address long term energy issues domestically and beyond: more efficient photovoltaic solar. We’ve told you about scientists studying full-spectrum cells, using textured substrates, trying self-regenerating nanomaterials – we’ve even reported on an anti-reflective film inspired by a coating found in moth eyes. Now a Stanford team is claiming a breakthrough in making cheaper, more efficient panels by adding a single layer of organic molecules to solar cells.


(Huffington Post)


----------



## adagio

I used to be a huge fan of windmills until my visit to the Hawaiian islands. My Hawaiian friend escorted me throughout all the islands for almost three months. The one glaring thing I saw constantly were rows upon rows of windmills sitting idle. In one case a field of them sat rusting away. It was an ugly sight and something I don't want to see here. The working windmills I saw sat idle the majority of the time even though there were constant breezes off the sea. I asked about them and was told they can only be used as back up power. They are a great idea on paper but don't work so well in reality. 

I still think they are great but for limited uses. They cannot replace our current sources of energy and the costs are prohibitive for what we get back from the windmills. A combo solar/wind system is great in a closed energy system such as I've read in a family home or even a small village that wants to get off the grid. Thinking green is great but we need something to produce massive amounts of power 24/7. Wind and solar aren't it. I really wish it was otherwise.


----------



## FeXL

*New fossil fuel engine design*

Little shy on details but the concept sounds interesting:



> Michigan State University researchers have built a prototype of a remarkable new fossil-fueled engine design which
> 
> * is 5 times more efficient than conventional automobile internal combustion engines, and 3.5 times more efficient than hybrid automobile engines
> * reduces auto emissions up to 90 percent, because the engine uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion, compared to a typical car engine that uses only 15 percent of fuel for propulsion.
> * does not have pistons, crankshafts, valves, or a transmission system, cooling system, emissions regulation or fluids reducing costs of the engine system 30% and maintenance costs.
> * can operate on natural gas, gasoline, hydrogen and other fuels.


----------



## eMacMan

If we must go Nuclear at some point, it is way past time to look at this alternative. Protypes were built in the '50s but the US government wanted no part of this method as it does not produce any weapons grade Plutonium so the concept was never properly pursued.

While anything that says Liquid Fluorides does scare me, this concept overall sounds a lot safer and easier to contain and control than current nuclear reactors.

Time to reconsider.

Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Reactor: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle « Energy from Thorium


----------



## FeXL

*Bacteria+sunlight+CO2=Renewable "petroleum"?*

While I disagree with some of the far-reaching statements made in the article, the science appears to be sound.



> Graduate student Janice Frias, who earned her doctorate in January, made the critical step by figuring out how to use a protein to transform fatty acids produced by the bacteria into ketones, which can be cracked to make hydrocarbon fuels. The university is filing patents on the process.
> 
> ...
> 
> The U of M team is using Synechococcus, a bacterium that fixes carbon dioxide in sunlight and converts CO2 to sugars. Next, they feed the sugars to Shewanella, a bacterium that produces hydrocarbons. This turns CO2, a greenhouse gas produced by combustion of fossil fuel petroleum, into hydrocarbons.


----------



## eMacMan

*Subsea thermal jets*

YouTube - Marshall Hydrothermal Recovery System

Wife ran into this one. All the technology is available now. Certainly makes more sense than building more GE nuclear reactors when they are still trying to find a place for the 80,000 tons of Nuclear waste currently stored in big tanks above the reactor cores. That is just the U.S. share of the problem and each those tanks have 4-5 times the number of spent rods as were being stored in the melting reactors.


----------



## Macfury

A report from British wildlife preservationists, the John Muir trust indicate that Scotland's wind turbine program is a sad and expensive joke:

News from the John Muir Trust



> Indeed, for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines in Scotland linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy - that's enough power for a mere 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.


Another disastrous example of forward-thinking government officials and scientists attempting to second-guess the real world of economics.


----------



## FeXL

*More "settled science" bites the dust...*

This one for the good, however.



> The researchers found a way to make an "optical battery," said Stephen Rand, a professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Physics and Applied Physics.
> 
> *In the process, they overturned a century-old tenet of physics.
> 
> "You could stare at the equations of motion all day and you will not see this possibility. We've all been taught that this doesn't happen,"* said Rand, an author of a paper on the work published in the Journal of Applied Physics. "It's a very odd interaction. That's why it's been overlooked for more than 100 years."
> 
> Light has electric and magnetic components. Until now, scientists thought the effects of the magnetic field were so weak that they could be ignored. Rand and his colleagues found that at the right intensity, when light is traveling through a material that does not conduct electricity, the light field can generate magnetic effects that are 100 million times stronger than previously expected. Under these circumstances, the magnetic effects develop strength equivalent to a strong electric effect.


Emphasis mine.

Now, let's see what they can do with it.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> This one for the good, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Now, let's see what they can do with it.


How can this be, the AGW crowd tells me that science once established can never evolve. They assure me with one of their faces perfectly flat, that the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth!


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## FeXL

*E10 Debacle Puts the Brakes on Biofuels*



> An attempt to introduce the biofuel mixture E10 in Germany has been a disaster, after motorists refused to buy the supposed green gasoline. Car makers, oil companies and politicians have all tried to blame each other for the mess. Even environmentalists oppose the new fuel.


And people are starving to death while the eco-shysters are forcing us to put corn in our fuel tanks...


----------



## FeXL

*Alternative energy investors run for the exits*

Do we need any more of a signal that this was all just a bad idea?



> New investment in renewable energy dropped to the lowest in two years in the first quarter, weighed down by low natural gas prices in the U.S. and subsidy cuts in Europe, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
> 
> Money flowing into the industry through asset finance, share sales, venture capital and private equity fell more than a third to $31.1 billion in the first three months of the year from a record $47.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010, the London-based researcher said today in a statement.
> 
> Countries including Germany and Spain have announced reductions in the guaranteed prices that they pay for electricity from renewable sources while in the U.K. the government is reviewing the rates. Gas in the U.S. in September fell to its lowest price since 2002 amid a glut in production.


Summary:



> So as long as governments are willing to pay exorbitant amounts in subsidies, investors are willing to put money into “clean” energy. But once they’re faced with the prospect of actually producing a competitive product that people will pay for, they run for the exits. Great business plan, that.


In the mean time, giant fans are being erected all along hiway 3 in my backyard.


----------



## FeXL

*And, for those of you with coal powered, I mean, electrical cars*

Washington state looking for its pound of flesh:



> Owners of electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf (100-mile driving range) and the Tesla Roadster (211-mile driving range) have the advantage of traveling on America's roads without having to spend a penny on gasoline. And even though the Chevrolet Volt uses a gasoline engine when its battery pack is exhausted, some drivers have managed to average 1,000 miles between gas stops.
> 
> The State of Washington, however, isn't too keen on EV drivers skirting the state's gas tax, which helps to maintain the roads that EV drivers travel on every day. According to the Associated Press, Washington has a $5 billion dollar deficit, and hitting the pockets of EV owners is just one way to help close the gap.


----------



## FeXL

*Solar power, with a side of hot running water*

In going over a few pages of this thread, there is practically nothing heard from these guys again.

Wonder if we'll actually ever get to reap the rewards from any of this stuff...

Oh, well:



> MIT researchers and their collaborators have come up with an unusual, highly efficient and possibly less expensive way of turning the sun’s heat into electricity.
> 
> Their system, described in a paper published online in the journal Nature Materials on May 1, produces power with an efficiency roughly eight times higher than ever previously reported for a solar thermoelectric device — one that produces electricity from solar heat. It does so by generating and harnessing a temperature difference of about 200 degrees Celsius between the interior of the device and the ambient air.


----------



## bryanc

I think you're missing the point of these electric cars...


----------



## FeXL

*Navy-funded effort to harness nuclear fusion*

Little blurb on fusion reactor development stateside. Kind of interesting.



> EMC2 Fusion doesn't have tens of millions of venture capital to play with — but it does have a $7.9 million Navy contract to test a plasma technology known as inertial electrostatic confinement fusion, also known as Polywell fusion. The idea is to accelerate positively charged ions in an electrical cage to such an extent that they occasionally spark a fusion reaction, releasing energy and neutrons. The concept was pioneered by the late physicist Robert Bussard, and carried forward by the EMC2 Fusion team in Santa Fe, N.M.
> 
> ...
> 
> Although fusion is the process behind the power of the sun and an exploding H-bomb, physicists have never been able to achieve a net energy gain in a controlled fusion reaction. But based on the experiments so far, Park thinks there's a chance that it could be done in a sufficiently large Wiffleball reactor, costing on the order of $100 million to $200 million. That sounds like a pretty good deal, especially in comparison with the $3.5 billion that's been spent so far on fusion research at the National Ignition Facility and the $20 billion expected to be spent on the international ITER fusion project.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I think you're missing the point of these electric cars...


Hey! That guy on the left sounds like the UN!


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Little blurb on fusion reactor development stateside. Kind of interesting.


Cool.

For decades I've been of the opinion that the long term survival of our species hinges on two essential developments: zero population growth and sustainable energy. Controlled fusion is among my favourites for addressing the latter.

cheers


----------



## MacDoc

While we are fusion

latest from ITER

ITER - the way to new energy

and LIFE

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

gut instinct is laser gets there first but - hey - been waiting all my life


----------



## SINC

Some days you can't win for losing:

Solar farm near Climax losing money because of property taxes | MLive.com


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Some days you can't win for losing:
> 
> Solar farm near Climax losing money because of property taxes | MLive.com


The figures they gave indicated very heavy subsidies were needed with or without the exhorbitant property taxes.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> The figures they gave indicated very heavy subsidies were needed with or without the exhorbitant property taxes.


I love this statement:



> “That Michigan property tax burden works out to a cost of 12.3 cents per kilowatt hour,” Field said. “That amount is* more than the retail value of the electricity*.”


They're getting 45 cents per kilowatt from the idiots buying energy worth less than 12.3 cents per kilowatt--and they're still losing money!!


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar Power Reservoir Topping Project Done*












> Just a few short months ago, than San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city’s proposed Sunset Reservoir Solar Project would provide a whopping 5 megwatts of power, effectively tripling the city’s solar capacity. Now BASS Electric has announced that this gound-breaking renewable energy project is complete. The twelve-acre, 5 MW solar photovoltaic system has been installed on top of Sunset Reservoir.





> The Sunset Reservoir Solar Project is expected to reduce carbon emissions by more than 109,000 metric tons over the course of its 25 year lifetime, equivalent to taking more than 1,000 typical San Francisco homes off the grid. The project has created dozens of green jobs in the city, the majority of which have been by San Francisco residents.
> The Sunset Reservoir Solar Project is believed to be the largest solar PV system in California, and the largest municipal installation in the country.


(EarthTechling)


----------



## FeXL

More fusion news:



> Building on almost 20 years of research, in January this year, fusion-watchers were shocked and skeptical when two Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi demonstrated a small nuclear device in front of a number of independent physicists, producing abundant heat, with little or no radiation or waste, and no carbon dioxide.
> 
> They promise to be operating a 1MW power-plant by October 2011 at an estimated cost of $10 per MWh; 10 times cheaper than conventional power, nuclear, and 20 times cheaper than renewable energy sources.
> 
> Of course, it sounds like one of these energy scams and many have said it’s “too good to be true”. But a number of successful verifications have followed, including with the skeptic society of Sweden. Now, Rossi has signed a contract with a large firm with a history of contracting to the US Department of Energy.
> 
> According to Rossi’s patent, his Energy Catalyzer (ECat) consists of a heated tube of powdered nickel (Ni) and proprietary catalysts, through which hydrogen (H) is pumped at high pressure, surrounded by boron and lead shielding, and encased in a water jacket. Rossi claims the power results from conversion of nickel to copper and other lighter elements. Full conversion of 58g of nickel would produce the energy equivalent of burning 30,000 tons of oil. The radiation emitted during operation of ECat was barely detectable above background.


Again, very interesting.

Wonder what economy of scale could reduce the cost to...

Also be interesting to see if this is something that could be affordably manufactured on the scale of running a small town up to a large city (ie, getting rid of cross country transmission lines and associated problems).


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> More fusion news:


It's also interesting in that the vested interests in preventing such a process--if true--now include the fossil fuel cadre and a number of greenies who were never so much against CO2 as they were against industrialization. Would love to see this one pan out.


----------



## CubaMark

*Early 20th century solar panel*





> This GE demonstration project powered a small motor and was built before 1939.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## CubaMark

*Gemasolar: The Solar Power Plant That Generates Electricity At Night*





> What sets the Gemsolar Power Plant in Spain apart from the others is that it generates electricity at night. That's right, "the regular sunshine in southern Spain means the facility can therefore operate through most nights, guaranteeing electrical production for a minimum of 270 days per year, up to three times more than other renewable energies." Video after the break.


(TechEblog)


----------



## FeXL

While I in no way endorse electric cars, anything that improves our current battery technology is a step ahead.

That being said...



> Here are the technical details: The idea of a conventional battery is that two solid electrodes are immersed in a fluid-like substance (they may be dangled in there, or sandwiched in a complex multi-layered structure, but the design is the same) that allows for flow of chemicals--when charged, the battery chemistry enables the liquid to huddle up to the solid electrodes so electrons flow out of the battery and into the circuitry you're using. To charge it up, you push electrons back in to the battery, and the internal chemistry re-arranges itself ready to be discharged.
> 
> In MIT's system, the electrodes and battery fluid (electrolyte) are still separate, but they're all mingled up as a kind of sludgy liquid. The electrodes are made of tiny particles suspended in liquid electrolyte, and to discharge it you pump the fluid through a special kind of filter--thus allowing electrons to flow out of your battery. It's called a semi-solid flow cell, and though it's not brand new tech, no one's been able to achieve the kind of useful high energy density MIT has managed.


----------



## CubaMark

*McGuinty's "explosion" of green energy? Would you believe implosion?*



> The Ontario Premier imagined a vibrant green-energy industry that would help ease the transition to a post-auto-manufacturing economy.
> 
> He would do it by offering power producers premium rates for wind and solar power as long as they committed to using Ontario-made equipment and labour. By the end of next year, there would be billions of dollars worth of investment and 50,000 new jobs.





> It hasn’t quite worked out that way. The explosion he envisioned is looking more like an implosion.





> ...key trading partners Japan, the U.S. and Europe are challenging the legality of the plan’s buy-local provisions at the World Trade Organization.





> Last week, Japan requested a formal WTO panel to decide the case, after Canada – on Ontario’s behalf – refused to budge during a mandatory consultation period. The U.S. and Europe are backing Japan in the dispute.
> 
> Trade lawyer Lawrence Herman said the case is being closely watched around the world as *a test of what governments can legally do to promote a green economy*.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury

It was well understood that there were no guarantees for Ontario jobs when that idiot signed the deal. Besides, there is no such thing as "green jobs." They're just construction jobs, and if any new jobs are created running these windmills, they will only replace jobs lost in fossil furls.


----------



## CubaMark

I was rather hoping this would spark more conversation regarding the tying-of-hands that is part of global trade treaties (WTO, NAFTA). The state has an historic role in pushing for paradigm shifts via national infrastructure projects, and the "green economy", despite your dismissal, is very much a real animal (look at Germany for one example). The infringement on national sovereignty is one cause to which I would think you'd be sympathetic.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I was rather hoping this would spark more conversation regarding the tying-of-hands that is part of global trade treaties (WTO, NAFTA). The state has an historic role in pushing for paradigm shifts via national infrastructure projects, and the "green economy", despite your dismissal, is very much a real animal (look at Germany for one example). The infringement on national sovereignty is one cause to which I would think you'd be sympathetic.


The state has a historic role at failing to anticipate actual paradigm shifts and misdirecting vast amounts of capital. The "infringement on national sovereignty" only occurs when governments start acting like industry. I have no sympathy at all here. 

The Germans aren't creating real jobs but buying them with taxpayer money:



> The Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung study, "Economic Impacts From the Promotion of Renewable Energies: The German Experience," presents more bad news for the green economy. It reports that "government's support mechanisms have ... resulted in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security." Those are three of the most often mentioned benefits of alternative energy.
> 
> The study found that in the case of solar power *the subsidization regime in Germany has reached a level of $240,000 per worker*. Solar power requires an 800 percent subsidization to remain competitive while wind power requires a 300 percent rate of subsidization.


----------



## CubaMark

That institute's report is not without it's critics...



> A more critical position is held by the prominent pro-market German economic think-tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaft sforschung, which released a damning study on the industry in October 2009. The authors argue that the huge subsidisation — which they calculate to be as high as US$240,000 per worker — “has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.”
> 
> Even if this study is to be believed, does it make sense to once again embrace a ‘market’ system that brings us cheaper fossil fuels at the expense of the climate?





> No matter your position on the merits of supporting renewables, it is important to consider Germany’s broader performance on environmental policy to determine whether or not something akin to a great green transformation or ‘Green New Deal’ is taking place.
> 
> To refresh our memories, the Green New Deal is intended to address the ‘triple crunches’ of climate change, economic meltdown and oil depletion.
> 
> A key proponent of this idea, the United Nations Environment Programme, has laid out six key areas in its Green Economy Initiative — designed to assist governments to green their financial systems — as follows:
> 
> • Clean energy and clean technologies, including recycling
> • Rural energy, including renewables and sustainable biomass
> • Sustainable agriculture, including organic agriculture
> • Ecosystem infrastructure (e.g., replenishing water supplies)
> • Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
> • Sustainable cities, including planning, transportation and green building
> 
> Focusing on just a couple of these, we can see a pattern of Germany progressing forwards across interrelated aspects of environmental policy. For example, when it comes to ‘sustainable agriculture, including organic agriculture’, Germany has a food self-sufficiency rate of 93% (from 2007), much higher than comparable industrialised countries like Japan, which is at around only 40%.


(Our World 2.0 / United Nations University)


----------



## CubaMark

*Five Predictions For The Future Of Energy*





> It seems like a new prediction pops up for how we will use renewable energy in the coming decades every day. Will we be using all solar in two years? In five? Will we use more nuclear, or less? Experts love making predictions. Here, we round up some of the most exciting (and upsetting) predictions that have been made in the last few months. We don't have a crystal ball to say which of these will end up being correct, but with so many options, someone is going to look like a genius.


(FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

*Sunpower Panels Awarded Guinness World Record*





> SunPower, the most popular solar panel company in California, which is the clear solar leader in the U.S., was recently awarded the Guinness Book of World Records Award for providing “the most efficient commercially available photovoltaic modules on the market.” The award was presented at the Intersolar conference in Germany.





> The solar panels have an efficiency of 22.4 percent and are the first commercially-available PV modules to achieve an efficiency of over 20 percent (not that even 1 percent difference on this topic is huge).
> 
> “The E20 panels,” which have 96 cells and are come in 333-watt and 327-watt models, ”are available for all markets—residential and commercial rooftops and ground-mount power plant applications,”


(MatterNetwork)


----------



## Macfury

Most of this will be blown out of the water by shale gas, which will dominate the North American energy scene for a century. A little wind in high-yield places like California, and perhaps some deep south solar might become part of the mix once they wean themselves off the teat of subsidies.


----------



## CubaMark

A couple of not-so-great scenarios for nuclear power in the USA:

*Wildfire threatens US nuclear laboratory*



> A wildfire burning near the desert birthplace of the atomic bomb advanced on the Los Alamos laboratory and thousands of outdoor drums of plutonium-contaminated waste as authorities stepped up efforts to protect the site from flames and monitor the air for radiation.
> 
> Officials at the nation's premier nuclear weapons lab gave assurances that dangerous materials were safely stored and capable of withstanding flames from the 93-square-mile fire, which as of midday was as close as 50 feet from the grounds.
> 
> A small patch of land on the laboratory grounds caught fire before firefighters quickly put it out.


(UK Independent)

_*and some very fortunate timing avoided potential disaster at another plant:*_

*Nebraska nuclear plant threatened by flooding is safe, scientists group finds*



> The Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the nuclear-power industry’s toughest critics, sprang into action when the Missouri River flood threatened the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant in Nebraska.
> 
> But after looking into the matter, the scientists group was reassured. Precautions had been taken to deal with the floodwaters, and federal inspectors had checked over the plant on Monday.
> 
> In addition, *the plant had been offline since April for refueling* — not up and generating power. As a result there would be far more time to deal with an emergency if one arose, such as a loss of electric power to the plant.
> 
> The group concluded it was a far different situation from what happened in Japan in March when a tsunami hit a complex of nuclear plants, cutting off their power, critically damaging them and releasing radiation into the sea and atmosphere.


(Kansas City Star)


----------



## Macfury

Shale gas.


----------



## CubaMark

*Your faith in shale gas is ...interesting... *

*Industry Insiders Call Shale Gas a Ponzi Scheme, Invoke Enron*



> ...with the rise fracking, natural gas’ reputation as a “cleaner” fuel has tarnished. Residents near drilling sites have documented tainted wells and flammable tap water, even an exploding house. Then a couple of months ago a Duke report confirmed that wells near fracking sites contained high levels of methane. An analysis from the EPA in January found lifecycle emissions could be dirtier than coal.
> 
> And after all that, it now seems that the finances just don’t add up either.





> ...shale gas companies may be able to make money on the hype surrounding shale gas even if the price of natural gas remains low and even if wells under-perform.”
> 
> Several insiders bemoaned why the SEC wasn’t investigating the veracity of industry’s sunny claims. “The herd mentality into the shale will eventually end, possibly like the sub prime mortgage did,” wrote an official at Anglo-European Energy, an oil and gas company.


(Forbes.com)

*Heck, even extraction-industry-friendly (one might say amorous) Texas wants more regulation of fracking...
*

*With Texas' New Fracking Law, Squabbles Will Continue*



> Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has now signed into law a bill requiring disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids used largely in unconventional oil and gas plays. While Texas isn't the first state to enact such a law, its prominence in energy-related matters makes the step especially noteworthy and likely to be copied widely.


----------



## Macfury

Water Treatment Firms See Boon in Business as Gas Drilling Spreads | SolveClimate News

Shale gas will blow propellers and solar panels out of the water.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Water Treatment Firms See Boon in Business as Gas Drilling Spreads | SolveClimate News
> 
> Shale gas will blow propellers and solar panels out of the water.


*Pun intended?*



*One thing about solar and wind - they don't tend to explode...
*


----------



## Macfury

They don't tend to provide reliable or affordable energy either. I'd rather work on preventing explosions than to live in a society impoverished by by relying on wind and sunshine as we did in the 12th century.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> They don't tend to provide reliable or affordable energy either. I'd rather work on preventing explosions than to live in a society impoverished by by relying on wind and sunshine as we did in the 12th century.


*Sure, 'cause there's been NO technological advancement in wind or solar power in the past 900 years or so, eh?*

*Oregon engineers roll out cheaper, less wasteful solar cells with inkjet printer*



> ...researchers claims to have created the world's first "CIGS solar devices with inkjet printing," thus giving birth to a new production process that reduces raw material waste by 90 percent. CIGS (an acronym for copper, indium, gallium, and selenium) is a highly absorbent and efficient compound, especially suited to creating thin-film solar cells. The team has used inkjet technology to pump out a CIGS ink with an efficiency of five percent, and a potential efficiency of 12 percent; apparently enough to produce a "commercially viable solar cell."


(Engadget)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Sure, 'cause there's been NO technological advancement in wind or solar power in the past 900 years or so, eh?*


No, it's because solar and wind power are only marketable when they receive subsidies far greater than anything given to the oil industry. The finest solar cell on Earth is not economically viable.


----------



## CubaMark

*Seems Mama Nature doesn't like Nuclear... she's sent her jellyfish army into the battle... and they're winning!*

*Jellyfish keep UK nuclear plant shut*





> An invasion of jellyfish into a cooling water pool at a Scottish nuclear power plant kept its nuclear reactors offline on Wednesday, a phenomenon which may grow more common in future, scientists said.
> 
> Two reactors at EDF Energy's Torness nuclear power plant on the Scottish east coast remained shut a day after they were manually stopped due to masses of jellyfish obstructing cooling water filters.


(Scientific American)


----------



## plushzilla

We, as whole have to keep your economies in tiptop shape to avoid mass anarchy, would have to accept that nuclear power is the most sophisticated source of energy known to mankind, yet; we have to make use of it with caution. But it should only be used until, we can provide viable alternative and convert the factories and vehicles to be compatible with them and work together to phase out the use of fossil fuel and even nuclear power. 

"Now that would be an achievement in mankind’s history of all ages."


----------



## Lawrence

There's energy wells and gravity wells that have never been explored,
Probably because the technology is very dangerous.

Tesla would have understood the concept though.


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> There's energy wells and gravity wells that have never been explored,
> Probably because the technology is very dangerous.
> 
> Tesla would have understood the concept though.


Too bad Tesla failed to build anything economically viable for widespread use.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> Too bad Tesla failed to build anything economically viable for widespread use.


Blame the people that stole his patents and left him penniless,
Never mind the patents that were shelved.

Edison stole a lot of ideas from Tesla,
It's a pity that Edison never gave Tesla any recognition for his work.

But then again, I sometimes secretly wish Tesla never invented A.C.
Then the world would still be running on Edison's D.C.


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> Blame the people that stole his patents and left him penniless,
> Never mind the patents that were shelved.


At least no country is blowing up other countries through atmosphere-conducted electrical weaponry.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> At least no country is blowing up other countries through atmosphere-conducted electrical weaponry.


Oh....You are talking about H.A.A.R.P
That was an interesting concept and it may still work,
But whether they'll actually achieve it remains to be seen.

An unlimited amount of power within the thin layer,
It's possible, But whether it can actually be retrieved and used remains to be seen.


----------



## Lawrence

Now...A Gravity or Energy well built either above ground or below ground,
Would be a far better solution than a gas fired generating station.

I won't explain how it works, So don't ask.

Natural gas is just so volatile.

It's a shame that governments can't see past nuclear or gas fired generating stations,
It's always got to be a cyclic generator, Pity really.

Or maybe it's because they really don't know how to generate power.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> Too bad Tesla failed to build anything economically viable for widespread use.


Failed because the opportunity was stolen from him. Tesla planned to give his inventions to the world and we could have had a lot cheaper power because of them. Edison, Westinghouse, Henry Pellatt, and their ilk only wanted to get rich off his inventions and beat him to the patent office.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> No, it's because solar and wind power are only marketable when they receive subsidies far greater than anything given to the oil industry. The finest solar cell on Earth is not economically viable.


Really? Oil companies have been given a lot of tax breaks over the years.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Really? Oil companies have been given a lot of tax breaks over the years.


Ridiculous, since they would be viable without them. Props and solar panels, not so much. The businesses wilt like daisies whenever subsidies are withdrawn.


----------



## MacDoc

Cuz people like you think it's okay to use the atmosphere as a free sewer. Until that is resolved renewables are not on an equal footing...
some think it's okay to **** upstream from the drinking water.....

••••

This is an important step in bio-fuel production



> *A novel enzymatic catalyst for biodiesel production*
> July 4, 2011
> 
> A novel enzymatic catalyst for biodiesel production
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diagram showing the enzyme biocatalytic reactor and its unidirectional continuous flow operation that uses enzymatic catalysis to turn triesters into biodiesel. © CNRS
> 
> Continuous production of biodiesel can now be envisaged thanks to a novel catalyst developed by a French team at CNRS's Centre de Recherches Paul Pascal (CRPP). The results, which have been patented, have just been published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.
> 
> Ads by Google
> 
> Barracuda Spam Firewall - 50,000 customers worldwide. No Per User Fees. Free Eval! - Barracuda Networks - Powerful and Affordable Security, Networking and Storage Solutions
> 
> Biofuel production provides an alternative to fossil fuels. Biodiesels, for instance, are processed products based on oils from oleaginous plants such as oilseed rape, palm, sunflower and soybeans. They result from a chemical reaction, catalyzed in either an acidic or preferably a basic medium, between a vegetable oil (90%) and an alcohol (10%). This reaction, known as transesterification, converts the mixture into a methyl ester (the main constituent of biodiesel) and glycerol. A saponification side reaction (methyl ester conversion into the corresponding acid salt) reduces methyl ester yield. To increase the yield, it was therefore necessary to develop alternative catalysts.
> 
> For this type of reaction, certain enzymatic catalysts such as those belonging to the family of lipases (triglyceride hydrolases) are particularly efficient and selective. However, their high cost and low conformational stability restrict their industrial use, unless they can be irreversibly confined in porous matrices, allowing good accessibility and enhanced mass transport. This has now been achieved by the team led by Professor Renal Backov.
> 
> In an initial study, they had already demonstrated the possibility of efficient catalysis, by developing modified silica-based cellular matrices that make it possible to confine lipases in order to obtain exceptional yields for hydrolysis, esterification and transesterification reactions. Their work had also shown that unpurified enzymes could be used in the matrices. The fact that they were unpurified was a first step to significantly reducing the cost of biocatalysts. However, the methodology did not allow continuous biodiesel production. This obstacle has now been overcome.
> 
> Researchers have developed a new method that generates the cellular hybrid biocatalyst in situ inside a chromotography column. This novel approach makes it possible to carry out continuous, unidirectional flow synthesis over long periods, since catalytic activity and ethyl ester production are maintained at high, practically steady levels during a two-month period of time. These results are amongst the best ever obtained in this field.
> 
> Research is continuing into solvent-free conversion of triesters, aimed at minimizing waste production and curbing the use of solvents and metals in chemical transformation processes. This work, which meets current energy and environmental requirements, shows how much chemists are working in the public interest, and confirms the importance of integrative chemistry.


A novel enzymatic catalyst for biodiesel production

••••

aside from the free ride issue

solar panel and wind are NOT efficient in producing power at a reasonable cost and for that reason subsidies should be examined.
They have their role.....but replacing coal with nuclear should be the priority for all govs.

Of course with the idjits in charge at the Federal level in this country......not a chance.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> solar panel and wind are NOT efficient in producing power at a reasonable cost and for that reason subsidies should be examined.


Agreed on this.



MacDoc said:


> .....but replacing coal with nuclear should be the priority for all govs.


Why should the government set the priority?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Cuz people like you think it's okay to use the atmosphere as a free sewer.


Yeah, dude, I'm totally with ya on that. Kinda like those idjits with frequent flyer miles from trips to South Africa & Australia. Then, dude, they've got the audacity look down their hypocritical noses at you from their ivory towers like they're some kind high shot or sumthin'. They're probably the same dudes who buy offset credits so that when they post drivel like that online, they can say that they're still savin' the world, dude, one flight at a time.

Totally radical, man...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Yeah, dude, I'm totally with ya on that. Kinda like those idjits with frequent flyer miles from trips to South Africa & Australia. Then, dude, they've got the audacity look down their hypocritical noses at you from their ivory towers like they're some kind high shot or sumthin'. They're probably the same dudes who buy offset credits so that when they post drivel like that online, they can say that they're still savin' the world, dude, one flight at a time.
> 
> Totally radical, man...


Don't forget that it's OK to live on environmentally sensitive land--provided you rent.


----------



## FeXL

Everybody should know about the corn dog that ethanol fuel additives has become.

Here, perhaps, is a better solution:



> Growing perennial grasses on the least productive farmland now used for corn ethanol production in the U.S. would result in higher overall corn yields, more ethanol output per acre and better groundwater quality, researchers report in a new study. The switch would also slash emissions of two potent greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.


----------



## CubaMark

*In Ontario, gloomy skies for solar power*



> Silfab Ontario has been making solar panels for barely four months in a refurbished factory west of Toronto, but already employees are nervous about the security of their jobs.
> 
> Plans to hire more people and expand production are on hold as demand for solar parts wavers and stock sits unsold. Several companies who install solar panels have been unable to pay for their orders because they’re waiting for assurances the power projects will be connected to Ontario’s electricity grid. A backup in the approvals process has brought the fledgling industry almost to a standstill.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *In Ontario, gloomy skies for solar power*
> 
> 
> 
> (Globe & Mail)


This is actually bright skies for Ontario's power customers. They can hook them to the grid any time they want--but they want to do it using the Ontario feed-in-tariff, which pays these knuckleheads up to three times the going rate of electricity. I feel sorry that McGuinty led them on, but time to kill this program now.


----------



## CubaMark

*Atlantis Resources hooks up 1MW tidal turbine to Scottish grid*





> The three-bladed horizontal axis machine becomes Scotland’s first commercial-scale tidal device to be grid connected.
> 
> With its 18-metre-diameter rotor, the AR1000 is designed to be among the world’s most powerful single-rotor tidal turbines, rated to dispatch 1MW of predictable power in water velocities of 2.65 metres/second.


(ReChargeNews)


----------



## hayesk

MacFury, I'm curious - do you think we should only use non-renewable sources until they run out? Then what?

Sometimes technologies take a lot of money to research up front, but through several iterations, it gets cheaper, and pays for itself but it could take decades. Wind and solar are in their infancy. Why don't you think we should start to research this now? And if you don't think government should pay for it, who will if private enterprise won't/can't?

I'm talking about in general. I don't want to hear about Ontario's program.


----------



## Brain21

I was thinking about nuclear waste. We mined it from somewhere right? Can't we just put it back there and seal the mine? Is it more radioactive when it comes out than when it went in?


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> MacFury, I'm curious - do you think we should only use non-renewable sources until they run out? Then what?
> 
> Sometimes technologies take a lot of money to research up front, but through several iterations, it gets cheaper, and pays for itself but it could take decades. Wind and solar are in their infancy. Why don't you think we should start to research this now? And if you don't think government should pay for it, who will if private enterprise won't/can't?
> 
> I'm talking about in general. I don't want to hear about Ontario's program.


I believe the best impetus for creating new energy sources is rising prices. The government rarely backs a winner--it tends to throw money largely in the wrong direction. There are good ideas out there, and some of them will bear fruit, but let the market pick the replacements for fossil fuels when the price becomes intolerable. Buying electricity at 8 times the going rate from inefficient solar panel farms is not going to help us into the future.

We shouldn't be attempting to ramp up wind and solar at great cost right now because both of those sources of energy will probably be obsolete in 30 years--if not obsolete, then minor players. The wind turbine programs of Spain, Germany and the UK are already financial disasters. Shale gas looks like it will crush all of them. 

Let private industry try to pick a winner and invest its own money in the effort to be the next big energy source. At least citizens won't have to pick up the tab for the losers.


----------



## eMacMan

Brain21 said:


> I was thinking about nuclear waste. We mined it from somewhere right? Can't we just put it back there and seal the mine? Is it more radioactive when it comes out than when it went in?


Short answer is yes as it is far more concentrated. 

Sadly Thorium reactors continue to be ignored. Safer to mine, much shorter half life, no danger of meltdown. The reactor requires a certain level of feedback, interrupt that and the reaction stops. Main problem is the reactors do not produce weapons grade Plutonium as a by-product. Even so the Chinese have several in the planning stage to try to somewhat reduce their dependence on coal power.


----------



## eMacMan

I agree with MF that Solar and Wind will probably be pushed to the back burner over the next 30-40 years. OTH neither is being built to last that long. If payback and profit can be achieved with in the 15-25 year design life then go for it. 

However most wind projects, at current wholesale electrical rates, are looking at 10-15 year paybacks and solar is generally too expensive to be self supporting at all.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I agree with MF that Solar and Wind will probably be pushed to the back burner over the next 30-40 years. OTH neither is being built to last that long. If payback and profit can be achieved with in the 15-25 year design life then go for it.
> 
> However most wind projects, at current wholesale electrical rates, are looking at 10-15 year paybacks and solar is generally too expensive to be self supporting at all.


Anyone can sell electricity to the grid at market rates, but the solar panel companies won't even hook into the grid unless they get the feed-in tariff. Even when they're hooked in at a premium, however, how does this improve our energy picture? If I have a solar panel that is earning 8 times the market rate for electricity--but only for a limited time and a limited quantity of power--why would I bother doing any more than running the panel until I suck the program dry of benefits? Why would I bother creating a better panel or expand my solar panel business?

Wind is slightly better, but look at the problems in creating transmission lines to move the power into the grid from remote locations. 10 years from proposing a transmission line to building it--if you get through the approvals. Then you have to build the wind farm.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> I believe the best impetus for creating new energy sources is rising prices. The government rarely backs a winner--it tends to throw money largely in the wrong direction. There are good ideas out there, and some of them will bear fruit, but let the market pick the replacements for fossil fuels when the price becomes intolerable. Buying electricity at 8 times the going rate from inefficient solar panel farms is not going to help us into the future.
> 
> We shouldn't be attempting to ramp up wind and solar at great cost right now because both of those sources of energy will probably be obsolete in 30 years--if not obsolete, then minor players. The wind turbine programs of Spain, Germany and the UK are already financial disasters. Shale gas looks like it will crush all of them.
> 
> Let private industry try to pick a winner and invest its own money in the effort to be the next big energy source. At least citizens won't have to pick up the tab for the losers.


The problem is only current iterations of solar and wind will be obsolete. You can't get to super-efficient solar cells and wind generators without experimenting and trial and error. You don't know what's going to be a winner until you give it an honest try. Private industry isn't doing a lot of investing in future energy technology without government subsidies. The market is driven by shareholders demanding short term profits. Honest to goodness energy research can't survive in this environment.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> The problem is only current iterations of solar and wind will be obsolete. You can't get to super-efficient solar cells and wind generators without experimenting and trial and error. You don't know what's going to be a winner until you give it an honest try. Private industry isn't doing a lot of investing in future energy technology without government subsidies. The market is driven by shareholders demanding short term profits. Honest to goodness energy research can't survive in this environment.


The Canadian government is actually pretty good with its R&D write-offs. The reason businesses aren't investing wholesale in solar is because it isn't viable. Let other countries waste their money to come up with a super solar cell, then let Canada buy it when it's developed.


----------



## eMacMan

Wind can actually payback within 6-10 years however that assumes that all wind generators are online and the power is being used at least 10 hours a day.

Reality is very different. Drove by the Cowley Windfarms today. Wind conditions were close to optimal yet 90% of the turbines were idle as the power was not required or would have required shutting down a base generator.

Again I suspect that the life of these turbines is at most 25 years so for the moment at least profit is extremely iffy if rates are not subsidized.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Again I suspect that the life of these turbines is at most 25 years so for the moment at least profit is extremely iffy if rates are not subsidized.


It isn't really profit if it's subsidized--it's just a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to private companies. Again, I don't see that manufacturing a solar panel or turbine too inefficient to earn a profit is going to lead to better solar panels or turbines being built. If the market price of fossil fuel energy exceeded the cost of producing it from the wind or the sun, then these technologies would be welcomed with open arms. The time isn't right for them, and forcing them into the market before the market is ready does nothing to advance the technology.


----------



## eMacMan

Always wondered how close those turbines came to optimal output.

Found this info here: Judith Gap Wind Farm - Montana's Gap in wind production



> These types of turbines start spinning when the wind gets above about 6 miles per hour, and power production begins at 7.8 mph. Because of inconsistencies in the way the wind blows, wind turbines generally work at 30% of name plate capacity; these turbines run at maximum capacity at 33.5 mph. In high winds of 56 mph or more the turbines shut down to protect the turbine.


IOW still assuming 10 hours production a day and still assuming that the grid can take advantage of all the power produced; Payback period at current wholesale rates is about 20 years.


----------



## Macfury

Much of the literature I've checked suggests a turbine lifespan of 20 to 30 years--likely 20. So you would have to run it at peak efficiency for its entire life for it to pay off. I think the business case for most of these involves access to a nearby power grid, however. Most large windfarms would need to be placed well away from civilization. I think the best use for them would be to power isolated communities where power is currently expensive enough that the turbines make sense.


----------



## eMacMan

Peak efficiency seems to involve a very narrow range of wind velocities. Outside this range output drops rather dramatically hence the 30% of the name plate as a so called normal output. Of course in most areas even though they may have long stretches of any day with good wind patterns, it is very unusual for the wind to be blowing for even half of a typical 24 hour period.

EDIT: I do find it interesting that the turbines in much of this part of the world hit peak efficiency at 50 KM/Hour while normal sustained wind velocities are typically somewhere between 25 and 40 KM/Hour.


----------



## CubaMark

*German Village Produces 321% More Energy Than It Needs!*





> Ok, those Germans are just showing off now. Not only has the nation announced plans to shut down all of its nuclear power plants and started the construction of 2,800 miles of transmission lines for its new renewable energy initiative, but now the village of Wildpoldsried is producing 321% more energy than it needs! The small agricultural village in the state of Bavaria is generating an impressive $5.7 million in annual revenue from renewable energy.


(Inhabitat)


----------



## Macfury

It's a sweet story, but the German government pays them twice what the electricity is worth under the Feed-in-Tariff program, so this isn't one of those stories of local town makes good. Those photos of a landscape despoiled by turbines and clay roofs uglified by solar panels are a little depressing.


----------



## CubaMark

*Lovely... just lovely....*

*Virginia Nuclear Plant Had Quake Sensors Removed Due to Budget Cuts*



> A nuclear power plant that was shut down after an earthquake struck central Virginia Tuesday had seismographs removed in 1990s due to budget cuts.
> 
> U.S. nuclear officials said that the North Anna Power Station, which has two nuclear reactors, had lost offsite power and was using diesel generators to maintain cooling operations after an 5.9 earthquake hit the region.
> 
> The North Anna plant, which was near the epicenter of Tuesday's quake, is reportedly located on a fault line.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## eMacMan

Reports I had read suggested that reactor was on the fault line. Still it's good to know GE is playing Russian Roulette with so many lives.

On a related note the Japanese have been burning a lot of hot waste from their nuclear disaster. Great way to change that hot 5h!t to dust and get it airborne. Revenge for the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps???


----------



## SINC

Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear



> The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possess 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.
> 
> Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hour's of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of*six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
> 
> The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).


Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear | MNN - Mother Nature Network





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

*China Buys 27 Million Electric Bikes Annually
*




> ...electric bikes may be gaining a small foothold in the U.S. market, with 80,000 purchased last year, the Chinese market is responsible for 27 million of the 28 million e-bikes sold annually.


(Earth and Industry via The Matter Network)


----------



## CubaMark

*Coal Shortages Speed Up China?s Clean Power Plans*





> The Chinese government continues to expand its clean energy production plans, to replace increasingly expensive coal power that is shutting down coal plants and causing power shortages of at least 16 GW. China’s twelth five-year plan unveiled this week plans for 70 GW for wind, and 5 GW of solar by 2015.
> 
> Unlike Europe, which is using Feed-in Tariffs to incentivize the addition of more green power to the nation’s grid, China is using competitive bidding to drive down the costs of the new renewable energy generation.


(The Matter Network)


----------



## Macfury

> Unlike Europe, which is using Feed-in Tariffs to incentivize the addition of more green power to the nation’s grid, China is using competitive bidding to drive down the costs of the new renewable energy generation.


This is the only way that makes sense. The Chinese are harnessing the powers of capitalism, while the dolts in Ontario and Washington are moving toward Central Planing and Five-Year Plans.


----------



## CubaMark

Check out the bird's eye view of the Sarnia solar power plant, built by Enbridge.. now up to 80 MW capacity...

Google Map


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Check out the bird's eye view of the Sarnia solar power plant, built by Enbridge.. now up to 80 MW capacity...
> 
> Google Map


Link dead:


----------



## CubaMark

SINC - interesting. Works for me....? (Google Map)

Alternately, fire up Google Maps or Google Earth and pop in the Lat / Lon address: *42°56′16″N+82°20′30″W*


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> SINC - interesting. Works for me....? (Google Map)
> 
> Alternately, fire up Google Maps or Google Earth and pop in the Lat / Lon address: *42°56′16″N+82°20′30″W*


Works for me as well using Camino with web ads and flash animations blocked.


----------



## SINC

*REAL TRUTH BEHIND EU CON OVER ENERGY-SAVING BULBS

Tests show *production and disposal of the new bulbs uses up more energy than traditional lights.*



> BANNING the humble 60-watt light bulb to make way for so-called energy-saving ones and “help save the planet” was last night exposed as an elaborate EU con.
> Tests show *production and disposal of the new bulbs uses up more energy than traditional lights.
> 
> Energy-saving bulbs, known as compact fluorescent lamps, also pose health risks for an estimated two million people in Britain.
> 
> Professor John Hawk, president of the European Society for Photodermatology, said: “They emit small amounts of ultraviolet radiation that is significant for people with photosensitivity skin disorders.
> 
> “Some emit enough radiation for people who are constantly close up to them to have a significant increase in ultraviolet exposure over the years, which may well make skin cancer more likely.
> 
> “Incandescent bulbs should remain on sale while expert scientific committees are still reviewing all aspects of the matter in detail.”
> 
> Ultraviolet rays can also lead to severe migraines or aggravate other existing medical conditions.
> 
> Ultraviolet rays can also lead to severe migraines or aggravate other existing medical conditions.
> 
> Lighting expert Lucy Martin told the Daily Express, which is crusading for a referendum to pull Britain out of the EU: “The carbon footprint of manufacturing, distribution and disposal of a compact fluorescent bulb is far greater than the energy usage of a standard bulb.
> 
> “There is a health issue in disposing of them but also for people who work under them. The EU is *treating us like children.”
> 
> The EU’s outlawing of the 60-watt bulb follows similar bans on the 100‑watt and 75-watt varieties but people will still be able to buy the traditional bulbs until stocks in shops run out. The 40-watt bulb will go the way of the others next year.
> 
> Energy-saving bulbs can cost as much as £4 compared with around 60p for a standard 60-watt light.
> 
> Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall said: “They are full of mercury, so are hazardous if they break, especially to children. Once again we are being bullied by the EU into introducing nonsensical and dangerous legislation to fight against so-called manmade global warming, which is based on pretty dodgy science.”
> 
> EU spokesman David D’Arcy said the new bulbs had the potential to reduce CO² emissions equal to taking seven million cars off the road. Homes would save £40 a year.
> 
> And a Government spokesman said old-style bulbs wasted 95 per cent of energy as heat.


Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Real truth behind EU con over energy-saving bulbs


----------



## CubaMark

*Large-Scale Solar Sector Surges in U.S. as Panel Costs Drop*





> A steep drop in the cost of solar panels in recent months has spurred a significant increase in the number of planned non-residential projects in the U.S., an energy research company reports.





> ...the price of solar panels has plunged 25 percent since the beginning of the year, a trend that analysts say is likely to continue.


(Matter Network)


----------



## Macfury

I'll bet that they will only be installed with heavy subsidies.


----------



## FeXL

So, the learned among you will probably be aware of the Solyndra loan debacle in the US. If not, it goes something like this.

One of Barrie's pet green projects was to get a US based solar panel manufacturer to build him some solar panels for the White House. As such, pressure was applied to push through a $535 million loan guarantee two years ago for the business.

Two years later, the loan and the company are no longer operational. What remains, however, is a record of around 20 visits by Solyndra to the West Wing in the months leading up to the bankruptcy, 1100 unemployed workers, an FBI raid and the stench of political porkbarreling.


----------



## CubaMark

*Clean energy tech that's either crazy or brilliant*



> A "mechanical" nuclear fusion reactor, algae that is genetically modified to make ethanol and an electrical storage device that promises to power an electric car 800 kilometres on a 30-second charge. These are some of the clean energy technologies explored by journalist Tyler Hamilton in his new book, Mad Like Tesla: Underdog Inventors and their Relentless Pursuit of Clean Energy.


Interview can be downloaded on this page. (*17.3 MB* MP3)

(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark

*Nuclear... yup, reaaaal safe. Really. Let's see... who's downwind from the plant? Ontario residents, get into your shelters!* 

*Michigan Nuke Plant Venting Radioactive Steam*



> Entergy’s Palisades nuclear plant near South Haven on Lake Michigan is venting radioactive steam into the environment as part of an unplanned shutdown triggered by an electrical accident.
> 
> This shutdown, which began Sunday evening, came just five days after the plant restarted from a shutdown that was caused by a leak in the plant’s cooling system.
> 
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokeswoman Prema Chandrithal said that the current shutdown happened because an object slipped during work on a circuit breaker and caused an arc that took out power for one of two DC electrical systems that power safety valves and other devices.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## CubaMark

*Tiny Spanish Island To Be Completely Powered By Solar And Wind*












> If you wanted to be hopeful about renewables, you might look at a project 900 miles off the coast of Spain, on the smallest of the Canary Islands. El Hierro measures only 104 square miles, but it is being viewed as a model for projects combining renewable power with pumped hydropower storage--perhaps the most viable currently-available storage method.
> 
> El Hierro’s $87 million scheme consists of an 11.5 megawatt wind farm (five turbines) that will provide the island's 11,000 inhabitants with the majority of their power. When the system produces excess energy, it pumps water 2,300 feet up to an extinct volcano. When there is insufficient renewable power, the water gushes through a hydroelectric plant. The closed-loop is topped out with series of solar thermal units that provide about a fifth of overall needs.


(FastCompany)


----------



## CubaMark

*Fusion experiment by B.C. firm raises concerns*





> A company in B.C.'s heavily populated Lower Mainland hopes to trigger a man-made nuclear fusion reaction — something no one has accomplished, and which some experts say poses serious dangers.





> General Fusion intends to build a three-metre-diameter steel sphere filled with spinning molten lead and lithium. Super-heated radioactive gas, called plasma, would be injected into the vortex and then the outside of the sphere would be pounded with 200 computer-synchronized pistons travelling thousands of kilometres an hour.
> 
> General Fusion CEO Doug Richardson says the project is safe and could be completed in less than three years. CBCIn theory, the resulting shock waves would compress the plasma and spark a fusion reaction for a few microseconds.





> ...a fusion reaction could still be explosively dangerous, according to Vancouver physicist Erich Vogt, who says the resulting neutron burst could kill people for kilometres around.


(CBC)


----------



## bryanc

That looks really cool. The concern about neutrons is reasonable, but I suspect they're not planning on running this reactor in air... they'll run it in a big tank of water to absorb the neutrons and harvest the energy.

The question I have about this, and other sorts of fusion reactors, is how running them will affect the containment vessels (they should become progressively weaker and more radioactive the longer you run them), and how that's going to affect the economics and environmental impact of running such a reactor long term.


----------



## FeXL

*One law for some*

Why is it that:



> A few months ago the Obama Justice Department brought charges against Continental and six other oil companies in North Dakota for causing the death of 28 migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. *Continental's crime was killing one bird "the size of a sparrow"* in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail. "It's not even a rare bird. There're jillions of them," he explains. He says that "people in North Dakota are really outraged by these legal actions," which he views as "completely discriminatory" because the feds have rarely if ever prosecuted the Obama administration's beloved wind industry, which kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year.


Where is the hue & cry from the Progressives?

Where is the outrage from PETA?

Or is all this easily rationalized in the face of taxpayer funded "clean energy"?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Or is all this easily rationalized in the face of taxpayer funded "clean energy"?


Yes. It's never about what appears obvious--it's about de-industrialization and dismantling of the economy.


----------



## CubaMark

*Inflatable Wind Turbine from the Segway Guy*





> The inventor who gave the world the Segway – you know, that upright-riding, personal-transportation thing – is now seeking a patent for an inflatable wind turbine.





> Kamen’s contraption, as described in the patent application, the turbine would have several advantages over turbines that are planted in good old terra firma. For one thing, in low-wind situations the inflatable’s mobility would allow the operator to pack it up and move it to a better power-producing spot. Also, by being much lighter in weight than traditional turbines, “the inflatable sail wind turbine may be installed in various locations that a heavier and/or larger conventional wind turbine may not (be), for example … on the roof of buildings.”


(The Matter Network)


----------



## FeXL

*Green Math Part 6: Reality bites the UK*

From The Daily Bayonet:



> In Britain, solar firms that believed the government’s promise of endless and generous green energy subsidies are learning a hard lesson.
> 
> Feed-In Tariff (FiT) rates for solar projects are being slashed by half


It's only a matter of time before all gov'ts come to this conclusion. Long overdue...



> Greens say we need sustainable energy, but solar and wind are not the answer. The wind may blow for free and the sun may shine for free, but current technology to capture and convert those resources into energy needs public money at an unsustainable rate. It’s inconvenient, but it’s the truth.


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> *Inflatable Wind Turbine from the Segway Guy*


The other nice thing about inflatable wind turbines is that they can be running at higher altitudes where A) there's more [and more consistent] wind, and B) there aren't any birds.

I'd love to see Canada leading the way in the development of these sorts of technologies (not to mention geothermal, which we're also ideally situated to take advantage of), but our current Conservative overlords are strictly controlled by the oil industry.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The other nice thing about inflatable wind turbines is that they can be running at higher altitudes where A) there's more [and more consistent] wind, and B) there aren't any birds.
> 
> I'd love to see Canada leading the way in the development of these sorts of technologies (not to mention geothermal, which we're also ideally situated to take advantage of), but our current Conservative overlords are strictly controlled by the oil industry.


If it's so financially viable, why won't anybody else do it? One of the few cases of the government--in this case Alberta--backing a winning technology was the development of oil sands extraction techniques. 

In many cases it makes far more economic sense to have others develop the product and then merely buy some of the finished product to reap the energy.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If it's so financially viable, why won't anybody else do it?


Why weren't people making iPods in 2000? There was obviously money to be made, and the technology wasn't particularly innovative, but the companies that dominated the MP3 player market lacked the vision.

But not anyone could've done it. It required a big company with substantial talent, manufacturing, distribution and marketing capabilities, and a substantial cash investment.

Green power is going to be like that; it's going to take a lot of investment before the economies of scale start making it profitable, and a lot of efforts are going to fail (even if the ideas they're based on are good).

While the ultimately successful ideas will make the companies that implement them massive sums of money, the risks are high enough (and there's enough money to be made with the status quo) that not many are willing to make the necessary investments. This is one of those rare occasions when government incentives can have a positive effect. If companies can be confident that in the worst case their losses will be small, and in the best case they can be positioned to be big players in a growing sector of the economy, they'll be more open to taking risks.

It is trivially obvious that our civilization needs to transition to renewable energy, and the sooner we do so the better for everyone. However, the existing economic system punishes risk-takers in the energy sector, and therefore stifles the necessary innovation. This is therefore a good opportunity for government investment in support of renewable energy.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Green power is going to be like that; it's going to take a lot of investment before the economies of scale start making it profitable, and a lot of efforts are going to fail (even if the ideas they're based on are good).


Let the private sector take those risks.



bryanc said:


> This is one of those rare occasions when government incentives can have a positive effect. If companies can be confident that in the worst case their losses will be small, and in the best case they can be positioned to be big players in a growing sector of the economy, they'll be more open to taking risks.


Or a disaatrous effect. Government is a really bad venture capitalist, usually backing the wrong horse. The Alberta example I mentioned is a rare case of success.



bryanc said:


> It is trivially obvious that our civilization needs to transition to renewable energy, and the sooner we do so the better for everyone. However, the existing economic system punishes risk-takers in the energy sector, and therefore stifles the necessary innovation. This is therefore a good opportunity for government investment in support of renewable energy.


Not true at all. It may be disastrous to do it sooner. And with the constantly increasing cache of fossil fuels available to us--shale gas being the latest--North America can run itself handily on that for a century at least.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Let the private sector take those risks.


They will eventually, but like evolution, the market is reactive, not proactive. It can't anticipate future conditions. As rational, intelligent agents we can, and we can easily predict that renewable energy is essential to the long term viability of our civilization. It is also obvious that the development of that technology is going to take time and investment, so providing incentives to make those investments and start working on the problem before it's a crisis is just good judgement.



> Not true at all. It may be disastrous to do it sooner.


I'm sorry you're having trouble with the basic concepts of thermodynamics. I suggest a remedial high school chemistry course.



> And with the constantly increasing cache of fossil fuels available to us


The amount of fossil fuel on earth is not increasing... see above regarding thermodynamics.



> --shale gas being the latest--


Which resource is more valuable, fossil fuel or clean water? (Hint, you can't drink oil).



> North America can run itself handily on that for a century at least.


And if we find that it takes longer than that to establish renewable technologies that provide comparable amounts of energy? Or that the 98% of scientists who know something about climatology are right about the effects of burning all that reduced carbon? Or that the process of extracting that resource has unavoidable deleterious effects on our water supply?

I'm sure we'd all be very sorry not to have listened to the nearly unanimous appeals of all the educated people on earth to start working on alternatives nearly half a century ago as we consider how to mitigate the damage the stupidity of the past has caused.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> They will eventually, but like evolution, the market is reactive, not proactive. It can't anticipate future conditions. As rational, intelligent agents we can, and we can easily predict that renewable energy is essential to the long term viability of our civilization. It is also obvious that the development of that technology is going to take time and investment, so providing incentives to make those investments and start working on the problem before it's a crisis is just good judgement.


Assuming there will be a crisis--which seems really unlikely given North American fossil fuel reserves. Besides, government is no better at anticipating future conditions than the private sector--probably worse.



bryanc said:


> I'm sorry you're having trouble with the basic concepts of thermodynamics. I suggest a remedial high school chemistry course.


I'm sorry you keep spouting this straw man argument. While fossil fuel reserves are not unlimited, they will last us for centuries, particularly in light of reducing populations in developed countries. That they will not last forever is understood.



bryanc said:


> The amount of fossil fuel on earth is not increasing... see above regarding thermodynamics..


But known reserves continue to increase.



bryanc said:


> Which resource is more valuable, fossil fuel or clean water? (Hint, you can't drink oil).


Another poor argument. Development of ALL of our hydrocarbons will not lead to the pollution of ALL water, rendering it undrinkable. In fact, this technology is becoming cleaner and cleaner. Next?



bryanc said:


> And if we find that it takes longer than that to establish renewable technologies that provide comparable amounts of energy? Or that the 98% of scientists who know something about climatology are right about the effects of burning all that reduced carbon? Or that the process of extracting that resource has unavoidable deleterious effects on our water supply?
> 
> I'm sure we'd all be very sorry not to have listened to the nearly unanimous appeals of all the educated people on earth to start working on alternatives nearly half a century ago as we consider how to mitigate the damage the stupidity of the past has caused.


Thankfully we haven't listened to the clarion calls of concerned scientists on most of the major crises that never occurred. If we were to jump every time you get a bug up your ass about a major shift in civilization's path, we'd be in the poorhouse.


----------



## CubaMark

*The old way of doing things is so entrenched, it will be a miracle if we ever cut loose from coal, oil, nuclear....*

*Cost of solar energy may go up in Virginia*



> Residents and small businesses who have installed relatively large solar arrays may find that, instead of saving money by getting off the grid, they may face a new $60 per month charge for not using power from Dominion Virginia Power’s coal-fired plants.
> 
> Dominion took its request for a “stand-by” fee to the State Corporation Commission in Richmond today.





> “Dominion’s charge would be so high it would make it uneconomic to install these larger systems, essentially destroying the market for them,” said Ivy Main, renewable energy chair of the Virginia Sierra Club.


(WashingtonPost)


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar industry woes in Canada:*

*Solar power boom hits a wall*



> Three years ago, with much fanfare, Canadian upstart Arise Technologies Corp. (APV-T0.01-0.005-25.00%) opened the doors of a brand-new solar cell manufacturing plant in Bischofswerda, Germany. With financial support from the German government, the operation was to be a key foothold for the Canadian company, giving it access to the lucrative European solar energy market.
> 
> Last month, Arise shut down the facility, unable to get sufficient financing to expand and upgrade in order to make high-efficiency cells. Arise’s German arm is now in insolvency proceedings, which could see its assets sold or disposed of.





> ...a central problem is the massive expansion in Chinese supply. Chinese firms got lots of low-cost financing from quasi-government sources, he said, and thus were able to build new plants at a furious pace. “Some of our Chinese suppliers and competitors have access to phenomenally huge amounts of cheap capital,” he said.
> 
> U.S. manufacturers are so upset with the wave of cheap solar devices that has come into their market from China that seven companies asked the government to slap anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese solar products.


(Globe & Mail)

*But Canadian wind turbine producers anticipate a boom:*

*Small turbines generate huge sales potential*



> Eighty years ago, the landscape of Western Canada was dotted with windmills, primitive devices mainly used to pump water out of the ground.
> 
> If Darryl Jessie gets his way, that vista would be recreated in the coming years, with small power-generating wind turbines popping up on just about every farm.





> While a large turbine can generate as much as 7 megawatts of electricity – enough for up to 5,000 homes – the smaller windmills put out only a tiny fraction of that amount, often just sufficient to partly power a single household or business.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## bryanc

Yes, anyone willing to accept the science can see this coming; fossil fuel is on the way out but we need energy, so there's going to be epic amounts of money to be made in the green energy industry. The Chinese are subsidizing the hell out of their alternative energy industry, and they're going to own that technology sector as it becomes one of the most lucrative in the global economy. Canada is missing the boat.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, anyone willing to accept the science can see this coming; fossil fuel is on the way out but we need energy, so there's going to be epic amounts of money to be made in the green energy industry. The Chinese are subsidizing the hell out of their alternative energy industry, and they're going to own that technology sector as it becomes one of the most lucrative in the global economy. Canada is missing the boat.


Time after time we've seen that subsidizing emerging technologies can be a recipe for bankruptcy. In many cases it makes far more sense to simply let some sucker government develop the technology, then buy the cheap product that is produced later on. Even if Canada developed the technology, construction would still be outsourced to China or another developing nation.


----------



## Sonal

Solar to me doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense in Canada, although solar-thermal seems a better bet than solar-generated electricity. Certainly, most of the apartment building retrofits or proposed retrofits we've seen have not been particularly impressive, and speaking very frankly, if the industry is going to take off, they need to make retrofits worthwhile. (Currently, we're among the few private landlords to do a solar retrofit of any kind.) And wind turbines on top of buildings are decorative at best.

Geothermal does make a lot of sense for us in Canada. I think what will help that take off is if they can find a way to dig faster, more cheaply, and with less cumbersome equipment (so that it can fit into tight spaces.) Right now, the payback is just too long for most of the private folks.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Solar to me doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense in Canada


I won't argue the point, but it's worth considering that polar latitudes get *extremely* long days during the summer, and a lot of the problems with photovoltaics go away at low temperatures.

But here


> Geothermal does make a lot of sense for us in Canada.


you're right on the money. Countries like Canada, Russia, China and the US, have access to *vast* geothermal resources, but only China and Russia are actively developing them.



> Right now, the payback is just too long for most of the private folks.


Exactly right again; this is why we have governments. We need long term investments in the energy futures of our civilizations... it's not reasonable or rational to expect private citizens or corporations to make those kinds of investments.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Yes, anyone willing to accept the science can see this coming; fossil fuel is on the way out but we need energy, so there's going to be epic amounts of money to be made in the green energy industry. The Chinese are subsidizing the hell out of their alternative energy industry, and they're going to own that technology sector as it becomes one of the most lucrative in the global economy. Canada is missing the boat.


One of the basic premises of science is to always question the science. So Biblical faith in the science really has no place. One good example; Thanks to Copernicus and others we now know that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth nor is the Earth, nor TO, the centre of the universe. It even turns out Newtons laws of Gravity need some minor corrections as objects approach the speed of light....

Ironically the deep ocean Gulf of Mexico spill may help confirm Russian theories that new deposits of oil and natural gas are being continuously created. OTH it may not. 

Point is if scientists accepted current beliefs then the exciting evolving world of science would simply not exist and your Doctor would still be attaching leaches for everything that ails you.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Time after time we've seen that subsidizing emerging technologies can be a recipe for bankruptcy. In many cases it makes far more sense to simply let some sucker government develop the technology


Hey, we agree! Developing new technologies is risky and most attempts fail. This is exactly why the private sector won't do it. Given that it needs to be done (c.f. Thermodynamics), that leaves governments to do the job. Fortunately, governments are not driven by profit, but rather for the security and benefits of the society they represent.... er... well... that is, they _used_ to be concerned with the society they represented, but now they're pretty much just corporate puppets. Damn... wouldn't be nice if our governments actually did what they were elected to do?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Hey, we agree! Developing new technologies is risky and most attempts fail. This is exactly why the private sector won't do it. Given that it needs to be done (c.f. Thermodynamics), that leaves governments to do the job. Fortunately, governments are not driven by profit, but rather for the security and benefits of the society they represent.... er... well... that is, they _used_ to be concerned with the society they represented, but now they're pretty much just corporate puppets. Damn... wouldn't be nice if our governments actually did what they were elected to do?


This is why I want China to do it. Let them subsidize the cost of solar panel development and let us buy the cheap panels.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> I won't argue the point, but it's worth considering that polar latitudes get *extremely* long days during the summer, and a lot of the problems with photovoltaics go away at low temperatures.


Right, so at best we're talking about seasonally useful. That's a lot of money to spend for seasonally useful.

Toronto currently has more towers than anywhere in North American except New York City. Most of them are old--30-50 years. Most of them are inefficient. I can save a lot more energy by implementing a system in one apartment building than I can by implementing it in one house, but in my apartment building the numbers have to make sense. For the most part, they don't. 



bryanc said:


> Exactly right again; this is why we have governments. We need long term investments in the energy futures of our civilizations... it's not reasonable or rational to expect private citizens or corporations to make those kinds of investments.


But ultimately, the savings will only come once the private sector comes on board. The government can spend all the money in the world retrofitting government buildings, but until it makes financial sense for the private people, it will not take off in any big way. It's an issue of supply... there are just more privately owned structures than there are publicly owned ones.

And yet currently, even with really big grants, very, very private owners are taking on the project of retrofitting to green energy... because the payback even with grants still sucks. (We calculate payback somewhat differently than the average building owner, so we were able to make it make sense.)


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> This is why I want China to do it. Let them subsidize the cost of solar panel development and let us buy the cheap panels.


In fact, in our solar-thermal project, we got the panels from China. 

We got the grant money from Canada though.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> One of the basic premises of science is to always question the science. So Biblical faith in the science really has no place.


True, but some of what we understand is now so well-established, well-supported by evidence and consistently successful in making correct predictions that is isn't profitable to continue trying to falsify it. The fundamentals of thermodynamics are in this category, and it is this knowledge that makes it trivially obvious that running our civilization on fossil fuels is unsustainable.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> In fact, in our solar-thermal project, we got the panels from China.
> 
> We got the grant money from Canada though.


Makes sense. There's a lot of case study information out there indicating that shouldering hte development cost of a technology simply makes you first--and poor.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Makes sense. There's a lot of case study information out there indicating that shouldering hte development cost of a technology simply makes you first--and poor.


The numbers just didn't work otherwise. 

Now, what I would love someone to develop is a means of digging sufficiently deep bore holes for geothermal in a machine that can be driven into the bottom of a standard parking garage and then dig down from there. Because then retrofitting for geothermal becomes possible in many cases; currently challenge number one is finding a place to dig. No where to dig, no geo.

Of course, that leads to the structural issue of digging a massive hole into an existing building's foundation, but that is a solvable engineering problem.


----------



## FeXL

*Fry oil thieves?*

Guess it was only a matter of time...



> There’s a new hot commodity on the black market these days and you’d never guess what it is. It seems thieves across the country are cashing in by stealing used cooking oil from the back alleys behind restaurants, and reselling it to recyclers who then process it and sell the processed biodiesel to someone in the transportation industry.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Guess it was only a matter of time...


A big deal because you also avoid diesel fuel taxes. Another case where the government has distorted the market to the point that this thievery actually makes sense.


----------



## CubaMark

*Researchers increase charging capacity, speed of lithium ion batteries by a factor of ten*



> It's not every day that we get to write about advancements in battery technology -- much less one as potentially groundbreaking as what a group of engineers at Northwestern University claim to have pulled off.
> 
> In fact, Professor Harold Kung and his team say they've successfully managed to increase both the charging capacity and speed of lithium ion batteries by a factor of ten. The key, according to Kung, is the movement of the lithium ions nestled between layers of graphene. The speed at which these ions move across a battery's graphene sheets is directly related to how fast a device can recharge.
> 
> To speed up this process, Kung decided to poke millions of tiny, 10-20nm-sized holes into a mobile battery's graphene layers, thereby providing the ions with a "shortcut" to the next level. As a result, Kung's perforated batteries were able to charge ten times faster than traditional cells, going from zero to hero in 15 minutes.


(Much more on the story at: Engadget)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Researchers increase charging capacity, speed of lithium ion batteries by a factor of ten*


Batteries are not alternate energy sources!


----------



## FeXL

Although week old news, Google's out of the green energy business.



> Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal...


When gov't backed energy businesses (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) like Solyndra & most recently, Beacon Power, can't make it, and Google (with very deep pockets) gets out of it, how much sense can current renewable energy really make?


----------



## CubaMark

*Is this solar-power program a money-saver?*



> Since its inception 2½ years ago, Ontario’s microFIT program (for arrays producing up to 10 kilowatts of energy) has attracted applications from more than 40,000 home and business owners. According to the Energy Ministry, as of Sept. 30, 2011, more than 8,400 microFIT projects are online and 3,000 others are ready to connect to the electricity grid.





> Jacob Travis, president of the Solar Alliance of Ontario, says rates can come down if the government works on fixing inefficiencies in the program, which would mean that labour costs would come down as well. (The popularity of the Ontario microFIT program has resulted in delays throughout the application and implementation process.)





> Chris Stern, vice-president of business development of Pure Energies, says the company has been giving homeowners payments of $200 to $1,200 annually (on the one-year anniversary of hook-up), with the average being in the $300-to-$450 range. Though the yearly revenue is a nice bonus, he says, most of their customers are more interested in the idea of creating green energy.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury

The FIT program is a disaster. Similar programs in England have already collapsed. There is no glory in selling electricity to consumers at four times the market rate.


----------



## MacDoc

They won't until the free use of the atmosphere as a sewer stops....

but you guys don't get that....or don't care and have your heads where the sun don't shine when it comes to AGW.

pathetic hardly covers it...pathological denial of reality more like it. 



> *Full Cost of Coal $500 Billion/Year in U.S., Harvard Study Finds*
> February 17, 2011 By Tim Tyler 13 Comments
> 
> Well, it doesn’t seem like Harvard Medical School will be getting any donations from the fossil fuel industry any time soon. A new study that is soon to be released and published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences authored by Dr. Paul Epstein, the Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, and eleven other co-authors have complied a first of its kind “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal,” tracking the multiple human health and environmental impacts of coal from mining to transport to combustion in coal power plants, and the waste stream that accompanies it.
> 
> So, what did they find?
> 
> *The Harvard paper estimates that “the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.” *This study lays out in detail the costs the coal industry is NOT PAYING and what everyone else IS PAYING!


continues

Full Cost of Coal $500 Billion/Year in U.S., Harvard Study Finds | CleanTechnica

TANSTAAFL


----------



## MacDoc

Hilarious - even google nailed your denial of AGW all on it's own...


----------



## Macfury

Uh, MacDoc, have you lost it? Why are you doing screen grabs of your own postings? Just because a film ad glommed onto your own post?

That claptrap study only makes sense if you see CO2 as a pollutant. It isn't and you're losing that debate. Watch the Durbin summit go down in flames to see how far out of synch you are with current thinking on this subject.

The author, Paul Epstein, is one of the bozos caught up in the last round of ClimateGate releases.


----------



## FeXL

Whaddya s'pose "renewable" energy has cost the US in lost jobs, food price increases, hulking infrastructure which is left to fall to pieces, energy subsidies, etc., etc., etc? Not to mention piles of dead wildlife accumulating underneath...

I'm thinking half a trillion dollars is a bargain.

Talk about heads up asses...

Pssst, MF, don't talk about Climategate 2.0 It's all been taken out of context...


----------



## FeXL

Congratulations, Ontario...



> In one of the most scathing indictments of government mismanagement we have ever witnessed, Ontario Auditor-General Jim McCarter reported Monday that Mr. McGuinty’s green dream has rapidly become an $8-billion nightmare for Ontario taxpayers and electricity users. Almost no new net power will be generated by all the green-energy projects hastily funded since the bill was passed, but the average residential consumer will see more than $400 a year added to his power bill for a decade to pay for all the bad contracts with and subsidies to eco-friendly power suppliers.


No wonder MacDoc's moving down under.

Oh, wait...


----------



## FeXL

On cellulosic ethanol production:



> Congress subsidized a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.


Alex, what is "Why gov't should not be in business..."


----------



## Sonal

Stumbled on this. I've met this guy--he's more businessman than treehugger, and makes some interesting points. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Udz0lHGNzxc


----------



## Macfury

I agree. Anyone who believes they need to reduce carbon emissions should do it themselves and lead by example--until the point where he spouts the usual lefty BS about involving government, He did it himself--let others do the same if they want to.


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar industry warms to HRM pilot project*



> Business will be heating up for Nova Scotia’s solar industry, now that the Halifax Regional Municipality is seeking vendors for a $5-million pilot project.
> 
> Halifax regional council gave staff the go-ahead Tuesday to issue a request for proposals for equipment supply and installation, as well as consulting services, for the municipality’s Solar City project.
> 
> “There are lots of people who will be interested in this type of work,” Dan Roscoe, chairman of Solar Nova Scotia’s industry committee, said in an interview Wednesday.
> 
> “It’s a tremendous opportunity for our members.”
> 
> Solar hot-water panels will be installed in 1,000 homes starting next spring as part of the project. About 1,600 householders have applied, although not all homes will meet the criteria.





> Solar panels will cost about $5,000 installed, after various rebates. Homeowners would pay the municipality back through an addition to their property tax bill.





> “This program is equivalent to all the residential solar installed in Canada in 2009, I believe,” said the chief operating officer of Doctor Solar and Scotian WindFields.
> 
> “This is a tremendous amount of residential work. There’s no existing company that can take this on without expanding significantly.”


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury

What a waste of scarce capital resources.


----------



## eMacMan

Lets see. $5000 to which should provide 50-85% of hot water needs. For my home that is a 20 year payback even if I allow for electric rates to at least double over that period of time. 

Not sure about today but I would be surprised if true lifespan of the install exceeds 25 years. Considering it is subsidized and break even at best, that is a really bad investment.

BTW a much better idea would be solar electric panels that connect directly to a small heating element in the HW tank. Far less to go wrong. Easier hookup, even possible to simple replace one of the elements in a conventional electric HW tank and use the other to supplement as needed.


----------



## Macfury

This is the key phrase:



> “There are lots of people who will be interested in this type of work,” Dan Roscoe, chairman of Solar Nova Scotia’s industry committee, said in an interview Wednesday.
> 
> *“It’s a tremendous opportunity for our members.”*


A successful lobbying effort. End of story.


----------



## Sonal

Single-family residential is not the way to go for most of these projects... payback still doesn't make sense. 

Start with commercial use and keep going until cost of implementation goes down enough for it to make sense for residential use.


----------



## CubaMark

*An interesting comment to this story:* The Dark Ages: No Solar Power for You in Renewable Electricity Plan



> *Some free advice*
> 
> I'm an Ontario solar installer that works under the microFIT program. I can understand your frustration at not having a PV program, but let me assure you, no program is actually better than a bad program.
> 
> microFIT was originally intended to allow households or small commercial spaces add small amounts of PV and get paid for it. However, they didn't actually write the bill that way. Instead, they wrote it as "10 kWp or less", about 40 to 50 modern panels. So what happened?
> 
> We for one thing, it's less expensive to mount 50 panels in a block on a pole than it is to mount 20 on the roof of your house. So the profitability of the program was extremely skewed to large ground-mount systems. Of the 45,000 or so applications, something like 90 to 95% of them are 10 kW ground mounts. And most of those are out in the country, where the power they produce will burn off in the wires before it makes it to market.
> 
> So the government paniced. All such contracts were put on hold and the rate was hurredly lowered, post-facto. Everyone had a fit, projects died, and everything was crazy for a few months. But in the end, the vast majority of systems going in are still 50-panels on the top of a pole!
> 
> As if that weren't enough, on the residential side, large US companies with bags of cash appeared that would lease your roof and put up panels for free. They signed up thousands (litterally) of homeowners.
> 
> So the government paniced. They changed the application rules so you had to have a "natural person" owning the house. As a result, any small commercial property is no longer able to apply, even though they were a primary target of the initial law. Here in downtown Toronto, anyone that has a multi-use building with a store on the ground floor and apartments above is sunk.
> 
> So, my advice. My advice is to agitate for a system with these basic goals:
> 
> 1) net metering. Under microFIT, you get paid for every watt, regardless if there's a load to sink it into. Bigger is better! Under net metering, you can only turn your meter back to zero. Oversizing your system is lost money.
> 
> 2) Add a "bonus" on top. Under microFIT I have to install a second meter, which is a big PITA and adds about $2000 or more in paperwork and parts. You can buy a small system for about that. A better idea is to allow the user to decide if they want to bother with the metering. If they do, make sure it's "series connect" so you don't have to remove the existing meter!
> 
> 3) make a real plug-n-play system for very small installs. Under microFIT we need to file about $3500 worth of paper with the municiple and provincial governments over a period of about 6 months before we can build. In certain parts of Europe, you can simply plug your system into any wall socket with no paperwork at all. The difference? For plug-n-play, the systems have to be small, roughly 8 panels or less. At that point it's less power than a in-window air conditioner, and I don't need paperwork for that.
> 
> 4) set your limits and make sure everyone knows them. If you want, say, 5% of your power to come from small PV systems, then state that up front and figure out how much power that actually is. Now divide that amount of power into baskets, say 5 groups. For instance, if you want 500 MW of PV over the life of the program, divide that up into 5 groups of 100 MW each. Now decide what the "bonus payment" will be in each of these baskets. For instance, at the start of the program you might consider paying 30 cents a kWh on top of the net metering (which is totally reasonable, and still way less than what we pay in Ontario  so there's a real incentive to install. But as soon as the first 100 MW go in, the rate automatically falls, say to 20 cents. This way *everyone* knows up front what the program is going to cost in the long run, and the process for adjusting rates is much more transparent. _*Maury Markowitz*_


----------



## FeXL

This does not bode well.

Germany's solar power industry is the latest to flop.



> This week Solon became the first publicly traded solar-power company to file for bankruptcy in Germany. Despite cost-cutting and a round of last-minute negotiations, the Berlin-based photovoltaic equipment maker can't make its deadline to repay €275 million in loans.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> This does not bode well.
> 
> Germany's solar power industry is the latest to flop.


The price of being "leaders in the market."


----------



## CubaMark

*Ummm.... well... this is interesting....* :yikes:

*Mysterious "white web" found growing on nuclear waste*



> This is as fascinating as it is unsettling. Scientists at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site — a nuclear reservation in South Carolina — have identified a strange, cob-web like "growth" (their word, not ours) on the racks of the facility's spent nuclear fuel assemblies.
> 
> According to a report filed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, "the growth, which resembles a spider web, has yet to be characterized, but may be biological in nature."


(io9)

*Strange nuclear waste lint might be "biological in nature"*



> The “white, stringlike” material was found among thousands of spent fuel assemblies submerged in deep pools within the site’s L Area, according to a report filed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a federal oversight panel.
> 
> “The growth, which resembles a spider web, has yet to be characterized, but may be biological in nature,” the report said.
> 
> Savannah River National Laboratory collected a small sample in hopes of identifying the mystery lint – and determining whether it is alive.


(Augusta Chronicle)


----------



## Macfury

The Blob.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> The Blob.


A great movie when I was a kid. :clap:


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> The Blob.










"It leaps, and creeps, and slides and glides across the floor!"


----------



## Macfury

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




"It leaps and creeps, and glides and slides across the floor, right through the door..."





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

*Breakthrough Could Double Solar Energy Output*



> The efficiency of conventional solar cells could be significantly increased, according to new research on the mechanisms of solar energy conversion led by chemist Xiaoyang Zhu at The University of Texas at Austin.
> 
> Zhu and his team have discovered that it’s possible to double the number of electrons harvested from one photon of sunlight using an organic plastic semiconductor material.
> 
> “Plastic semiconductor solar cell production has great advantages, one of which is low cost,” said Zhu, a professor of chemistry. “Combined with the vast capabilities for molecular design and synthesis, our discovery opens the door to an exciting new approach for solar energy conversion, leading to much higher efficiencies.”


(Cryptogon)


----------



## eMacMan

> *Breakthrough Could Double Solar Energy Output*


Forget 60% if they could get up around 30% and drop the price in half that would be quadruple the current yield/dollar.


----------



## CubaMark

Well, then, how 'bout this?

*Scientists create first solar cell with over 100 percent quantum efficiency*



> Researchers over at the National Renewable Energy Lab have reportedly made the first solar cell with an external quantum *efficiency over 100 percent*. Quantum efficiency relates to the number of electrons-per-second flowing in a solar cell circuit, divided by the number of photons from the energy entering. The NREL team recorded an efficiency topping out at *114 percent*, by creating the first working multiple exciton generation (MEG) cell. Using MEG, a single high energy photon can produce more than one electron-hole pair per absorbed photon. The extra efficiency comes from quantum dots 'harvesting' energy that would otherwise be lost as heat.


(Engadget)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Well, then, how 'bout this?


At that price, no.


----------



## CubaMark

*Canadian Solar Up Over 30 Percent After Selling Half Billion in Solar Projects*





> Canadian Solar (CSIQ) is still trying to find a bottom and today is a good start towards that with the stock up over 30 percent on news it has sold nine solar plants in Ontario with a combined capacity of 86MW to TransCanada Corporation for about $470 million. All of the projects are under a 20 year power purchase agreement with the Ontario Power Authority. The purchase on each project will close once the plants begin commercial production and reach certain milestones which are expected in late 2012 or early 2013. It should be noted that TransCanada also operates the largest wind farm in Canada and New England.


(Full story: The Matter Network)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Canadian Solar Up Over 30 Percent After Selling Half Billion in Solar Projects


All based on a falsely inflated price for electricity. Solar fail!


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> All based on a falsely inflated price for electricity. Solar fail!


MF, if you were living in the days of the neanderthals, sitting shivering in a cave, and some young upstart came along with fire, you'd find a reason to reject it. At least you're consistent....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> MF, if you were living in the days of the neanderthals, sitting shivering in a cave, and some young upstart came along with fire, you'd find a reason to reject it. At least you're consistent....


I support excellence in innovation. I don't support giving people money to promote some inefficient technology.

A better comparison: we are shivering in a cave after some idiot elder has declared fire illegal because he is afraid it will overheat the planet. As a result, they are now asking us to bring skins full of hot water from a geyser somewhere to heat our caves a fraction of a degree. This takes all our resources and we are going hungry, but at lest the gods won't be offended.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> I support excellence in innovation. I don't support giving people money to promote some inefficient technology.
> 
> A better comparison: we are shivering in a cave after some idiot elder has declared fire illegal because he is afraid it will overheat the planet. As a result, they are now asking us to bring skins full of hot water from a geyser somewhere to heat our caves a fraction of a degree. This takes all our resources and we are going hungry, but at lest the gods won't be offended.


Oh please. You declare anything not an instant success to be a failure. You fail to recognize technology must be researched and tried in the real world over and over before it can improve. You expect every new technology to be perfect upon its release. You'll cling to oil until the last drop is drawn from the ground and fight anything that lets us extend the world's oil supply. Why you do this, I can't say for certain.

In your analogy, you'd be the one asking us to bring hot water because the hot water delivery method is well established and has been used for years. This new fangled fire would scare you because it didn't come in the form of a forced air cave heating system.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Oh please. You declare anything not an instant success to be a failure. You fail to recognize technology must be researched and tried in the real world over and over before it can improve. You expect every new technology to be perfect upon its release. You'll cling to oil until the last drop is drawn from the ground and fight anything that lets us extend the world's oil supply. Why you do this, I can't say for certain.


Hardly. I don't cling to oil or any other form of energy. I only ask that the replacing technologies deliver energy at a cost less-than or equal to current technologies. Paying companies to produce energy at five times the going rate is not a defensible policy.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Paying companies to produce energy at five times the going rate is not a defensible policy.


Especially on the backs of taxpayers.


----------



## FeXL

One more...



> Energy giant British Petroleum (BP) announced that it was shutting down its solar module business for good.
> 
> ...
> 
> BP is the latest in the long string of failures that have swept over the solar industry recently. Massive subsidies by governments had caused a boom in solar installations, but with solar electricity costs still sky high, governments have recently cut back subsidies dramatically, thus making investment in solar modules less attractive.


Just another example of why gov't, any gov't, should not be in business....


----------



## SINC

This looks like it has potential:

Paint-on solar cells developed


----------



## eMacMan

I wonder what that incidental comment about "improving stability" meant. Does the paint have a very short shelf life? Does the collector die after a few months? If it sits too long in the can does it explode??????


----------



## FeXL

Ran across a very revealing analysis of the true cost of some "Green" technology.



> That means that through the end of November, hybrids and electric vehicles sales consumed between 4,904,820 and 6,093,355 pounds of rare earths. That’s somewhere between 2,452 and 3,047 tons.
> 
> If processing one ton of rare earth elements produces approximately 75 cubic meters of acidic waste water and about one ton of radioactive waste residue, then hybrid and electric vehicles alone produce between 183,900 and 228,525 cubic meters of acidic waste water and between 2,452 and 3,047 tons of radioactive waste.
> 
> A little conversion: one cubic meter is roughly 264 gallons. On the low end, that’s enough to cover nearly 150 football fields with toxic waste water a foot deep. Or put another way, the more than 48,550,000 gallons of fouled water from alternative vehicles is equal to the annual household usage of 445 families of four. That’s just one toxic byproduct. There are many more.
> 
> To add insult to ecological injury, these cars are expensive and don’t perform or handle very well. And owners still need fossil fuels either to run them (oil, gasoline) or for the electricity to charge them (coal). So why on earth would anyone buy one?


And people talk about oilsands?


----------



## CubaMark

*Algal protein provides more efficient way to split water and produce hydrogen*





> ...scientists from the Swiss research institute EMPA, along with colleagues from the University of Basel and the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois took a cue from photosynthesis and discovered that by coupling a light-harvesting plant protein with their specially designed electrode, they could substantially boost the efficiency of photo-electrochemical cells used to split water and produce hydrogen - a huge step forward in the search for clean, truly green power.


(GizMag)


----------



## FeXL

Congress ends corn ethanol subsidy. 

(link from Anthony) He notes:



> Interesting timing, especially when some biomass companies are switching from wood chips to corn, because they couldn’t turn a profit on wood chips. Looks like all the wheels are coming off the bus now.


The Detroit News take:



> Congress adjourned for the year on Friday, failing to extend the tax break that’s drawn a wide variety of critics on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Critics also have included environmentalists, frozen food producers, ranchers and others.
> 
> The policies have helped shift millions of tons of corn from feedlots, dinner tables and other products into gas tanks.
> 
> Environmental group Friends of the Earth praised the move.
> 
> “The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables,” biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday.


What this really means is that the price of ethanol mandated fuel just went up.


----------



## FeXL

Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector



> Long viewed as a remedy for the world's dependence on fossil fuels, the solar industry is dimming as makers of panels used to harness the sun continue to fall by the wayside.
> 
> Bankruptcies, plummeting stock prices and crushing debt loads are calling into question the viability of an industry that since the 1970s has been counted on to advance the U.S.—and the world—into a new energy age.
> 
> Global demand for solar power is still growing—about 8% more solar panels will be installed this year compared with 2010, according to Jefferies Group analysis—but it is expected to flat-line next year.
> 
> At the heart of the industry woes are swiftly falling prices for solar panels and their components—polysilicon, wafers, cells and the modules themselves. The reason is simple: *There are simply too many manufacturers trying to sell their wares.*


Bold mine. 

Once again, this is what happens when gov't subsidies fuel business, instead of the free market. 

Get gov't out of business.


----------



## CubaMark

...and yet, some companies seem to think there's a business case to be made....

*iPhone Maker Foxconn Enters Chinese Solar Manufacturing*



> At a time when solar manufacturers around the world are reeling from overproduction, low prices and narrowing margins, there's a new entry in the field.
> 
> Taiwan-based Foxconn Technology Group, which is the largest contract manufacturer of electronics, including the iPhone, is building a solar panel plant in China.
> 
> After lowering solar cell prices a historic 62 percent this year, Chinese companies will have a new competitor. "Foxconn plans to build new factories with undreamed-of scale and lower cost," says Jenny Chase at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "It will push capacity higher and prices lower."


(Matter Network)


----------



## CubaMark

*Ballard signs fuel cell deal in Brazil*



> Ballard Power Systems (TSX:BLD) has signed a deal to sell 25 hydrogen fuel cells to Sao Paulo, Brazil to power buses in that city.
> 
> The fuel cells will be delivered next year, the Vancouver company said late Tuesday.
> 
> Financial terms of the transaction were not revealed.
> 
> Ballard said it is negotiating a final agreement with The City of Sao Paulo, Brazil's largest city.
> 
> John Sheridan, Ballard's president and CEO, said the latest deal expands the company's fuel cell for buses business.
> 
> "In combination with our recently announced supply agreement for 21 modules to power buses in Europe, this points to significant progress toward commercialization of zero-emission fuel cell buses in 2012."


(MetroNews)


----------



## FeXL

Further on ethanol subsidies:



> The liberal revelation has been the growing evidence that biofuels increase net carbon emissions. Pumping energy-intensive row crops into gas tanks leads to land-use changes in world agricultural markets that increase greenhouse gases.
> 
> The irony is that a fuel that was sold as a global-warming palliative—the industry will use any argument to justify its government lucre—is now being hoist on its own corn stalk. Green carbon fuel standards regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and in California credit sugar ethanol produced in Brazil with better climate benefits than corn ethanol.
> 
> So South American makers have been shipping their product to the West Coast, paying the tariff and selling it at a premium. U.S. makers then send their product south to backfill the Brazilian market. So much for "energy independence," another example of false ethanol political marketing.


Nice...


----------



## eMacMan

Actually even just driving around, ethanol fuels have no impact on CO2 emissions. 10% less CO2 per gallon along with an observed 10% drop in fuel economy means no net change.

So the manufacturing impact is an overall increase.


----------



## CubaMark

*ClearEdge Marries Power and Storage*





> ...what is missing from the current crop of fuel cell resCHP _(Combined Heat and Power)_ systems: onsite storage. So when the grid goes down the resCHP stays running. Makes sense, right? In fact, most people wrongly assume that current resCHP systems stay running in a grid outage. This is not correct, as was proved after the Japanese earthquakes when the fuel cell based ENE FARM systems had to be shut off during any blackouts, planned or otherwise. The ClearEdge Power system, ClearEdge Plus, provides a system with a battery running as storage, and a fuel cell running on natural gas. When the grid goes down, the battery kicks in, preventing the fuel cell from having to be turned off. Barring some apocalyptic scenario in which both the electricity grid and the natural gas grid go down, there would be power.


(Matter Network)


----------



## CubaMark

*All Eyes On German Renewable Energy Efforts*



> ...environmentalists, experts and politicians from El Salvador to Japan to South Africa have flocked here in the past year to learn how Feldheim, with just 145 people, is already putting into practice Germany's vision of a future powered entirely by renewable energy.
> 
> Chancellor Angela Merkel's government passed legislation in June setting the country on course to generate a third of its power through renewable sources – such as wind, solar, geothermal and bioenergy – within a decade, reaching 80 percent by 2050, while creating jobs, increasing energy security and reducing harmful emissions.
> 
> The goals are among the world's most ambitious, and expensive, and other industrialized nations from the U.S. to Japan are watching to see whether transforming into a nation powered by renewable energy sources can really work.





> Germans currently pay a 3.5 euro cent per kilowatt-hour tax, roughly euro157 ($205) per year for a typical family of four, to support research and investment in and subsidize the production and consumption of energy from renewable sources.
> 
> That allows for homeowners who install solar panels on their rooftops, or communities like Feldheim that build their own biogas plants, to be paid above-market prices for selling back to the grid, to ensure that their investment at least breaks even.
> 
> Critics, like the Institute for Energy Research, based in Washington, D.C., maintain such tariffs put an unfair burden of expanding renewables squarely on the taxpayer. At the same time, to make renewable energy work on the larger scale, Germany will have to pour billions into infrastructure, including updating its grid.





> Feldheim has zero unemployment compared with roughly 30 percent in other villages in the economically depressed state of Brandenburg, which views investments in renewables as a ticket for a brighter future. Most residents work in the plant that produces biogas – fuel made by the breakdown of organic material such as plants or food waste – or maintain the wind and solar parks that provide the village's electricity.





> Alan Simpson, an independent energy and climate adviser from Britain who visited Feldheim as part of a wider tour of Germany last month to see what the renewable revolution looks like up close said it was inspiring to view what is being accomplished on the ground.
> 
> "It's great to think about Germany delivering on everything that we are being told in Great Britain is impossible," Simpson said.


(Huffington Post)


----------



## Macfury

That's a rather one-sided article, considering the disaster wrought upon the German economy by other similar initiatives.


----------



## eMacMan

Around here that would be a 40-60% tax, being used to pay for these initiatives. Devastating for those who are just making ends meet.


----------



## Macfury

> Feldheim has zero unemployment compared with roughly 30 percent in other villages in the economically depressed state of Brandenburg, which views investments in renewables as a ticket for a brighter future. Most residents work in the plant that produces biogas – fuel made by the breakdown of organic material such as plants or food waste – or maintain the wind and solar parks that provide the village's electricity.


You can't have the residents of every town employed only in producing energy. That's economically unsustainable.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> You can't have the residents of every town employed only in producing energy. That's economically unsustainable.


Hey if half of NYC and Hogtown can be employed kiting loans and securities, I don't see why not.


----------



## CubaMark

*51% of German Renewables Now Owned by Its Own Citizens*




(Wind-works.org)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> 51% of German Renewables Now Owned by Its Own Citizens


Why is this important? Solyndra was owned by American citizens.


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar Has Huge Year Worldwide, Worst Could Be Over for Solar Stocks*



> In 2011, solar busted out all over the world, soaring 54 percent to 28 gigawatts (GW), driven by record installations in Germany and Italy, reports Bloomberg New Energy Finance.





> The astounding growth came from crashing solar prices and a rush among developers to get as much solar installed before subsidy cuts in EU's biggest markets, Germany, Italy and the UK.





> ...all the activity in solar reduced manufacturers' bloated inventory levels, which led to those lower prices and their subsequent crash on the stock markets last year.
> 
> China's plan to consolidate the number of solar companies while doubling solar installations in the country, is also good news for the solar industry.


(Matter Network)


----------



## Macfury

That all sounds like bad news, not good. The main solar companies had last year was in sales that were subsidized by programs that are now ending. Massive sales were due largely to bloated inventories with panels sold at cut rates. China's consolidating of solar manufacturers is an indication that their highly touted plan to use public funds to corner the solar market was a dismal failure.

What's the upside? That panels will get more expensive this year?


----------



## CubaMark

One might look at it another way: there have been several huge infrastructure investments in large solar farms in recent months, made possible by that very glut and drop in prices. More widespread implementation of solar projects helps to overcome consumer fears that the technology is just another gimmick, that there is a valid economic argument for "going solar" where appropriate. Less fear leads to ever-more widespread adoption, increased sales and profits for manufacturers, increased innovation, etc. Government subsidies did exactly what they were intended to do - push the technology and get the ball rolling, providing the incentive that private investors would not.


----------



## CubaMark

*India's panel price crash could spark solar revolution*



> SOLAR power has always had a reputation for being expensive, but not for much longer. In India, *electricity from solar is now cheaper than that from diesel generators*. The news - which will boost India's "Solar Mission" to install 20,000 megawatts of solar power by 2022 - could have implications for other developing nations too.
> 
> Recent figures from market analysts Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) show that the price of solar panels fell by almost 50 per cent in 2011. They are now just one-quarter of what they were in 2008. That makes them a cost-effective option for many people in developing countries.


(New Scientist)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *India's panel price crash could spark solar revolution*


From the article:



> Even in India, solar electricity remains twice as expensive as electricity from coal, but that may soon change.


----------



## CubaMark

Is "_Libertarian_" a synonym for "_Pessimist_" ?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Is "_Libertarian_" a synonym for "_Pessimist_" ?


I left in the part where they say "that may soon change." 

I simply see no reason to get so excited about solar panels. If they produce cheap electricity, great. But why should anyone be so in love with solar?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I simply see no reason to get so excited about solar panels. If they produce cheap electricity, great. But why should anyone be so in love with solar?


Because it's clean and not dependent on non-renewable resources?

Saying coal power is cheaper than solar is like saying it's easier to beat someone up and take their money than to earn it by working. Yes, there are energetic compounds to be found in the earth's crust, and we can harvest some energy in the short term by burning them, but the cost of extracting them, and the pollutants generated by burning them make the long-term costs of that source of energy a bad deal for society.

Like buying a Mac rather than a PC, it's better to pay more up front for a better product.


----------



## eMacMan

Cost of solar panels is only a portion of solar costs. Both solar and wind require a way to store the electrical energy produced, to be used at a time when there is no energy produced. Otherwise they are at best a minor and expensive supplement to other power sources.

Fact is: storing electrical energy at the distribution level falls somewhere between impossible and prohibitively expensive. 

Nuclear is not a clean answer even though it is being pimped as such. Thorium Fission could be, except it is not being pursued, as it does not produce weapons grade Plutonium as a by product.

In the meantime that leaves us with coal, gas and hydro all of which are environmentally damaging in some manner.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Because it's clean and not dependent on non-renewable resources?


When price is no object, I simply am not impressed. 

Note eMacMan's post as well.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan has good points. All of which deserve discussion and will hopefully be addressed by technological developments in the field. However, to fund those technological developments we need to be willing to pay for their production. That means either hoping they give rise to competitive applications at every stage of their development, or subsidizing them to some extent along the way.

I'd love it if someone brought solar panels to market that generated electricity for a small fraction of the current fossil-fuel based production, but that isn't realistic. So we have to settle for iterative improvements, that take solar power from 10x the cost of coal to 5x the cost of coal, to 2x the cost of coal, etc. We don't have to wait for the renewable technology to get cheaper than the non-renewable technology before we start using it. Money isn't the only cost.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> eMacMan has good points. All of which deserve discussion and will hopefully be addressed by technological developments in the field. However, to fund those technological developments we need to be willing to pay for their production.


No, we don't need to be willing to pay for their production. We just need to wait until the current iteration of solar cells is cheaper than fossil fuels.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> eMacMan has good points. All of which deserve discussion and will hopefully be addressed by technological developments in the field. However, to fund those technological developments we need to be willing to pay for their production. That means either hoping they give rise to competitive applications at every stage of their development, or subsidizing them to some extent along the way.


To me, it makes far more sense to let areas where solar makes more sense (i.e., longer and more consistent periods of sunlight) work out the issues of being early adopters. 

We have seriously looked into many energy alternatives. 

Solar-electric, even with grants, doesn't provide enough value. Where it does (and honestly, this is usually because of a severely screwed up program built on bad assumptions) it gets bogged down very quickly by professionals making a quick buck off the system--it literally can take years to get rejected (forget about accepted) and this is after a great deal of investment. It scares businesses off grants--not worth the cost of applying.

Here in Southern Ontario at least, we are much better served by geothermal, except the cost (primarily of drilling, though retrofitting a structure can also be fairly significant) is still out of bounds. And in urban areas, space in which to drill is at a premium. So where's the grant money for companies developing cheaper and/or more agile drills?

I'd also stop focusing on single homeowners. It's a feel good program, but it acheives little of substance. Let this get worked out the traditional way, where it gets figured out on the large scale for commercial use, and then over time becomes efficient enough for individual homeowners. But for that, forget about the warm and fuzzy environmental aspects of it, and focus on the dollars.... if a business can make money doing it, they'll do it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> We just need to wait until the current iteration of solar cells is cheaper than fossil fuels.


Given the artificial subsidies afforded fossil fuel consumption, not to mention the advantages of economies of scale and the advantages of an entrenched industry and infrastructure, this isn't likely to happen for a long time, if ever. 

This is not to say that everyone should be required to buy solar cells regardless of the cost or practical considerations, or that other renewable energy sources should be ignored. But well-considered programs that support the solar industry are a good investment in our energy future.


----------



## CubaMark

*Apple's New Data Center to Have Largest End User-Owned Solar Array*





> Apple‘s new data center in Maiden, N.C., will be one of the most energy efficient facilities of its kind, the company’s 2012 environmental update reveals.
> 
> To satisfy the huger power needs of the facility in an environmentally acceptable way, Apple is building the largest end user–owned, onsite solar array in the U.S. The 100-acre, 20-megawatt facility will supply 42 million kWh of clean, renewable energy every year.
> 
> Apple is also building a 5-megawatt fuel cell installation, due to go online later in 2012, which Apple claims will be the “largest non-utility fuel cell installation operating anywhere in the country.”


(Full story at Mashable)


----------



## CubaMark

*Versatile Wind Harvester breaks from traditional turbine design*












> With support from Nottingham Trent University's Future Factory project, Heath Evdemon is currently building a new type of wind turbine called the Wind Harvester that's claimed to be virtually silent, doesn't need to loom high over the landscape and can operate in a variety of wind conditions.





> The system is based on reciprocating motion - as the wind catches a horizontal airfoil (like the ones you might find on aircraft), it's raised until it reaches a certain point, then the angle of the blade alters and it's forced downward, and the process repeats. Unlike the more familiar wind turbine designs where the tip of the blade moves at a different speed to a more central point, all the points on the airfoils of the Wind Harvester would move at the same velocity. This is said to make the unit capable of generating power at low wind speed, as well as continuing through to the kind of higher wind speeds that may result in other systems ceasing operation to prevent damage.


(GizMag)


----------



## SINC

*Mercedes slaps sheet of LEDs on the side of an F-Cell, turns car into a chameleon*



> It's not often that folks want to hide the fact that they're driving a Mercedes, what with plenty of them being among of the finest motorcars on the road.
> 
> However, as part of a marketing plan to call attention to its zero-emissions F-Cell model, the German marque swathed a side of one in LEDs to give it the ultimate in camouflage.
> 
> You see, in addition to that makeshift display, a Canon 5D Mark II was mounted on the other side of the car so that video of its surroundings could be shown on the LED bodywork -- rendering the car all but invisible to onlookers, as long as they're staring at the left side, of course.
> 
> Go ahead, head on down to see the magic of digital camo for yourself in the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIGzpi9lCck

Mercedes slaps sheet of LEDs on the side of an F-Cell, turns car into a chameleon -- Engadget


----------



## CubaMark

*Post-Fukushima Japan is rushing towards solar as a substitute for nuclear energy....*

*Solar Techno Park Blooms in Japan*





> Of Japan's 54 nuclear reactors, 52 have been shut down for maintenance; the remaining two are set to go offline this spring. The reactors are likely to remain inoperative while Japan's central and local governments assess which (if any) of them can be restarted, leaving the country to make up for a 30-percent loss in power generation.





> Rising electricity prices and limited supply threaten to hamper the recovery for manufacturers. So it makes sense that Solar Techno Park, the country's first solar-power research facility, is operated not by the government but by a unit of the Tokyo-based JFE, the world's fifth-largest steelmaker. Given the energy-intensive nature of steel production, reliable power will be key to the future of Japan's steel industry.


(National Geographic)


----------



## eMacMan

I spotted the buckled tower from the highway then found the news article. This original group was designed to keep on generating right up to almost 100 Km/H. Was very strange standing in the midst of these, in a wind so strong I had to brace the camera against a fencepost, yet not a single one was turning. As to the crew(s) supposedly doing the intense inspections, I did not see hide nor hair of them.










Looks like 20 years is the expected lifespan.

Cowley Ridge wind farm shut down | Fort Macleod Gazette



> DAVID THOMAS, GAZETTE CONTRIBUTOR
> Canada’s original wind farm along Cowley Ridge remains shut down for intensive structural inspection following the spontaneous self-destruction late Friday of one of its 18-year-old turbines.
> 
> System operators at TransAlta Corporation’s Calgary control centre were alerted by remote fault sensors that one of the Cowley Ridge turbines was vibrating unusually.
> 
> They immediately shut down the entire fleet of 57 turbines mounted atop 80-foot steel lattice towers — a design since replaced by the more familiar welded tubular towers.
> 
> Technicians dispatched to the scene from TransAlta’s Pincher Creek maintenance depot discovered that one of the three black fibreglass blades had broken off while the turbine was generating power.
> 
> When they returned the following morning they discovered that the bolted steel tower itself had buckled overnight, apparently after being weakened by the impact of the errant blade.
> The 57 vintage turbines and towers were already scheduled for refurbishment this coming summer, TransAlta communications director Glen Whelan said.
> 
> Despite its age and obsolete engineering design, TransAlta intends to keep Canada’s first commercial wind farm in production.
> 
> Cowley Ridge wind farm will remain immobile for at least two weeks while each and every turbine blade is inspected for stress damage.
> 
> TransAlta acquired the Cowley Ridge site in 2009 when it took over pioneer wind developer Canadian Hydro.


----------



## eMacMan

Revisited the Cowley Windfarm yesterday. The corpse has been removed and I believe that seven of the turbines are back online. 

Looks like it will take a couple of months to get the remaining turbines back on line.

No news update as yet, but a good guess would be that one of the blades failed to feather while winds were gusting above 100 Km/Hr. That would have thrown everything completely off balance as the sensors did record.


----------



## CubaMark

*Why power generators are terrified of solar*



> Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to rein in the growth of solar PV in Europe.





> Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to rein in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country.
> 
> The first graph illustrates what a typical day on the electricity market in Germany looked like in March four years ago; the second illustrates what is happening now, with 25GW of solar PV installed across the country. Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators — as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV — it is in fact eating their entire cake.



















(Crikey - Australia)


----------



## CubaMark

(VoteSolar via CleanTechnica)


----------



## CubaMark

*Saudi Arabia Unveils $100 Billion Plan To Make Solar ";A Driver For Domestic Energy For Years To Come"*





> Even the world’s largest producer of oil understands the value of developing renewable energy.
> A few months after Saudi Arabia’s oil minister called global warming “among humanity’s most pressing concerns,” the country is rolling out an ambitious plan to source 41,000 megawatts of solar projects over the next two decades — scaling up a domestic solar industry to support one third of electricity production by 2032.


(ThinkProgress)


----------



## CubaMark

*Japan approves renewable subsidies in shift from nuclear power*



> Japan approved on Monday incentives for renewable energy that could unleash billions of dollars in clean-energy investment and help the world's third-biggest economy shift away from a reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster.





> The scheme requires Japanese utilities to buy electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal at pre-set premiums for up to 20 years. Costs will be passed on to consumers through higher bills.





> Japan's aim to accelerate investment in safer, cleaner and self-sufficient energy is starting from a low base: renewable sources apart from large hydro-electric dams account for only 1 percent of power supply in Japan.
> 
> Nuclear power accounted for almost 30 percent of Japan's electricity supply before an earthquake and tsunami on March 11 last year triggered the Fukushima disaster.
> 
> About 60 percent came from oil, coal and gas, but that share has risen to almost 90 percent as safety concerns led to all of Japan's 50 reactors being shut. The rest of Japan's electricity comes mostly from hydro.


(Reuters)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Why power generators are terrified of solar*


I read this over, but the analysis is completely off. Yes, the solar production is hurting the profits of other electricity producers at peak times. It should also be hurting the profits of the solar producers by flattening the curve. However, the solar producers don't care because they're not dependent on the market--they're dependent on feed-in tariffs. The solar producers are increasing the price of electricity overall and then charging customers through the back door in taxes.


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## CubaMark

Ever heard of batteries, MF? Sheesh! 

_“We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy--sun, wind and tide. I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” _​
*― Thomas A. Edison*​


----------



## eMacMan

> Ever heard of batteries, MF? Sheesh!


MF and I do not often agree but let's face it; Batteries are great for low consumption situations, but for storing Mega Amp Hours not so practical.

The cheapest form of battery storage is still the lead acid. Longer life than most. Heavier than the load of crap burdening the average politician, and a major environmental hazard as a general afterthought. Of course generating Hydrogen Gas during the charging cycle is an explosive bonus just waiting for the wrong thing to happen at the wrong time. Ditto the Lithium battery that finds a way to let in water.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Ever heard of batteries, MF? Sheesh!


Yes. They currently can't hold or store much power.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Yes. They currently can't hold or store much power.


True - but I'm at a loss to understand your (consistent) perspective on these things... technology doesn't appear as if by magic. Research, development, initial (inferior) products come to market, and eventually it all (supposedly) shakes out - if you believe the free-market types. Battery research is just getting going... as is the field of ultracapacitors (EEEStor notwithstanding).

The fact that today's battery technology is limited in no way correlates to your (tongue-in-cheek?) assertion that a cloudy day makes solar energy useless.

And there are lots of folks who don't agree with you....

*Last Weekend, Half of Germany Was Running on Solar Power*



> German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity – equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity – through the midday hours of Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank has said ... Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50% of the nation's midday electricity needs.





> The record-breaking amount of solar power shows one of the world's leading industrial nations was able to meet a third of its electricity needs on a work day, Friday, and nearly half on Saturday when factories and offices were closed.


There is, of course, a price to pay to push the technology along:



> The incentives through the state-mandated "feed-in-tariff" (FIT) are not without controversy, however. The FIT is the lifeblood for the industry until photovoltaic prices fall further to levels similar for conventional power production.
> 
> Utilities and consumer groups have complained the FIT for solar power adds about 2 cents per kilowatt/hour on top of electricity prices in Germany that are already among the highest in the world with consumers paying about 23 cents per kw/h.


(Reuters via Treehugger)


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> There is, of course, a price to pay to push the technology along


Yep. And this is where the discussion gets interesting. There's no such thing as a free market; governments all manipulate the market, and there's nothing inherently wrong with their doing so. What is worth discussing are things like "how much manipulation," "what manipulations", and "with what goals."

I think most Canadians would agree that the goal of developing renewable energy technologies is good, and the goal of developing Canadian competitors in this sector would also be good. On the other hand, corporate welfare is bad, and we don't want to have a system of "public risk - private profit", so investments in private sectors should be just that; investments, not bail-outs.

I'm not too keen on the idea of a feed-in tariff, whereby we pay extra for energy supplied by solar/wind/etc. However, I'd be okay with a tax on environmentally unsustainable energy sources, which would not be charged on solar/wind/etc., and that have the same effect. Plus the added tax revenue could be used for investments that might include prudent investments or loans to alternate energy startups etc.


----------



## CubaMark

bryanc said:


> ...corporate welfare is bad, and we don't want to have a system of "public risk - private profit", so investments in private sectors should be just that; investments, not bail-outs.


Agreed. If the government is going to offer public money to help develop a technology / business, why not receive a share in the company? Rather than just throw money at 'em, make it an investment. Even if the company goes bust, it's better odds than an outright tax break / interest-free/forgiveable loan / etc.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I think most Canadians would agree that the goal of developing renewable energy technologies is good


Conceptually, you might get agreement from a bare majority--until they discovered what it meant. 



bryanc said:


> ...and the goal of developing Canadian competitors in this sector would also be good.


To compete against Solyndras or Chinese companies that are operating almost solely on government capital? It may make no sense to compete, and it may make no economic sense to manufacture such items. A cost-benefit analysis may show it is more beneficial to buy subsidized panels from idiots who are willing to sell them at cost and spend insane amounts on R&D.



bryanc said:


> On the other hand, corporate welfare is bad, and we don't want to have a system of "public risk - private profit", so investments in private sectors should be just that; investments, not bail-outs.


Canada's public record at developing technology is terrible, with one exception--Alberta supported the technology that allowed the oil sands to become commercially viable.


----------



## CubaMark

*In the darkness, solar industry sees some light*



> Just two years ago, solar energy was basking in exponential growth and surging investment, as it promised to be the future of energy. Now it’s picking up the pieces of a colossal bust.





> the rush of new entrants, especially from low-cost Chinese manufacturers, pushed panel prices down sharply, squeezing margins across the board. Reductions in solar subsidies in Germany, Canada and elsewhere made matters worse, and a moribund global economy didn’t help. Industry revenues, which more than doubled from 2009 to 2010 to about $82-billion worldwide, rose just 12 per cent in 2011 and are expected to level off in 2012





> Solar energy executives say falling panel prices – the very problem that hurt them so badly – will eventually allow solar to be competitive with other forms of power. Companies that survive, by cutting costs or merging with others, will be in a position to resume dramatic growth.





> With panels now much cheaper to buy, the economic case for installing solar power is improving dramatically, Mr. Stern said. Eventually, he said, the Ontario subsidies that support his business will be unnecessary and solar will be competitive with other forms of power generation, opening up a vastly bigger market.
> 
> As panel prices fall, the power they generate becomes cheaper too. Already, solar power is competitive with nuclear or gas-generated power in some parts of the world.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *In the darkness, solar industry sees some light*



The final paragraph says a lot:



> While there is ongoing research on batteries, they are still very expensive and won’t likely be a practical solution for at least another decade, Mr. Heck said. In the meantime solar can be an effective part of a wider energy mix, and is particularly valuable to handle peak daytime loads due to air conditioning and cooking, he said.


This is where solar shines, so to speak. People expecting some sort of solar revolution in Canada need to adjust their expectations for the technology.


----------



## CubaMark

(Bruce Mackinnon / Halifax Chronicle-Herald)

For those who may miss the reference, Halifax's Tall Ships festival is getting underway. You can see some of the ships at dock, and the full main sail event, via the excellent Nova Scotia Webcams.


----------



## Macfury

Amusing, but silly. The ship will pass any human population by. The vibrations on those damned wind turbines are endless.


----------



## CubaMark

*Electrochemical flow capacitor: Hybrid battery-supercapacitor design targets grid storage*



> Researchers at Drexel University are developing an electrochemical flow capacitor (EFC) that combines the storage capabilities of batteries with the much longer cycle life and power output of supercapacitors. The team's goal is to improve the stability of the energy grid and ease the integration of renewable energy sources.
> 
> Renewables such as wind and solar power are experiencing an exponential year-by-year growth, but integrating such an intermittent and unpredictable power source into the grid can be problematic as it calls for a highly flexible, cost-effective solution that can store vast amounts of energy and release it quickly whenever needed.


(GizMag)


----------



## Macfury

Germany has found an alternative energy source to replace nuclear power--coal!

Brown coal makes a comeback amid protests | Environment | DW.DE | 01.08.2012



> Twenty-three new coal-fired power plants are being built across Germany, with the capacity to generate 24,000 megawatts. Campaigners for the environment protection group Greenpeace say these new plants will emit 150 million tons of CO2 each year.


----------



## Macfury

More unconventional drilling in Russian shale plays:

Horizontal Drilling Boom Under Way | Business | The Moscow Times


----------



## CubaMark

_*The impact of solar power on jobs...*_

*Could Solar Power Save Teachers' Jobs?*



> The school district of Scottsdale, Ariz., saved $300,000 on its electric bill this past year by installing solar panels, and superintendent David Peterson says that money has kept six full-time teachers from losing their jobs.
> 
> By the end of the summer, 17 of Scottsdale's 32 schools will be generating electricity with rooftop photovoltaic panels. Some are being installed in parking lots where they'll provide shade for students' and teachers' cars.





> More than 500 schools in 43 states have installed solar panels. The uptick in installation is a direct result of solar-power costs, which have fallen by more than one-third over the past three years,





> The Scottsdale school panels are being installed by the San Mateo, Calif.-based firm SolarCity, which allows residential, commercial and government customers to lease the solar panels instead of buying them, a novel financing scheme that keeps initial costs down.
> 
> SolarCity picks up the installation costs up front and charges the schools a yearly lease payment which usually lasts 15 to 20 years. Scottsdale was paying 11 cents per kilowatt hour until it switched to solar power, which is now costing them 7 to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour.
> 
> "We're saving 2 cents per kilowatt-hour," Peterson said. "It's money we can put back in hiring teachers."
> 
> By the end of the lease period, when the panels are completely paid for, the district will save an estimated $1.5 million to $2 million per year in utility costs, Paterson said.


(Discovery News)


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

In the United States, solar power has been rightly demonized as economically unfeasible. Germany has faced reality and is currently building a huge new supply of coal fired electrical plants to meet the energy needs of its citizens.

The question is not whether solar plants could generate a certain amount of power, the question is whether it should be done at all.

As _Der Spiegel_ notes, the German experience is considered a problematic "sinkhole" and has cost hundreds of billions of Euros in subsidies.

Solar Subsidy Sinkhole: Re-Evaluating Germany's Blind Faith in the Sun - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## CubaMark

*Scotland: Renewables revolution aims for 100%*



> The new Scottish Government's 2020 renewable electricity target has been raised to 100 per cent, First Minister Alex Salmond said today as he pledged to move "still faster and further" to secure Scotland's place as the green energy powerhouse of Europe.
> 
> Mr Salmond also launched an online portal showcasing Scotland's burgeoning offshore wind sector and announced the signing of a new strategic agreement between the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney and the *Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) in Nova Scotia, Canada*, to collaborate on the development and deployment of power generation from the sea.
> 
> In a video message to the two-day All-Energy conference opening in Aberdeen today, the First Minister outlined the scale of Scotland's natural resources and range of clean energy developments and investments made in recent years. Scotland's national target for the production of electricity from renewable sources had been to generate the equivalent of 80 per cent of electricity consumption, with a 31 per cent interim target for 2011.




(Government of Scotland)


----------



## Macfury

Hmm. With the rest of the UK digging full tilt into natural gas, Scotland will find its economy increasingly uncompetitive. This is going to be fun!


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar power production in Germany up 50 per cent on the year between January and September*



> German utilities say solar power production rose by more than 50 per cent on the year over the first nine months of 2012 amid a boom in installations of photovoltaic panels.





> solar power's share in the country's electricity production rose to 6.1 per cent from 4.1 per cent. Wind power gained slightly to 8.6 per cent from 8.0 per cent. Biomass plants accounted for almost 6 per cent.
> It says all renewable energies combined accounted for about 26 per cent of electricity production over the first nine months.


(CumberlandNewsNow)


----------



## SINC

When you get the entire story, is Germany a success? *Not so much:*



> *Germans Cough Up for Solar Subsidies
> 
> Solar subsidies cost German consumers billions of dollars a year and are widely regarded as inefficient. Even environmentalists are concerned that Berlin's focus on solar comes at the detriment of other renewables. But the solar industry has a powerful lobby, and politicians have proven powerless to resist.*


German Solar Subsidies to Remain High with Consumers Paying the Price - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## Macfury

Germany has entered the phase of green hell:



> When Germany’s power grid operator announced the exact amount of next year’s green energy levy on Monday, it came as a shock to the country. The cost burden for consumers and industry have reached a “barely tolerable level that threatens the de-industrialization of Germany”, outraged business organisations said. Since then politicians, business representatives and green energy supporters have been arguing about who is to blame for the “electricity price hammer”. After all, did not Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) promise that green energy subsidies would not be more than 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour? Now, however, German citizens have to support renewable energy by more than EUR 20 billion – instead of 14 billion Euros. How could Merkel be so wrong? --Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012


----------



## bryanc

Germany has and will continue to pay a high price for pioneering the inevitable switch to renewable energy. Fortunately, most of the German people understand that this is an investment that has and will continue to position Germany at the forefront of this developing economy, such that it will reap the economic rewards as the rest of the world makes this (again, inevitable) shift and looks to the countries that have worked out how to do it best.

Germany (and if they're lucky, Scotland) will be the countries providing the U.S. and Canada with clean renewable-energy technology in the future. It's unfortunate that Canada hasn't established itself as a leader in this emerging economic sector... there's still a little time, but not much... and it's going to be a major economic engine in the coming decades as fossil fuels are increasingly rejected as both too expensive and too environmentally damaging.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Germany has and will continue to pay a high price for pioneering the inevitable switch to renewable energy. Fortunately, most of the German people understand that this is an investment that has and will continue to position Germany at the forefront of this developing economy, such that it will reap the economic rewards as the rest of the world makes this (again, inevitable) shift and looks to the countries that have worked out how to do it best.
> 
> Germany (and if they're lucky, Scotland) will be the countries providing the U.S. and Canada with clean renewable-energy technology in the future. It's unfortunate that Canada hasn't established itself as a leader in this emerging economic sector... there's still a little time, but not much... and it's going to be a major economic engine in the coming decades as fossil fuels are increasingly rejected as both too expensive and too environmentally damaging.


This is far from likely. Germans voters aren't happy with the green nonsense that is bankrupting them and are likely to vote in a new government because of it.

There is little or no value in becoming a "leader" in renewable technology, especially in a world of rapidly expanding supplies of oil and natural gas. If the Scots or Germans develop something amazing beyond the usual ho-hum propellers and solar panels, it would be better to buy it from them.

Is your own home powered by propellers and solar panels, or have you chosen traditional energy sources?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This is far from likely. Germans voters aren't happy with the green nonsense that is bankrupting them and are likely to vote in a new government because of it.


We will see; I make no claims to special knowledge of German politics. However, the Green Party continues to be a major political power in Germany, and the Germans I know are strongly supportive of government efforts to support this nascent industry, so I'm not convinced that even if the government were to change, that this particular policy would be dramatically different.



> especially in a world of *rapidly expanding supplies of oil and natural gas.*


[my bold]
Uh, this must be some new usage of the word "rapidly" that I'm not familiar with; you're aware of the fact that it takes millions of years to generate a fossil fuel deposit, right? There's a reason these things are called "non-renewable" resources... they don't expand or regenerate; at least not on time scales we can take advantage of. Supplies of oil and natural gas can only shrink. They cannot expand at a rate that has any relevance to our civilization. 

We may be able to get at more of the supply as we develop new technologies, but doing so will inevitably represent chasing diminishing returns. This is why the shift to renewable energy is inevitable. This has been well understood since the 1800's. The only questions are when and who will profit most from it. The answers are increasingly obvious that the sooner we change the more profit there will to be made, and the first movers in a new technological feild generally have a strong advantage (compare Apple's profits on the iPhone to Microsoft's profits on Windows Phones). It's not necessarily insurmountable (look at how the Japanese stole the auto industry from the US), but emerging economies can be very lucrative if you don't bet on the wrong technology. With respect to renewable energy, I'd like to see Canadian companies betting on *all* the technologies; some of them are bound to be right and the winners will more than pay for the losers.



> Is your own home powered by propellers and solar panels, or have you chosen traditional energy sources?


We rent, so we can't very well modify the electrical infrastructure of our home. We are also poorly situated for wind or solar, so when we can afford to do so, we'll probably go with heat pumps. Our family of very modest financial means does what it can to limit our impact by limiting our electrical consumption, not eating meat, walking/biking/taking transit, recycling, buying local produce, etc.

But implicit in your question is an ad hominem attack; if I don't use renewable power myself I'm a hypocrite, and therefore my argument that renewable energy is the future is somehow flawed. Even if I ran my house on a private coal-buring power station, it would not change the validity of the argument: fossil fuels are a problem and renewable energy is the solution. The faster we get there the better.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Uh, this must be some new usage of the word "rapidly" that I'm not familiar with; you're aware of the fact that it takes millions of years to generate a fossil fuel deposit, right? There's a reason these things are called "non-renewable" resources... they don't expand or regenerate; at least not on time scales we can take advantage of. Supplies of oil and natural gas can only shrink. They cannot expand at a rate that has any relevance to our civilization.


Fracking is exposing billions of barrels of oil int he U.S., enough to last a century at prices cheaper than either solar or wind. serves are expanding at a rate that has relevance to our civilization.




bryanc said:


> The answers are increasingly obvious that the sooner we change the more profit there will to be made, and the first movers in a new technological feild generally have a strong advantage (compare Apple's profits on the iPhone to Microsoft's profits on Windows Phones). It's not necessarily insurmountable (look at how the Japanese stole the auto industry from the US), but emerging economies can be very lucrative if you don't bet on the wrong technology. With respect to renewable energy, I'd like to see Canadian companies betting on *all* the technologies; some of them are bound to be right and the winners will more than pay for the losers.


There is no guarantee that any winner will pay for the losers and it isn't obvious at all that the first players will benefit the most. The Chinese are spending preposterous amounts of public funds o develop these technologies. We'd be smarter to let them blow the R&D budget, then cherry pick the best products.



bryanc said:


> We rent, so we can't very well modify the electrical infrastructure of our home. We are also poorly situated for wind or solar, so when we can afford to do so, we'll probably go with heat pumps. Our family of very modest financial means does what it can to limit our impact by limiting our electrical consumption, not eating meat, walking/biking/taking transit, recycling, buying local produce, etc.
> 
> But implicit in your question is an ad hominem attack; if I don't use renewable power myself I'm a hypocrite, and therefore my argument that renewable energy is the future is somehow flawed. Even if I ran my house on a private coal-buring power station, it would not change the validity of the argument: fossil fuels are a problem and renewable energy is the solution. The faster we get there the better.


I wouldn't consider you a hypocrite--just a reasonable person working withing a budget. I don't want my budget broken by more wind and solar technology that will blow it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> enough to last a century at prices cheaper than either solar or wind.


Only if you continue to externalize the environmental costs. As our globalized economy and increasingly bloated population continue to grow this becomes increasingly untenable. While there are a few who's faith that science is wrong remains adamant, we now know that releasing megatons of carbon that had been sequestered over millions of years into the atmosphere has significant effects on the climate, and we know that the other by products of burning all those megatons of reduced carbon have many other deleterious consequences to the ecosystem upon which we all depend for air, water, and food. Then there is the impact of the drilling, fracking, shipping, refining, processing, and otherwise getting the organic carbon compounds out of the ground and into the fuel tanks in the first place.

And you say it is far from clear that _renewable_ energy will be economically viable! If the economics of fossil fuel included the _real_ costs, no one would be discussing it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Only if you continue to externalize the environmental costs. As our globalized economy and increasingly bloated population continue to grow this becomes increasingly untenable. While there are a few who's faith that science is wrong remains adamant, we now know that releasing megatons of carbon that had been sequestered over millions of years into the atmosphere has significant effects on the climate, and we know that the other by products of burning all those megatons of reduced carbon have many other deleterious consequences to the ecosystem upon which we all depend for air, water, and food. Then there is the impact of the drilling, fracking, shipping, refining, processing, and otherwise getting the organic carbon compounds out of the ground and into the fuel tanks in the first place.
> 
> And you say it is far from clear that _renewable_ energy will be economically viable! If the economics of fossil fuel included the _real_ costs, no one would be discussing it.


The _real_ costs are included in the costs of fossil fuels. Your belief in anthropogenic global warming is a fever dream.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The _real_ costs are included in the costs of fossil fuels.


Oh really? How are the costs of reduced biodiversity, smog, disease, ocean acidification, habitat distraction, etc. included in the price at the pump? Then consider the costs of wars and genocides resulting from the conflicts over oil and add that to the bill.



> Your belief in anthropogenic global warming is a fever dream.


I'm slowly learning your language; bear with me. In MacFuryeese, payment is "theft", geological processes that occur over millions of years are "rapid" and beliefs based on evidence and reason are "fever dreams." Got it.


----------



## CubaMark

*Denmark Solar Energy Goal Reached 8 Years Early*



> Denmark previously stated plans to install 200 megawatts of solar capacity by 2020 — a goal the country actually reached this year. In fact, solar power demand is growing so quickly that 2020 numbers may be five times bigger than the original plan.
> 
> With gray, cloudy Scandinavian winters, Denmark isn’t exactly known for its sunshine. Solar panels, however, still perform well there. Demand has been driven partly by a net metering program set up in 2010. Net metering, which is also available in many places in the United States, gives homeowners credit for extra solar power produced by the panels on their roof.


(RevModo)


----------



## eMacMan

> Fracking is exposing billions of barrels of oil int he U.S., enough to last a century at prices cheaper than either solar or wind. serves are expanding at a rate that has relevance to our civilization.


Yep the contamination of far more precious ground water supplies is of curse mere collateral damage and of no real concern if you happen to derive your income from the oil industry.


----------



## bryanc

No worries; we'll be so rich we can drink champagne


----------



## CubaMark

_IF the projections noted in this article come to fruition, will it mean another setback in the efforts to develop solar / alternative energy sources?_

*Iraq Oil Boom*



> Citi's commodities team believes Iraqi oil production is set to explode in the coming years, causing prices to turn downward.
> 
> In a massive survey helmed by analyst Edward Morse, Citi's team projects Brent crude to fall to $99 next year.
> 
> One of the main reasons: Iraq's oil production is poised to reach heights never seen in its history — neither prior to America's 2003 invasion nor in Iraq's '80s heyday.
> 
> This would be the world's second huge energy boom, with the US being the other big story.


(Business Insider)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _IF the projections noted in this article come to fruition, will it mean another setback in the efforts to develop solar / alternative energy sources?_


I have been referring to such reports all along, which state that we have plenty of oil for a century or more.

It will mean cheap, abundant energy for the citizens of the world, and no reason to develop expensive alternative energy sources. This is a reason to celebrate, not pout.

Oh what fun, to watch Norwegians running primitive, expensive windmills as the world prospers.


----------



## CubaMark

_Something we haven't covered much in this thread (at all?) is the potential of tidal power systems. Back home in Nova Scotia, a trial run with a tidal generator in the Bay of Fundy went a bit awry when the highest tides in the world smashed the equipment on the seafloor._

_Now Maine is getting into the act..._

*Turbines Ready to Turn at First U.S. Commercial Tidal Energy Plant*





> The first commercial tidal energy project in the US was dedicated last week in Maine, and turbines will begin turning in mid-September.
> 
> It's the first grid-tied tidal project in the US and the first to sell the electricity through long term power purchase agreements.
> 
> Portland, Maine-based Ocean Renewable Power Co. will soon lower a generator to the sea floor as part of a network of 20 underwater turbines.





> The small project in Eastport, Maine will provide electricity for 1,200 homes.
> 
> The cost is about $21 million for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project, which includes research and development, design, manufacture and installation of the turbines and environmental monitoring.





> Earlier this year, Maine regulators directed three utilities to buy 4 megawatts (MW) of tidal electricity in a 20-year contract. The utilities will pay almost double the average electricity price in Maine to support the project.
> 
> Regulators looked at what the cost of fossil fuels would be over 20 years and decided they would likely be even higher. In fact, they see tidal energy being cost-competitive in as little as five years.


(TheMatterNetwork)


----------



## FeXL

A blurb on the "lifetime" of a wind turbine.



> The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.
> 
> This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike.


I find this somewhat interesting in that there are a set of around 52 wind turbines west of here (for anyone familiar with the area, the small ones on Cowley Ridge) that are at/older than 25 years old. I wonder what the decrease in their output has been. Even the larger ones on the same ridge are well over 20 years old. The earliest ones at Pincher Colony are around 15 years old, too.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> A blurb on the "lifetime" of a wind turbine.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this somewhat interesting in that there are a set of around 52 wind turbines west of here (for anyone familiar with the area, the small ones on Cowley Ridge) that are at/older than 25 years old. I wonder what the decrease in their output has been. Even the larger ones on the same ridge are well over 20 years old. The earliest ones at Pincher Colony are around 15 years old, too.


Glad to see you back!

I counted the last time through ~6-700 wind turbines between Fort Macleod and Cowley. I think most of the new ones peak out at about 2MW but not at all sure.

I did talk to someone that maintains the turbines. The older sets are down two times a year for maintenance, newer ones once a year. 

We did have one of the original lattice towers collapse, I think last winter. Problem was traced to a blade out of balance, perhaps icing. Right now on a normal drive by, 3-5 of the original Cowley turbines not turning is fairly normal.


----------



## CubaMark

_And now.... *TORNADO POWER!!!*_





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






_Tornadoes generally evoke the destructive force of nature at its most awesome. However, what if all that power could be harnessed to produce cheaper and more efficient electricity? This is just what Canadian engineer Louis Michaud proposes to achieve, with an invention dubbed the “Atmospheric Vortex Engine” (or AVE).

AVE works by introducing warm air into a circular station, whereupon the difference in temperature between this heated air and the atmosphere above creates a vortex – or controlled tornado, which in turn drives multiple wind turbines in order to create electricity. The vortex could be shut down by simply turning off the source of warm air.

Michaud’s company, AVEtec Energy Corporation, reports that the system produces no carbon emissions, nor requires energy storage to function, and that further to this, the cost of energy generated could potentially be as low as US$0.03 per kilowatt hour.
_​
(Gizmag)


----------



## SINC

Hmm, peel n' stick solar panels.

Peel-and-stick solar panels | Engineering


----------



## FeXL

Wind power is less economically viable today than 20 years ago 



> The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.


and



> When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day).


----------



## CubaMark

*The whole article (short) is worth a read - but the bit below may be of most interest here:*

*The Six Most Overlooked Energy Stories of 2012*

A bombshell report by the conservative International Energy Agency concludes that, due to lowered demand and new drilling techniques that will unlock shale oil and offshore reserves, our southern neighbour could become the world's largest oil producer before 2017. Uncle Sam could stop importing petroleum altogether by 2035. As the U.S. is currently the largest buyer of Canadian oil, this redrawing of the energy map presents staggering implications for our economy. As former international trade minister David Emerson wrote in 2011's Shaping Alberta's Future report, "We may have heavy oil to sell, but few or no profitable markets wishing to buy." Now might be a good time to place a few of our eggs in a few more baskets.​
(Huffington Post)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *The whole article (short) is worth a read - but the bit below may be of most interest here:*
> 
> *The Six Most Overlooked Energy Stories of 2012*
> 
> A bombshell report by the conservative International Energy Agency concludes that, due to lowered demand and new drilling techniques that will unlock shale oil and offshore reserves, our southern neighbour could become the world's largest oil producer before 2017. Uncle Sam could stop importing petroleum altogether by 2035. As the U.S. is currently the largest buyer of Canadian oil, this redrawing of the energy map presents staggering implications for our economy. As former international trade minister David Emerson wrote in 2011's Shaping Alberta's Future report, "We may have heavy oil to sell, but few or no profitable markets wishing to buy." Now might be a good time to place a few of our eggs in a few more baskets.​
> (Huffington Post)


Duhhhh! This is why the pipeline to the West Coast was being pushed. Because Asia may be our new best customer for oil in light of U.S. fossil fuel production.


----------



## FeXL

A blurb on fracking. 

The EPA & USGS did some testing on a couple of fracking sites. The EPA's initial test results showed contamination of groundwater from wells and their methodology was criticized. They tested a second time, alongside of which was the USGS with their own tests. Anybody guess the results?


EPA fracking tests tainted & undermined by the US Geological Survey 



> *The U.S. Geological Survey had conducted tests alongside the EPA, and its investigators reported different results. Unlike the EPA, the USGS failed to find any traces of glycols or 2-butoxyethanol, fracking-related chemicals that could cause serious health issues if they entered the water supply at levels the EPA considers contamination.
> Meanwhile, the USGS found significantly lower concentrations of other materials identified by the EPA—including phenol, potassium and diesel-range organics—which might not have resulted from the fracking at all. The phenols were likely introduced accidentally in the laboratory, for example, and potassium might be naturally occurring or the result of potash contained in the cement used to build the EPA wells.
> 
> The USGS also noted that in constructing the monitoring wells, the EPA used a "black painted/coated carbon steel casing," and EPA photographs show that investigators used a painted device to catch sand from the wells. The problem is that paint can contain a variety of compounds that distort test results—so it is poor scientific practice to use painted or coated materials in well-monitoring tests.*


Bold from the link.

Now, I'm not going to cry conspiracy, but I am going to ask, WTF?


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> A blurb on fracking.
> 
> The EPA & USGS did some testing on a couple of fracking sites. The EPA's initial test results showed contamination of groundwater from wells and their methodology was criticized. They tested a second time, alongside of which was the USGS with their own tests. Anybody guess the results?
> 
> 
> EPA fracking tests tainted & undermined by the US Geological Survey
> 
> 
> 
> Bold from the link.
> 
> Now, I'm not going to cry conspiracy, but I am going to ask, WTF?


As far as the what, it's the groundwater.


----------



## partsguy

eMacMan said:


> As far as the what, it's the groundwater.


Did you even read the article?


----------



## FeXL

Interesting lawsuit.

Lawsuit Alleges Cronyism In Obama Administration “Green Energy” Loans



> A lawsuit recently filed in the United States Court of Claims may shed further light on the corruption of the Obama administration’s “green energy” programs. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of XP Vehicles, Inc. and Limnia, Inc., companies that competed for Department of Energy loans under a Congressionally-authorized program. *The owners of XP eventually realized that there was no real competition, and that the whole Department of Energy program was a scam intended to funnel money to Obama and Democratic Party campaign contributors and political allies. They allege in addition that DOE misappropriated proprietary technology that they submitted in connection with their loan applications, and gave that technology to Obama administration cronies.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

When Coleman Lantern gasoline heat becomes cheaper than electricity, you've got a pricing problem...



> It’s just incredibly immoral and wrong to drive electricity prices up above the absolute minimum needed to deliver the most economical supply to the most poor of the world. That ought to be about 7 cents / kW-hr, not my present $0.26 nor the $.30 higher usage, nor the $0.50 “coming soon”.
> 
> At 7 cents, there are 487 BTU / penny. About 1.75 times the BTU/cent from gasoline. At THAT cost of electricity the trees stay alive, the gasoline stays in the ground, the kerosene heater is left in the box. People are warm, and not dying, and the world is just a much better place to live.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> When Coleman Lantern gasoline heat becomes cheaper than electricity, you've got a pricing problem...


I tel you, any more expensive and I am going to install a natural gas generator to produce most of my electricity..


----------



## SINC

Biofuel created by explosive technology - SFGate


----------



## FeXL

Europe Today: Stealing Wood, Burning Wood



> What’s more interesting to me is that some Europeans apparently feel so pinched by their heating bills that they’re now stealing firewood. The weekly German news magazine, Der Spiegel, is currently running an English-language story titled Woodland Heists: Rising Energy Costs Drive Up Forest Thievery.
> 
> We hear a great deal about Germany’s aggressive pursuit of renewable energy. What we hear less about is the fact that renewable energy is expensive. Germans reportedly purchased 400,000 new wood stoves in 2011, and have been doing so in increasing numbers since 2005.


More:



> Unless something changes, the remarks of the blogger over at Sunshine Hours may not be much of an exaggeration:
> 
> *This is your future. Huddled around wood stoves to keep warm because electricity is too expensive because of subsidies paid to rich people who own wind farms and solar panels.*​


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## Macfury

Yup. The wet dream of the eco-kooks is to bring us back to a pre-industrialized state of bliss.


----------



## FeXL

Your tax dollars at work...

How Green Was My Bankruptcy? U. S. Army Edition.



> Great News! Siemens will generate an 18% return on a project that will have a negative return on investment (-9%)… All at the taxpayers’ expense!


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> I tel you, any more expensive and I am going to install a natural gas generator to produce most of my electricity..


Not quite as it sounds at first blush. Especially if you install a small bank of batteries so the generator only needs to run 2-3 hours a day.


----------



## SINC

Interesting read:

Natural Gas Vehicles Could Ease Energy Crisis: Scientific American


----------



## CubaMark

*'Lights out' in France as big switch-off becomes law*



> France yesterday introduced energy conservation laws making it obligatory for shops and commercial premises to switch off internal, window and exterior lighting at night.
> The new measures, which are designed to reduce France’s carbon footprint and save energy will come into force on July 1, 2013, said France’s Minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Delphine Batho in a statement issued by the Minister yesterday.
> France's Ecology Minister issued a decree on January 30 regulating the operation of lighting on non-residential buildings in France. As well as reducing the carbon footprint caused by artificial lighting, France’s nocturnal switch-off is also designed to reduce the impact of lighting on the nocturnal environment


(Digital Journal)


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> *'Lights out' in France as big switch-off becomes law*
> 
> (Digital Journal)


I can't help wondering how long it will be before Canada joins the 21st century and recognizes that one of the primary roles of government is to protect the environment. We should have a Minister of Ecology, a Minister of Sustainable Development, a Minister of Recycling, a Minister of Waste Reduction... half the cabinet should have portfolios dedicated to protecting Canada's biosphere.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I can't help wondering how long it will be before Canada joins the 21st century and recognizes that one of the primary roles of government is to protect the environment. We should have a Minister of Ecology, a Minister of Sustainable Development, a Minister of Recycling, a Minister of Waste Reduction... half the cabinet should have portfolios dedicated to protecting Canada's biosphere.


I hope it's a good long time. France is reacting to its own failure to produce enough energy for its citizens.

Cuba: Why is this an alternative energy story? This is in the "not enough energy" category.


----------



## FeXL

Further on windfarm shortened lifetimes (& subsequent increased cost).

New study finds wind farms last only 50% of claimed lifetime 

From the press release:



> *This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Obama admin wants to grant permits for wind turbines to kill bald eagles



> On June 20, 1782, the Continental Congress, after nearly six years of haggling and numerous design changes, finally approved the Great Seal of the United States. In doing so, it made the bald eagle our national symbol. This year, in the name of clean energy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering changing federal rules so that a wind-energy developer can be granted an "incidental-take" permit allowing wind projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.


Further:



> For years, the wind industry has had de facto permission to violate both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects 1,000 species) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federal authorities have never brought a case under either law—despite the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate that domestic turbines kill some 440,000 birds per year.


More:



> Federal law has protected the bald eagle since 1940, the golden eagle since 1962. Violating the Eagle Protection Act can result in a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment for two years.


So, has anyone from the wind industry ever been charged?



> Yet there have been no indictments.


I jes' luvs me sum good, old-fashioned, double standards.

Wonder what will happen when someone finds a dead condor at the base of one of these...


----------



## FeXL

A Musing on coal liquefaction costs vs oil.

Coal, Liquids, and Costs



> The amount of coal and tar sands in the world dwarfs the amount of oil. This effectively extends the availability of “oil products” for a couple of hundred years. (The limiting factor being coal mining for electricity generation as that uses far more coal; so will drive the consumption curve.) We are talking many Trillions of barrels of oil equivalent in tar sands alone. Coal more than that. (About 1/4 of the USA sits above coal deposits).


Interesting read.


----------



## bryanc

*Fox news: solar won't work in the US because it's not sunny like Germany*

Unbelievable. Apparently Fox New's "researchers" have figured out why the solar energy industry is failing in the U.S. and succeeding in Germany. It's because, unlike Germany, it's not always sunny in the US. Way to go Fox News... that's a scoop!


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Unbelievable. Apparently Fox New's "researchers" have figured out why the solar energy industry is failing in the U.S. and succeeding in Germany. It's because, unlike Germany, it's not always sunny in the US. Way to go Fox News... that's a scoop!


It's the subsidies that have kept the solar industry alive in Germany alright. However, one statement from one reporter on FOX is a far cry from "FOX News researchers say." 

Another article in _Slate_ explains why Germany can't afford to continue doing this:

Why Germany is phasing out its solar-power subsidies. - Slate Magazine


----------



## MacDoc

This is like saying the failed tech companies of which there were thousands over my 40 years in the business were wrong to engage in the first place.

The reason many solar are failing is because panels are so cheap and their business models expect a different set of conditions both in cost, margins and subsidies.

Fossil fuel industries are both subsidized in an hilariously wrong headed way and get away with murder on the emissions front with those costs passed on to consumers via health and environment costs.



> “*Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.”*
> By Joe Romm on Oct 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm
> 
> Coal does more harm than good.
> 
> Okay, public health experts have known this for a while — *see Life-cycle study [Epstein et al]: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated.”*


Economics Stunner: "Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added." | ThinkProgress

see Beijing





















> Beijing's air pollution
> Blackest day
> Jan 14th 2013, 4:49 by T.P. | BEIJING
> 
> 
> ON January 12th of last year, in an article in the print edition of The Economist, we reported that the public outcry over Beijing’s atrocious air quality was putting pressure on officials to release more data about more kinds of pollutants. We also noted that Chinese authorities had already embarked on a wide range of strategies to improve air quality, and that they probably deserve more credit than either foreign or domestic critics tend to give them. But we concluded with the sad reality that such work takes decades, and that “Beijing residents will need to wait before seeing improvements.”
> 
> On January 12th of this year, Beijing residents got an acrid taste of what that wait might be like, as they suffered a day of astonishingly bad air. Pollution readings went, quite literally, off the charts. Saturday evening saw a reading of 755 on the Air Quality Index (AQI). That index is based on the recently revised standards of the American Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA), which nominally maxes out at 500. For more perspective, consider that any reading above 100 is deemed “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and that anything above 400 is rated “hazardous” for all.


more
http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/01/beijings-air-pollution

TANSTAAFL

Put ALL the external downstream costs into the mix then see where the actual costs lay....


----------



## Macfury

We are not Beijing, MacDoc. We have air pollution standards here.

However, we do not need to rely on coal in North America--we have natural gas that could provide clean and efficient fossil fueled electricity for generations to come.

Interesting, however, that as Germany has attempted to rely increasingly on solar power it is making up the shortfall with--you guessed it--coal. It is building at least 25 new coal fired plants:

Germany -- Insane Or Just Plain Stupid? - Forbes

The Breakthrough Institute - Germany’s Lost Decade


----------



## eMacMan

Interesting read on the Colorado Springs power plant, nearly 90 years old and located within a few blocks of the downtown core. 

The great thing about coal plants is that they can be expanded and modified as technology improves.

They don't mention it but I believe at least some excess heat is used to heat some nearby buildings.



> As technology has advanced over the last 20 years, the Martin Drake power plant has been fitted with many pollution control upgrades.
> Today, the Drake facility uses a very low sulfur coal, which greatly reduces the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The plant is equipped with low nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners. These burners significantly reduce the amount of thermal NOx the plant emits through a staged combustion cycle.
> 
> Baghouses collect more than 99.8 percent of fly ash, the particulate matter byproduct of burning coal. The baghouses greatly reduce pollution and keep ash and visible emissions out of the air. The white clouds visible from Drake are condensed water vapor from the cooling towers used in the steam-water cycle.
> 
> The latest step to further reduce emissions is the planned installation of NeuStreamTM technology developed by the Neumann Systems Group. NeuStreamTM has been proven to remove more than 95 percent of sulfur emissions from power plant exhaust.
> .....


Clear skies, affordable power


----------



## eMacMan

One more reason why carbon footprint is a very poor measure of a products environmental responsibility. Key words; toxic sludge, shipped offsite



> AN FRANCISCO (AP) — Homeowners on the hunt for sparkling solar panels are lured by ads filled with images of pristine landscapes and bright sunshine, and words about the technology's benefits for the environment — and the wallet.
> 
> What customers may not know is that there's a dirtier side.
> 
> While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.
> 
> To dispose of the material, the companies must transport it by truck or rail far from their own plants to waste facilities hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of miles away.
> 
> The fossil fuels used to transport that waste, experts say, is not typically considered in calculating solar's carbon footprint, giving scientists and consumers who use the measurement to gauge a product's impact on global warming the impression that solar is cleaner than it is.
> 
> After installing a solar panel, "it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state," said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
> 
> The waste from manufacturing has raised concerns within the industry, which fears that the problem, if left unchecked, could undermine solar's green image at a time when companies are facing stiff competition from each other and from low-cost panel manufacturers from China and elsewhere.
> 
> "We want to take the lessons learned from electronics and semiconductor industries (about pollution) and get ahead of some of these problems," said John Smirnow, vice president for trade and competitiveness at the nearly 500-member Solar Energy Industries Association.
> 
> The increase in solar hazardous waste is directly related to the industry's fast growth over the past five years — even with solar business moving to China rapidly, the U.S. was a net exporter of solar products by $2 billion in 2010, the last year of data available. The nation was even a net exporter to China.


Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes - Yahoo! News


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio Muses about basic stupidity...

Stupidity About Las Vegas



> Just a quick note about some incredible stupidity on TV. On the CMOI channel (the description says “Cinemoi is the home of film and fashion, a celebration of international style. It showcases feature films, fashion from around the world, environmental documentaries and children’s programming.) they are having a rant about oil on the series “Earth From Above”.


More:



> No, what got me going was that they chose to use Las Vegas as their “Poster Child” for “oil waste” and how they were doomed, doomed I say when the oil runs out. That it was crazy to build houses and suburbs here “in the desert” as there was “no water” and no-anything-else and the Air Conditioners ran 24 hours a day. Even the strip has the lights on All The Time!!!! When the oil runs out, real soon now, it is all DOOMED!!!


Snort...



> It would seem they didn’t notice that giant lake, Lake Mead, just on the other side of the hill. I’d have thought the long line of power boats headed that way would have tipped them off…
> 
> They certainly were not willing to put in the (near trivial) effort to find out that Las Vegas only grew up once the lake was in place. See, all those lights and A/C and all are not powered by oil, they are powered by hydroelectric power from Lake Mead / Boulder Dam. That, BTW, is also where they get all their water.


Further:



> So here is this party paradise, that depends on *renewable energy and recyclable matrials* that doesn’t destroy a lot of high value habitat in the making… THAT is the place they choose as a poster child for oil?


Bold from the link.

In summary?



> I think I’m seeing why I don’t watch that channel much. *It’s aimed at emotional airheads with no depth of understanding at all. No history. No technical grasp. No questioning what is spoon fed to them.* Sigh.


Bold mine.

Don't be drones, people.

Question everything...


----------



## MacDoc

> Wind power is now cheaper than coal in some countries
> 
> * 18:30 11 February 2013 by Michael Marshall
> * For similar stories, visit the Energy and Fuels and Climate Change Topic Guides
> 
> When many countries are choosing their next generation of power stations, they will be tempted to pick wind turbines. Thanks to better design, building wind farms can now be cheaper than building new coal or gas power stations.
> 
> Figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance show that this is already the case in Australia. Any wind farms built now would generate electricity for between A$80 (about US$80) and A$113 per megawatt-hour, whereas new coal plants would cost A$176/MWh.
> 
> In Australia, coal's high cost is partly due to the nation's carbon tax, but new coal power stations would still cost A$126/MWh even in the absence of the tax.
> Better designs
> 
> Wind is the latest renewable energy source to become competitive, after the price of solar energy fell 75 per cent between 2008 and 2011. That was driven by economies of scale, as Chinese manufacturers learned how to make large quantities of panels quickly and cheaply.
> 
> Wind is a different story. "For wind it's more about the technology," says Guy Turner of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Better designs, including longer blades and taller turbines have all boosted efficiency.
> 
> The design of wind farms has also improved. Wind becomes turbulent in the lee of turbines, which makes those behind them less efficient, says Turner. So companies now use fluid dynamics modelling to arrange their turbines. A recent analysis found that staggering them created higher wind speeds and less turbulence, compared with straight rows (Boundary-Layer Meteorology, doi.org/kgd).
> International differences
> 
> The costs of installing wind and coal vary between countries. Building coal-fired power stations remains relatively cheap in China. But, every time the Brazilian government has asked power companies to bid for contracts over the past five years, new wind farms have come out cheaper than new fossil-fuelled power stations.
> 
> And according to the Global Wind Energy Council in Brussels, Belgium, the amount of wind capacity installed worldwide rose 19 per cent last year.
> 
> Wind is seen as a safer long-term investment, says Turner. "Investors are nervous about building a new coal plant." While renewable sources are increasingly favoured by governments, fossil fuels face an uncertain future as countries try to cut greenhouse gas emissions.


now if the downstream costs were factored in correctly coal power would be a significantly endangered species.

Funny emm doesn't mention coal but rants on about cleaner tech...no slant there of course....



> U.S. evaluates pollution, jobs at coal plant near Grand Canyon ...
> www.reuters.com/.../2013/.../us-utilities-coal-navajogenerating- ...Jan 4, 2013 –* Across the U.S., more than 9,000 MW of coal-fired generation was shut last year as stricter federal pollution standards and cheaper natural gas *...





> *Rising risk prices out new coal-fired plants: report*
> Date
> February 7, 2013
> 
> As renewable energy becomes cheaper, dirty coal power could soon be extinct.
> 
> Australia is unlikely to build new baseload power stations burning coal because of tumbling prices for renewable energy and the rising cost of finance for emission-intensive fuels, according to research by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
> Even without a carbon price, wind energy is now 14 per cent cheaper than a new baseload coal-fired power station and 18 per cent cheaper than a new gas one, BNEF said in a new report.
> 
> 
> Read more: Solar | Wind Power | End in sight for coal power stations





> *The True Cost of Coal*
> Coal accounts for more than half of America's electricity because it is so cheap—and it remains cheap *because no one pays the very large hidden costs of its mining and burning*


The True Cost of Coal - Robert Cullen - The Atlantic

snip



> Twenty years ago few people figured that as the new millennium approached, America would be so dependent on a source of energy that wa*s banned in the city of London in 1273 for being injuri-ous to public health.*


but nice try dinging low carbon technology and avoiding the 900 lb gorilla


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> now if the downstream costs were factored in correctly coal power would be a significantly endangered species.
> 
> Funny emm doesn't mention coal but rants on about cleaner tech...no slant there of course....
> 
> but nice try dinging low carbon technology and avoiding the 900 lb gorilla


MacDoc, you need to thoroughly study these topics before posting about them. Once the subsidies are removed from wind and solar and Australia's temporary fossil fuel tax is stripped away, the difference in costs is due entirely to the fear of lenders to finance a coal plan under Australia's current regime. This makes for bad economics:



> New coal is made expensive by high financing costs. The study surveyed Australia’s four largest banks and found that lenders are unlikely to finance new coal without a substantial risk premium due to the reputational damage of emissions-intensive investments – if they are to finance coal at all.


I guess people just don't want to save money:

More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show | Environment | The Guardian

New Coal Fired Plants Could Be Key to German Energy Revolution - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Wind and solar may one day be competitive, but they aren't now.


----------



## groovetube

The only way wind and solar power will "one day be competitive" is for it to be subsidized like the oil industry has been for nearly a century. (and continues to be today)

Of course subsidies need to be sustainable, but the recent huge spike in wind/solar installations aren't going to go away now because of a change in policy regarding heavy subsidies. A drive through Germany will reveal that.

Some countries, actually take carbon emissions seriously.


----------



## groovetube

funny how most of the people I've heard who love frakking seem to be conservative. You know, the big fans of sustainable anything.

Is North Dakota's Miraculous Boom Already Over? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

oh dear.


----------



## groovetube

Very interesting discovery:
See The Scientific Accident That May Change The World (Or At Least Your Battery Life)

Wonder if they had to get government funding and if they had to state the intended discovery before getting it


and, what are the chances that this will be stunted in favor of the dinosaurs trying to continue milking fossil fuels?


----------



## FeXL

Ottawa ending biofuels subsidy over unfulfilled industry promises 



> The Conservative government is formally shutting down its controversial biofuels subsidy program, saying companies producing biodiesel have failed to meet ambitious production targets.
> 
> In a letter sent Thursday, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver rejected calls from the industry to provide new money under Ottawa’s ecoEnergy program to ethanol or biodiesel firms looking to build plants. Existing commitments, however, will be met until the program expires in 2017. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Globe and Mail.


I guess I have questions...

I believe that manufacturing biodiesel from "french fry" oil is a good thing and should continue. On the other hand, I believe that manufacturing ethanol from corn & other grains to be used as a fuel additive is the height of stupidity and should be discontinued immediately.

That said, it's somewhat difficult from the article to tell exactly what is affected by this decision & what is not. It almost sounds like only grain based ethanol industry and if so, kudos to the Feds.


----------



## FeXL

Rethinking wind power – Harvard study shows it to be overestimated



> Each wind turbine creates behind it a “wind shadow” in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine’s blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more.
> 
> Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines’ slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.
> 
> In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought.


Yet another reason...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the fallibility of wind power...


Green Fantasies, Hard Realities



> In the fantasy world inhabited by green activists, renewable energy sources are the future. If only fossil fuel companies would stop being self-interested, nasty, and mean, everything would be golden.
> 
> But in the real world, no matter what we try to accomplish, unexpected complications arise. Over the past few days alone, three important concerns have caught my eye with respect to wind energy.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the limitations of wind & solar.

No Wind, No Sun, No Power



> Windmills and solar panels sound wonderful. Except that the UK wind isn’t blowing and the German sun isn’t shining.


----------



## SINC

BBC News - Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first


----------



## FeXL

The list grows longer.


Another solar manufacturer gives up



> British oil major BP shut down the remnants of its solar unit on Wednesday, drawing a line under the business on which most of its Beyond Petroleum tagline of the early 2000s was premised.
> 
> The unit, which BP has been scaling back since 2008, is the latest sun energy business to fall victim to rampant competition from China, falling prices, overcapacity and *lower government subsidies on which the industry still depends.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on those "green" electric cars.

Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret 



> Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.


Wait. Wha...?



> *If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.* Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.


Bold mine.

But...



> Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." *Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car. *
> 
> ...
> 
> On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Maryland’s “Wind Powered Welfare”



> At 12¢/kWh and a 38% capacity factor, the Maryland offshore wind farm would generate about $80 million per year in gross revenue. The levelized generation cost (LCOE) would run about $226 million per year.
> 
> So, you will have an investment that could never pay itself off or even cover half its LCOE at market prices.
> 
> For this monstrosity to break even, with the subsidy, Maryland electricity consumers will have to pay 17¢/kWh.
> 
> Maryland taxpayers will have to cover 17¢/kWh, so that Maryland’s electricity consumers will only have to pay 17¢/kWh (assuming that the power company is a non-profit). I guess this will only be a burden on the Marylanders who both consume electricity and pay taxes.


----------



## iMouse

And this is applicable to Canada how??

_I'll just leave that dangling there. Looks cute._


----------



## eMacMan

iMouse said:


> And this is applicable to Canada how??
> 
> _I'll just leave that dangling there. Looks cute._


Similar costs/subsidies for the Cowley/Pincher Creek windfarms (~ 600-700 turbines) except of course initial costs in Canada are even higher.


----------



## CubaMark

*Brazilian-Made Plastic Solar Panels, a Clean Energy Breakthrough*












> What looks like a thin, flexible sheet of regular plastic is actually a solar panel printed with photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight into electricity. This new material, totally unlike the heavy and costly silicon-based panels commonly used to generate solar power today, was created by scientists at CSEM Brasil





> the new “solar plastic” could represent a minor revolution in the way clean energy is produced from sunlight.
> 
> “While the capacity for power generation is almost the same, its small size means that it can be given uses that are almost impossible for silicon panels,” said the chairman of CSEM Brasil, Tiago Maranhão Alves, a physical engineer who participated directly in the research.
> 
> The lightweight, flexible new material can be used to power the electrical components of automobiles and in electronic devices like mobile phones and wireless computer keyboards and mice.
> 
> But the Brazilian researchers are concentrating on the production of solar panels, which can be used to cover relatively large areas, like windows. “A panel with a surface area of two or three square metres could be sufficient to generate the energy needed in a house lived in by a family of four,”


(IPS)


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> And this is applicable to Canada how??


Is this a Canada only Alternative Energy Source thread?


----------



## FeXL

Taxpayer-subsidized lab Obama used to plug green energy hasn’t produced any batteries



> LG Chem was supposed to use Argonne’s design to produce the Volt batteries in its Holland plant once construction was finished. But according to a recent Inspector General report, the company’s employees have been too busy playing video games to produce any batteries, despite spending $142 million.


----------



## FeXL

Add Suntech to the lengthening list...

STP Suntech Power (solar) Bankrupt



> One of the larger players, in China no less, so loads of low cost labor, declared bankruptcy


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Add Suntech to the lengthening list...
> 
> STP Suntech Power (solar) Bankrupt


This is more evidence that trying to beat others to market is not always a winning strategy. Canadians would do well to let these companies beat each others' brains out at the expense of foreign governments, then simply buy the cheap product produced by the winner. It's not as if though Canada has the low labour costs that could make it an international solar supplier anyway.


----------



## bryanc

I'm not sure Canada's particularly well situated to be a leader in solar energy, due to geography. Hydro, wind, tidal, and geothermal are probably better bets for us.

{edit to add: and maybe nuclear; I'd love to see a nice thorium reactor being built in Canada}


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> I'm not sure Canada's particularly well situated to be a leader in solar energy, due to geography. Hydro, wind, tidal, and geothermal are probably better bets for us.
> 
> {edit to add: and maybe nuclear; I'd love to see a nice thorium reactor being built in Canada}


You and I both on the Thorium reactors. Unfortunately the inability of these reactor to produce weapons grade Plutonium, means the current government will in all probability have zero interest.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm not sure Canada's particularly well situated to be a leader in solar energy, due to geography.


Ontario government policy inexplicably continues to focus on _manufacturing _solar products in Canada. What amazes me is that we haven't even picked the low-hanging fruit yet. Conversion of solar power to electricity is notoriously inefficient. Using solar energy to heat water that can be used to heat buildings is a far more efficient use of sunlight, but is largely ignored.


----------



## FeXL

Further on burning corn in your vehicle.

Are Biofuels Causing Food Riots?



> The New England Complex Systems Institute has become the latest organization to charge that by turning almost 50 percent of our corn crop into auto fuel, America is causing food shortages in the poorer nations of the world. The UN Food and Agriculture Association has been saying the same thing for ten years, calling biofuels "a crime against humanity." But this time the authors are not simply making the accusation. They are providing correlations to back it up.


----------



## FeXL

Bosch to Abandon Solar Energy Business



> Germany's Bosch says it is abandoning its solar energy business because there's no way to make it economically viable amid overcapacity and price pressure in the industry.


----------



## CubaMark

*Use of coal power costs $300-million a year in health expenses: report*

The use of coal power in Alberta adds $300-million a year to health expenses, a factor that heavily increases coal's true cost, a new report has found.

Coal pollution also leads to 100 premature deaths, 700 emergency room visits and 80 hospital admissions each year, as well as triggering asthma attacks, the study said. It also noted coal emits other contaminants, such as mercury.

Jointly produced by the Pembina Institute, the Asthma Society of Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the Lung Association, the study released Tuesday takes aim at Alberta's coal-dominated, emissions-heavy power sector at a time when the province's environmental record is under increasing scrutiny.
(snip)
Other studies have pegged coal's true cost at a higher level. A 2005 Ontario government report found that health and environmental impacts quadruple the cost of coal, making it more expensive than other alternatives, such as gas and nuclear power. That province has moved away from coal over the last decade, and expects to close its final coal plant later this year. A coal-free power grid, however, has meant Ontario consumers have seen increases in their power bills.
(snip)
But Alberta is still building coal plants - and Tuesday's report shows Alberta relies more on coal than America does, on average.
(snip)
Alberta has said it will rely on technological advances, such as CCS, to reduce the carbon footprint of coal plants, rather than stop building.​
(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Use of coal power costs $300-million a year in health expenses: report*
> 
> The use of coal power in Alberta adds $300-million a year to health expenses, a factor that heavily increases coal's true cost, a new report has found.
> 
> Coal pollution also leads to 100 premature deaths, 700 emergency room visits and 80 hospital admissions each year, as well as triggering asthma attacks, the study said. It also noted coal emits other contaminants, such as mercury.
> 
> Jointly produced by the Pembina Institute, the Asthma Society of Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the Lung Association, the study released Tuesday takes aim at Alberta's coal-dominated, emissions-heavy power sector at a time when the province's environmental record is under increasing scrutiny.
> (snip)
> Other studies have pegged coal's true cost at a higher level. A 2005 Ontario government report found that health and environmental impacts quadruple the cost of coal, making it more expensive than other alternatives, such as gas and nuclear power. That province has moved away from coal over the last decade, and expects to close its final coal plant later this year. A coal-free power grid, however, has meant Ontario consumers have seen increases in their power bills.
> (snip)
> But Alberta is still building coal plants - and Tuesday's report shows Alberta relies more on coal than America does, on average.
> (snip)
> Alberta has said it will rely on technological advances, such as CCS, to reduce the carbon footprint of coal plants, rather than stop building.​
> (Globe & Mail)


Time to switch to clean coal technology or natural gas! Forget about the CO2.


----------



## FeXL

On the topic of clean coal technology.

Upgrade coal power and cut 15% of emissions. Where is the Green applause?



> If the Greens cared about CO2 they’d be very interested in ways to reduce emissions. But their selective interest speaks volumes about their real priorities. Anton Lang shows how newer coal fired powers stations run hotter and at higher pressures, and use 15% less coal to produce the same amount of electricity. We could upgrade our power stations and cut a whopping 15% of their emissions — which is huge compared to the piddling small, often unmeasureable savings thanks to renewables. Even massive floods that stop industry don’t reduce our emissions as much as this would. Do the Greens hate the coal industry more than “carbon pollution”?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Do the Greens hate the coal industry more than “carbon pollution”?


Simply put--yes.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Use of coal power costs $300-million a year in health expenses: report*
> The use of coal power in Alberta adds $300-million a year to health expenses, a factor that heavily increases coal's true cost, a new report has found.
> 
> Coal pollution also leads to 100 premature deaths, 700 emergency room visits and 80 hospital admissions each year, as well as triggering asthma attacks, the study said. It also noted coal emits other contaminants, such as mercury.
> 
> Jointly produced by the Pembina Institute, the Asthma Society of Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the Lung Association, the study released Tuesday takes aim at Alberta's coal-dominated, emissions-heavy power sector at a time when the province's environmental record is under increasing scrutiny.
> (snip)
> Other studies have pegged coal's true cost at a higher level. A 2005 Ontario government report found that health and environmental impacts quadruple the cost of coal, making it more expensive than other alternatives, such as gas and nuclear power. That province has moved away from coal over the last decade, and expects to close its final coal plant later this year. A coal-free power grid, however, has meant Ontario consumers have seen increases in their power bills.
> (snip)
> But Alberta is still building coal plants - and Tuesday's report shows Alberta relies more on coal than America does, on average.
> (snip)
> Alberta has said it will rely on technological advances, such as CCS, to reduce the carbon footprint of coal plants, rather than stop building.​(Globe & Mail)


Stateside some coal fired power plants are so clean they are running in the downtown core of medium sized cities. Colorado Springs comes to mind. Nice thing about coal plants all of these modern improvements have been retro-fitted to older plants at fraction of the cost of new.

Would I prefer new Alberta power plants to be Thorium based nuclear, you betcha. However the much safer waste products and the lack of weapons grade by-products, seems to make these a no-go at least in the western world. 

OTOH the ability to safely build thorium based reactors within major centres reducing costly distribution infra-structure should have these on the front burner.


----------



## iMouse

eMacMan said:


> Would I prefer new Alberta power plants to be Thorium based nuclear, you betcha. However the much safer waste products and the lack of weapons grade by-products, seems to make these a no-go at least in the western world.


Some massively heavy political money is involved in both aspects mentioned. 



eMacMan said:


> OTOH the ability to safely build thorium based reactors within major centres reducing costly distribution infra-structure should have these on the front burner.


:lmao: Imagine trying to sell one of these, say where the clean gas-generation plants were cancelled in Toronto. 

T.O. will start to run out of power one of these days, due to the very subject of infrastructure failure. Where are the high-tension lines to carry the power from Napanee, etc?? They don't exist.


----------



## CubaMark

*Alright, then... howzabout this one?*

*Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste*



> Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.
> 
> Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]





> _Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
> 
> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage._




(Scientific American)


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Alright, then... howzabout this one?*
> 
> *Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Scientific American)


The nuclear waste from nuclear power plants getting into the atmosphere is extremely low and 100 times that is still very low. The problem is the spent fuel rods being stored on site at 5 and more times the design capacity of the power plants. That and still no safe way to permanently dispose of them.

Still even as we speak, many coal fired plants have drastically increased the amount of fly ash captured and again new innovations that can be retrofitted are being tested today to safely dispose of that fly-ash. 

Also fly ash and the various impurities are directly impacted by the source of coal. So studies at one power plant may have no bearing as to what is happening at others.


----------



## iMouse

One of these fine days, spent fuel rods will be 'harvested' for the energy that remains within them.

Consider this a nuclear version of the tar sands. Once push comes to shove, reactors WILL be built to re-use this material.

And they will be much cleaner/safer than what we have now.

The market forces just have to change first, for this to occur.


----------



## eMacMan

iMouse said:


> One of these fine days, spent fuel rods will be 'harvested' for the energy that remains within them.
> 
> Consider this a nuclear version of the tar sands. Once push comes to shove, reactors WILL be built to re-use this material.
> 
> And they will be much cleaner/safer than what we have now.
> 
> The market forces just have to change first, for this to occur.


Yep that remains the holy grail. Having been burned by a physics prof who assured me that safe handling of nuclear waste was at most 10 years away, I remain extremely skeptical. In the meantime GE has planted Fukishima style timebombs around the globe and even gotten various federal governments to give them a free liability pass should they go off.

BTW that profs confident prediction was made back in the late 1960s. I was fairly young back then but even so probably should have known better than to believe him. I am not repeating that error with the Chicken Little Crowd.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the futility of spending billions of dollars to delay global warming...

Claim: Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours



> "The Germans are spending about $110 billion on subsidies for these solar panels," said Lomborg. "The net effect of all those investments will be to postpone global warming by 37 hours by the end of the century."
> 
> "All those billions, for 37 hours delay?," asked Stossel.


----------



## CubaMark

*NASA says Nuclear is the way to go....*

*NASA Researchers: Nuclear power will kill fewer people than natural gas*

Writing in the latest issue of Environmental Science & Technology, NASA scientists Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen report that nuclear energy leads to fewer pollution-related deaths and greenhouse gas emissions compared with fossil-fuel sources:


> we find that by mid-century, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.



(io9)


----------



## CubaMark

For renewable energy sources (solar, wind) the big problem isn't generation - it's energy storage. Their contribution to the grid can be sporadic, and the grid doesn't like sporadic. Could the solution be... trains?

*Energy storage technology..*

_Wind turbines and solar panels produce energy intermittently, often when the grid doesn’t need it. Much of the energy they make has to be put somewhere until demand rises. The energy storage solution now most commonly used is pumped-storage hydropower: Facilities send water up a hill when the grid is producing excess power, store the water behind a dam, then release it through a turbine when demand rises. But the system requires a lot of water, and water tends to be scarce where sun and wind are abundant. What’s more, all the good spots with the right topography in the United States are already taken.

As of now, no proven and available energy storage technology can affordably meet all the demands of the electricity grid of tomorrow.

(snip)

Jim Kelly thinks he has the energy storage solution.

(snip)

...instead of dams, channels, and water, Kelly’s new system has rail yards, train tracks, and electric locomotives hauling boxcars full of gravel.

These heavy-haul trains, borrowed from mining applications, use the same software as computerized trains at many airports. A motor hooked up to an electric third rail draws electricity from the grid to push the trains up a 7 to 8 percent slope; at the top, the energy is stored as potential energy. When the grid needs the watts back, the software allows the trains to run downhill at about 35 miles per hour, “releasing energy all the way,” Kelly explains. The locomotive’s motor becomes an electric generator, pushing the electricity back into the electrified rail and from there, to the grid. A large-scale storage facility that could handle 500 megawatts or more would take about 8 miles of track. The heavy boxcars are connected and disconnected according to how much power is being stored or sent back. *The trains can store the power for an hour, a week, or a month with no loss over time—gravity doesn’t decay. And Kelly says they can achieve up to 90 percent efficiency.* _​
(Slate)


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> For renewable energy sources (solar, wind) the big problem isn't generation - it's energy storage. Their contribution to the grid can be sporadic, and the grid doesn't like sporadic. Could the solution be... trains?


While I would debate your generation point, the train idea is interesting. It is similar to concepts I've seen proposing to pump water uphill to reservoirs and releasing on demand. I don't recall reading any efficiency numbers, however.


----------



## CubaMark

*Some perspective on the "green energy" movement that will be uncomfortable for both the pro- and con- sides...*

*Power Shift Away From Green Illusions*



> Things aren’t as simple as they seem, and "there's actually no such thing as a free lunch" when it comes to energy consumption and production. Further, what we're often sold as "green" and "clean" is actually neither. In the spirit of these inconvenient truths came a timely and provocative book, perhaps missed by many, titled, "Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism," by Ozzie Zehner.
> As Zehner writes in the book's opening pages, "...this certainly isn't a book for alternative energy. Neither is it a book against it. In fact, we won’t be talking in simplistic terms of for or against, left and right, good and evil ... Ultimately, this is a book of shades." The book does show some of the "shady" sides of the clean energy hype and in so doing, dampens the hype around it.





> the environmental movement has relegated itself to cheerleading and mindless chants and that it's time for us to step away from the pom-poms. I encounter a boundless enthusiasm for creating positive change when holding dialogues with environmental groups. Unfortunately, the mainstream environmental movement is channeling that energy into an increasingly corporatist, and what I call a "productivist," set of priorities.





> Our planet has bounded resources and limited ability to absorb the impacts of human activities. Challenging the dominant neoliberal model can help to justly share those resources and risks. However, the precarious stories around growth and productivism are larger than just neoliberalism or capitalism.
> Libertarians and Tea Partiers subscribe to the free-growth mindset, but so do Democrats and Republicans. Even Greens and Socialists are not immune to the seductive language of productivism.





> We've seen material growth and prosperity walking hand-in-hand for so long that we don't know what they look like separately. That will have to change. Perhaps we'd better reorient, or at least recognize, our productivist inclinations now. Otherwise, Mother Nature may force us to reckon with our unsustainable belief systems in a less agreeable fashion.


(Truth-Out)


----------



## Macfury

It isn't uncomfortable for me.


----------



## SINC

I too have always been uncomfortable with 'greens'. They represent a rather dubious side of society that marches to a different drummer.


----------



## Macfury

Yes. If anything, the green side of alternative energy seemed to be entirely out of whack with notions of economic production. Few of their ideas could survive a free market. I don't know where that commentator is coming off suggesting that the greens are too tied in to the economy.

The planet's resources are finite, just as the Earth's ultimate destruction makes the planet's lifespan finite. However, we haven't even begun to tap its resources in any meaningful way. This sort of crabbed thinking expressed by the "little men" in the quoted piece is galling to me.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Some perspective on the "green energy" movement that will be uncomfortable for both the pro- and con- sides...*
> 
> *Power Shift Away From Green Illusions*
> 
> 
> 
> (Truth-Out)


An excellent article. I have always called my self a reluctant green. Reluctant in the sense that attempting to view the entire equation is difficult when it is not outright impossible.


----------



## CubaMark

*World's largest wind farm, London Array, brought fully online*




> Phase one of the London Array usurped the UK's Greater Gabbard to become the largest operational offshore wind farm in the world when its final turbine (its 175th) was commissioned on Saturday afternoon. Though construction was completed back in December, it is only now that all of the farm's turbines are supplying the UK's national grid with electrical power. The array has a total capacity of 630 MW.


(Gizmag)


----------



## Macfury

Yes, if you subsidize them enough you can put up quite a large number of them.


----------



## jef

Macfury said:


> Yes, if you subsidize them enough you can put up quite a large number of them.


You are referring to oil rigs of course?


----------



## Macfury

jef said:


> You are referring to oil rigs of course?


No, because the oil rigs do not have any really unusual subsidies beyond those offered to other industries. The windmills would not be built at all if someone did not force taxpayers to back them.


----------



## groovetube

jef said:


> You are referring to oil rigs of course?


I think the huge subsidies to oil companies for many decades has been pointed out before, but not everyone wishes to acknowledge it.

You can see why though.


----------



## CubaMark

*All 104 Nuclear Reactors Currently Operational in the U.S. Have Irreparable Safety Issues*



> All 104 nuclear reactors currently operational in the US have irreparable safety issues and should be taken out of commission and replaced, former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory B. Jaczko said.
> 
> The comments, made during the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, are “highly unusual” for a current or former member of the safety commission, according to The New York Times. Asked why he had suddenly decided to make the remarks, Jaczko implied that he had only recently arrived at these conclusions following the serious aftermath of Japan’s tsunami-stricken Fukushima Daichii nuclear facility.
> 
> “I was just thinking about the issues more, and watching as the industry and the regulators and the whole nuclear safety community continues to try to figure out how to address these very, very difficult problems,” which were made more evident by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, he said. “Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem.”


(Russia Today via Cryptogon)


----------



## Macfury

Jackzo was known as a bit of a nut job. He'll have to provide better evidence than a deathbed conversion.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Jackzo was known as a bit of a nut job. He'll have to provide better evidence than a deathbed conversion.


The design problems of the Fukishima design have been well documented, and the same design flaws exist through out US nuclear reactors.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> The design problems of the Fukishima design have been well documented, and the same design flaws exist through out US nuclear reactors.


Yes. When a tidal wave strikes them all, they're finished.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## FeXL

Further on biofuels.

Is the End in Sight for America’s Biofuel Boondoggle?



> Did we just hear the death knell for corn ethanol? Congress may finally be coming to its senses about one of the biggest green policy failures in America, as two bills were introduced yesterday to fix the corn ethanol mandate.


----------



## Macfury

Don't bother posting FeXL--CubaMark can't hear you.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Don't bother posting FeXL--CubaMark can't hear you.


Sorry that wasn't clear: Kitty is doing his best MacFury impression. I'm always listening (often in head-shaking disbelief).


----------



## FeXL

Further on biofuels.

Chatham House on biofuels



> A new report from the Royal Institute of International Affairs has found that biofuels are pretty much a disaster. Author Rob Bailey declares that they are not sustainable, they are hugely expensive, they are not a cost-efficient way of reducing emissions, and that the EU is going to insist that production is ramped up anyway.
> 
> Since the biofuels mandate comes from the EU Commission (which was subverted by the farm lobby), it is, of course, impossible for national governments to do much about this appalling situation. Roger Harrabin tweets that governments will not want to do anything about biofuels anyway because they fear that if they do business will not support future government initiatives.
> 
> One wants to weep at the corruption of it all.


Link to the PDF inside.


----------



## bryanc

The only hope I see for biofuels is if we can use algae or photosynthetic bacteria as 'feed stock'. Ultimately, this all comes back to the energy storage problem; long-chain hydrocarbons are very energy dense, so they make a great energy storage molecule. Photosynthesis, on the other hand is slow and inefficient, but it utilizes an essentially inexhaustible energy supply. So we need some mechanism(s) that funnel energy from photosynthesis into long chain hydrocarbons at a rate that roughly approximates our energy consumption.

Right now, the equation is wildly out of balance; we consume many orders of magnitude faster than photosynthesis stores energy on earth. Obviously, one solution is to reduce the rate at which we consume, but being a big fan of technology and not wanting to reduce my standard of living, I'd rather address the other side. Unfortunately, we'll likely have to compromise and do both.


----------



## SINC

*One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, cheap energy*



> It may be the most ambitious scientific venture ever: a global collaboration to create an unlimited supply of clean, cheap energy. And this week it took a crucial step forward.
> 
> An idyllic hilltop setting in the Cadarache forest of Provence in the south of France has become the site of an ambitious attempt to harness the nuclear power of the sun and stars.
> 
> It is the place where 34 nations representing more than half the world’s population have joined forces in the biggest scientific collaboration on the planet – only the International Space Station is bigger.
> 
> The international nuclear fusion project – known as Iter, meaning “the way” in Latin – is designed to demonstrate a new kind of nuclear reactor capable of producing unlimited supplies of cheap, clean, safe and sustainable electricity from atomic fusion.
> 
> If Iter demonstrates that it is possible to build commercially-viable fusion reactors then it could become the experiment that saved the world in a century threatened by climate change and an expected three-fold increase in global energy demand.
> 
> This week the project gained final approval for the design of the most technically challenging component – the fusion reactor’s “blanket” that will handle the super-heated nuclear fuel.
> 
> The building site in Cadarache has also passed the crucial stage where some 493 seismic bearings – giant concrete and rubber plinths – have been set into the reactor’s deep foundations to protect against possible earthquakes.


Much more here:

One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, cheap energy - Science - News - The Independent


----------



## FeXL

One more. The only positive here is that they weren't on the receiving end of taxpayer cash.

Electric-Car Maker Coda Files for Bankruptcy to Seek Sale



> Coda Holdings Inc., parent of the electric-car maker backed by billionaire Philip Falcone, filed for bankruptcy and will seek to sell its assets to a group led by a Fortress Investment Group LLC (FIG) unit for $25 million.
> 
> The Los Angeles-based company, whose Coda Automotive unit also sought court protection, listed assets of as much as $50 million and debt of as much as $100 million today in the Chapter 11 filing in Wilmington, Delaware. The company said it intends to sell its assets within 45 days.


----------



## FeXL

The worlds biggest solar PV seller was worth $13bn: now bankrupt



> Suntech — which in 2011 was the world’s biggest seller of silicon-based photovoltaic modules — was once valued at $13 billion on the New York Stock Exchange; it is worth less than 1 percent of that today.


----------



## FeXL

Quick question: Should windfarms get a pass on killing protected bird species? If I go out & shoot a bald eagle & get caught, I'm taken to court & fined, jailed, whatever. Yet windfarms are killing thousands of raptors, whooping cranes & other protected species every year, with (thus far), no penalty. 


AP IMPACT: Wind farms get pass on eagle deaths



> It happens about once a month here, on the barren foothills of one of America's green-energy boomtowns: A soaring golden eagle slams into a wind farm's spinning turbine and falls, mangled and lifeless, to the ground.
> 
> Killing these iconic birds is not just an irreplaceable loss for a vulnerable species. It's also a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines.
> 
> But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly. Instead, the government is shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret.


Is this double standard acceptable?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Quick question: Should windfarms get a pass on killing protected bird species? If I go out & shoot a bald eagle & get caught, I'm taken to court & fined, jailed, whatever. Yet windfarms are killing thousands of raptors, whooping cranes & other protected species every year, with (thus far), no penalty.
> 
> 
> AP IMPACT: Wind farms get pass on eagle deaths
> 
> 
> 
> Is this double standard acceptable?


It is not acceptable.


----------



## bryanc

I'm actually more concerned about bats, but no, it's definitely not acceptable. The three blade windmills should be phased out and replaced by either vertical axis systems or 5-8 blade rotors that provide a better visual cue for birds to avoid. In the meantime, various acoustic or other deterrents (which are currently in trials), as well as active measures, should be used to keep flying animals away from the operational towers.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> I'm actually more concerned about bats, but no, it's definitely not acceptable. The three blade windmills should be phased out and replaced by either vertical axis systems or 5-8 blade rotors that provide a better visual cue for birds to avoid. In the meantime, various acoustic or other deterrents (which are currently in trials), as well as active measures, should be used to keep flying animals away from the operational towers.


FWIW The vertical axis windmills that were tested in this area, were too inefficient even in this high wind, fiscally subsidized situation. I believe there were three experimental models all abandoned in less than a year.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> FWIW The vertical axis windmills that were tested in this area, were too inefficient even in this high wind, fiscally subsidized situation. I believe there were three experimental models all abandoned in less than a year.


One day, they will provide interesting ruins for filmmakers to shoot against.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> One day, they will provide interesting ruins for filmmakers to shoot against.


I believe after collapsing about three years ago, the last one has already been hauled of for scrap. Took somewhat longer than it did with the WTC towers, but there was an identical level of criminal investigation before the big haul. IOW none.


----------



## Birdwatcher

Masdar City – One of the most sustainable communities on Earth

Masdar City is a project in Abu Dhabi, that will present the world’s first zero-carbon, car and skyscraper-free city. In Arabic Masdar means “the source” and refers to Masdar the company and Masdar City, being a source of knowledge, innovation and human capital development in the areas of renewable energy and clean technologies.










Artist Impression- Aerial View of Proposed Master plan of Masdar City (Eastern Orientation)

Project was initiated in 2006. with the projected cost approximately US$18-US$19 billion. Masdar City is a unit of Masdar, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mubadala Development Company, which is an Abu Dhabi Government-owned vehicle set up to spur economic development and diversification in the emirate.

Masdar City is planned to be a hub for cleantech companies and it will host the headquarters of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

Masdar City


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I'm actually more concerned about bats, but no, ...


I agree about the importance of bats, but my analogy didn't extend.


----------



## FeXL

Faster, cleaner combustion of natural gas?

New mechanism converts natural gas to energy faster, captures CO2



> Chemical engineering researchers have identified a new mechanism to convert natural gas into energy up to 70 times faster, while effectively capturing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).
> 
> "This could make power generation from natural gas both cleaner and more efficient," says Fanxing Li, co-author of a paper on the research and an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at North Carolina State University.


----------



## CubaMark

*SheerWind's INVELOX Wind Turbine Can Generate 600% More Energy Than Conventional Turbines*





> The INVELOX energy system works by capturing ground-level breezes and funneling them through a tapering passageway that naturally accelerates wind flow. Unlike other turbines, it also minimizes environmental and animal impact, and it requires no government subsidies to be profitable. All of this makes INVELOX a potentially game-changing renewable energy solution that could be easily integrated within commercial renewable energy operations.


(Phys.org via StumbleUpon)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *...requires no government subsidies to be profitable...*


Go for it!


----------



## FeXL

> Sorry! StumbleUpon requires a more recent browser.


Guess StumbleUpon doesn't get my business, then...


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm...

As I understand it, the results haven't been peer-reviewed yet, all the details haven't been released & Rossi's record hasn't exactly been steller. That said, apparently the E-Cat reactor has been found functional by independent investigators (although, it seems, they are friends of Rossi's).

E-Cat Found To Work By Independent Investigators



> _It is easy to infer from the Ragone chart, another example of which may be seen below in fig. 15 below, that *these values place the E-Cat HT2 at about three orders of magnitude beyond any other conventional chemical energy source.*​_


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the shortcomings of wind power.

The High Cost of Low-Value Wind Power 



> Continued subsidies for wind generation, both in the form of tax credits and mandatory renewable portfolio standards, represent bad economics and bad energy policy, for at least three reasons. First and foremost, wind generation’s production pattern is not only volatile and unpredictable, it also has low economic value. Rather than displacing high variable-cost fossil generating resources used to meet peak demand, wind generation’s availability peaks when electricity demand is lowest. As a result, wind generation tends to displace low variable cost generation or simply forces baseload generators to pay greater amounts to inject power onto the grid because the units cannot be turned off and on cost-effectively. Thus, consumers and taxpayers are forced to subsidize low-value electricity.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Ultimately, continued subsidization of wind generation simply rewards a few niche generation companies and their suppliers, at the expense of the many. Given the massive federal debt and anemic U.S. economic recovery, this type of pernicious wealth redistribution cannot be justified.


I would add, US, Canada or anywhere else.


----------



## SINC

Solar Road Panels Offer Asphalt Alternative - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## FeXL

Just...brilliant.

So, now that the Brits are closing down coal power stations left, right & center, they've a shortage of things to burn. Instead of using the natural gas under their butts (take that either way...), they've decided to purchase fuel pellets made from trees in the southern US, freight them over the pond (wonder how much carbon the bunker fuelled engines pump into the atmosphere) & burn those. Subsequently, you've got environmentalists fighting environmentalists.

Environmentalism brings you forest clear-cutting



> Thanks to the efforts of environmentalists like Friends of the Earth and WWF, forests in the southern USA are being clearcut in an effort to meet European demand for wood pellets - a demand that has been driven by biomass power generation.


Renewable energy: Burning US trees in UK power stations



> Environmentalists are trying to block the expansion of a transatlantic trade bringing American wood to burn in European power stations.
> 
> The trade is driven by EU rules promoting renewable energy to combat climate change.
> 
> Many millions of tonnes of wood pellets will soon be shipped annually to help keep the lights on in the UK. Other EU nations may follow.


The stupid, it burns...


----------



## eMacMan

An old but interesting idea. Hopefully the lame stream will see fit to inform us as this progresses. Wish they had better explained the idea of flashing refrigerant.

Worth an 8 minute listen.

Saskatchewan's 1st geothermal energy plant in the works - Saskatchewan - CBC News


----------



## iMouse

eMacMan said:


> An old but interesting idea.


Once you get through the Earth's mantle, the World is your oyster for energy. 

beejacon might be some pissed though.


----------



## CubaMark

Geothermal has been a source of energy for businesses in the Springhill, NS, industrial park since the mid-1980s...


----------



## iMouse

Iceland offers a better example, but they keep getting their shoes scorched.


----------



## Macfury

[No message]


----------



## CubaMark

*Yikes.*

*South Korea Halts Operations at Reactors Over Faked Certificates*



> South Korea was forced to turn off two nuclear power reactors on Tuesday and delay the scheduled start of operation at another two, after its inspectors discovered that the reactors used components whose safety certificates had been fabricated.
> 
> South Korea’s nuclear power industry has been plagued by a series of forced shutdowns, corruption scandals and mechanical failures in recent years, undermining public confidence in atomic energy even as the country’s dependence on it for electricity is expected to grow in coming years.
> 
> A anonymous whistle-blower led government investigators to uncover the latest problem, in which control cables had been supplied to four reactors with faked certificates even though the part had failed to pass a safety test, the country’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission said on Tuesday. The control cable is used to send electronic signals to a reactor’s control system in the event of an accident.


(New York Times via Cryptogon)


----------



## FeXL

_"Another one bites the dust,
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust"_

Another electric car company goes belly up

Despite all the government (read: taxpayer) subsidies.
Despite all the gloom & doom fomented by the government, environmentalists & other Fruit Loops & Whackos.
Despite blatant price fixing on gasoline & diesel prices.


----------



## CubaMark

*I'm surprised at you guys. In the market, there are winners and losers.... case in point:*

*Tesla repays federal loan nearly 10 years early*












> Tesla Motors announced Wednesday that it has repaid a $465 million loan from the government nearly a decade before it was scheduled to do so.
> 
> The electric-car maker received the loan from the Department of Energy in January 2010, and it made its first payment this past December. That began what was supposed to be a 10-year repayment program, but plans have changed.
> 
> Tesla (TSLA) reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month, and *Consumer Reports* came out with a review calling the Tesla Model S the best car it ever tested. Those two facts, along with a significant short squeeze, helped send the stock soaring to record highs.


(CNN)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *I'm surprised at you guys. In the market, there are winners and losers.... case in point:*


When they lose, it's taxpayer money on the line. When they win, they keep the profits.

Better to let the market take the risks.


----------



## FeXL

CM, I read an article on Tesla's payback a couple weeks back. All was not roses. I don't recall all the details & will try to find the link.

That said, Tesla is the only electric car company I know of that is anything remotely close to success. In addition is the fact that they are priced towards well-heeled consumers, precluding their use as "family" transportation. 

There are many electric car companies that have gone bankrupt in the last few years. I would hazard a guess that most, if not all, have received gov't handouts and taxpayers, as usual, have been left footing the bill. Bad enough I have to watch my money pissed away on the latest gov't scam _du jour_, let alone support what should be, as MF has noted, determined by the free market.

Until battery issues (capacity, toxicity, charge rate, size & weight, etc.) have been _immensely_ improved, the concept of electric cars as a reasonable alternative to petroleum fuelled vehicles is just a pipe dream.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of battery improvements, this is rather timely.

An interesting advance in battery applications



> Stanford University scientists have developed an advanced zinc-air battery with higher catalytic activity and durability than similar batteries made with costly platinum and iridium catalysts. The results, published in the May 7 online edition of the journal Nature Communications, could lead to the development of a low-cost alternative to conventional lithium-ion batteries widely used today.


----------



## FeXL

CM-This was the issue I read about. They didn't actually generate a profit based on car sales, they generated a profit by selling carbon credits. Yes, I know it adds up the same in the accountant's columns and money paid back is money paid back, but...

How Tesla Is Addressing Range Anxiety And Sticker Shock And Global Warming


----------



## CubaMark

...but.... what? Is Apple a bad business for becoming the world's most valuable company (depending on what day it is) on iOS devices rather than its computer business? The point here is that a company that received millions of dollars in loans from the federal government built a successful business and paid the money back. Are opponents of the emerging electric vehicle industry so spiteful as to condemn that success?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ...but.... what? Is Apple a bad business for becoming the world's most valuable company (depending on what day it is) on iOS devices rather than its computer business? The point here is that a company that received millions of dollars in loans from the federal government built a successful business and paid the money back. Are opponents of the emerging electric vehicle industry so spiteful as to condemn that success?


I don't see it as a success when a company merely pays back the money it has borrowed. That's bare minimum. Successful business? If it is succeeding on the collapsing carbon market, then it will be down for the count in short order. Selling cars at a profit would be my marker for a successful car business.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> ...but.... what? Is Apple a bad business for becoming the world's most valuable company (depending on what day it is) on iOS devices rather than its computer business? The point here is that a company that received millions of dollars in loans from the federal government built a successful business and paid the money back. Are opponents of the emerging electric vehicle industry so spiteful as to condemn that success?


On the contrary, Apple is a very successful business because they diversified. And, apparently amazingly, without gov't handouts. Is Tesla now the "Tesla Electric Car & Carbon Credit Company"? As to Tesla, I'm not an opponent of electric car companies. Have at 'er. I just expect them to make it on their own in the free market, rather than exist largely because of gov't subsidies, loans, handouts and gifts, in addition to benefitting from poorly conceived concepts like baseless gov't-backed revenue-grubbing intangible carbon credits, all subsidized on the backs of taxpayers. 

Was Tesla financially foolish to take advantage of the carbon credit scheme? Absolutely not! How many wouldn't, given the same opportunity? However, if all the carbon credits are gone, they'll have to base their future on building & selling electric cars. They no longer have that fallback position. Good luck with that...


----------



## CubaMark

How about we agree to disagree, and revisit this a year from now to assess Tesla's growth (or lack thereof).... cool?


----------



## FeXL

Fine. I just wanted to note one more detail here. 

This loan repayment discussion prompted a memory of GM's much vaunted success doing the same thing three years ago.

However, under scrutiny, the truth came out. GM took bailout money to pay off their loans. On paper, it looks good. In real life, not so much. 

If not the same details, the same feelings with Tesla.

Have a day!


----------



## Macfury

It's clearly a case of high risk for taxpayers and no chance of high reward. The best case scenario is to break even, yet that clearly is nor happening across the entire Department of Energy loan portfolio, with two other electric car manufacturers reneging on loans. I wish Tesla well, but it's too early to call this company a success, so yes--wait another year at least.


----------



## FeXL

At the top of this page I speculated what amount of the cars companies who went bellyup had rec'd gov't funding. According to this article, it's 56%.

56% Of Carmakers Who Asked For Government 'Green' Loans Are Dead



> What do Carbon Motors' BMW-powered police car, Aptera Motors' electric three wheeler, and Fisker's luxury sedan have in common? Two things: they asked the government for loans, and they're dead, as are more than half of the car companies who sought loans, according to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by Jalopnik.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the financial folly of green energy.

DOE Green Energy Loans: $11.45 million per job and a rounding error’s worth of averted carbon emissions.



> Anthropogenic emissions account for only *4-5% of the total carbon budget.* 1.8 TWh of US solar generation in 2011 *reduced the 4-5% component by 0.005%.*


Bold mine.

Five one-thousandths of a percent in CO2 reductions for $26,000,000,000. We should be proud...

So, what happens if we had used natural gas to replace coal, instead of solar, for the same money?



> In 2011 there was 4,389 MW of solar PV installed capacity in these United States. At $6 million per MW, the total cost for those solar plants was ~$26.3 billion. Had that money been spent on natural gas-fired plants (~$900,000 per MW), it could have displaced 29,260 MW of coal-fired capacity. *This would have generated 223 TWh of electricity (solar only yielded 1.8 TWh.* Natural gas yields about half the carbon emissions as coal. If 223 TWh of coal-fired generation had been displaced by natural gas, *it would have reduced global carbon emissions by ~56 metric tons (solar only reduced it by 0.51 metric tons).*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, there are several issues with "green energy", not the least of which is filling in the gaps when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing (or blowing too hard). What do we use to overcome those shortfalls in the UK? Why, diesel generators, you silly...

The future of UK energy - diesel



> Two diesel power stations planned in Plymouth will compensate for fluctuations in supplies from green energy, say developers.
> 
> Green Frog Power got planning permission last year and Fulcrum Power has made an application for a similar power station.


The Bishop replies:



> I'm speechless. Again.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Green Energy Quote of the Day



> Germany’s struggles with green energy should be a warning to leaders and policymakers around the world. Renewable energy isn’t ready for primetime, and no amount of government subsidies or green pie-in-the-sky hopes are going to change that.


----------



## CubaMark

*This Thorium Reactor Has the Power of a Norse God*



> This stuff could very well revolutionize nuclear power. Thorium-MOX can be formed into rods and used in current generation (Gen II) nuclear reactor with minimal retrofitting. Ceramic thorium has a higher thermal conductivity and melting point than uranium, meaning it can operate at a lower (and safer) internal pellet temperature with less chance of a meltdown, fewer fission gas emissions, and extended fuel cycles.
> 
> Most importantly, thorium doesn't convert into plutonium—precisely the opposite, in fact. That is, the process consumes plutonium. We could be looking at a means of not only halting the growth American nuclear waste sites but actually reducing our stores of plutonium while simultaneously reducing the danger of nuclear proliferation. Sure, the thorium system does create waste of i's own, but irradiated thorium doesn't oxidize and remains more stable as it decays. What more could you want?


(Gizmodo)


----------



## Macfury

I like that reactor concept.

We could hold a buy-back program, no questions asked, for international thugs who have stockpiled plutonium.


----------



## bryanc

Thorium reactors are such an obviously good idea they will never catch on; there's no downside for the scumbags to profit from, so their political puppets will never let it happen.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Thorium reactors are such an obviously good idea they will never catch on; there's no downside for the scumbags to profit from, so their political puppets will never let it happen.


The very fact that several of us who never agree on any thing agree on Thorium reactors, means you are right. The Puppet Meisters will only allow these to power their personal bunkers. All other applications verbötten.


----------



## CubaMark

*"Gasland Part II": The Fracking Empire Strikes Back*





> [D]irector Josh Fox's 2010 documentary Gasland, which was nominated for an Academy Award, helped spark such an enormous national interest into the negative impacts of natural gas drilling that he decided to make a sequel.





> Gasland Part II premieres tonight on HBO and picks up in the spring of 2010, with Fox touring the Gulf of Mexico by helicopter. Below, oil from BP's exploded Deepwater Horizon rig streams along the surface. Through voiceover, Fox explains how difficult it was to get clearance to fly in the area. "Journalists would call up the FAA to clear flights," he says, "and BP would answer the phone."





> By supporting fracked gas in the United States on a huge scale, both in terms of converting power plants to natural gas and export, and supporting fracked gas in other countries, he will undo all of the good that he's putting forward in his speech. We know now that fracked gas is the worst fuel you can develop with respect to climate change. The reason is very simple, which is that methane, when it's in the atmosphere, is up to 105 times more potent at warming the climate than CO2 is in a 20-year time frame—in this short window of time that we have now to tackle climate.
> 
> And what we're looking at now is: in the field, in the recent data that's coming in, up to 9 percent leakage in gas fields in Colorado and Utah. New York City, the transmission system is leaking methane into the atmosphere at a rate of about 3 percent. In Los Angeles, where they both produce and deliver natural gas, we're at a rate of 17 percent leakage. Which means, it's 17 times more powerful than coal.
> 
> So when you're saying we want less carbon emissions from our power plants and you're not looking at the whole life cycle of greenhouse gas, it's extremely ironic that you're sitting here making a speech about greenhouse gas emissions and advocating the development of a greenhouse gas. Methane: the second most important greenhouse gas in a 100 year time frame and the most important greenhouse gas to control in the 20-year time frame.


(Mother Jones)


----------



## CubaMark

*Nuclear plant fix could be $3.3 billion: memo*



> The cost of refurbishing New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear power plant could be as high as $3.3 billion, nearly $1 billion more than previously estimated, a memo for the Prime Minister’s Office suggests.





> The memo, obtained by The Canadian Press through an access-to-information request, also says NB Power has suggested its cost overruns could amount to more than $1.3 billion, about $300 million more than the provincial Crown utility company acknowledges.





> The New Brunswick government has been pushing Ottawa for years to compensate it for the full share of its cost overruns, arguing that it should not be on the hook for AECL’s delays climbing the learning curve of fixing a Candu-6 reactor for the first time.
> But Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not budged, saying only that his government will abide by the terms of the contract to refurbish the reactor.





> Point Lepreau, Atlantic Canada’s only nuclear power plant, was commissioned in 1983 and was the world’s first Candu-6 reactor to begin commercial production of electricity.
> It was also supposed to be the first Candu-6 to complete a major refurbishment, but problems during the project repeatedly delayed completion.


(CumberlandNewsNow)


----------



## BigDL

AECL started the Point Lepreau totally screwed up the job. AECL started a second refurbishment of a CanDu reactor in Korea after AECL got bogged down on Lepreau. 

ACEL started and finished the Korean refurbishment job before AECL finished Lepreau job. In fact AECL used Lepreau as a guinea pig to find out how to do things wrong so they could do the Korean refurbishment right, on time and on budget.


----------



## BigDL

*LED Street Lighting*

Last night my wife drew my attention to the new street lamps on our street.

NB Power is embarking on change over from Arc Sodium to LED. Arc Sodium is the yellow street lights we see all over. LED are a huge improvement over Arc Sodium lights.

The LED are blue white light similar in colour to the old Mercury Vapour street lights of many years ago. The colour is similar but LED is brighter and of better quality.

I am impressed with the quality of light. The light does not light the sky. The light is directed down and along the side road. The light stays bright from light to light with no darker spots between lights.



CBCNews said:


> NB Power plans to replace 72,000 street lights across the province with LED lights, which are more efficient and environmentally-friendly, according to the utility.
> 
> The LED (light-emitting diode) lights will also provide safety benefits to drivers because they produce a higher quality of light and are more reliable, said Transportation Minister Claude Williams.
> 
> All future light installations will also use LED lights, officials said.


NB Power switches to energy-efficient street lights - New Brunswick - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> Last night my wife drew my attention to the new street lamps on our street.
> 
> NB Power is embarking on change over from Arc Sodium to LED. Arc Sodium is the yellow street lights we see all over. LED are a huge improvement over Arc Sodium lights.
> 
> The LED are blue white light similar in colour to the old Mercury Vapour street lights of many years ago. The colour is similar but LED is brighter and of better quality.
> 
> I am impressed with the quality of light. The light does not light the sky. The light is directed down and along the side road. The light stays bright from light to light with no darker spots between lights.
> 
> NB Power switches to energy-efficient street lights - New Brunswick - CBC News


God I hate modern reporting. Two very important missing items. Half the power consumption means nothing unless you tell me how much power the current products consume. 

Ditto more expensive to install. How much on a per light basis? Can these be replaced as current lights die or is there a reason for doing it all at once?

Only thing I can be certain of, is that if our idiot town council chooses to do this; The entire project will start off with $100,000 paid to outside consultants who will tell them it is a good idea.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Only thing I can be certain of, is that if our idiot town council chooses to do this; The entire project will start off with $100,000 paid to outside consultants who will tell them it is a good idea.


Depends. Maybe they wanted the consultants to tell them something else for $100,000.


----------



## CubaMark

The move to LED lighting in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, among other places (Sao Paolo, Brazil is a recent large contract), has been a boon to the NS/NB border town of Amherst, where LED Roadway Lighting has its manufacturing plant with 150 employees (it's corporate offices and R&D facilities - with another 50 employees - are in Halifax).

The province of Nova Scotia has provided financial support to the company:

_The province is providing a $1-million equity investment, which is part of a $5-million round of investment, for working capital to help the company meet demand, expand operations and create new jobs. _​


----------



## CubaMark

A little story from Arizona about the electrical utility company (private) attempting to put the kabosh on homeowners installing solar panels. Don't tell me there's no concerted effort to hinder the development of renewable energy...

*APS seeks higher bills for new solar customers*

_Arizona Public Service Co. is proposing charging customers who install rooftop solar panels $50 to $100 or more a month to cover the cost of maintaining the power grid.

The request will be filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission on Friday and will kick off a months-long period of review by regulators, who will ultimately decide whether or not to approve the policy change. Their final decision could impact the future of rooftop solar in Arizona. The rooftop-solar industry, including companies that lease solar panels, argues that any changes in solar policies will kill demand for the services and crush a burgeoning industry.
(SNIP)
APS officials said the 18,000 solar customers are getting too much credit for the power they send to the grid. Such power helps APS avoid the expense of power-plant fuel, but the utility still must cover the cost of new transmission lines, grid repairs and other expenses that solar customers don’t contribute to because they pay reduced bills.

The company, which gets about 200 applications for solar a week, wants to address the issue before there are 50,000 or more solar customers on its system in 2016, the next time the utility is allowed to raise rates, officials said.
_​
(Arizona Central)


----------



## iMouse

What's next? 

If you live in a hut, with just a stove, and use no other electricity, will they institute a Network Connection Fee for low use?

In that case you might just as well use more, as you will be paying for it anyway.

I can foresee those with money just going off the grid totally, and dumping the power they don't store right back into Mother Earth.

This seems to be going backwards.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> A little story from Arizona about the electrical utility company (private) attempting to put the kabosh on homeowners installing solar panels. Don't tell me there's no concerted effort to hinder the development of renewable energy...


The current situation in most mismanaged energy systems is that the cost of maintaining the infrastructure represents a huge portion of the cost of the system. When you save more (or produce solar to feed into the grid) they need to raise rates or make somebody pay for their loss of revenue stream. This is the problem with a business model based on reducing consumption.


----------



## CubaMark

It's also the problem with essential utilities being privatized and put into the hands of private businesses. When a desired change in policy or technology is in the offing, private businesses will resist change, as it represents costs, an impact on their profits, and potentially unhappy shareholders (who are in it for the money, not the identified social or economic goal).

Government-owned and -operated utilities should be more receptive to change for the social good, even when the business case is weak or nonexistent. This is why essential services / utilities should not be in private hands. The only vested interests in publicly-owned companies are the people, not the profit-seekers.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Government-owned and -operated utilities should be more receptive to change for the social good, even when the business case is weak or nonexistent. This is why essential services / utilities should not be in private hands. The only vested interests in publicly-owned companies are the people, not the profit-seekers.


Solar in its current form is not a social good. It's a social cost. 

When the case is nonexistent, neither public nor private companies should jump.


----------



## bryanc

The case is clearly not 'non-existent', the _business_ case may be non-existent or arguable, but that's CM's point; any aspect of our society we allow to be controlled by private corporations will be optimized to maximize profit for those corporations. In most cases, that's fine. But in some cases, that's not fine, and that's where we need government.


----------



## Macfury

This is where *YOU* need government--not me.


----------



## bryanc

Well, if you can come up with a better mechanism that protects the public interest than government regulation, I'd love to hear about it. I'd particularly like to hear about examples where such an alternative mechanism has worked.

We are inundated with examples of how private industry convinces conservative governments to allow it to regulate itself, and we see the consequences in the form of massive oil spills, plane crashes, train wrecks, contaminated food, environmental disasters, ridiculously over-priced health care, egregiously biased media, degraded educational standards, labour abuse, etc. etc. etc.

You know the expression "when the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, as powerful a tool as it can be, the free-market is not suitable to all jobs.

I completely agree with your instinct to try to find solutions that do not involve government; I simply don't see any that work.


----------



## Macfury

Of course government has some important limited functions. However, attempting to pick winners in the energy field is not its strong suit.


----------



## CubaMark

*Peru to Provide Free Solar Power to its 2 Million Poorest Citizens*



_The country of Peru is looking to provide free electricity to over 2 million of its poorest citizens by harvesting energy from the sun. Energy and Mining Minister Jorge Merino said that the National Photovoltaic Household Electrification Program will provide electricity to poor households through the installation of photovoltaic panels.

(SNIP)

The first part of the program aims to provide solar systems to 500,000 extremely poor households in areas that lack even basic access to the power grid. 

(SNIP)

“This program is aimed at the poorest people, those who lack access to electric lighting and still use oil lamps, spending their own resources to pay for fuels that harm their health.” _​
(inhabitat)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> The country of Peru is looking to provide free electricity to over 2 million of its poorest citizens by harvesting energy from the sun. Energy and Mining Minister Jorge Merino said that the National Photovoltaic Household Electrification Program will provide electricity to poor households through the installation of photovoltaic panels.


With modest expectations for electrical output, it's probably cheaper than extending the grid.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Well, if you can come up with a better mechanism that protects the public interest than government regulation, I'd love to hear about it. I'd particularly like to hear about examples where such an alternative mechanism has worked.
> 
> We are inundated with examples of how private industry convinces conservative governments to allow it to regulate itself, and we see the consequences in the form of massive oil spills, plane crashes, train wrecks, contaminated food, environmental disasters, ridiculously over-priced health care, egregiously biased media, degraded educational standards, labour abuse, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> You know the expression "when the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, as powerful a tool as it can be, the free-market is not suitable to all jobs.
> 
> I completely agree with your instinct to try to find solutions that do not involve government; I simply don't see any that work.


I doubt any viable solutions would be proposed, beyond some lip service to some kind of mythical "free market" blah blah.

I recall the republicans slamming the democrats on investing in solar companies, then when it was discovered that the success rate was overwhelmingly high even compared to many other investments, it seems they shut up about it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Well, if you can come up with a better mechanism that protects the public interest than government regulation, I'd love to hear about it. I'd particularly like to hear about examples where such an alternative mechanism has worked.
> 
> We are inundated with examples of how private industry convinces conservative governments to allow it to regulate itself, and we see the consequences in the form of massive oil spills, plane crashes, train wrecks, contaminated food, environmental disasters, ridiculously over-priced health care, egregiously biased media, degraded educational standards, labour abuse, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> You know the expression "when the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, as powerful a tool as it can be, the free-market is not suitable to all jobs.
> 
> I completely agree with your instinct to try to find solutions that do not involve government; I simply don't see any that work.


The industry ought to be regulated by two main forces--government inspection and insurance.

Again, government completely abrogates its functions here.

1. Government leases land to resource companies instead of selling it to them. They would be much more careful with the land if they owned it.
2, Government goes into partnership with the resource companies, becoming dependent on their revenue. This destroys the relationship between the poacher and the gamekeeper. Government can't be trusted to properly regulate those companies in which it becomes a partner or has vested interests. 
3. Resource companies receive special dispensation from the government, limiting the dollar value of their liability should something go wrong. This is a perversion of the free market. The companies should be exposed to the full cost of their mistakes. They should have to maintain a massive insurance policy, which would also open them to safeguards put into place by the insurance company.

The regulations should be very simple and not particularly explicit in terms of how the company achieves regulatory goals. Let them figure out the best way avoid liabilities.

Self-regulation is a myth, since we already have a regulatory framework in place, However, businesses would do a better job of of monitoring their own operations if they had a healthy fear of bankruptcy.


----------



## CubaMark

*Europe's "biggest battery" to regulate UK renewable energy*

_Europe's largest battery is to undergo testing in the UK, where it will be used to store and regulate energy generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar power, The Guardian reports. The lithium manganese battery, developed by S&C Electric Europe, Samsung SDI and Younicos, will be capable of storing up to 10 MWh of energy.

(SNIP)

A 10 MWh is a comparative tiddler next to the 60-MWh monster announced by the Japanese government back in April. The ¥20 billion ($200 million) project is being designed to regulate solar power from the northern island of Hokkaido. It is due to be up and running by 2015._​
(Gizmag)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Europe's "biggest battery" to regulate UK renewable energy*
> 
> _Europe's largest battery is to undergo testing in the UK, where it will be used to store and regulate energy generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar power, The Guardian reports. The lithium manganese battery, developed by S&C Electric Europe, Samsung SDI and Younicos, will be capable of storing up to 10 MWh of energy.
> 
> (SNIP)
> 
> A 10 MWh is a comparative tiddler next to the 60-MWh monster announced by the Japanese government back in April. The ¥20 billion ($200 million) project is being designed to regulate solar power from the northern island of Hokkaido. It is due to be up and running by 2015._​
> (Gizmag)


Repeating the mistakes of the past. Gamera feeds on concentrated power sources. With nuclear energy plans mothballed, the flying turtle will satisfy his appetite by heading straight for this super-battery.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the folly of biofuels...


Existing cropland could feed four billion more



> In addition, crops are increasingly being used for biofuels rather than food production. This study sought to quantify the benefit to food security that would accrue if some or all of the lands used to produce animal feed and fuel were reallocated to directly produce food for people.


While I don't agree with everything they note, there is some interesting info there.


----------



## CubaMark

*5 Reasons Solar is Beating Fossil Fuels*

The solar industry is growing drastically every year, while fossil fuels continue to be phased out. This is why it’s frustrating to hear people say that renewable energy is not ready to compete with fossil fuels as a means to power our country. Here are five reasons why solar is already winning. 

* * * 

I’m sure you’ve heard the argument that solar is economically effective only by relying on government subsidies. Currently this may be true, but if solar prices reach Citigroup’s prediction of $.25/watt by 2020, subsidies may not be needed. And then there’s the glaring fact that oil, gas and coal receive subsidies that dwarf those of renewables ($409 billion vs. $60 billion globally).

And that’s ignoring the extra costs that burning fossil fuels impose on the rest of society, that aren’t paid by fossil fuel companies (called externalities by economists). The Harvard Medical School estimates that burning coal in the U.S. costs $500 billion in environmental and health damage (and then there’s, you know, the whole climate change thing). If those costs were taxed onto coal plants, the price of coal would more than double.

(More at: EcoWatch)


----------



## FeXL

CM: It's very difficult to take an article published by Eco Watch based on information from the WWF taken from a report from the IMF as anything more than pure political advocacy. Especially when Weepy Bill McKibben is noted as an "Insightful Writer". Sorry.

The report uses quite a few weasel words like "*if *solar prices reach...$.25/watt by 2020". Not exactly confidence inspiring.

I'd like to address a few of their points.

1. Jobs. It wouldn't surprise me that there are more people in the US involved in solar than coal. With Obama's personal vendetta against coal & his subsequent closure of many coal-powered electrical plants, no surprise. However, that's not the free market talking, it's government interference. They also note that solar is growing 10 times faster than the US economy. Hardly a statistic of note: 10x nothing is still nothing. And, with the current worldwide oversupply, it will be only a matter of time before even more US plants shut down, unable to compete in the labour market even with significant tariffs on imported foreign product.

2. Price. Yes, solar panel prices have been dropping but this is largely a result of the above-mentioned oversupply. There will be an adjustment upwards once the players all get sorted out. Of course carbon based power is going to have higher total subsidies: They produce what, 95% of the electricity on the planet? As such they receive $409 billion in subsidies Renewables produce <5% of the world's electricity, despite receiving $60 billion in subsidies. The math is left as an exercise to the reader...

3. Capacity. Capacity means nothing while the sun is on the other side of the planet or behind a big, dark cloud. What is the actual output? That's what counts, how much electricity is being put into the grid at any given time. 10% of rated capacity? 20%? 30%? It's a helluva lot less than 50% because, on average, the sun ain't shining for 12 out of every 24 hours. Batteries you say? Extra cost, along with ecological damage involved in production, operation & disposal. Is that calculated in the equations? Standby generators, perhaps, inefficiently idling away, waiting to take up the slack? Is that, too, calculated in the equations? Doubt it, in both instances.

4. Investment. Please. 450ppm is the limit to irreversible climate change? What happened to Weepy Bill's 350ppm? However did the planet recover from CO2 concentrations 10 and 20 times that in the past? Anyone moving their investments out of coal is reacting to Obama's vendetta. Fine. Anyone moving their investments out of oil is an idiot. Anyone moving their investments into solar for anything more than short term return, say a couple of years max, is likewise a fool. See? I can predict, too!

5. Environmental Impact. Coal can be dirty. No argument. To a greater or less extent, I'd agree with most of their statements, save one. The last one. There is no empirical evidence of this.


----------



## Macfury

I would also disagree that fossil fuels are being phased out. As energy consumption rises, some government agencies are forcing solar energy on the market. Big difference.

Finally, that nutty WWF study defines a subsidy as any tax level lower than what they say it should be--"lower than optimum" as they put it. This is purely subjective nonsense.


----------



## FeXL

Claim: Let’s put batteries on wind and solar farms

If you can get past the usual nods to CO2 causing global warming and renewable energy lowering global emissions, there is some interesting info. 

Basically, the author's note battery storage can work for solar & not for wind, but a battery array for solar will double the energy cost of the installation.

Much of the story is in the comments.


----------



## SINC

In the late 40s and early 50s on the farm, we had a wind generator with storage batteries that supplied us with power for lighting and the family radio, all that we needed in those days. Today's wants far exceed our real needs. The battery storage bit is a return to those basics and that may very well be a good thing as it may force us to return to our needs, and curtail our wants.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds global potential solar energy is 4-10 times less than previously thought

Abstract



> Despite the fact that renewable energies offer a great theoretical potential of energy and that most of them have only a small share of global primary and final consumption (*less than 2% of final World energy consumption was provided by wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and biofuels together*) [1], their limits should be carefully analyzed. While other methodologies are based on theoretical efficiencies of renewable energies, generous estimations of effective global surface that could be occupied by the renewable infrastructure and/or ignore the mineral reserve limits, our assessment is based on a top-down methodology (de Castro et al. 2 and 3) that takes into account real present and foreseeable future efficiencies and surface occupation of technologies, land competence and other limits such as mineral reserves.
> 
> We have focused here on the net density power (electric averaged watts per square meter, We/m2) and compared our top-down assessment, based on real examples, with other theoretical based assessments; *our results show that present and foreseeable future density power of solar infrastructures are much less (4–10 times) than most published studies. This relatively low density implies much bigger land necessities per watt delivered, putting more pressure on Earth than previously thought. On the other hand, mineral reserves of some scarce materials being used will also put pressure on this industry, because there is also a trade-off between solar park efficiencies and mineral limits. Although it is very difficult to give a global limit to the expansion of solar power, an overview of the land and materials needed for large scale implementation show that many of the estimations found in the literature are hardly compatible with the rest of human activities.*
> 
> *Overall, solar could be more limited than supposed from a technological and sustainable point of view: around 60–120 EJ/yr.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anybody with enough brain power to melt the snowflakes on their head...

New study finds electric vehicles are the worst polluters in US, China, India



> A joint American-Chinese research report (Shuguang, Ji et. al: Electric Vehicles in China: Emissions and Health Impacts) proves that *vehicles powered by electricity from coal-fired power stations result in more soot emissions per passenger kilometre than cars powered by petrol and diesel.* Compared with petrol and diesel powered vehicles, electric vehicles therefore turn out to be the worst polluters in large countries like China, India and the US. Other critics highlight vehicle manufacture, where batteries also have a climate-related cost. Anders Hammer Strømman and his colleagues at NTNU have, for example, discovered that *the building of an electric car causes about twice as much greenhouse gases to be emitted as during the construction of a petrol- or diesel-powered vehicle.*


Bold mine.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


Except it isn't an antidote to anything. Just a different and heavily-subsidized way of driving.


----------



## FeXL

Well, Obama promised to flatten sea level rise & he managed that.  Now, he tells us that wind & solar are cheaper than fossil fuels. Read how...

New paper claims wind & solar energy are now cheaper than fossil fuels

Caution: smoke & mirrors involved...


----------



## FeXL

Further fallout from gov't backed alternative fuel production.

Biofuels firm's fraud cheated victims of $100M, feds say



> Federal prosecutors announced charges Wednesday connected to a Henry County biofuel refinery as part of a massive tax and securities fraud investigation, saying the operation cheated victims out of more than $100 million.


Basically, they are being charged on a number of issues but, first & foremost to me, they were accused of purchasing low grade biofuel & then reselling it as high grade, rather than manufacturing it themselves, all the while collecting $35 million in tax breaks.

None of this would have happened if the government wouldn't be interfering by picking winners & losers in the energy industry.


----------



## FeXL

Next on the list of failed, gov't backed, renewable energy business to go bankrupt: Electric car charger manufacturer goes belly up, along with the $100 million grant.

Oh, rapture: Electric car-charger manufacturer/DOE grant recipient goes kaput



> Ecotality Inc, a maker of charging stations for electric cars that won a $99.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy four years ago, has filed for bankruptcy protection and said it plans to auction its assets next month.
> 
> The San Francisco-based company is among a growing number of U.S. alternative-energy companies that have struggled or succumbed amid consumer resistance to the high cost and restricted driving range associated with electric vehicles.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Next on the list of failed, gov't backed, renewable energy business to go bankrupt: Electric car charger manufacturer goes belly up, along with the $100 million grant.
> 
> Oh, rapture: Electric car-charger manufacturer/DOE grant recipient goes kaput





> ...amid consumer resistance to the high cost and restricted driving range associated with electric vehicles.


BAD consumers!!


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, I feel so guilty, filling up our 18mpg Suburban...


----------



## CubaMark

Those of you who remain so enamoured with the oil industry... have you given any thought to the other huge subsidy that the oil & gas industry receives - i.e., the gazillions spent on wars in the middle east to ensure access to supplies? The Iraq war, which *was* about oil and nothing else, was never meant to give the US ownership of oil, rather, in keeping with the free-market ideology, it was all about *access*. The money, the lives lost and ruined - all of that is worth your obsessive rejection of alternative energy initiatives?


----------



## FeXL

CM: I can no more control US politics than I can change the climate. That said, until all these wonderful alternative energies actually prove themselves to be less energy intensive than those they have been created to replace, I have no interest in them.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Those of you who remain so enamoured with the oil industry... have you given any thought to the other huge subsidy that the oil & gas industry receives - i.e., the gazillions spent on wars in the middle east to ensure access to supplies? The Iraq war, which *was* about oil and nothing else, was never meant to give the US ownership of oil, rather, in keeping with the free-market ideology, it was all about *access*. The money, the lives lost and ruined - all of that is worth your obsessive rejection of alternative energy initiatives?


The U.S. could supply its own oil if it wanted to. One can only guess at the reason for most geopolitics. Yours is merely the lefty version of history.


----------



## CubaMark

As is often said, "*Reality has a liberal bias*".


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> As is often said, "*Reality has a liberal bias*".


I believe that's what the left says. Unfortunately, their blinkers never allow them to see the devastation wrought by their good intentions.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> As is often said, "*Reality has a liberal bias*".


Zing!

Your post on the unprecedented interference and subsidies of the oil industry in the face of the cries for free markets isn't going to be well received.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Zing!
> 
> Your post on the unprecedented interference and subsidies of the oil industry in the face of the cries for free markets isn't going to be well received.


Zing II: (Insert drum roll here.) Nor likely is your post, pretending you actually know something about the oil industry. Where's KC4 when you really need her?


----------



## groovetube

Are you saying they don't receive huge subsidies and the government isn't involved in pushing it? No wars fought over it, lives lost etc??


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Are you saying they don't receive huge subsidies and the government isn't involved in pushing it? No wars fought over it, lives lost etc??


No, not at all. I admit that I am not intimately involved in the oil industry like you apparently are, so I cannot confirm any of those wild accusations.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not sure what you are on about in terms of my, or your involvement in the industry, but I think the huge subsidies, government involvement and the wars fought over oil was rather common knowledge.


----------



## Macfury

Incredible.


----------



## SINC

Why, does it come as a surprise that a certain someone is never wrong?


----------



## groovetube

Why does this need to turn into romper room?

If you disagree that oil industries receive large subsidies and the governemt is not involved in promoting it, no wars fought over oil, then say so.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Why, does it come as a surprise that a certain someone is never wrong?


SINC, when someone's blocked out half the thread, they're just a wallflower too late to the dance. Just bringing up ancient points that have long been dealt with.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Why does this need to turn into romper room?
> 
> If you disagree that oil industries receive large subsidies and the governemt is not involved in promoting it, no wars fought over oil, then say so.


I don't know. Why are you trying to turn it into one? I say again, I am not knowledgeable enough about the oil industry to make those kinds of unfounded assumptions. Apparently you have such inside knowledge of the industry. As odd as that may seem for a musician or an ad agency/IT guy, carry on.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I don't know. Why are you trying to turn it into one? I say again, I am not knowledgeable enough about the oil industry to make those kinds of unfounded assumptions. Apparently you have such inside knowledge of the industry. As odd as that may seem for a musician or an ad agency/IT guy, carry on.


There's no need to pull out my personal life if you're mad at my post. If you think my post was wrong, it's ok. I'll live. There's no need to get that angry. There are more important things to worry about.

The bunch of you can't help yourself in your rage that it takes a mere disagreement for you to start yelling liar, ripping someone's personal life, this forum business is SO IMPORTANT!

Calm down and try to stay on topic.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> There's no need to pull out my personal life if you're mad at my post. If you think my post was wrong, it's ok. I'll live. There's no need to get that angry.
> 
> The bunch of you can't help yourself in your rage that it takes a mere disagreement for you to start yelling liar, ripping someone's personal life, this forum business is SO IMPORTANT!
> 
> Calm down and try to stay on topic.


I am not angry at all. Your personal life is of no concern to me either. Nor did I call you a liar. I simply admitted that I am not qualified to make the kinds of posts you do on the oil industry. I can only conclude that your knowledge through your personal life is far superior to mine, living in oil country as I do. How many oil wells are there in downtown Toronto anyway?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I am not angry at all. Your personal life is of no concern to me either. Nor did I call you a liar. I simply admitted that I am not qualified to make the kinds of posts you do on the oil industry. I can only conclude that your knowledge through your personal life is far superior to mine, living in oil country as I do. How many oil wells are there in downtown Toronto anyway?


if my personal life is of no concern, then why are you even bothering to bring it up?

People make jabs at people's personal life details in a thread when they're angry and can't be civil in a thread staying on topic.

If you want things to keep civil, then don't rip people's personal lives in the disagreement then.


----------



## Macfury

SINC, this is becoming cruel. I suspect these are only opinions that were borrowed from others. You can't expect any indepth explanations.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> if my personal life is of no concern, then why are you even bothering to bring it up?
> 
> People make jabs at people's personal life details in a thread when they're angry and can't be civil in a thread staying on topic.
> 
> If you want things to keep civil, then don't rip people's personal lives in the disagreement then.


Sigh, I just noted how your personal life experiences tie in so closely with the oil industry that you feel qualified to make assumptions about the industry. No ripping at all.


----------



## groovetube

There's the problem sinc. Using someone's personal life to try and discredit them means says you don't want to address the topic and now want to get personal. If you truly want things to stay somewhat civil, why bother?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> SINC, this is becoming cruel. I suspect these are only opinions that were borrowed from others. You can't expect any indepth explanations.


It's a mystery to me how some folks become oil patch experts. I might buy it if they lived in, oh, say Calgary. But Toronto? Bwahahaha!


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> It's a mystery to me how some folks become oil patch experts. I might buy it if they lived in, oh, say Calgary. But Toronto? Bwahahaha!


_NOW Magazine,_ Toronto's alternative newspaper, has some pretty informative articles aimed at activists, SINC!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> There's the problem sinc. Using someone's personal life to try and discredit them means says you don't want to address the topic and now want to get personal. If you truly want things to stay somewhat civil, why bother?


Good grief, must I get a crayon to write it out for you? You simply repeat hearsay with no real insight or knowledge of the oil industry. That based on your background as I have read it on plenty of sites you frequent.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> _NOW Magazine,_ Toronto's alternative newspaper, has some pretty informative articles aimed at activists, SINC!


So, NOW must certainly have a resident oil patch reporter with a Calgary bureau, do they?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> So, NOW must certainly have a resident oil patch reporter with a Calgary bureau, do they?


Well, no. But you should see these people, traipsing around the Annex with their noses in the air, the latest issue of _NOW_ tucked under one arm or poking out of their man bags. You'd think they were holding a diploma.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Good grief, must I get a crayon to write it out for you? You simply repeat hearsay with no real insight or knowledge of the oil industry. That based on your background as I have read it on plenty of sites you frequent.


and that's your justification for getting personal? I thought you wanted things to be civil here. It doesn't matter if you disagree with me, that's life. There's no need to get angry and ruin the thread. You may not like my post, but it's a free country, and this is just a message board. WHy take it so seriously?

I see your little buddy is having a crap-fit goading you. 'oh please quote me so I can get some attention! Pleeeease tell him he reads socialist magazines and his mother wears army boots... pleeeease!' Pathetic.

pffft. Nothing he says is of any value in my opinion so that's why it's on ignore. Schoolyard stuff. Embarrassing even for him.


----------



## Macfury

When did this become the victimhood thread?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> When did this become the victimhood thread?


It's a mandated result. Every disagreement must end with the victim card.


----------



## groovetube

Well it depends sinc. If you are truly interested in civility, or, you carry on bring people's personal lives into a disagreement to try and discredit them. There's no moderators around so do what you do, but if you pull this sort of thing, dont hand us this bull story that you want civil discussions. Obviously that's bull.

As for the victim thing, I don't give a rats ass. It merely makes you look like an arsehole.

No skin off my back.


----------



## FeXL

It really is a stretch to ask some (certain?) people that if they state a position, they should be able to defend that position, isn't it...

And, the second that one asks for clarification, out comes post after petulant distracting post displaying the "wah, frickin' wah" card, the bullying card, the liar card and the victim card, all the while hoping it moves focus from the central issue, namely, parroting some rag or blog which doesn't have a clew, either.

Next is the feigned indifference card despite the fact that deep down inside what they know (yet deny) is the patent truth, eating at their guts.

I see 2 options here:
1) If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, then don't. Period. Spend your time in the "Beer Talk" thread, it's safer. However, if you truly want to engage the topic, by all means, read the thread, educate yourself. Ask a question. Ask a lot of questions. However, be able to defend your position if you post and don't get your back up against the wall if someone asks that you do.
2) Carry on as you've always done & get eaten alive as you regularly do.

And, either way, quit whining.

Your call...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> However, if you truly want to engage the topic, by all means, read the thread, educate yourself. Ask a question. Ask a lot of questions. However, be able to defend your position if you post and don't get your back up against the wall if someone asks that you do.


This is the heart of it. Putting half of the thread on "Ignore" then painfully repeating points that have already been made far better by others is bad enough. However, tossing out the same point in half-assed fashion without context, then demanding others disprove it is the icing on that cake.


----------



## groovetube

oh I can just imagine the anger, the seething rage.

How dare anyone utter such heresy!

Let's recap shall we?

So it's asserted that the oil and gas industries, receive NO subsidies or major tax breaks. None.

The Canadian government, is in no way involved in promoting or speaking on behalf of the oil industry in -any way-. 

And none of the wars fought in the middle east, had anything to do with oil, control of, nothing. Whatsoever.

I guess that, should put things in perspective. :lmao:

/romper room


----------



## Macfury

This is just sad. A cackling yokel.


----------



## FeXL

FeXL said:


> 2. Price. Yes, solar panel prices have been dropping but this is largely a result of the above-mentioned oversupply. There will be an adjustment upwards once the players all get sorted out. Of course carbon based power is going to have higher total subsidies: They produce what, 95% of the electricity on the planet? As such they receive $409 billion in subsidies Renewables produce <5% of the world's electricity, despite receiving $60 billion in subsidies. *The math is left as an exercise to the reader...*


Bold mine.

This is part of a response I made on this thread ~two weeks back to an article in a link that CubaMark posted. Therein the subsidy numbers came from. I furnished the electricity breakdown, the renewable portion was a generous guess. Since then I ran across another article that noted renewables made up only 3% of total global electricity generated, not 5%. As such, I'd like to revise my numbers & to do the math for arithmetically challenged drummers & their ilk...

Carbon based electricity, according to CM's article, receives $409 billion in subsidies while generating 95% of the world's electricity. Renewable electricity, according to the same article, receives $60 billion in subsidies while generating 3% of the world's electricity.

Let's put it another way. If carbon based electricity received the same generous subsidy rate renewables does, it would actually be getting $1.9 trillion (~$1.5 trillion more than it currently does) in subsidies. If renewables received the same rate carbon based electricity did, it would get ~$14 billion dollars ($46 billion less than it currently does) in subsidies.

*In a nutshell: According to the numbers in that "green" article, renewable electricity is subsidized by government at a rate nearly 5 times higher than carbon based electricity.* 

In addition, renewable electricity requires carbon based generators inefficiently idling on standby ready to cover any shortages. Plus, many windfarms receive additional revenue when their electricity cannot be sold, a cost consumers bear. When renewable sources cannot supply adequate electricity and there are no local generators on standby, electrical companies are forced to purchase expensive electricity from other, more distant jurisdictions (sometimes countries, ie, Europe) and this, too, just gets tacked onto consumer's bills. Throw in the fact that electric car construction puts twice as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as conventional vehicles' construction. We haven't even discussed the fallout to birds (especially raptors) & bats from windfarms, not to mention the effects on humans. Nor have we talked about the worldwide increase in the cost of corn, creating further hunger & starvation across the planet, all in the name of putting ethanol in our gas tanks. How about the cutting down of forests in the southern US, pelletizing the wood, transporting it across the Atlantic & burning it in biomass electrical generators in Europe? Does any of this sound like folly yet?

Bankrupting the planet and starving civilization should not be part of the solution in the search for alternative energy.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, that was already clearly contributed to the thread. Just unread.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> oh I can just imagine the anger, the seething rage.
> 
> How dare anyone utter such heresy!
> 
> Let's recap shall we?
> 
> So it's asserted that the oil and gas industries, receive NO subsidies or major tax breaks. None.
> 
> The Canadian government, is in no way involved in promoting or speaking on behalf of the oil industry in -any way-.
> 
> And none of the wars fought in the middle east, had anything to do with oil, control of, nothing. Whatsoever.
> 
> I guess that, should put things in perspective. :lmao:
> 
> /romper room


And from another thread:



groovetube said:


> I don't like their posts either, but I put macfury and FeXL on ignore. Permanently.
> 
> I'm happy to continue, just without the personal attacks pulling people's personal lives into it. There's simply no excuse for that.


Pfffft. No personal attack. I just asked how a musician and IT/Advertising guy who has made that public time after time here, and elsewhere, how he has such intimate knowledge of the oil industry and how it works. It makes no sense with that kind of background that one can make accusations like you do about how the industry really works. It can only be conjecture.

So then, here's a thought, put me on ignore too and end it all. Easy way out for you.


----------



## groovetube

None of my posts contain references to your personal life, because only a TROLL does that. Those details i offered were made mainly when it was against the rules to do so, but now since it's the Wild West and you're allowed to personally attack people here, unfortunately, but I guess the hope was that people were able to conduct themselves like adults, relatively speaking.

But if you personally attack me, I won't take it sitting down. If you want things to stay somewhat civil, and on topic, don't pull the personal attack troll routine. It's up to you.

But I won't take people's personal details like where they work etc, even if that's how you roll.

If you dislike my posts generally then simply ignore them then instead if taking it personal. 

Ball's in your court


----------



## SINC

No, it's in yours. I repeat, there was no personal attack. That is a figment of your imagination. Put me on ignore or go elsewhere with your conjecture.


----------



## groovetube

I don't care what you try to justify. You took what I do in real life to use in your arguing and that simply isn't being civil. The other two may think that's all good but that's how they roll. Everyone knows that.

So if you want threads don't go down these silly roads, don't do it.

I won't stoop to that, but I will fight back if you pull that nonsense.

And no, I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> No, it's in yours. I repeat, there was no personal attack. That is a figment of your imagination. Put me on ignore or go elsewhere with your conjecture.


I certainly remember groovetube trying to get your link to St. Albert's Place removed from your signature. That wasn't a matter of conjecture, but a personal attack.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> I certainly remember groovetube trying to get your link to St. Albert's Place removed from your signature. That wasn't a matter of conjecture, but a personal attack.


Yep, but he's pure. Never wrong. Always right. Unchallenged. Super troll, all the while blaming others. A victim. Over and over and over again.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Yep, but he's pure. Never wrong. Always right. Unchallenged. Super troll, all the while blaming others. A victim. Over and over and over again.


that's a really desperate stretch. After someone I knew got banned, I asked why others can have a link to their site and encourage people to go there, and not others, I simply asked for a clarification. Personally I don't care what sites people have in their sigs.

I in no way, asked for your sig to be deleted. Macfury is merely tugging your sleeve to keep this going.

Classic.


----------



## Macfury

As I recall there was no general request for clarification. The post was aimed squarely at getting SINC's signature removed.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> As I recall there was no general request for clarification. The post was aimed squarely at getting SINC's signature removed.


Speaking of charades . . . have you put me on ignore yet gt? And if not, why not?


----------



## groovetube

oh you pair need to grow up. Seriously.

http://www.ehmac.ca/info-centre/108570-not-allowed-links-signatures-2.html#post1402562



> my question had very little to do with you Sinc, so no apologies offered.
> 
> *I used it as an example to understand the the rules in more clarity. I didn't ask that your sig be removed, that was never my intent, nor do I have any knowledge of any previous approval, how would I, or why would I? I simply asked a valid question simply for clarity of what the rules are, and what 'solicitation' is defined as here, so there's no need to get angry and start calling people names like 'ignorant'. That's seems to be your knee-jerk reaction.*
> 
> I do wish rules like no name calling (IE: 'liar', 'ignorant' etc.) would be equally enforced as well. From what I've seen, it's fully allowed I guess, which is too bad.


I would say this is pretty damn clear. 

You're free to show where I asked for your sig to be removed. Oh but someone lives and feeds off of this sort of thing sinc. And you're his pawn.

Your buddy will need to spend some more time digging. I let him to it.


----------



## Macfury

Nice try:


----------



## SINC

So, your quote, "That looks like an open solicitation to me", is asking for clarification? That was a direct attempt to kill my sig. Of course since ehMax and I swapped links by mutual agreement, you fell flat on your ass there, didn't you .


----------



## groovetube

Sinc, you're reeeeallly reaching here, and I see your buddy who lives and feeds off of this sort of thing is still tugging your sleeve.

It's hard to believe that you would fall for his antics, I have always considered you to be better than that. I don't consider you to be a troll, you just stamp your feet, bully people and call them names sometimes, which is a drag for people. But beyond that, you can be a decent person.

I'm pretty sure I answered your question several times now. As I quoted from the thread, I strongly clarified my posts to make sure there was no confusion as to my question, and my intent. And to add to that, Mo (or whatever the real name is) the administrator who I directed the question to, quite obviously, and thankfully understood my intent and question clearly in his/her reply:
http://www.ehmac.ca/info-centre/108570-not-allowed-links-signatures-3.html#post1402906



> Guys! Step back and take a breather
> 
> I* understand the point groovetubes is trying to make here SINC. There is no attack to your signature and i will not ask you to remove it. I already reviewed ityesterday and it does not break the forum rules. *
> 
> Like I said, you can link to other sites, your own site if you like as long as that site is not another Mac Product Forum. If you have a site about how Kittens are made of rainbows and glitter by all means post it up or your personal blog, anything as long as it is not a Mac Product Forum.
> 
> I posted the rules on the forum for Gerk. Keep doing what you guys have always done. If you're having an issue with a user or require clarity on a forum rule please PM the Mo account and someone from the Community Support Team will assist you.
> 
> If it helps you guys my name is Danniella and you can call for me when you need help. I'm going to close this thread because I do not want a squabble to break out. As I said PM the admin account if you have further questions.
> 
> - Danniella, Community Support


My question was answered, and it was done.

as is this silly macfury inspired merry-go-round.


----------



## Macfury

SINC, I'm sorry I have gotten in the way of your beautiful friendship. Sure he calls you a troll, a bully, the most hated person on EhMac and the reason the site is "going down the drain"—but after he failed to get your signature removed and was told so by the mods "it was done." Why can't you forget like he has?


----------



## groovetube

^^ let me take a wild guess. Desperate to keep this rolling.

As predictable as the sunrise the next day. :clap:

He'll have to go researching my posts because, he lives for keeping this going. :lmao:


----------



## SINC

World record solar cell with 44.7% efficiency


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> World record solar cell with 44.7% efficiency


Interesting. Since you can't achieve 100% efficiency in solar conversion to electricity, I wonder what the theoretical maximum is.


----------



## FeXL

groove: Quite simply, STFU. 

Quit pissing on every thread on these boards with your crying, whining, victimhood, it's-all-about-me attitude. That just screams weakness & insecurity and is merely confirmed with every I-have-to-get-the-last-word-in-even-tho-I-don't-know-what's-been-said post. Stop trolling, stop the content-free posts, stop the screeching & pissing & moaning and people will stop dogging you. You've created this s-storm by all yourself. The rest of us are just along for the ride. It's like you've pasted a sign on your back that reads, "Kick me, I'm a kickapoo". Time to reach around and remove that sign. The lineup will dissipate.

It's that simple. 

You mentioned on another thread that you "never back down". Most people will stop digging the hole long before the water reaches their neck. Not you. You're still scratching, digging, reaching, unsuccessfully looking for the answer, placing blame on everyone else but the real perpetrator.

It's you.

Let me clue you in to something: Perseverance without objectivity is obsession. It is also weakness. There is always a time to back down & that time is now. It's arrived. Take a step back, throw that damn shovel away & have a candid look in the mirror.

Yes.

The supreme irony of your "never back down" statement is that by putting people on your ignore list you are tacitly admitting that you are unable to engage us. Weakness. You've already backed down and given up, contrary to your chest-thumping declaration.

Take a deep breath and learn something about yourself and others. This is grade-school stuff.

Jeezuz...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> groove: Quite simply, STFU.
> 
> Quit pissing on every thread on these boards with your crying, whining, victimhood, it's-all-about-me attitude. That just screams weakness & insecurity and is merely confirmed with every I-have-to-get-the-last-word-in-even-tho-I-don't-know-what's-been-said post. Stop trolling, stop the content-free posts, stop the screeching & pissing & moaning and people will stop dogging you. You've created this s-storm by all yourself. The rest of us are just along for the ride. It's like you've pasted a sign on your back that reads, "Kick me, I'm a kickapoo". Time to reach around and remove that sign. The lineup will dissipate.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> You mentioned on another thread that you "never back down". Most people will stop digging the hole long before the water reaches their neck. Not you. You're still scratching, digging, reaching, unsuccessfully looking for the answer, placing blame on everyone else but the real perpetrator.
> 
> It's you.
> 
> Let me clue you in to something: Perseverance without objectivity is obsession. It is also weakness. There is always a time to back down & that time is now. It's arrived. Take a step back, throw that damn shovel away & have a candid look in the mirror.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The supreme irony of your "never back down" statement is that by putting people on your ignore list you are tacitly admitting that you are unable to engage us. Weakness. You've already backed down and given up, contrary to your chest-thumping declaration.
> 
> Take a deep breath and learn something about yourself and others. This is grade-school stuff.
> 
> Jeezuz...


Wise advice indeed. :clap:


----------



## groovetube

Wow. Talk about obsession. Coming from a guy who obsessively tries to get my attention even though he's fully aware he's on ignore? pffft.

That quote can summed up by " Baaaaaawwwwll... why won't he respond to meeeeeeee????? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa" STFU indeed :lmao:

Sorry but the bunch of you are an embarrassment, and I couldn't give a rats arse about your little drama. Neither does anyone else.


----------



## Macfury

Extend an olive branch to some people and they scratch their arse with it, then hand it back to you sticky side first.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Coming from a guy who obsessively tries to get my attention even though he's fully aware he's on ignore?


I did, tho, didn't I?



groovetube said:


> why won't he respond to meeeeeeee?????


You did, tho, didn't you?



groovetube said:


> Sorry but the bunch of you are an embarrassment, and I couldn't give a rats arse about your little drama.


Yet you consider it important enough to deny & respond.

Carry on, my little drama queen. It was a bit of friendly advice. Ignore it at your peril 'cause I know it's eating you up inside...


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Neither does anyone else.


You couldn't be closer to the truth.

Couple months back, in your last moment of need, your little support group wouldn't back you with a 10 foot pole. They knew I had you dead to rights & they weren't going to get caught up in your little drama for a second. Oh, they were hovering around, wolves circling the fold, waiting for FeXL to slip, to screw up this much but, alas, he didn't. Not a single soul came along and said, "FeXL, you're wrong". You were the only one who couldn't (wouldn't?) see it and, consequently, you stood alone. Not one person came to your defence. I recall how you grasped at any post at all in that thread as some sort of shoring for your position when, in fact, they merely showed up to give us both hell for derailing the topic.

Today, again, you're acting the petulant school boy, relegated to the darkest far corner in back of the classroom: even the teacher wants nothing to do with you. Head down on your desk, snot puddling on the floor, sniffling to yourself, all the while pounding the top with your dirty little hands and crying your plaintive mantra, "It's not me, it's not me. It's them!"

Much like the last time, there's no one here but you. Why is that? Again, is it because you're the only one who can't see it? It certainly isn't because everyone (anyone?) believes in your cause. None of them are even talking about the thread being derailed.

You are correct on one thing, groove. Nobody cares.

Get. Over. Yourself.

Or, you can always keep digging...


----------



## CubaMark

The only goddamn "Alternative Energy Source" in this thread lately is hot bloody air.

Will all of you please take your bitching into PM territory or start posting things relative to the thread?

What a waste of time.


----------



## groovetube

Sorry CM, my post seemed to have angered them beyond belief, I shouldn't have bothered dignifying the bs with a response.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> The only goddamn "Alternative Energy Source" in this thread lately is hot bloody air.
> 
> Will all of you please take your bitching into PM territory or start posting things relative to the thread?
> 
> What a waste of time.


Thanks for providing more hot air.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Thanks for providing more hot air.


If only we could use hot air to power things.... the internet could power the world.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> If only we could use hot air to power things.... the internet could power the world.


we could probably feed a few solar systems to boot!


----------



## Sonal

groovetube said:


> we could probably feed a few solar systems to boot!


Especially around election time...


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> If only we could use hot air to power things.... the internet could power the world.


Garage door openers?


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Garage door openers?


Only if I invited you and groovetube over for some political discussion every time I needed the car....


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Only if I invited you and groovetube over for some political discussion every time I needed the car....


gt doesn't speak to me. I would need to work it all by myself.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> gt doesn't speak to me. I would need to work it all by myself.


I'm sure you'd manage.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I'm sure you'd manage.


Not in front of a moderator.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> The only goddamn "Alternative Energy Source" in this thread lately is hot bloody air.
> 
> Will all of you please take your bitching into PM territory or start posting things relative to the thread?
> 
> What a waste of time.


Address the cause, not the effect.

If you need assistance figgering that out, I can help you.

That said, if someone has me on ignore, can I send them PM's?


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Not in front of a moderator.


I'm not a moderator everywhere.


----------



## FeXL

Political support for climate policies eroding worldwide: Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Australia, US, Canada,... 



> Support for the European Union’s climate and energy policy eroded further Friday as the Czech Republic became the latest member to denounce subsidies for clean but *costly renewable energy* and pledged to double down on its use of fossil fuels.
> 
> It followed Poland’s declaration that it would use its abundant domestic coal supplies for power generation rather than invest in *costly renewable energy facilities*. Spain *abolished subsidies* for photovoltaic power generation in July and the U.K.’s power markets regulator last month *froze solar power subsidies* for the rest of the year.


Bold mine.

I posted (a very long time ago) that the only way that people will wholeheartedly embrace alternative fuels is if they make them affordable (sans subsidies). I stand by that statement today.


----------



## FeXL

Many of you will find no news here.

New paper finds misguided biofuel policies provide no benefit to the climate



> "*Biofuels have no benefit at the tailpipe,*" DeCicco said.


Bold mine.

Read that statement again.



> Per unit energy, the carbon dioxide emissions from burning ethanol are just 2 percent lower than those from gasoline. Biodiesel yields carbon dioxide emissions about 1 percent greater than those from petroleum diesel.


Really.



> His paper concludes that for now, it makes more sense to enable plants to soak up carbon dioxide through reforestation and to redouble efforts to protect forests, rather than producing and promoting biofuels.


So, I'm guessing he's against pelletizing US wood & shipping it overseas for bioburners, then...


----------



## FeXL

WSJ: EPA is banning coal even if it doesn't reduce CO2 emissions



> The EPA admits as much in the 463-page document, noting that "few, if any" plants will be built "in the foreseeable future." For this reason, "_the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022."_ *Got that? The EPA is conceding that it has shut down coal development for at least the next decade, even if that doesn't reduce carbon emissions.*


Italics mine, bold from the link.


----------



## groovetube

Ikea starts selling residential solar panels in the UK

wild.


----------



## FeXL

US Firm Escalates Solar Trade War with China



> The global solar industry is in shambles. Consumers can find Chinese panels for relatively cheap (though of questionable quality), but *every step of the production chain is being propped up by government subsidies.* American panel makers are folding, but so too are Chinese manufacturers, and Beijing’s central planners won’t be able to keep them afloat forever.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Coming soon to a continent near you...

Europe's wind & solar dream becomes a nightmare 



> Last week the CEOs of Europe's 10 largest utilities finally cried uncle and called for a halt to wind and solar subsidies. Short of that, they want subsidies of their own. They want to be paid, in essence, not to produce power.


More:



> The utilities have seen their once-predictable power needs replaced with demand that is every bit as unpredictable as the weather. When conditions are poor, they need to step up generation to keep the lights on. But because of the priority given to renewables, they have to be mindful of the possibility of being pre-empted. They still have high fixed costs and capital needs, but thanks to the renewables' privileged position, demand for what they produce waxes and wanes with the wind.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Coming soon to a continent near you...
> 
> Europe's wind & solar dream becomes a nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> More:


I am a firm believer that power generation should be located as close as possible to the source of demand. 

With that in mind Thorium based reactors, make a lot more sense than the current grid set-up.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I am a firm believer that power generation should be located as close as possible to the source of demand.
> 
> With that in mind Thorium based reactors, make a lot more sense than the current grid set-up.


Sure, but most of the lefties hate atoms on principle...

The U.S. holds the world's largest thorium reserves and Canada has about a quarter of that. Good for us if they do it.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> I am a firm believer that power generation should be located as close as possible to the source of demand.
> 
> With that in mind Thorium based reactors, make a lot more sense than the current grid set-up.


Interesting that you brought up thorium, just saw this today:

The thorium-powered car: Eight grams, one million miles | CarAdvice

Though perhaps some countries may have a problem with Australia becoming the super energy giant.


----------



## CubaMark

*Renewables now provide Scotland with 40% of its power*



> Renewable energy sources now provide Scotland with 40 percent of its electricity. Despite the fact much of Scotland is closer to the Arctic Circle than London, wind, solar and tidal energies are utilized to best effect and have slashed carbon emissions.
> 
> The British Energy Minister, Michael Fallon, highlighted this news in answer to a Parliamentary Question, saying:
> 
> “Renewables now generate the equivalent of 40 percent of the demand for power from every home and business in the country, support thousands of jobs across Scotland and are making a massive dent in carbon emissions. The sector is delivering exactly what government wants – jobs, investment and lower carbon emissions from our economy.”​
> The high renewable energy generation already meets, or exceeds, targets set by UK government for 2020. Last year the industry generated 14,825 gigawatt hours, displacing 10.3 million tons of CO2.
> 
> Niall Stuart, CEO of Scottish Renewables, said: “Ten million tons is the equivalent of removing 99.1 percent of carbon emissions generated from every car, bus, lorry and train journey in Scotland.”
> 
> Stuart confirmed the development of additional major wind farms around the Scottish coastline is ongoing and added Scotland is: "also the undisputed champion of wave and tidal energy development, with more wave and tidal stream devices installed in Orkney and the Pentland Firth than anywhere else in the world."


(Digital Journal)


----------



## Macfury

SSE (including brands Atlantic, Scottish Hydro, Southern Electric and SWALEC) have announced a price rise



> SSE (including brands Atlantic, Scottish Hydro, Southern Electric and SWALEC) have announced an 8.2% price rise... on both gas and electricity prices, which will add £111 to the average dual-fuel bill for SSE customers.
> 
> This was announced October 2013, and will take effect in November 2013. This means that SSE customers on their standard dual-fuel energy tariff will see their bills rise to an average of £1,224 per year......
> 
> SSE's last price change came into effect in October 2012, when SSE customers had a rise in their bills of 9%, or £119 per year.


It can be done if you want to pay through the nose for it.


----------



## FeXL

How Gore & billionaires profiteer on taxpayer subsidies for solar energy 



> Welcome to SolarCity, the latest booming green company that has never recorded a profit. The startup's stock price has soared by 600% since its IPO last December—it closed on Monday at $57 a share—and spiked after the company announced a couple of weeks ago that it expects business to grow by 70% to 90% next year. Yet the company, based in San Mateo, Calif., and specializing in deploying rooftop panels, ended the first six months this year $61 million in the red.


Nice. More:



> Ordinarily, that sort of number might disconcert investors. But *SolarCity's business model is powered by government subsidies, which also fueled the 500% stock run-up and turn to profit this year of the electric-car maker Tesla.* Steering both companies is Elon Musk.


One more reason why I questioned Tesla's financial numbers this year. It wasn't from selling a ton of electric cars...

Also one more reason why gov't should not be in business.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read. Does it actually make sense to install solar panels?

Do the Math: Solar Panels and Hockey Sticks

From the comments:



> Interesting $/ton CO2 numbers, but wait – there’s more:
> 
> I have just retired to Florida, and am installing a $36,000 10KW solar system sized to eliminate my $3,000/year electrical bill from Florida Power & Light. Why would I invest in something having a 12 year payback?
> 
> *Well, I say $36,000, but I get a $2,000 rebate from the HW manufacturer, $20,000 (yep, $20k) from FPL (actually, their rate payers…), and a $10,800 federal tax credit – net installation cost to me after 90 days of filing forms & having stuff inspected is $3,200.*
> 
> As might be expected, the demographic that can pay $36,000 and wait 90 days to collect $32,800 in rebates/credits tends to skew “upscale”. Oh yea, and the value of my house goes up almost the full $36,000 which (by law) does not increase my taxable property value. Go figure.


Again, all based on gov't subsidies funded with taxpayer dollars. Unbelievable...


----------



## CubaMark

Dude's numbers are wonky. $36-thou USD for a 10kw system?

He can get it half-price here: 10kW Solar Kit Enphase Grid-tied System


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Dude's numbers are wonky. $36-thou USD for a 10kw system?
> 
> He can get it half-price here: 10kW Solar Kit Enphase Grid-tied System


Looks like "dude" is paying $3,200 to install the system--something he needs to pay for himself. Why should he shop around for a cheap system if Florida and American taxpayers are buying it for him?


----------



## FeXL

Finally, a use for those languishing Fiskar electric car platforms.

Corvette-powered Fisker Karma a go

Shove a good, old-fashioned, high-horsepower gasoline engine in 'em & they sell like hot cakes.

Oh, the iron...


----------



## FeXL

BAHAHAHAHAHA!

Burned out: Obama’s first land auction for solar goes bust



> So much for the White House dream of solar selling like hotcakes. The first federal auction run by the Bureau of Land Management to sell chances to build solar power projects on public land went completely bust on Thursday.
> 
> Nobody showed to bid.


More:



> The auction was held Thursday in Lakewood, Colo. And even though it was a no-show from those with money — a complete wash-out, waste of time, zero-participation level event — *the BLM still has high hopes for solar development and says the lack of bids doesn’t mean the project plans are dead.*


Bold mine.

Of course not. Leave it to a gov't to flog a dead horse into burger...


----------



## FeXL

Two things. First, the UK has decided to build it's first nuclear power plant in 20 years. Second, the graph the Dept of Energy used to show comparative land usage for three forms of renewable energy has been disappeared. Perhaps just bit too much truth displayed there?

UK Government hides its own graphic comparing Nuclear to Wind and solar


----------



## FeXL

This summer our family holiday was a nice truck camping trip through W Montana down into SE Idaho, Jackson & Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, back through Montana, across N Idaho into NE Washington & then home via BC.

Last year the trip went a bit further, N Idaho, E Washington, E & S Oregon, very northern tip of California, W Oregon, W Washington & again, home via BC.

In years past our family has travelled into many places in BC. The last two years we made conscious decisions to avoid BC almost entirely, only employing the highways & washrooms and most certainly, never purchasing their over-priced gasoline. Each of the past 2 years in the states we've dropped at least a couple thousand dollars into local economies. 

Now, I realize that two grand a year is pretty small potatoes in the big picture but, we were hardly the only Canadians there. Alberta & BC license plates were seen in our travels often, occasionally some from Saskatchewan. Even a few from Manitoba. I know not how many made the choice not to travel to BC because of high gas prices, but I'm willing to bet we weren't the only ones who had adjusted their travel plans based on that factor alone. The highest gas prices we experienced in the states was still significantly less than what we see here in Alberta (exchange calculated in), let alone the premium price for BC fuel.

That said, BC, Oregon & Washington fuel is about to get even more expensive:

Pacific Coast states and British Columbia vow to put price on carbon, adopt cleaner fuels



> The governors of Pacific coastal U.S. states and a Canadian province official are joining forces in a new effort to fight climate change.
> 
> In an agreement announced Monday, the governors of California, Oregon, Washington and the environment minister of British Columbia, Mary Polak, will place a price on greenhouse gas pollution and mandate the use of cleaner-burning fuels.


Wonder how tourism is doing in BC?


----------



## FeXL

Blame solar for sky-high Ontario power bills



> On October 17, the Ontario Energy Board announced an increase in the Regulated Price Plan rates that apply to most residential and many small business consumers. The 0.5 cent/kWh rate increase will cost a typical Ontario homeowner an extra $57 per year.
> 
> If they’re wondering what’s driving this, they should look up into the sky or at their neighbour’s roof.
> 
> Solar energy – one of the key pillars of the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEEA) – is casting a dark cloud over Ontario electricity bills and is a big factor in recent and future bill increases. In 2013, solar projects caused electricity bills to be about $550-million higher than they would otherwise have been.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Blame solar for sky-high Ontario power bills


Rewarding homeowners and businesses with enough spare cash in a tough economy to install them. Feathering the nests of the HAVES at the expense of the HAVE-NOTS.


----------



## FeXL

They must have run out of carbon credits to sell...

Tesla Tumbles Following Unimpressive Earnings



> Having beaten consensus earnings and revenues, it seems that the momentum stock of the year is finally getting its come-uppance as it missed whisper numbers on earnings and deliveries


Some interesting observations in the comments (language warning).


----------



## FeXL

The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push



> The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.
> 
> Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
> 
> It wasn't supposed to be this way.


More:



> Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have been converted on Obama's watch.
> 
> Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
> 
> Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, polluted rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.


Where is the hue & cry?


----------



## FeXL

Couple months back I posted about Ecotality, an electric car charging station manufacturer who rec'd $135 million from the feds, declaring bankruptcy. Surprise, surprise, the feds knew in advance.

Shades of Solyndra: Team Obama mum as another green energy firm went bust



> Failing to heed the lessons of the Solyndra debacle, *Energy Department officials kept quiet about their knowledge that a government-backed electric car charger company was sliding toward bankruptcy* and putting taxpayer money at risk, the agency’s chief watchdog has found.
> 
> Inspector General Greg Friedman admonished department officials for failing to disclose during an audit this summer what they knew about San Francisco-based Ecotality’s financial troubles and the possibility that the firm might not meet the terms of its taxpayer funding.


Bold mine.

You wouldn't actually expect anybody in gov't to address this in advance, would you?


----------



## FeXL

Do windfarms interfere with Doppler weather radar?

NOAA shows that wind farms affect weather radar, and that affects their primary mission of forecasting and safety



> As the demand for energy continues to increase, the development of clean efficient wind energy produced by wind farms will continue to grow. The development of wind farms within the line of sight of radars will continue to increase, resulting in the continued reduction in data quality. Meteorologists have noticed impacts to reflectivity, velocity, storm relative motion, and precipitation estimate data with radar located within 30 nm of a wind farm.


----------



## FeXL

I've posted a couple of articles outlining the absolute stupidity of chopping down American forests, grinding them up into wood chips, loading them on ocean going freighters & shipping them to the UK to burn in electricity generating plants.

Until now, I'd not seen anything regarding amounts, output, etc.

Wood-burning power plants: Misguided climate change solution?



> The height of eco-madness is the conversion of the Drax Power Station in the United Kingdom from coal to wood fuel. Drax is the largest power plant in Europe, generating up to 3,960 megawatts of power from 36,000 tons of coal per day, delivered by 140 trains every week. *In order to “reduce emissions” at Drax, more than 70,000 tons of wood will be harvested every day from forests in the US and shipped 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean to Britain.*


Bold mine.

Somebody, anybody, please, tell me how this solves any part of the problem.

F'ing idiots is far too kind of a term...


----------



## eMacMan

^^^
Harvesting for wood chips is cutting young growth, reducing the supply of mature trees for later harvest. Bad idea unless you are exclusively and selectively harvesting fire pine. Otherwise just a way to justify clear cutting rather than taking the time to do the job right.

Where we are talking green wood, the chips must also be dried, usually in some sort of kiln. An additional waste of energy.

.....

Even if we are talking exclusively CO2 emissions, the overall count has to be higher from the wood chips. Toss in other more toxic pollutants and the wood pellets will certainly deliver higher counts than coal.


----------



## Macfury

Wood is "renewable" and therefore given a pass. If you can show the wood was destroyed by beetles, even better.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the folly of burning foodstuffs in your fuel tank.

Obama's Ethanol Policies Have Scarred The Earth



> The AP analysis confirms our worst fears. "As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies," the investigation found. *"Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch."*
> 
> Ethanol was supposed to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses, yet *farmers "plowed into pristine prairies,* releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil," the AP notes.


Bold mine.

A note on the second bold. Once that prairie has been plowed up, there is no turning back to prairie. It's gone, forever.

More:

Prairies vanish in the US push for green energy



> Across the Dakotas and Nebraska, *more than 1 million acres of the Great Plains are giving way to corn fields* as farmers transform the wild expanse that once served as the backdrop for American pioneers.
> 
> This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America's green energy policy, which requires oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline. In 2010, fuel became the No. 1 use for corn in America, a title it held in 2011 and 2012 and narrowly lost this year. That helps keep prices high.


Over 6 million acres of land that was pristine prairie and/or land put aside for conservation. Now growing corn for ethanol in what has to be one of the biggest boondoggles imaginable.

Obama must be proud...


----------



## FeXL

Is someone out there actually beginning to understand the problem with ethanol?

Big Ethanol Finally Loses 



> It's not often that the ethanol lobby suffers a policy setback in Washington, but it got its head handed to it Friday. The Environmental Protection Agency announced that for the first time it is lowering the federal mandate that dictates how much ethanol must be blended into the nation's gasoline. It's about time. It's been about time from the moment the ethanol mandate came to life in the 1970s.


EPA Reduces Ethanol Requirement



> The Environmental Protection Agency slashed the amount of ethanol that oil refiners must blend into the country’s gasoline supply for the first time Friday after months of intense lobbying by the biofuel and oil industries.


Further:



> “It is progress for the EPA to finally recognize and attempt to address the ‘blendwall’ by slightly reducing next year’s mandates, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves: the RFS remains a fundamentally flawed program that limps along year after year, wreaking havoc on those required to participate, including the American consumer,” Sen. David Vitter said in a statement (R., La.).


----------



## FeXL

Further on the hazards of renewables to wildlife.

Solar Panels Frying Birds Along Major Migration Path



> Some animal rights activists are wondering just how many birds green energy may unintentionally kill as more and more birds turn up dead at solar energy facilities throughout California.


Study shows wind turbines killed 600,000 bats last year 



> “The development and expansion of wind energy facilities is a key threat to bat populations in North America,” said study author Mark Hayes, PhD, research associate in integrated biology at CU Denver. “Dead bats are being found underneath wind turbines across North America. The estimate of bat fatalities is probably conservative.”


----------



## FeXL

More criticism of corn ethanol.

The folly of corn ethanol



> The unintended consequences associated with corn ethanol makes this a classic case whereby the ‘cure’ is ineffective and worse than the ‘disease’ at which it is targeted.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Greenery still killing the environment



> It's behind a paywall, but we gather from the Herald that the Beauly-Denny power line, designed to bring all that wind power from the highlands down to the central belt of Scotland where it is needed, is scarring the landscape to an extent not envisaged and on a permanent basis.


----------



## FeXL

Finally!

Wind energy company pleads guilty to eagle deaths



> The government for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms.
> 
> The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds. The case against Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company.


This is all well & fine but, what now?

Will they just continue to kill birds & pay the fines, not caring about the lost life or the money? Business as usual?


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

Energy firm RWE npower axes £4bn UK windfarm amid political uncertainty

Political uncertainty? Would that be related to the continuing financial support of "green" energies?



> Britain's green ambitions have been dealt a blow as a big six energy company has pulled the plug on one of the world's largest offshore windfarms, with the political storm enveloping the industry threatening the multibillion-pound investments needed to meet emissions targets and head off a looming capacity crunch.


Further:

There goes a massive windfarm – £4bn UK project kaput before it began



> Engineering challenges can usually be fixed with money. But translate “current market conditions” and we see that it was really a money challenge: not enough taxpayer money to line the deep sea.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

And, two on Fisker failure.

Taxpayers on hook for $139 million after loan to failed green automaker is sold



> Taxpayers are on the hook for a multi-million-dollar tab after a U.S. Department of Energy gamble on a green automaker went into the red.
> 
> The Obama administration announced Friday it will lose $139 million on a loan to struggling electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc. after selling part of the loan to a private investor that immediately took the company into bankruptcy.


Taxpayers lose $139m in failed bid to save electric California car maker Fisker



> A multi-million dollar gamble by the US Department of Energy has gone sour leaving the tab for taxpayers to cover.
> 
> The Obama administration announced Friday it will lose $139 million on a loan to struggling electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc.
> 
> The company had sold part of the loan to a private investor that took the company into bankruptcy. It is one of the government's efforts to stimulate green initiatives, which has not managed to bear fruit.


Once again: Government has no business being in business.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the folly of wind turbines.



> *If we take the American Wind Energy Association’s claim that 60,000 megawatts of wind-energy capacity can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 80 million tons per year*, then simple math shows that if we wanted to stop the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions by using wind energy alone, we would have to install about 375,000 megawatts of new wind-energy capacity every year. If we assume each turbine has a capacity of two megawatts, that would mean installing 187,500 wind turbines every year, or nearly 500 every day.
> 
> How much land would all those wind turbines require? Again, the math is straightforward. The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square meter [PDF]. Therefore, merely halting the growth in carbon dioxide emissions with wind energy would require covering a land area of about 375 billion square meters or 375,000 square kilometers — an area the size of Germany — _and we would have to do so every year._
> 
> What would that mean on a daily basis? Using wind alone to stop the growth in carbon dioxide emissions would require us to cover about 1,000 square kilometers with wind turbines — a land area about 17 times the size of Manhattan Island — and _we would have to do so every day._ Given the ongoing backlash against the wind industry that is already underway here in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Australia, the silliness of such a proposal is obvious.


Bold mine, italics from the link.

Of course, that is assuming that the bolded statement is correct. Even if it is, there is clearly no accounting of the emissions for the manufacture of said turbines nor the massive concrete pads to support them.

And, we haven't even addressed the toll to wildlife or humans...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Further on the folly of wind turbines.
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine, italics from the link.
> 
> Of course, that is assuming that the bolded statement is correct. Even if it is, there is clearly no accounting of the emissions for the manufacture of said turbines nor the massive concrete pads to support them.
> 
> And, we haven't even addressed the toll to wildlife or humans...


Of course the cow farting under each of those windmills would pretty much undo the greenhouse gas savings...


----------



## FeXL

So, in a statement to green energy at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, 20 hydrogen powered buses were purchased for Whistler, BC. How's that working out?

Whistler’s hydrogen fuel cell bus program in jeopardy



> The future of the Whistler’s hydrogen fuel cell buses — the largest fleet in the world — is in doubt after BC Transit said it cannot afford to continue to run and maintain the fleet when the $89-million demonstration program wraps up next spring.
> 
> Information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Canadian Autoworkers’ Union 333 suggests Whistler’s 20 hydrogen fuel cell buses cost three times more for maintenance and fuel costs than the conventional Nova diesel buses they replaced in 2009.


What, running out of OPM (other people's money) already? Let's do a quick analysis: Four times as expensive to purchase, three times as expensive to operate. Raise taxes, fares. What's the problem? 

In addition, they're shipping hydrogen in from Quebec to fuel these bastions of green hope. In the comments is an observation that there is a company in N. Vancouver venting hydrogen into the atmosphere. 

If so, the iron...


----------



## FeXL

*Congratulations, Ontario*

Electricity exports last weekend: the “wealth transfer” continues 



> Another weekend came and went and Ontario shipped 104,000 megawatt hours (MWh) to our neighbours in Michigan, New York and Quebec. Those exports were enough to provide electricity to almost 11,000 Ontario households for a full year but instead helped the buying jurisdictions hold down their electricity prices. Continuing at this pace of exporting 2,100 MWh each and every hour means Ontario will export the same amount of electricity used to power 1.8 million Ontario homes.
> Those 104,000 MWh generated revenue of $2.4 million based on the average price received per kWh over the weekend (2.3 cents) but cost ratepayers in Ontario in excess of $11 million to produce. The difference of $8.6 million will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot, driving up electricity prices in Ontario. While last weekend (November 23rd and 24th) experience only amounts to about $2.00 each for the 4.5 million ratepayers, if we add that to the $8.00 for the prior two weekends, it becomes $10.00 for each ratepayer—*collectively, that amounts to $50 million for power Ontario's ratepayers never got to use but had to pay for over just six days.*


Bold mine.

How's that whole green thing working out for ya?


----------



## FeXL

Just whose side is Big Oil really on?

Big Oil, Big-Gas lobby against coal. Shell leans on World Bank to nobble the competition



> Big-Gas loves wind turbines. Wind farms are fickle and coal power can’t ramp up and down quickly to fill in the gaps, but the more expensive gas can. No wonder Shell are lobbying actively against coal, and for wind.


----------



## FeXL

How much food will a trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) dollars buy for the world's starving? How much medical research can be conducted with a trillion dollars? How much science does a trillion dollars fund? How many water wells can you dig for a trillion dollars?

OK, now multiply that number by 7...

$7 Trillion to Fight Climate Change?



> For example, the EU demanded that renewables like wind and solar account for 20 percent of energy supplies by 2020, though this is by no means the cheapest way to cut emissions. In fact, putting up a wind turbine cuts no extra CO2, because total emissions are already capped under the EU-wide carbon-trading scheme. It simply means that when Great Britain installs a wind turbine, it becomes cheaper to burn coal in Portugal or Poland.


The stupid, it burns...


----------



## FeXL

Further on killing eagles with windmills in the US.

Eagle-killing rule almost done



> The Obama administration has nearly finalized a rule that would give energy companies lengthy permits for wind farms that end up killing bald and golden eagles.
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of birds are killed every year after flying into large wind turbine blades, an issue that became an ongoing saga for the administration this year.
> 
> The White House finalized its review on Thursday of a rule that would give the farms a 30-year pass for the killings, known as "takings."


----------



## FeXL

This shouldn't be news to anyone, but just in case:

The dirty secrets of clean cars



> Then there is the question of where the hydrogen comes from. At present, industrial hydrogen (which is used as a feedstock for refining oil, as well as for making chemicals, electronics and foodstuffs) is produced by reforming natural gas with steam. This is not a particularly clean process. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a federal facility in Colorado, producing a kilogram of hydrogen by steam reformation generates 11.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide. *As the Honda Clarity could travel 68 miles (109km) on a kilogram of hydrogen, it would cause 175 grams of carbon dioxide to be dumped into the atmosphere for every mile it was driven.
> 
> By way of comparison, Volkswagen’s small diesel cars produce 145 grams per mile. On that reckoning, even petrol-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius, which produces 167 grams per mile, are cleaner than the fuel-celled Clarity.* Admittedly, fossil fuels also produce carbon emissions while being dug out of the ground, refined and transported to the pump. But burning hydrocarbons in internal-combustion engines is becoming cleaner all the time. When measured on a well-to-wheels basis, the steadily declining emission levels of conventional vehicles is putting the squeeze on so-called ZEVs.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

I put this here because there was some discussion earlier on subsidies for petroleum & renewable energy.

When a tax is not a tax; when a subsidy is not a subsidy: the liberal-left's Orwellian assault on our language

Basically, what it boils down to is that the left is saying that a 20% tax on petroleum products that gets reduced to 15% is, in fact, a 5% subsidy, not a reduction in taxation.

Must be some of that new math...


----------



## Macfury

Worse still, they call it a subsidy if they think it should be taxed higher than it currently is, but nobody will listen to them. You'll find that in the "Sub-optimal Taxation" category.


----------



## supernova777

interesting ideas in this thread i wish they would make the damn pagination links easier to click..bigger buttons


----------



## FeXL

Further on eagle killing.

Audubon Society says it's outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of the bald eagle



> Audubon's CEO released the following statement:
> 
> "Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check," said Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold. "It's outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of America's symbol, the Bald Eagle. Audubon will continue to look for reasonable, thoughtful partners to wean America off fossil fuels because that should be everyone's highest priority. We have no choice but to challenge this decision, and all options are on the table."


Go get 'em...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on eagle killing.
> 
> Audubon Society says it's outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of the bald eagle
> 
> 
> 
> Go get 'em...


This is hard evidence that much environmental legislation is designed simply to kill off industry. Folks like the Audubons were useful props to help the Democrats as needed. Now it's good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe they'll pick them up later if there are a few drops left to be squeezed out of them.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Further on eagle killing.
> 
> Audubon Society says it's outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of the bald eagle
> 
> 
> 
> Go get 'em...


The bald eagle, the ultimate bird of prey, is highly symbolic of the US in many ways. It's destruction in this manner is also extremely symbolic of the nations overall decay.


----------



## FeXL

Again, no surprise to anyone who has spent any time here.

New report shows that wind turbines don’t deliver



> For some time now I’ve been familiar with (and have repeatedly quoted) the paper by Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University “Why is wind power so expensive”, which makes the point that the very intermittency of wind means intermittent operation of the gas back-up, which means that you burn more gas, and emit more CO2, per MWh, than you would if you ran the plant properly.


----------



## FeXL

Bishop Hill links to an article in the Financial Post on the sorry state of Chinese renewables.


Chinese renewables



> An article in the Financial Post in Canada looks at China's much-vaunted renewables industry and shows that it is nearing collapse
> 
> ...
> 
> And it seems that the solar industry is doing just as badly. In China, just as in Europe, *renewable energy was only able to survive if it was regularly hosed down with public funds. As soon as the taps were switched off, the industry was in trouble.*


Bold mine.

FP link:

Why China’s renewables industry is headed for collapse



> The country’s solar panel industry, which went from zero to become the world’s largest in five years, has crashed, with most producers now suffering from negative profit margins, soaring debt levels and idle factories.
> 
> Solar panel manufacturer Suntech, a national champion which became the world’s largest thanks to lavish state subsidies, filed for bankruptcy in March after it defaulted on payment of $541-million of bonds. The government is scrambling to tidy up the mess by offering tax breaks to all solar companies that acquire or merge with their competitors. One state-owned company recently tabled a $150-million lifeline to Suntech as it works its way through bankruptcy proceedings.


Worth repeating:

Governments have no business deciding which technologies survive & which fail.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Bishop Hill links to an article in the Financial Post on the sorry state of Chinese renewables.
> 
> 
> Chinese renewables


Do you remember how the eco-geeks here were getting antsy because the Chinese were moving into the lead as solar panel producers? How Canada needed to be the king of the solar industry with government assistance?


----------



## FeXL

Windfarm lifespans not as lengthy as thought.

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study



> The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.
> 
> The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.


That said, I've noted before that there are wind turbines operating on Cowley Ridge west of Pincher Creek that have been there since the late 80's, at least 25 years ago. To my knowledge, these are the first ever installed in southern Alberta.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Tesla.

Doubting is Thinking – a Blog from Spain



> There’s a new blog on the block with an absolutely brilliant name – Doubting Is Thinking. Its author, Alberto Zaragoza Comendador, is a college student in Madrid.
> 
> ...
> 
> After taking a close look at Tesla Motors, he’s written a series of blog posts that make a persuasive case that something’s seriously awry. The short version is that California is awarding Tesla carbon credits, which the automaker then sells to other (allegedly less green) auto companies for cash.
> 
> According to Zaragoza Comendador’s calculations, approximately 40% of the credits being collected by Tesla in that state (an estimated $55 million worth) is for a feature that doesn’t actually exist.


Good read.


----------



## eMacMan

^^^

I see the quote function has failed as well this fine morning hence the pyramids.



> What does all this mean? It means that the government of California is financially rewarding a luxury car manufacturer for a feature that is totally imaginary. It means that other automakers are required, by this same government, to purchase the carbon credits being bestowed on Tesla. In turn, this inflates the price of cars being sold to low and middle-income families in that state.
> 
> *Money is being transferred from the pockets of lower income earners to the pockets of a luxury automaker. In the name of fighting global warming.*
> 
> Going green sounds so wonderful. But critical thinking, intellectual rigour, and empathy for the average Joe are frequently absent among people who insist they’re saving the planet. The result is one boondoggle after another.


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anyone who frequents this thread. However, some interesting details.

The great biofuels scandal: Biofuels are inefficient, cause hunger and air pollution, and cost taxpayers billions 



> Thus the total EU savings would be a minuscule 5Mt, or about one-tenth of one per cent of total European emissions. Even over a century, the effect of these savings would be trivial. *When run in a standard climate model, EU biofuel use will postpone global temperature rises by 2100 by just 58 hours.*
> 
> And the cost to taxpayers is some £6 billion a year; each ton of CO2 avoided costs about £1,200. The EU’s “cap and trade” system is estimated to cost less than £4 for each ton avoided – so we pay almost 300 times too much.


My bold.


----------



## CubaMark

*Algae to Crude Oil: Million-Year Natural Process Takes Minutes in the Lab*



> Engineers have created a continuous chemical process that produces useful crude oil minutes after they pour in harvested algae — a verdant green paste with the consistency of pea soup.
> 
> The research by engineers at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was reported recently in the journal Algal Research. A biofuels company, Utah-based Genifuel Corp., has licensed the technology and is working with an industrial partner to build a pilot plant using the technology.
> 
> In the PNNL process, a slurry of wet algae is pumped into the front end of a chemical reactor. Once the system is up and running, out comes crude oil in less than an hour, along with water and a byproduct stream of material containing phosphorus that can be recycled to grow more algae.
> 
> With additional conventional refining, the crude algae oil is converted into aviation fuel, gasoline or diesel fuel. And the waste water is processed further, yielding burnable gas and substances like potassium and nitrogen, which, along with the cleansed water, can also be recycled to grow more algae.
> 
> While algae has long been considered a potential source of biofuel, and several companies have produced algae-based fuels on a research scale, the fuel is projected to be expensive. The PNNL technology harnesses algae’s energy potential efficiently and incorporates a number of methods to reduce the cost of producing algae fuel.
> 
> “Cost is the big roadblock for algae-based fuel,” said Douglas Elliott, the laboratory fellow who led the PNNL team’s research. “We believe that the process we’ve created will help make algae biofuels much more economical.”






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(Cryptogon)


----------



## Macfury

Good first step.


----------



## eMacMan

Much more affordable can still be a long way from affordable. 

Still I can certainly see a few of these plants being built. Hopefully none of the phosphorous produced will be weaponized.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Much more affordable can still be a long way from affordable.
> 
> Still I can certainly see a few of these plants being built. Hopefully none of the phosphorous produced will be weaponized.


Gilligan drank it and glowed like a beacon.


----------



## FeXL

National Renewable Electricity Standard: Why raise electricity prices?



> The [RES] act calls for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewables to provide 6 percent of US electricity in 2014, rising to 25 percent by the year 2025. Representative Kuster says, “This *common-sense* bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil—all while saving consumers money on their utilities.” Unfortunately, Ms. Kuster’s statement is not supported by actual industry experience and economic data.


Bold mine.

Common sense left the room a long time ago...


----------



## FeXL

People unclear on the concept. You astronomically raise the price of one form of energy, folks will simply use another.

Environmental concern disappears with economic instability



> The price for heating oil has skyrocketed in Greece over the last two years (the government raised the taxes on heating oil 450% this fall alone), and now many residents are turning to wood burning for winter heat since they can’t afford the oil, which has affected the city’s air quality


I've noted it before. If you want people to accept alternate forms of energy, they _must_ be affordable. And that doesn't mean affordable after my tax dollars have been used to subsidize the costs, either.


----------



## FeXL

So, in order to reduce the chance of rolling blackouts caused by shutting down coal and gas electrical plants and in the absence of alternative energy to fill the shortage, the UK energy regulator has come up with a stellar solution.

Hundreds Of Businesses To Be Paid To Shut Down To Prevent Blackouts



> Hundreds of businesses could be paid to switch off their power between 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays as soon as next winter to prevent blackouts, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem.


Brilliant...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, in order to reduce the chance of rolling blackouts caused by shutting down coal and gas electrical plants and in the absence of alternative energy to fill the shortage, the UK energy regulator has come up with a stellar solution.
> 
> Hundreds Of Businesses To Be Paid To Shut Down To Prevent Blackouts
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant...


Ontario has gone this route as well, but they are doing it more cheaply by driving these companies out of business permanently.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Ontario has gone this route as well, but they are doing it more cheaply by driving these companies out of business permanently.


Ah. Much more efficient, I see. They don't have to pay any cash out then...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Fabulous EPA.

‘MUZZLED’: EPA silenced scientists that challenged their agenda



> Republicans on the House’s science committee wrote a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concern that the agency ignored scientists charged with reviewing carbon emissions limits for new power plants. Scientists said that the agency rushed through the regulatory process and that the underlying science of the rule lacked adequate peer review.
> 
> “We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” the Republican lawmakers wrote. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues.”


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on the Fabulous EPA.
> 
> ‘MUZZLED’: EPA silenced scientists that challenged their agenda


Obama has peer reviewed the science.


----------



## FeXL

OK, so now even California Public Utilities Commission is acknowledging how erratic alternative energy is. How do you fix this problem? Well, they want power vendors to buy a ****load of expensive batteries, _batteries_, to tide them over when power levels are at a low.

California planning to run on battery power due to unreliable wind & solar energy 



> Costly renewable energy policies are already set to raise California power costs by $5 billion or 33 percent due to expensive and unreliable wind and solar energy. However, that may be only half of the additional cost, since the "California Public Utilities Commission has called on utilities and private companies to install about $5 billion worth of batteries and other forms of energy storage to help the state power grid cope with the erratic power supplied by wind and solar energy."
> 
> Thus, in total, new renewable sources and the battery capacity necessary to provide reliable electricity may cost $10 billion by 2020, representing about a 66% increase in electricity rates.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

What's this, strike 13?

Depreciation hits electric cars hard



> Plug-in electric cars may be cutting-edge technology, but an analysis suggests that most will depreciate more dramatically over five years than their conventional counterparts.


----------



## FeXL

So, if you have a booming economy & you want to extend that boom, what kind of power generation do you depend on? You got it. Coal...

Despite Climate Campaigners Efforts, Germany’s New Coal Boom Reaches Record Level



> With Greenpeace successfully forcing the shutdown of nuclear power, and keeping out fracking for gas, what’s left? A boom in coal. In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal. Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up new mines, practically every month. It might sound odd that a boom in German coal is the result of Greenpeace’s political success.


The Germans get it...


----------



## FeXL

Remember my post a while back about European windfarms getting paid not to generate electricity? It gets better...

How to make money doing nothing



> On the basis of the NG figures, which show that 13 projects with a connected capacity of 600MW* generated £17m of constraint payments in the three months ending 30th June 2013, what total value of constraint payments can we expect from a contracted connection of 36.5GW on average five years#ahead of the system being capable of transmission? A simplistic calculation is (36,500MW/600MW) x £17m x 20 quarters = £20,700,000,000 (£20.7bn). There is not, so far, any other calculation to dispute this.
> 
> *That’s TWENTY POINT SEVEN BILLION POUNDS.*


My bold.

Over the course of 5 years. $34 billion USD.

Nice work, if you can get it...


----------



## CubaMark

*Cheap battery stores energy for a rainy day*

Power harvested from the Sun and wind is pouring into electricity grids by the gigawatt. That makes it ever more important to find an efficient and convenient way to store renewable energy for those times when the breeze dies or the skies cloud over.
* * *​The big advantage of flow batteries is that the chemicals can be stored in tanks outside the battery assembly. Increasing capacity is simply a matter of building larger tanks, making flow batteries particularly suitable for large-scale energy storage.
* * *​Over the past few decades, researchers have investigated many other chemical systems, and ruled all but a handful out. “The periodic table has been pretty well picked over,” says Aziz. “So we’ve introduced the world of organic chemistry to this problem.”

His battery’s anode uses a solution of sulphuric acid containing a type of organic compound known as a quinone. The quinone is cheap and needs no catalytic urging to react with protons to form a higher-energy hydroquinone, thereby charging the battery. Aziz teamed this half of the flow battery with a well-known partner: a cathode that alternates between bromine and hydrobromic acid.

The quinone–hydroquinone reaction is about 1,000 times faster than the rival vanadium reaction, allowing the battery to charge and discharge rapidly. And by changing some of the quinone’s chemical groups, Aziz can alter their solubility and even the voltage of the flow battery, fine-tuning the system.​









(Nature)


----------



## CubaMark

*Massive solar plan for Minnesota wins bid over gas*

Minnesota soon could see at least a sevenfold expansion of solar power.

In an unprecedented ruling, a judge reviewing whether Xcel Energy should invest in new natural gas generators vs. large solar power arrays concluded Tuesday that solar is a better deal.

If the finding by Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman is upheld by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Edina-based Geronimo Energy plans to build about 20 large solar power arrays on sites across Xcel’s service area at a cost of $250 million.

“It says solar is coming in a big way to the country and to Minnesota,” Geronimo Vice President Betsy Engelking said of the ruling.

Geronimo’s Aurora Solar Project would receive no state or utility subsidies, but would qualify for a federal investment tax credit. Engleking said *it is the first time in the United States that solar energy without a state subsidy has beaten natural gas in an official, head-to-head price comparison.*

“The cost of solar has come down much faster than anyone had anticipated,” she said in an interview. “This is one of the reasons solar is going to explode.”

(StarTribune)


----------



## Macfury

You seem to always focus on the headlines, and not the article itself. 

1. The choice of the system has not been made,
2. The solar proposal requires federal subsidies to be competitive.
3. The solar proposal was not favoured by the judge solely on cost--he's a greenhouse gasser, and this swayed him.



CubaMark said:


> *Massive solar plan for Minnesota wins bid over gas*
> 
> Minnesota soon could see at least a sevenfold expansion of solar power.
> 
> In an unprecedented ruling, a judge reviewing whether Xcel Energy should invest in new natural gas generators vs. large solar power arrays concluded Tuesday that solar is a better deal.
> 
> If the finding by Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman is upheld by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Edina-based Geronimo Energy plans to build about 20 large solar power arrays on sites across Xcel’s service area at a cost of $250 million.
> 
> “It says solar is coming in a big way to the country and to Minnesota,” Geronimo Vice President Betsy Engelking said of the ruling.
> 
> Geronimo’s Aurora Solar Project would receive no state or utility subsidies, but would qualify for a federal investment tax credit. Engleking said *it is the first time in the United States that solar energy without a state subsidy has beaten natural gas in an official, head-to-head price comparison.*
> 
> “The cost of solar has come down much faster than anyone had anticipated,” she said in an interview. “This is one of the reasons solar is going to explode.”
> 
> (StarTribune)


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> You seem to always focus on the headlines, and not the article itself.
> 
> 1. The choice of the system has not been made,
> 2. The solar proposal requires federal subsidies to be competitive.
> 3. The solar proposal was not favoured by the judge solely on cost--he's a greenhouse gasser, and this swayed him.


I'm simply posting an article of interest.

You seem to always let your bias against alternative energies lead you to immediately dismiss any progress made toward making alternative energies more viable and cost effective.

Can we establish one basic point of agreement: that finding a sustainable alternative to the oil economy is in principle a good idea?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I'm simply posting an article of interest.
> 
> You seem to always let your bias against alternative energies lead you to immediately dismiss any progress made toward making alternative energies more viable and cost effective.


There is a bias_ toward_ alternative energy proposals based on cultural/political preference as evidenced by the article posted.

The article doesn't suggest any progress toward making alternative energies more viable. It suggests that federal subsidies are necessary to even consider the project and that a back-up natural gas system will be necessary to ensure energy supply, should the solar alternative be chosen.

In some cases, I have read the article and found the idea solid.



CubaMark said:


> Can we establish one basic point of agreement: that finding a sustainable alternative to the oil economy is in principle a good idea?


It's a neutral idea that is often pursued in harmful ways. Oil/natural gas is sustainable for several centuries while hydro/nuclear/passive solar are providing long-term backup . There is no reason to find alternative sources of energy at this point, unless they can be produced more cheaply. The best way to proceed is to let the rising cost of oil and natural gas drive the development of the alternatives. In that way, the ideas will be economically sustainable. The solar proposal described in this article is a bad deal for American taxpayers.


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anybody who has spent any time on this thread.

Natural gas switch from coal brings power plant emissions down



> Power plants that use natural gas and a new technology to squeeze more energy from the fuel release far less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than coal-fired power plants do, according to a new analysis accepted for publication Jan. 8 in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The so-called “combined cycle” natural gas power plants also release significantly less nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which can worsen air quality.


Further:



> “Since more and more of our electricity is coming from these cleaner power plants, emissions from the power sector are lower by 20, 30 even 40 percent for some gases since 1997,” said lead author Joost de Gouw, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA


So, why not push dependable, inexpensive natural gas instead of heavily subsidized, intermittent, non-CO2 reducing renewables?


----------



## FeXL

Double irony, both in the title & article.

Germany’s Greens help the coal industry, while the US cut emissions by ignoring the greens

First, Germany:



> “IT’S been a black Christmas for green thinkers as Germany, the world leader in rooftop solar and pride of the renewable energy revolution has confirmed its rapid return to coal.
> 
> After scrapping nuclear power, Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions are back on the rise as the country clamours to reopen some of the dirtiest brown coalmines that have been closed since the reunification of east and west.


Next, the US:



> The divergence [between the US and Europe] has come about largely because while Europe has pushed headlong into renewables with generous public subsidies, the US has harnessed new technology to unlock vast resources of unconventional oil and gas.
> 
> This meant in 2012 the US spent about one-third as much as the EU on renewable energy subsidies, $21 billion against $57bn, according to IEA figures.


One of the commenters has a link to a PDF on new coal fired generators, Neurath F and G Units. Very interesting.


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio talks about a new hot fusion project being worked on by the Skunkworks. Yeah, that one. They're about a year into a 5 year project.

Skunkworks Fusion?

He notes his scepticism but also his desire to believe. I agree entirely with his statement:



> I’m generally prone to seeing this kind of story and calling it hype or uniformed dreaming; *but* this is the skunkworks we’re talking about here. The folks who do the impossible on a daily basis. The folks who made a Mach 3 to 4 airframe when everyone else was happy to just do supersonic at all.


Bold from the link.

There's a 14 minute vid. It doesn't get into too many details, but I found it semi-interesting.


----------



## FeXL

Another fusion project, improved by a suggestion from 19th century science.

Fusion instabilities lessened by unexpected effect 



> A surprising effect created by a 19th century device called a Helmholz coil offers clues about how to achieve controlled nuclear fusion at Sandia National Laboratories’ powerful Z machine.


Fusion: Now With Less Instability, Thanks To A 19th Century Technique



> The Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories is moving us toward a fusion future by stepping into the past - in this case using a 19th century device called a Helmholz coil, which is a pair of circular coils on a common axis with equal currents flowing in the same sense and that produces a nearly uniform magnetic field when electrified.


----------



## CubaMark

*Canadian Solar Completes the Sale of Mississippi Mills Solar Power Plant to TransCanada*





> Canadian Solar Solutions Inc., has completed the sale of Mississippi Mills, a 10 megawatt AC solar power plant valued at over C$61.0 million to TransCanada on December 31, 2013
> 
> "This is the fourth of nine solar power plants totaling 86MW AC that we agreed to build and sell to TransCanada for approximately C$500 million,"





> The Mississippi Mills 10 megawatt AC solar power plant is located in the town of Mississippi Mills in Eastern Ontario. Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. will provide turnkey engineering, procurement and construction services to each of the nine projects.
> 
> This latest sale follows the previously announced closing of the sale of Brockville 1 on June 28, 2013, in addition to Brockville 2 and Burritts Rapids on September 30, 2013.


(SolarDaily)


----------



## eMacMan

Just did the math on that solar plant. Allowing for an average of 10 hours a day at 10 Megawatts/hour and a wholesale price of 5¢ that comes out to under $2 Million revenue per year on a $61 Million investment. 

Ignoring the obvious that it is unlikely to reach 100MW hours day in and day out. It will still take over 30 years to recoup the initial investment, and even then we are talking the extremely unlikely scenario where there are zero maintenance costs and zero operating costs.


----------



## Macfury

It's good news because it's solar, not because it makes any sort of sense or provides value to energy consumers!


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Just did the math on that solar plant. Allowing for an average of 10 hours a day at 10 Megawatts/hour and a wholesale price of 5¢ that comes out to under $2 Million revenue per year on a $61 Million investment.
> 
> Ignoring the obvious that it is unlikely to reach 100MW hours day in and day out. It will still take over 30 years to recoup the initial investment, and even then we are talking the extremely unlikely scenario where there are zero maintenance costs and zero operating costs.


my question is, how did you assume the 10MW capacity is based on only 10 hours a day?

And where did you get the 5cent wholesale number for solar power?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> my question is, how did you assume the 10MW capacity is based on only 10 hours a day?


He's being generous. No city in Canada gets more than 10 hours a day of sunshine anually.



groovetube said:


> And where did you get the 5cent wholesale number for solar power?


That's the wholesale price of electricity.

Ontario Wholesale Electricity Demand and Price Information


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> He's being generous. No city in Canada gets more than 10 hours a day of sunshine anually.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the wholesale price of electricity.


Thanks for trying, but you didn't answer the questions.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Thanks for trying, but you didn't answer the questions.


Study the fundamentals of electrical power generation and then see if you're still having difficulty with emacman's post.


----------



## eMacMan

As MF said an average of 10 hours a day is being extremely generous, as is taking the 10 MW/hour generation figure at face value.

How much fall off is there with light or heavy cloud cover? You can bet the farm that the 10MW figure is not average but is peak.

You can pick any number you like for the price the utility gets paid. 5¢ is the current price if it doubles that will almost offset some of the very generous assumptions about daylight hours and maintaining peak efficiency at least under heay cloud cover. That still leaves question marks around the expected lifespan, maintenance, capital costs, and other routine operating expenses.

This cannot be called economically viable no matter how far you are willing to stretch your imagination.

Lacking evidence to the contrary I think one can guess that there is a lot of environmental expense incurred during the manufacturing process. Probably more than enough to offset the actual poisonous pollutants of most modern power plants.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> As MF said an average of 10 hours a day is being extremely generous...


Ottawa, near the solar array, gets fewer than 6.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> As MF said an average of 10 hours a day is being extremely generous, as is taking the 10 MW/hour generation figure at face value.
> 
> How much fall off is there with light or heavy cloud cover? You can bet the farm that the 10MW figure is not average but is peak.
> 
> You can pick any number you like for the price the utility gets paid. 5¢ is the current price if it doubles that will almost offset some of the very generous assumptions about daylight hours and maintaining peak efficiency at least under heay cloud cover. That still leaves question marks around the expected lifespan, maintenance, capital costs, and other routine operating expenses.
> 
> This cannot be called economically viable no matter how far you are willing to stretch your imagination.
> 
> Lacking evidence to the contrary I think one can guess that there is a lot of environmental expense incurred during the manufacturing process. Probably more than enough to offset the actual poisonous pollutants of most modern power plants.


The question was, how did they come up with the 10MW rating figure?

Is it merely how much it can theoretically produce, in one hour only, a number of hours, average over a certain period, which?

I'm just interested in the calculation.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> The question was, how did they come up with the 10MW rating figure?
> 
> Is it merely how much it can theoretically produce, in one hour only, a number of hours, average over a certain period, which?
> 
> I'm just interested in the calculation.


Solar arrays are almost always rated at peak output under ideal conditions. If it were otherwise it should have been stated. The figure is as you suspect quite useless. How much does it fall off under light overcast? How much further does it drop under heavy cloud cover?

Again I was being extremely generous. I was trying to point out that even if everything was perfect for 30 years, this plant would struggle to break even. Of course if things were perfect for solar production, the drought damage would be extreme, and the region would fall way short of sufficient water supplies to support the population.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Solar arrays are almost always rated at peak output under ideal conditions. If it were otherwise it should have been stated. The figure is as you suspect quite useless. How much does it fall off under light overcast? How much further does it drop under heavy cloud cover?
> 
> Again I was being extremely generous. I was trying to point out that even if everything was perfect for 30 years, this plant would struggle to break even. Of course if things were perfect for solar production, the drought damage would be extreme, and the region would fall way short of sufficient water supplies to support the population.


I was just wondering specifically how they arrive at the figure. I tried finding out and didn't find what I was looking for. I wondered if you knew.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I was just wondering specifically how they arrive at the figure. I tried finding out and didn't find what I was looking for. I wondered if you knew.


It's standard terminology for peak instantaneous output under ideal conditions. The time element does not enter into it.


----------



## groovetube

hmmm, what little I have found, suggests otherwise.

I guess I'll keep looking when I have more time.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> hmmm, what little I have found, suggests otherwise.
> 
> I guess I'll keep looking when I have more time.


Good luck to you, sir!


----------



## CubaMark

*‘Chasing the Dream of Half-Price Gasoline from Natural Gas’*

_At a pilot plant in Menlo Park, California, a technician pours white pellets into a steel tube and then taps it with a wrench to make sure they settle together. He closes the tube, and oxygen and methane—the main ingredient of natural gas—flow in. Seconds later, water and ethylene, the world’s largest commodity chemical, flow out. Another simple step converts the ethylene into gasoline.

The white pellets are a catalyst developed by the Silicon Valley startup Siluria, which has raised $63.5 million in venture capital. If the catalysts work as well in a large, commercial scale plant as they do in tests, Siluria says, the company could produce gasoline from natural gas at about half the cost of making it from crude oil—at least at today’s cheap natural-gas prices.

If Siluria really can make cheap gasoline from natural gas it will have achieved something that has eluded the world’s top chemists and oil and gas companies for decades. Indeed, finding an inexpensive and direct way to upgrade natural gas into more valuable and useful chemicals and fuels could finally mean a cheap replacement for petroleum._

(MIT Tech Review via Cryptogon)


----------



## Macfury

Bingo! Now, we're talking CM...


----------



## CubaMark

*There's a conflict brewing between a coal-strip-mining company and the town's existing users of green-tech geothermal energy in Springhill, Nova Scotia:*

*Company floats plan to mine coal in Springhill again*

_The Springhill Coal Mines Ltd., a subsidiary of Nova Construction, has applied to the provincial Department of Natural Resources to excavate three test pits with the goal of examining the coal seams for a potential open-pit mining operation.

“I don’t have a real problem with Nova Construction coming in to do some surface mining, providing that all environmental conditions are met,” Springhill Mayor Maxwell Snow said last week.

But at least one Springhill resident does have a real problem with it.

“If the equipment does come into town to take out the coal pillars of Springhill, they will have to go over my body to do it,” said Ralph Ross, the 64-year-old owner of Ross Refrigeration in town, and an authority on the geothermal operations and capabilities that exist there because of the abandoned underground mine tunnels._

* * *​
_Ross’s concern is that a strip-mining operation in and around the town could destroy the geothermal potential. Plastic container manufacturer Ropak Packaging, Surrette Battery and a number of town-owned operations, including the arena, use mine-based geothermal to offset heating and cooling costs.

Ross describes a perfect geothermal scenario created by the old mines in Springhill, a room-and-pillar mining system in which a number of interconnected tunnels are protected by a seam of untouched coal near the surface. Billions of litres of water run through the old tunnels, and water temperature at the deepest part of the mine is about 38 C, falling to about 20 C when it reaches the surface, Ross said.

Industrial and town wells have been dug to extract the warm water and send it back down after it has been used and cooled.

“It’s a huge radiator in the earth,” Ross said. “What they want to do is come in and take out the crown pillars (coal left near the surface). They want to take the roof off the house. As soon as you take the coal out you’ve destroyed the tunnel. The water can’t get through if the tunnels are collapsed. And that is the biggest fear. They don’t just want to take one seam out, they want to take all of them out.”_

* * *​
_“We have a resource (geothermal) here in Springhill,” Ross said. “Over 425 (coal miners’) lives were sacrificed building this resource and I’ll be damned if some company is going to come in and take it away from us._


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)

*Further info on Springhill Geothermal history, technology, etc.:*

Springhill Mining Disasters - Springhill: A geothermal future
Cumberland Regional Development Authority :: Geothermal
Geothermal Energy


----------



## Macfury

That's certainly a priority that has to be sorted out at the provincial level, since the province both owns the coal and licenses geothermal. If engineering reports say that the geothermal potential will be destroyed by coal mining, I would say go with the geo.


----------



## FeXL

Ten reasons why intermittent wind & solar power are a problem, not a solution 

Little of this will be a surprise to anyone familiar with the subject.

Good read.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Ten reasons why intermittent wind & solar power are a problem, not a solution
> 
> Little of this will be a surprise to anyone familiar with the subject.
> 
> Good read.


Perhaps a bit over the top with a few points but the main idea is very solid. Environmental costs are a good deal more complex than the AGW crowd believes.

One example with wind turbines is the bases, they are absolutely massive concrete pours. I know some of the smaller units have bases in the range of 800 cubic meters of concrete. When you start factoring in the energy to manufacture that cement, the energy to quarry, separate and wash the sand and gravel, transportation costs (usually from China)... those windmills are responsible for a lot more CO2 than we might like to think.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> Perhaps a bit over the top with a few points but the main idea is very solid. Environmental costs are a good deal more complex than the AGW crowd believes.
> 
> One example with wind turbines is the bases, they are absolutely massive concrete pours. I know some of the smaller units have bases in the range of 800 cubic meters of concrete. When you start factoring in the energy to manufacture that cement, the energy to quarry, separate and wash the sand and gravel, transportation costs (usually from China)... those windmills are responsible for a lot more CO2 than we might like to think.


Interesting how that very same calculation - the factors that go into the drilling, extraction, transportation, processing and burning of fossil fuels - is conveniently cast aside by the anti-green tech people.

The issues of intermittent supply from wind/solar are of concern, of course. But folks seem to salivate at the opportunity to raise it again and again, while ignoring advances in battery and alternative (hydro, hell - even train!) storage possibilities that can remove that uncertainty.


----------



## groovetube

It's as though they want to damn the technology without allowing the time to develop the technology.

How many years of subsidies tax breaks and development have gone into fossil fuel power?

Putting aside climate change, there's also a little thing about polluting the environment as well. It almost seems forgotten in the Anti vs believers of climate change.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Putting aside climate change, there's also a little thing about polluting the environment as well. It almost seems forgotten in the Anti vs believers of climate change.


I agree but is it okay for our part of the world to produce "cleaner" energy at the price of toxic pollution of sizeable portions of China?

Within 50 miles of where I live, roughly half a million cubic feet of concrete have been poured to support wind turbines. The amount used was so extreme that local concrete contractors were having trouble getting a few cubic meters delivered for ordinary house construction.

BTW that's enough to cover 50 hectares of land 1 meter deep in concrete.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> How many years of subsidies tax breaks and development have gone into fossil fuel power?


Surprisingly little!


----------



## groovetube

I guess if a 100 years is little, it's all relative.

It's only been the couple decades or so that solar and wind power have really become more widely used and already flying monkeys are shrieking its a complete failure.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I guess if a 100 years is little, it's all relative.
> 
> It's only been the couple decades or so that solar and wind power have really become more widely used and already flying monkeys are shrieking its a complete failure.


Oil and gas got off the ground without much government assistance--just normal business write-offs. Solar and wind may one day prove useful, but they're not now. They're a hindrance to the grid, not a help--and they're heavily subsidized, while remaining too expensive. That's a triple whammy.


----------



## groovetube

riiiight, and thats why they still continue to receive such huge investments and massive tax breaks! why just the other week we learned that these trillion dollar industries had the canadian government pay for a 22 million dollar ad campaign!

the oil industry has had tax breaks and support of the government for almost a 100 years. You'd think they have had enough by now!
'
Yet the renewable energy industries have trouble getting consistent tax breaks which often expire unlink some of the ones that have been there for oil for nearly a 100 years.

Like, they need it...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> riiiight, and thats why they still continue to receive such huge investments and massive tax breaks! why just the other week we learned that these trillion dollar industries had the canadian government pay for a 22 million dollar ad campaign!
> 
> the oil industry has had tax breaks and support of the government for almost a 100 years. You'd think they have had enough by now!
> '
> Yet the renewable energy industries have trouble getting consistent tax breaks which often expire unlink some of the ones that have been there for oil for nearly a 100 years.
> 
> Like, they need it...


Well there you go--the government created a pro-oil ad, so we should therefore pour billions into worthless renewables? You got your billion dollar Ontario Samsung wind boondoggle. 

And your 100 year figure is meaningless. What sort of subsidy was oil getting in 1914? If anything, oil has been subsidizing the government for decades.

Glad you only have one vote.


----------



## groovetube

do your own damned research! Anyone who knows how to use google can easily discover how oil has been tax breaker, subsidized up the ting yang for many many decades.

Your argument is worthless.


----------



## Macfury

Great proof once again! You never disappoint.


----------



## groovetube

well, no better than yours it seems macfury.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> well, no better than yours it seems macfury.


I wasn't the one who claimed that the oil industry was based on massive tax subsidies in 1914. Now go back to your corner, tail between legs.


----------



## groovetube

ha ha ha I don't think I ever claimed anything quite so specific, but I guess I can pull the same game and say I wasn't the one who claimed the oil industry doesn't receive any subsidies. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Interesting how that very same calculation - the factors that go into the drilling, extraction, transportation, processing and burning of fossil fuels - is conveniently cast aside by the anti-green tech people.
> 
> The issues of intermittent supply from wind/solar are of concern, of course. But folks seem to salivate at the opportunity to raise it again and again, while ignoring advances in battery and alternative (hydro, hell - even train!) storage possibilities that can remove that uncertainty.


I'm not anti green. I'm anti having my tax dollars pissed away on technology that is more harmful than that which it was designed to replace. Solar panels and windmills, from design to execution, contribute more damage to the environment than oil & gas, including your list. Government mandated corn ethanol content in gasoline has contributed more to the starvation of humankind in recent years than any other "solution" I can think of. How about the stupidity of cutting down American forests, chipping the wood, loading them onto freighters powered by bunker fuel, carting them across the Atlantic & burning them in converted coal power stations in Europe? Does that make any sense at all? How much pollution do you s'pose that avoids?

In addition, yes, there are many pie in the sky solutions to intermittency problems, but they require even more money to be pissed away, both via development and the ever present "green" subsidies, once again increasing the final cost of power to consumers. 

How much are you willing to pay for electricity? 10 cents/kilowatt hour? 50 cents? A buck? 5 bucks? At what point does the cost of electricity factor into whether you eat cold food tonite in a dark, freezing house? People in Europe are cutting down protected forests to burn in stoves in order to eat & heat their homes. Cite them the benefits of renewable energy.

How about the cost of manufacturing? Right now Europe is losing manufacturers to North America based largely on the cost of electricity. Germany is currently at 40 cents and, having realized the folly of all the empty promises, are developing the hell out of coal. Watch their electricity prices drop.

I can't recall all the times I've noted this before but it bears repeating: In order to make renewable energy attractive, the first thing it needs is to be affordable. And I mean affordable right out of the gate, not after my tax dollars have "made" it affordable. The base infrastructure already isn't, let alone the additional costs from batteries, trains, pumps/dams, whatever storage medium is required to cover inconsistent delivery problems. 

Add to that all the toxins required in manufacturing (especially solar panels), the backup systems needed to fill the holes in power delivery, the increase in costs of raw materials like corn, the carbon footprint of all the ancillary services such as concrete manufacturing, killing of birds & bats, etc, etc, etc.

Jeezuz, renewable energy isn't a solution. It's a tax dollar funded Faustian nightmare...


----------



## MacDoc

> I'm not anti green. I'm anti having my tax dollars pissed away on technology that is more harmful than that which it was designed to replace. Solar panels and windmills, from design to execution, contribute more damage to the environment than oil & gas, including your list.


irony meter just went offscale.... 

so you don't mind pissing away oil and gas subsidizes to companies that make billions already AND pollute the environment....???? 

I dare say the good citizens of several towns with transport accidents might just tar and feather you.

We certainly understand the loonie toon view of the world you have now. :lmao:

Perhaps you are getting paid to disseminate disinformation...bigger the lie n'all


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> irony meter just went offscale....
> 
> so you don't mind pissing away oil and gas subsidizes to companies that make billions already AND pollute the environment....????
> 
> I dare say the good citizens of several towns with transport accidents might just tar and feather you.
> 
> We certainly understand the loonie toon view of the world you have now. :lmao:
> 
> Perhaps you are getting paid to disseminate disinformation...bigger the lie n'all


The outrage at the subsidies extended to renewable energies and some of the ill effects it may have, then a complete blindness to the clear harm fossil fuels cause without even considering the theories of climate change, and the decades and decades of subsidies that continue to this day despite the fact that oil companies have long since matured into trillion dollar industries is laughable. Actually, sad.


----------



## eMacMan

Unless I have missed something the so-called improved batteries still rely heavily on rare earth elements. Again the toxic ecological carnage is happening mostly in China, but it is still very much a part of the equation. The quantity of batteries needed to make Wind viable as a base load is again enormous. The ecological damage incurred during the manufacture would make the oil sands look relatively pristine.

OTOH If you want to talk about testing and eventually installing Thorium based nuclear reactors located close to major cities, then I am all for it. That could reduce instead of increasing high tension distribution networks. The mining and disposal of fuel is safer by a factor of thousands compared to conventional nuclear. Consumes rather than produces weapons grade Plutonium. Instant safe shutdown simply by interrupting the feedback loop.... 

The downside, mainly revolves around liquid Fluorides???? Not quite as scary as conventional nuclear. However if we limit the use to upwind and upstream of large cities why not go for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> so you don't mind pissing away oil and gas subsidizes to companies that make billions already AND pollute the environment....????


First, If you ever clicked a link (on this very thread, actually), you'd know that proportionately, renewables receive far greater subsidies than petroleum. Perhaps you could remind your little Reddit buddy of the same, he seems to have glossed over that day's lesson, as well.

Second, show me where oil & gas, proportionately, pollutes more than renewables. Show me where the complete renewables picture produce less CO2 than oil & gas. As this is your major bugaboo, I expect you'll be able to cite a veritable list of papers off the top of your head.

Third, oil & gas employs untold numbers of people worldwide. Compare that to renewables, how many jobs have been lost due to renewables & what it actually costs the public to employ many of them.



MacDoc said:


> I dare say the good citizens of several towns with transport accidents might just tar and feather you.


I luvs it when you talk dirty. BTW, WTF does this have to do with Alternative Energy?



MacDoc said:


> We certainly understand the loonie toon view of the world you have now.


There's one loon in this conversation. You'll find him in the mirror, with the asshat on...



MacDoc said:


> Perhaps you are getting paid to disseminate disinformation...bigger the lie n'all


Still waiting for my first cheque. Perhaps you could put the good word in for me. Even if it never arrives, making you look like a horse's backside on a regular basis is reward enough.

Once again, Ladies & Gentlemen, you see MacDoc's superior powers of reasoning at play. He doesn't have a single fact to refute anything I posted, he's merely exercising his typical feeble attempt at character assassination.

What a sad, bitter, old man...


----------



## Macfury

The two are simply not comparable. Fossil fuels are a high quality source of concentrated energy on demand that is almost infinitely transportable. And yes, there will sometimes be accidents involving such a widespread infrastructure that is used by more than a half-billion people in North America alone.

"Renewables" are used by a few and are a hobbyists form of feel-good energy at an extraordinary price.

Oil and gas subsidies? Outside of the normal cost deductions from income, scarcely anything. Remove extraordinary subsidies, beyond costs against income, from any of the "renewables" and they fall like a house of cards.

And "renewables" have a distribution infrastructure in place that has already been paid for.


MacDoc said:


> irony meter just went offscale....
> 
> so you don't mind pissing away oil and gas subsidizes to companies that make billions already AND pollute the environment....????
> 
> I dare say the good citizens of several towns with transport accidents might just tar and feather you.
> 
> We certainly understand the loonie toon view of the world you have now. :lmao:
> 
> Perhaps you are getting paid to disseminate disinformation...bigger the lie n'all


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> a complete blindness to the clear harm fossil fuels cause


Don't see your name on the list of "Freshly off the grid in Tranna" anywhere.



groovetube said:


> Actually, sad.


Agreed...hypocrite.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The two are simply not comparable. Fossil fuels are a high quality source of concentrated energy on demand that is almost infinitely transportable. And yes, there will sometimes be accidents involving such a widespread infrastructure that is used by more than a half-billion people in North America alone.
> 
> "Renewables" are used by a few and are a hobbyists form of feel-good energy at an extraordinary price.
> 
> Oil and gas subsidies? Outside of the normal cost deductions from income, scarcely anything. Remove extraordinary subsidies, beyond costs against income, from any of the "renewables" and they fall like a house of cards.
> 
> And "renewables" have a distribution infrastructure in place that has already been paid for.


Are companies like google and apple "hobbyists"? As renewable energy becomes more easily available to consumers like bullfrog etc., it will grow. (been powered by bullfrog for years and pay the extra)

Making it sound like it's only the hobbyists tinkering with a failed technology is just completely stupid. Why don't you call up google and inform them how foolhardy their plans to increase their power to 100% renewable? Rather than arguing on a forum, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Are companies like google and apple "hobbyists"? As renewable energy becomes more easily available to consumers like bullfrog etc., it will grow. (been powered by bullfrog for years and pay the extra)
> 
> Making it sound like it's only the hobbyists tinkering with a failed technology is just completely stupid. Why don't you call up google and inform them how foolhardy their plans to increase their power to 100% renewable? Rather than arguing on a forum, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one :lmao:


They're doing it because subsidies make it cheaper for them to engage in a public relations exercise. UPS, for example, did this at head office but couldn't afford to roll it out across the country.

Bullfrog Power? They were having trouble selling just electricity so they expanded into... wait for it... natural gas!


----------



## eMacMan

My earlier post on wind got me to thinking about battery storage for wind turbines. With a bit of research I came up with the following. The base figures are fairly solid given that no-one actually wants to give out meaningful numbers. I believe the math is reasonably solid as well.

Southern Alberta has about 1GW/hour maximum wind power generation. At best most of these turbines can average only about 10% of capacity. The wind does not blow 24/7 and turbine ratings are peak power. Even when they are producing power most of the time it is at around 30% of the rated peak. 

That works out to perhaps 2.4 GWH/ day or 100 MWH/Hr. To achieve a three day no wind storage capacity would require 7.5 GWH of usable storage. The batteries would also have to accept a peak charge rate of up to 900 MW/Hr.

A typical car battery can store perhaps 6KWH with only about half of that truly usable, routinely discharging any battery more than 50% means a longer charge cycle and reduced battery life. By my guesstimation to turn South Western AB wind power from toy into a solid base load performer would require the equivalent of over 2 million car batteries. No matter what style of battery selected we are talking of an average life span of no more than 8 years. That's more than 250,000 batteries annually. Of course that still leaves us less than half way there. If even small wind and solar generation installations require battery equalization, imagine what that would be like for a series of battery banks running the equivalent of 2 million batteries. After that there is still the not so small matter of converting battery power back into a form where it powers the grid. Depending on how much juice is lost in the process, just this part of the equation could easily force another doubling of the battery banks.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> Unless I have missed something the so-called improved batteries still rely heavily on rare earth elements.


I did note above that alternatives to storage that do not involve rare earth battery recipies are already in operation (hydro and other innovations). Improvements are being made daily in technologies for solar panels and also in battery design that eschew rare earth elements - nobody on the research side of green tech is happy with the status quo. It's a continuing developmental process.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I did note above that alternatives to storage that do not involve rare earth battery recipies are already in operation (hydro and other innovations). Improvements are being made daily in technologies for solar panels and also in battery design that eschew rare earth elements - nobody on the research side of green tech is happy with the status quo. It's a continuing developmental process.


Gas and oil developed technologies funded by sales of their products. The problem for renewables is that there is plenty of their product available on the market, and they can't beat it on price, efficiency, or delivery. I see utterly no reason to attempt to develop these technologies before they're viable.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> I did note above that alternatives to storage that do not involve rare earth battery recipies are already in operation (hydro and other innovations). Improvements are being made daily in technologies for solar panels and also in battery design that eschew rare earth elements - nobody on the research side of green tech is happy with the status quo. It's a continuing developmental process.


And when someone can demonstrate that they have solid, eco friendly, affordable alternatives then I think some of these technologies will start to take off. More likely in the home installation area first. That said if Alberta's energy retailers were to drop their outrageous gouge fees and simply accept an over 100% mark-up on electrical costs, then the case for home solar or wind power would lose much of its appeal. I still see $1/watt as being the max justifiable cost for solar panels.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> ...nobody on the research side of green tech is happy with the status quo. It's a continuing developmental process.


While your assumptions about what motivates green tech are honourable, let's be honest with ourselves: what really motivates them is the never-ending slush fund. If there were not billions of tax payer dollars to tap into, all the green tech companies would bail like rats leaving a sinking ship.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Bullfrog Power? They were having trouble selling just electricity so they expanded into... wait for it... natural gas!


D'oh! The iron... Right now he's scrambling all over the leftist blogs & Google to find a soundbite to refute you.

What's next? Bullfrog Coal?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I see utterly no reason to attempt to develop these technologies before they're viable.


Do you think "viable" will appear out of nowhere? Research and development of new technologies takes time, trial and error, etc. And we as a society (via government policy) decide, given various inputs (existing environmental damage brought about by the fossil fuel industries among them) that there is value in supporting the development of those new technologies via incentives.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Do you think "viable" will appear out of nowhere?


\\

Yes, it will appear out of need when price drives it--and will then be welcomed with open arms.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> They're doing it because subsidies make it cheaper for them to engage in a public relations exercise. UPS, for example, did this at head office but couldn't afford to roll it out across the country.
> 
> *Bullfrog Power? They were having trouble selling just electricity so they expanded into... wait for it... natural gas*!


So? Was there a rule they cannot sell both? What's your point?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> So? Was there a rule they cannot sell both? What's your point?


You were just crying about how unsafe natural gas pipelines were.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> So? Was there a rule they cannot sell both? What's your point?


That Bullfrog is just another example of a business predicated to saving the Earth via its green policy but is unable to survive without either a) taxpayer funded subsidies or b) the presence of Big Oil or c) both.


----------



## SINC

I doubt any company like Bullfrog can control the grid to pinpoint any single house to use 'their' power. Bullfrog customers are using the very same (non green) power as their next door neighbours. All they are really doing is donating to Bullfrog. Hilarious!


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I doubt any company like Bullfrog can control the grid to pinpoint any single house to use 'their' power. Bullfrog customers are using the very same (non green) power as their next door neighbours. All they are really doing is donating to Bullfrog. Hilarious!


But it feels so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o good.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> But it feels so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o good.


Probably not half as good making that post must have made you feel.



SINC said:


> I doubt any company like Bullfrog can control the grid to pinpoint any single house to use 'their' power. Bullfrog customers are using the very same (non green) power as their next door neighbours. All they are really doing is donating to Bullfrog. Hilarious!


I have to ask if you have looked into this before making these sorts of assumptions. Bullfrog will displace the power you are using from the grid with green energy. It may not specifically run your house exclusively on green power, but replacing the draw from fossil fuel sources on the grid. The more people do this, the more green energy makes it on the grid. I think it's a good thing, I'm not sure what macfury's jeers of "it makes you feel soooo good" stuff has to do with it. Have we now reached a point where this sort of schoolyard crap passes as conversation?

I have no doubt many here would never choose to make choices I might make or anyone else for that matter, just mentioning it. If people are complaining that it's a failure and closing the door on it, they aren't listening to anything CM has posted. Renewable energy really hasn't made it to the mainstream until recent years. The only way to properly develop the energy, is to start using it, create the demand, and as imperfect as say, bullfrog might be, at least there are some options now that will hopefully push more investments, and more crucially, develop the technologies much much further so that much of what's wrong with it currently can be worked out. Whether or not you believe the theories of climate change or not, just the air pollution and other environmental effects of the retrieval and processing of fossil fuels is reason enough alone to work towards developing a much more sustainable, human friendly energy. And it would benefit humans to focus on this, now.

Now I'm sure this opinion may upset a couple, perhaps bring on some more jeers from macfury, but well that's just my opinion, and the schoolyard jeers only really shows how little he has to offer as an argument.

Perhaps macfury you can scan this list of all the companies using green power, and write them a nice mocking letter of how it's making them feel, sooooo good... :lmao:
https://www.bullfrogpower.com/powered/greenindex.cfm?region_name=National


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Yes, it will appear out of need when price drives it--and will then be welcomed with open arms.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Probably not half as good making that post must have made you feel.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ask if you have looked into this before making these sorts of assumptions. Bullfrog will displace the power you are using from the grid with green energy. It may not specifically run your house exclusively on green power, but replacing the draw from fossil fuel sources on the grid. The more people do this, the more green energy makes it on the grid. I think it's a good thing, I'm not sure what macfury's jeers of "it makes you feel soooo good" stuff has to do with it. Have we now reached a point where this sort of schoolyard crap passes as conversation?
> 
> I have no doubt many here would never choose to make choices I might make or anyone else for that matter, just mentioning it. If people are complaining that it's a failure and closing the door on it, they aren't listening to anything CM has posted. Renewable energy really hasn't made it to the mainstream until recent years. The only way to properly develop the energy, is to start using it, create the demand, and as imperfect as say, bullfrog might be, at least there are some options now that will hopefully push more investments, and more crucially, develop the technologies much much further so that much of what's wrong with it currently can be worked out. Whether or not you believe the theories of climate change or not, just the air pollution and other environmental effects of the retrieval and processing of fossil fuels is reason enough alone to work towards developing a much more sustainable, human friendly energy. And it would benefit humans to focus on this, now.
> 
> Now I'm sure this opinion may upset a couple, perhaps bring on some more jeers from macfury, but well that's just my opinion, and the schoolyard jeers only really shows how little he has to offer as an argument.
> 
> Perhaps macfury you can scan this list of all the companies using green power, and write them a nice mocking letter of how it's making them feel, sooooo good... :lmao:
> https://www.bullfrogpower.com/powered/greenindex.cfm?region_name=National


Once again the pot calls the kettle black and likely does not even realize it. gt accuses others of jeering all the while insulting their opinions as 'schoolyard crap'. He just never knows when to STHU, and not do exactly to others, what he accuses them of doing to him.


----------



## groovetube

SINC, there's a difference between mocking an opinion or link etc., and mocking someone personally as macfury did. I have as you know, tried to stay away from the personal, and if someone thinks it's personal I'm happy to clarify.

Now back to the issue with bullfrog, I hope my explanation made sense.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


>


ha ha ha. That's a perfect graphic! I think he thinks that somehow, renewable energy will just somehow magically appear out of nowhere a fully mature technology with some sort of sudden demand out of nowhere.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> SINC, there's a difference between mocking an opinion or link etc., and mocking someone personally as macfury did. I have as you know, tried to stay away from the personal, and if someone thinks it's personal I'm happy to clarify.
> 
> Now back to the issue with bullfrog, I hope my explanation made sense.


No need, you have admitted that you likely are not in fact using actual green power and that was my point.

And yes, your 'schoolyard crap' comment was mocking both McFury's and my opinions and not necessary to make your point.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No need, you have admitted that you likely are not in fact using actual green power and that was my point.
> 
> And yes, your 'schoolyard crap' comment was mocking both McFury's and my opinions and not necessary to make your point.


how did I mock you personally SINC? If I did I'm sorry. 

The point, of bullfrog, is to replace my power draw on the grid, with green power, rather than drawing on fossil fuel. I don't think I have ever misrepresented this by saying I have a direct feed to my house from a green energy source.

The benefits, are the same, whether the green power actually reaches my house specifically, or replaces the need for fossil fuel generated power for my draw or not.

I think the concept is rather simple is it not?


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> how did I mock you personally SINC? If I did I'm sorry.
> 
> The point, of bullfrog, is to replace my power draw on the grid, with green power, rather than drawing on fossil fuel. I don't think I have ever misrepresented this by saying I have a direct feed to my house from a green energy source.
> 
> The benefits, are the same, whether the green power actually reaches my house specifically, or replaces the need for fossil fuel generated power for my draw or not.
> 
> I think the concept is rather simple is it not?


Read it again. I submit that you mocked our opinions, not us personally. You appear to not even realize that you do this very often. There was no need for that dig. You could have countered with your own opinion without the insult to ours.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry SINC. I will try to not do so with you. However, as you've seen, it's easy to get into that with macfury. But his rather personal dig, (rather than the opinion or topic) is likely simply designed to get a similar response.

It's on me I guess if I fall for it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry SINC. I will try to not do so with you. However, as you've seen, it's easy to get into that with macfury. But his rather personal dig, (rather than the opinion or topic) is likely simply designed to get a similar response.
> 
> It's on me I guess if I fall for it.


That's reasonable, thanks.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Probably not half as good making that post must have made you feel.


It has nothing to do with you, so I don't know why you feel it was personal. I was responding to SINC. That is one of four benefits Bullfrog offers:



> You sleep—and feel—better knowing that your energy is clean and green.


However, Bullfrog is a scam in that they already have a contract with OPG to sell high priced electricity to the grid. That is already blended into the market price we pay for electricity in Ontario. That is, I am already buying "Bullfrog Power" whether I want to or not. 

By actually signing up with Bullfrog, no additional "green energy" is produced. Bullfrog simply marks up your bill and gives OPG the market price the rest of us pay.

Bullfrog sees itself as brand, not an energy company. Pretty clever--but devious.


----------



## Macfury

This is a perfect example of the way in which "greens" seem to believe that "green technology" is different from other technology. Why would a lack of government grants result in the notion that one would need magic to create alternate sources of energy to replace existing sources? There's no crisis or emergency that suggests we're on a tight schedule. We're not developing a superweapon to win WWII.

Oil and gas largely replaced coal at the household level with no subsidies or government programs in place. Convenience and price made the transition happen. Horses to cars. Drafting to AutoCAD. All of these transitions occurred because the demand was there for the replacement product, and the price was right.

At this point "alternative energy" is a euphemism for the red-headed stepchildren of energy production--those technologies that have no chance to flourish without generous subsidies.



CubaMark said:


>


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It has nothing to do with you, so I don't know why you feel it was personal. I was responding to SINC. That is one of four benefits Bullfrog offers:
> 
> 
> 
> However, Bullfrog is a scam in that they already have a contract with OPG to sell high priced electricity to the grid. That is already blended into the market price we pay for electricity in Ontario. That is, I am already buying "Bullfrog Power" whether I want to or not.
> 
> By actually signing up with Bullfrog, no additional "green energy" is produced. Bullfrog simply marks up your bill and gives OPG the market price the rest of us pay.
> 
> Bullfrog sees itself as brand, not an energy company. Pretty clever--but devious.


Nonsense.

And while you gleefully trumpet how oil and gas made it in their own without any subsidies (again dead wrong) you also conveniently seem to have missed that bullfrog creates the demand to help fund renewable energy projects.

Not sure where your information is coming from, but I suggest broadening your horizons a bit.

Of course bullfrog is a brand. What was your first clue!!

Perhaps you can write all those stupid companies a letter advising them they're paying all that money into a scam!

Just think, macfury of ehmac, knows more than all those companies and corporations!!!


----------



## Macfury

Sure Bullfrog created a demand among uniformed electricity buyers--but the "green" power they are selling wouldn't exist without the heavy subsidies created by various FIT programs. 

Enjoy paying a premium to Bullfrog for the same percentage of renewables I'm buying without it!



groovetube said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> And while you gleefully trumpet how oil and gas made it in their own without any subsidies (again dead wrong) you also conveniently seem to have missed that bullfrog creates the demand to help fund renewable energy projects.
> 
> Not sure where your information is coming from, but I suggest broadening your horizons a bit.
> 
> Of course bullfrog is a brand. What was your first clue!!
> 
> Perhaps you can write all those stupid companies a letter advising them they're paying all that money into a scam!
> 
> Just think, macfury of ehmac, knows more than all those companies and corporations!!!


----------



## groovetube

That's not accurate at all, and I suspect you're aware of it. 

You first complained that that renewals were dead without subsidies, and here we have a company who has successfully created demand and funding for renewable projects. And all you can do, is twist the method of delivery to make it appear to suit your criticism. 

I've seen a few of those blogs, the ones that don't really quite get what's going on there.

So yes, despite your mockery, I will pay a little bit extra, because I believe in renewable energy and supporting it. As CM pointed out, demand a mature technology isn't going to magically appear as you seem to think, and your assessment of bullfrog as a scam, is a joke.

Sorry, but nice try. As I said, why don't you take your message of scam! To all those companies and corporations using it. Put your money where your mouth is for once.


----------



## Macfury

That's rich! Bullfrog is a _re-seller _of electricity produced by "renewable energy projects" that are heavily subsidized by the Feed-In Tariff!!

They don't produce any energy at all--they just repackage existing energy. Again, if you feel you are doing a good thing by being their customer and paying more for power, then by all means enjoy it. Everybody should spend money on what makes them happy!



groovetube said:


> That's not accurate at all, and I suspect you're aware of it.
> 
> You first complained that that renewals were dead without subsidies, and here we have a company who has successfully created demand and funding for renewable projects. And all you can do, is twist the method of delivery to make it appear to suit your criticism.
> 
> I've seen a few of those blogs, the ones that don't really quite get what's going on there.
> 
> So yes, despite your mockery, I will pay a little bit extra, because I believe in renewable energy and supporting it. As CM pointed out, demand a mature technology isn't going to magically appear as you seem to think, and your assessment of bullfrog as a scam, is a joke.
> 
> Sorry, but nice try. As I said, why don't you take your message of scam! To all those companies and corporations using it. Put your money where your mouth is for once.


----------



## SINC

From any research I have done, I submit that Bullfrog is not in fact generating any electricity, nor do they have any actual power production plants. From what I can tell, they are simply buyers and sellers of energy at a profit for themselves by charging more for electricity that they consider to be 'greener than others'. Does the term broker come to mind? And they can in no way that I can see, ensure any client that the power reaching their facility has in fact been actually generated by Bullfrog. I suspect that is closer to the truth than Bullfrog's propaganda would lead potential customers to believe.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> From any research I have done, I submit that Bullfrog is not in fact generating any electricity, nor do they have any actual power production plants. From what I can tell, they are simply buyers and sellers of energy at a profit for themselves by charging more for electricity that they consider to be 'greener than others'. Does the term broker come to mind? And they can in no way that I can see, ensure any client that the power reaching their facility has in fact been actually generated by Bullfrog. I suspect that is closer to the truth than Bullfrog's propaganda would lead potential customers to believe.


I have always assumed that bullfrog was essentially a broker of sorts, I wasn't aware that they actually generated electricity themselves. 

As for the 'green' electricity actually targeting your house, this seems to be a bit of a stumbling block, certainly macfury has used this for his spin. 

I have never been led to believe that somehow they created a new line to my house and business that exclusively sends green power. I don't think all the businesses on that list I posted are unaware of this either.

To be honest, for my business, it costs me very little. This whole "premium" thing is kinda funny to me.


----------



## Macfury

I didn't say they sent green energy to your house or business. I said that the green energy they are charging you for is the same green energy that is already part of the Ontario power mix. No new green energy is created to satisfy its customers and no change is made to the power mix. The only difference is the premium that Bullfrog collects from its customers.




groovetube said:


> I have always assumed that bullfrog was essentially a broker of sorts, I wasn't aware that they actually generated electricity themselves.
> 
> As for the 'green' electricity actually targeting your house, this seems to be a bit of a stumbling block, certainly macfury has used this for his spin.
> 
> I have never been led to believe that somehow they created a new line to my house and business that exclusively sends green power. I don't think all the businesses on that list I posted are unaware of this either.
> 
> To be honest, for my business, it costs me very little. This whole "premium" thing is kinda funny to me.


----------



## groovetube

Surely you have proof to back this up, because I'm certainly not taking your word for it.

To clarify, you are saying that bullfrog in no way matches it's customer power demands with renewable energy it buys and injects into the grid, and their yearly audits are a complete lie.


----------



## SINC

Does Bullfrog operate entirely by buying and selling chosen cherry picked, so called 'green power'? And is it essentially providing said 'green energy' by sleight of hand at best? Do savvy consumers know this and chose other options? No one knows for sure but the folks at Bullfrog. 

Or those savvy consumers.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not really quite sure what you're suggesting here.

I'm certain not an insider by any means, if anyone has credie info that I don't have I'd love to see it.


----------



## SINC

I'm simply asking questions. It seems to me that if Bullfrog was a great idea, they should hold the majority of customers. Why is it that most savvy consumers won't touch them with a ten foot pole?


----------



## groovetube

In curious as to why you assume the customers they have aren't savvy?

As evidenced by this thread, not everyone wants to pay extra to have more green power on the grid.

I'm still open to seeing credible info that people who are customers aren't savvy, and are being taken by a scam. I see a lot of insinuation.


----------



## groovetube

Take a look at the list of big companies who are paying to be powered by green energy.
https://www.bullfrogpower.com/powered/greenindex.cfm?region_name=National

Are you saying none of them are savvy??


----------



## SINC

What's to misunderstand? Savvy folks reject paying more for the same power for which their next door neighbour pays less. They also know that such small percentage 'protest buyers' of brokered power are for the most part being taxed voluntarily for precious little gain or any perceived 'greening' of the environment. As for those big companies you cite, ever heard of public relations? Look at us, we're doing something mostly ineffective, but perceived as 'green'.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> What's to misunderstand? Savvy folks reject paying more for the same power for which their next door neighbour pays less. They also know that such small 'protest buyers' of brokered power are for the most part being taxed voluntarily for precious little gain or any perceived 'greening' of the environment.


They aren't paying for the same thing at all sinc. Unless Macfury can provide credible evidence to back up his claims, it's merely useless words. I already explained how it works. Obviously, a great number of people and large companies understand the concept and are paying the extra.

Bullfrog is a business. I heard some complaining that the renewables wasn't sustainable. I think macfury finds it galling that a company like bullfrog has proved him wrong. 

If you think it isn't savvy to pay a little extra for greener energy, that's your decision.

Just not mine.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> To clarify, you are saying that bullfrog in no way matches it's customer power demands with renewable energy it buys and injects into the grid, and their yearly audits are a complete lie.


What I am saying is that Bullfrog determines the amount of energy used by its customers and goes out and purchases supply contracts of _existing_ renewable power generators to cover it. The same power that would be entering the grid anyway, under contract to OPG, only now they have positioned themselves as middlemen. They do not create new renewable energy or cause it to be created--they resell the existing capacity.

They then send their customers a bill.

At the end of the year, Bullfrog hires Deloitte and Touche to verify that it is reselling to OPG enough existing renewable electricity to satisfy the amount consumed by its customers. 

That is all that Bullfrog promises to do.


----------



## groovetube

You still haven't provided anything to back up your claims. If this were true, this is a fantastic revelation that you should notify companies like manulife financial RBC Home Depot and the hundreds of other biggies macfury.

This is big. And it's happening right here on ehmac!


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> You still haven't provided anything to back up your claims. If this were true, this is a fantastic revelation that you should notify companies like manulife financial RBC Home Depot and the hundreds of other biggies macfury.
> 
> This is big. And it's happening right here on ehmac!


They do their due diligence--and they already know! They understand that the "little man" want them to position themselves as champions of green energy, so they calculate the premium against the public relations value and go for it!


----------



## groovetube

> What is the impact on the new Green Energy Act on Bullfrog Power in Ontario?
> *The green power produced on behalf of Bullfrog Power's customers is independent of, and incremental to, the new renewable power being brought online as a result of the Green Energy Act.* In addition, by purchasing from Bullfrog Power, our customers are ensuring that 100% of their electricity needs are met with green power, *rather than only a small portion (as is the case with the standard mix available to all Ontarians). *For more information on Bullfrog and the Green Energy Act, click here.


So you're saying, they're lying?


----------



## SINC

Some biggies are just plain stupid and will grasp at straws to 'do anything to make their shareholders think they are concerned about the environment'. It's the new corporate shill. But then again, given the amount of job incentive cash you say they have all pocketed of late, it should be of no concern as they are in fact helping create jobs for the middlemen that make up broker energy storefronts.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> They do their due diligence--and they already know! They understand that the "little man" want them to position themselves as champions of green energy, so they calculate the premium against the public relations value and go for it!


That's funny. I patronize a number of the businesses on that list, and I don't recall any trumpets about their use of green energy really.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Some biggies are just plain stupid and will grasp at straws to 'do anything to make their shareholders think they are concerned about the environment'. It's the new corporate shill. But then again, given the amount of job incentive cash you say they have all pocketed of late, it should be of no concern as they are in fact helping create jobs for the middlemen that make up broker energy storefronts.


Again, a lot of insinuations, nothing to back this up. From either you, or macfury.

If what I believe to be true is incorrect, let's see some real credible information.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> So you're saying, they're lying?


Nope. They are cutting their words finely. They are still reselling energy being sold to OPG under existing contracts. It's just that the contracts exist outside the _Green Energy Act_. They are additional _to the Act_, not additional to the total electricity being produced in Ontario.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Nope. They are cutting their words finely. They are still reselling energy being sold to OPG under existing contracts. It's just that the contracts exist outside the _Green Energy Act_. They are additional _to the Act_, not additional to the total electricity being produced in Ontario.


but, only macfury's word on this so far.

It seems to me, you are also 'cutting your words pretty finely' here as well, with nothing to back it up, no numbers, no facts, anything.

Until you have something credible to prove the green energy on the grid is no higher with bullfrog in the picture, I see no reason to believe this at this time.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> but, only macfury's word on this so far.
> 
> It seems to me, you are also 'cutting your words pretty finely' here as well, with nothing to back it up, no numbers, no facts, anything.
> 
> Until you have something credible to prove the green energy on the grid is no higher with bullfrog in the picture, I see no reason to believe this at this time.


I don't expect you accept it, but I am happy to educate others reading this thread. 

The additional power now resold by Bullforg is sold to OPA at market rates, since all of the FIT program contracts under the _Green Energy Act_ have been exhausted. OPA won't pay the FIT price, so Bullfrog is using part of its customers' premium to make up the difference. Again, OPA won't simply buy all of the power you send into the grid--it needs to be purchased on contract.


----------



## groovetube

And I'm more than happy to point out that you appear so far, to be the lone wolf on this.

You continue to refuse to provide any credible sources to back up your claims whatsoever.

So who does one believe, an anonymous person on a forum, or, other easily found sources? I would think if your accusations were actually true this would be quite the revelation since there are probably a lot of people out there who would relish the exposure of this green power company eh?


----------



## Macfury

I guess if I were following your advice, I wouldn't believe any of the big corporations "that are just hoarding their corporate tax cuts instead of hiring good Canadians". It's just that "Bullfrog" has such a cute corporate name I guess --and you get a nice big decal with a picture of a bullfrog on it.

As for catching and exposing Bullfrog, what's to expose? They're pretty up front about what they offer. If someone offers to sell consumers a bag of wind and charges a dollar a day for the product, I expect all the parties to that transaction will be satisfied. The company will only need to provide the customer with a bag to capture the product, then hire an accounting firm to show that they released an equal amount of air from their head office

Again, I don't mean to get you to change your pre-conceived notions. But now anyone thinking of getting involved with this scam will be able to read this thread and do their due diligence before giving money away to power their home or business on unicorn farts.



groovetube said:


> And I'm more than happy to point out that you appear so far, to be the lone wolf on this.
> 
> You continue to refuse to provide any credible sources to back up your claims whatsoever.
> 
> So who does one believe, an anonymous person on a forum, or, other easily found sources? I would think if your accusations were actually true this would be quite the revelation since there are probably a lot of people out there who would relish the exposure of this green power company eh?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I guess if I were following your advice, I wouldn't believe any of the big corporations "that are just hoarding their corporate tax cuts instead of hiring good Canadians". It's just that "Bullfrog" has such a cute corporate name I guess --and you get a nice big decal with a picture of a bullfrog on it.
> 
> As for catching and exposing Bullfrog, what's to expose? They're pretty up front about what they offer. If someone offers to sell consumers a bag of wind and charges a dollar a day for the product, I expect all the parties to that transaction will be satisfied. The company will only need to provide the customer with a bag to capture the product, then hire an accounting firm to show that they released an equal amount of air from their head office
> 
> Again, I don't mean to get you to change your pre-conceived notions. But now anyone thinking of getting involved with this scam will be able to read this thread and do their due diligence before giving money away to power their home or business on unicorn farts.


Sorry macfury but you're just going to have to do a lot better than that! So far, you're just some anonymous joe on the internet who's got nothing so far and backed into a corner just pulling out some mockery.

Lame.


----------



## Macfury

Again, it isn't aimed at satisfied customers such as yourself. It's aimed at potential new ones.



groovetube said:


> Sorry macfury but you're just going to have to do a lot better than that! So far, you're just some anonymous joe on the internet who's got nothing so far and backed into a corner just pulling out some mockery.
> 
> Lame.


----------



## groovetube

what is, your anonymous angry man ranting?

I can't keep track!


----------



## Macfury

Who gets angry over a customer who loves their Zune?


----------



## groovetube

I give up, who?


----------



## Macfury

Nobody. Just as nobody gets angry about _other people_ buying a Bullfrog sticker.


----------



## groovetube

well for an anonymous forum poster, you seem rather upset by this.

By all means, if you have anything credible, post it. Otherwise, it's just worthless ranting.


----------



## Macfury

.


groovetube said:


> well for an anonymous forum poster, you seem rather upset by this.
> 
> By all means, if you have anything credible, post it. Otherwise, it's just worthless ranting.


----------



## groovetube

classic macfury, gets all upset, then post a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, but when cornered for sources, he gets ornery.

How dare a green power company find a way to be profitable! That's not supposed to happen! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Good article clarifying the issue of oil company subsidies.

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them



> Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the “largest single tax break” — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer’s tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction.


----------



## SINC

*Exclusive report – Boeing reveals “the biggest breakthrough in biofuels ever”*



> Oil companies watch out. Biofuels are on the verge of a breakthrough that will transform the oil market. Not only that: it will also green the planet. In an exclusive interview with CleanTechnica.com and Energy Post, Darrin L. Morgan, Director Sustainable Aviation Fuels and Environmental Strategy at Boeing, reveals that researchers at the Masdar Institute in Abu Dhabi, funded by Boeing, Honeywell and Etihad Airways, may have achieved “the biggest breakthrough in biofuels ever”. Alarmed by the poor quality of fuel made from shale oil and tar sands and frustrated by the blunt refusal of oil companies to provide fuel of better quality, Boeing and its partners have over the past four years sponsored research into alternative fuels that has led to spectacular results. *They found that there is a class of plants that can grow in deserts on salt water and has superb biomass potential.* “Nobody knew this”, says Morgan. “It is a huge discovery. A game-changer for the biofuels market.” Karel Beckman has the story.


Exclusive report - Boeing reveals â€œthe biggest breakthrough in biofuels everâ€� | EnergyPost.euEnergyPost.eu


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Exclusive report - Boeing reveals “the biggest breakthrough in biofuels ever” | EnergyPost.euEnergyPost.eu


But SINC, they would be using up our precious desert salt resources!


----------



## FeXL

Finally, some sanity in windfarm placement...

Camp Perry Wind Turbine Project Halted Following Threat to Sue and Petition Campaign



> One of several wind turbine projects planned for the shores of Lake Erie, in one of the greatest bird migration corridors in the Western Hemisphere, has been halted following submission of a letter of intent to sue from American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and Black Swamp Bird Observatory (BSBO). The two groups had vigorously opposed the project due to its exceptionally high risk to federally protected wildlife.


Brilliant. "Hey, let's build us a windfarm in the middle of a migration corridor & see what happens..."


----------



## FeXL

So, in the ever-increasing desire to create biofuels, fruit loops & whackos are looking to import invasive plant species. Without due diligence, what do you s'pose will happen?

Will Second Generation Biofuels Lead to Bioinvasions?



> In regard to _biofuels_, and noting that (1) "many of the most popular second generation crops proposed for cultivation in the U.S. and Canada are not native to North America," and that (2) "some are known to be invasive," Smith *et al.* (2013) write that "the development of a large-scale biofuel industry on the continent could lead to the widespread introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive plant species if invasive risks are not properly considered as part of biofuel policy." In light of these unwanted potentialities, Smith _et al._ evaluated "the risk of biological invasion posed by the emerging second generation biofuel industry in the U.S. and Canada by examining the invasive risk of candidate biofuel plant species, and reviewing existing biofuel policies to determine how well they address the issue of invasive species."


----------



## FeXL

The First Glimmer Of Sanity About Wind Power

A Possible First: Lawsuit Over Birds Stops Federal Wind Energy Project



> A lawsuit threatened by a pair of bird conservation groups has halted a wind power development the federal government had planned along the Lake Erie shore in Ohio.


h/t to Real Science.


----------



## FeXL

Beautiful.

Case study: how to fight the Sierra Club with no money



> In October of 2013, a major wind project was targeted for coastal North Carolina. I decided to use this as a test case for AWED’s model wind ordinance.


Further:



> Consider this final thought: NC [North Carolina] passed an RPS in 2007 mandating renewable (wind) energy. A half dozen major wind projects have been proposed since then. We have aggressively fought each of these, using AWED methodology — with no money. _As of today there is not a single industrial wind turbine in the entire state._


Italics from the link.

Too bad Albertans are not so prescient...


----------



## CubaMark

*World's largest solar bridge now officially launched*



_It's been a while since we reported on plans to turn the Blackfriars railway bridge in central London into a massive solar power station. That plan has now come to fruition, with the bridge officially opening for business earlier this month:

The 4,400 photovoltaic panels cover the roof of the station and produce enough energy to make almost 80,000 cups of tea a day. In fact, London’s longest array provides up to half of the station’s energy, reducing its CO2 emissions by an estimated 511 tonnes per year – equivalent approximately to 89,000 (average) car journeys._

(TreeHugger)


----------



## Macfury

That design is smitingly banal. Can't solar panels be placed a little more artfully?


----------



## eMacMan

On the Black Friars Bridge:

Very lame reporting. No average output figure, no construction costs, no panel costs and no upkeep costs, and no expected lifetime reported. 

My God. You can bring two cups of water to a boil with about 1/8th of a KW. That means that whole complex can generate roughly 10,000 KWH/day or perhaps 1200KW/H. 

Perhaps over $1,000,000 for the panels? How much for the structure to support the panels? How much to reinforce the bridge itself to handle the additional dead weight? How much for transmission lines and the other bits to tie it to the grid?


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> On the Black Friars Bridge:
> 
> Very lame reporting. No average output figure, no construction costs, no panel costs and no upkeep costs, and no expected lifetime reported.
> 
> My God. You can bring two cups of water to a boil with about 1/8th of a KW. That means that whole complex can generate roughly 10,000 KWH/day or perhaps 1200KW/H.
> 
> Perhaps over $1,000,000 for the panels? How much for the structure to support the panels? How much to reinforce the bridge itself to handle the additional dead weight? How much for transmission lines and the other bits to tie it to the grid?


Guess again. The array weighs in at $13 million (estimated). I can imagine the final accounting will reflect a traditionally higher amount.

I saw some other angles of the bridge and there's a relativtly handsome structure buried underneath there.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> The 4,400 photovoltaic panels cover the roof of the station and produce enough energy to make almost 80,000 cups of tea a day. In fact, London’s longest array provides up to half of the station’s energy, reducing its CO2 emissions by an estimated 511 tonnes per year – equivalent approximately to 89,000 (average) car journeys.


Questions, questions...

How much CO2 was emitted in the manufacture, transportation & installation of said panels?

How much & what kinds of toxins were produced in the manufacture of said panels?

How much of the project was funded by taxpayer dollars, ie. subsidies?

What is the total cost of the electricity produced by the array ($/kw), not limited to but including costs of manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, repair, subsidies, etc., based on actual output, not nameplate capacity?

Once you get that data, compare it to the respective numbers of non-renewable electricity costs.

Once that is done, we have a basis upon which to build a discussion...


----------



## Macfury

Lookatdee panels!



FeXL said:


> Questions, questions...
> 
> How much CO2 was emitted in the manufacture, transportation & installation of said panels?
> 
> How much & what kinds of toxins were produced in the manufacture of said panels?
> 
> How much of the project was funded by taxpayer dollars, ie. subsidies?
> 
> What is the total cost of the electricity produced by the array ($/kw), not limited to but including costs of manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, repair, subsidies, etc., based on actual output, not nameplate capacity?
> 
> Once you get that data, compare it to the respective numbers of non-renewable electricity costs.
> 
> Once that is done, we have a basis upon which to build a discussion...


----------



## FeXL

As Investments Turn Sour, Wind Energy Sector in Germany Begins To Crumble In Wake of Solar Industry Collapse



> German alarmist site klimaretter.de here reports on the latest negative developments now hitting Germany’s wind power industry. The latest to be hit is wind-turbine transmission manufacturer Bosch Rexroth AG, which announced it will slash 210 jobs and give up a production plant in Nuremberg.


Chicken, meet roost...


----------



## Macfury

The green energy ninnies were actually slavering for Canada to build solar panels and wind turbines here at home, or else we would be left out of this magnificent renewable energy wave that was sweeping the globe. Imagine the costly additional damage that would have been done...


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Guess again. The array weighs in at $13 million (estimated). I can imagine the final accounting will reflect a traditionally higher amount.
> 
> I saw some other angles of the bridge and there's a relativtly handsome structure buried underneath there.


Yep I knew I was out by a factor of at least 10 as soon as I posted it. Unfortunately I was on my way out the door and just got back to it. Looks like roughly $13/watt of capacity. With break even about 1/13th of that, that is might expensive tea.


----------



## BigDL

*Pop can solar furnace*

Fredericton NB man makes solar furnace with pop cans and eavestrough. Costs roughly $300.

VIDEO HERE


----------



## FeXL

Photos confirm flaming water existed before fracking in Texas



> Photos from 2005, recently uncovered from court documents, show that flaming water existed years before hydraulic fracking began in Parker County, Texas, the website EnergyInDepth reports.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Photos confirm flaming water existed before fracking in Texas


I believe that hydraulic fracking started in Texas and Oklahoma as far back as the late 1940s and has been more or less routine since the mid seventies.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I believe that hydraulic fracking started in Texas and Oklahoma as far back as the late 1940s and has been more or less routine since the mid seventies.


It depends on how you define fracking--explosions have been used to stimulate wells for a lot longer, but largely on vertical wells until very recently. However, the drilling lease information is well established on all of these properties. It would be clear whether hydraulic fracturing had been conducted on the lease prior to this.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It depends on how you define fracking--explosions have been used to stimulate wells for a lot longer, but largely on vertical wells until very recently. However, the drilling lease information is well established on all of these properties. It would be clear whether hydraulic fracturing had been conducted on the lease prior to this.


No I was referring to hydraulic fracking. However the fracking fluids have gotten considerably more poisonous over time. In any event problems occur when fracking breaks through the impermeable rocks which normally separate ground water from the oil laden layers. This allows volatiles to infiltrate and thereby poison ground water supplies, which in many southwestern states is the only water source available.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> No I was referring to hydraulic fracking. However the fracking fluids have gotten considerably more poisonous over time. In any event problems occur when fracking breaks through the impermeable rocks which normally separate ground water from the oil laden layers. This allows volatiles to infiltrate and thereby poison ground water supplies, which in many southwestern states is the only water source available.


The original fracking projects (early 1950s) used crude oil and petroleum products as fracking fluids! A move to largely water-based fluids is not more poisonous.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The original fracking projects (early 1950s) used crude oil and petroleum products as fracking fluids! A move to largely water-based fluids is not more poisonous.


Can you back up that claim?

Is petroleum - organic-based, less dangerous than, say, a water-based fluid with cyanide or arsenic?


----------



## CubaMark

BigDL said:


> Fredericton NB man makes solar furnace with pop cans and eavestrough. Costs roughly $300.
> 
> VIDEO HERE


Heh. Love that on his first attempt to build it, he connected it to his shed and walked away. Awhile later, he thought, "I should check and see if it's putting out any heat". Just as he was getting close to the unit, he heard a big bang and saw that the inner glass plane had cracked. It was putting out something like 120C.

There are a variety of plans for these units on the internet, from the crazy simple to very complex and high-tech. Any one of them, even the least well-built, would take a bite out of your home heating costs.

A friend of mine had a professional installation of the Cansolair model performed a few years ago - and he's over the moon with its performance. Here's his public facebook gallery of the installation.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Can you back up that claim?
> 
> Is petroleum - organic-based, less dangerous than, say, a water-based fluid with cyanide or arsenic?


Which fracking fluids contain the arsenic and cyanide?


----------



## Macfury

Solar hot water is still the best use of solar power. Conversion to electricity is ridiculously inefficient.



CubaMark said:


> Heh. Love that on his first attempt to build it, he connected it to his shed and walked away. Awhile later, he thought, "I should check and see if it's putting out any heat". Just as he was getting close to the unit, he heard a big bang and saw that the inner glass plane had cracked. It was putting out something like 120C.
> 
> There are a variety of plans for these units on the internet, from the crazy simple to very complex and high-tech. Any one of them, even the least well-built, would take a bite out of your home heating costs.
> 
> A friend of mine had a professional installation of the Cansolair model performed a few years ago - and he's over the moon with its performance. Here's his public facebook gallery of the installation.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Which fracking fluids contain the arsenic and cyanide?


I have no idea what contemporary fracking fluids contain - my turn of phrase was "...less dangerous *than, say, *a water-based fluid with cyanide or arsenic..." 

But since it's come up, here are two different sources (a chemicals registry site, and a page from the "Gasland" movie website - obviously with their respective positions on the safety of fracking:

What Chemicals Are Used | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry

Gasland 2: What's in fracking fluid?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Solar hot water is still the best use of solar power. Conversion to electricity is ridiculously inefficient.


(a) solar hot water is a fabulous use of solar alternative energy, I agree.

(b) conversion to electricity - solar panels - "ridiculously inefficient" - I guess that depends on your definition. They are, on a practically daily basis, become ever-more efficient and will continue to do so. The cost-benefit ratio is on a continuous downward curve.

(c) the panel installation I posted above and which you quoted - that's a solar *air* installation. Supremely cheap to build yourself and install... though the one pictured above was a commercial installation (approx. $2500 +delivery & installation).


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> (b) conversion to electricity - solar panels - "ridiculously inefficient" - I guess that depends on your definition. They are, on a practically daily basis, become ever-more efficient and will continue to do so. The cost-benefit ratio is on a continuous downward curve.


I meant efficiency in the sense of conversion of available power. Hot water is on top, while electricity is near the bottom, due to energy losses.

Again, CM, I have no problem with anyone who thinks installing solar photovoltaic panels on a private basis is a bargain--I just don't see the technology as warranting any sort of subsidy.


----------



## Macfury

The point I was trying to make is that those two chemicals are often found in regurgitated fracking fluid because they exist underground in trace form. More and more often that fluid is now being retained, filtered and re-used on the next fracturing site.



CubaMark said:


> I have no idea what contemporary fracking fluids contain - my turn of phrase was "...less dangerous *than, say, *a water-based fluid with cyanide or arsenic..."


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> More and more often that fluid is now being retained, filtered and re-used on the next fracturing site.


I'd like to see some (even industry-friendly) stats on the loss rate of that fluid... they're not pumping it into stainless steel cisterns down there, leakage is more than likely...


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I'd like to see some (even industry-friendly) stats on the loss rate of that fluid... they're not pumping it into stainless steel cisterns down there, leakage is more than likely...


No, they pump them into pits lined with geomembranes or frac ponds as below. The reason is partly environmental and partly economic--the cost of driving trucks of water to these sites is enormous.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> No, they pump them into pits lined with geomembranes or frac ponds as below. The reason is partly environmental and partly economic--the cost of driving trucks of water to these sites is enormous.


MF, I'm not talking about storage - I'm talking about the fracking process, the injection of those fluids into the earth. They recuperate some of that fluid, but not all - and that's the contamination of water wells / wetlands that people are concerned with.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Heh. Love that on his first attempt to build it, he connected it to his shed and walked away. Awhile later, he thought, "I should check and see if it's putting out any heat". Just as he was getting close to the unit, he heard a big bang and saw that the inner glass plane had cracked. It was putting out something like 120C.
> 
> There are a variety of plans for these units on the internet, from the crazy simple to very complex and high-tech. Any one of them, even the least well-built, would take a bite out of your home heating costs.


Thanks for this CM, I am going to try and build a small scale version for my motor home to add heat on cool days in spring and fall.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> MF, I'm not talking about storage - I'm talking about the fracking process, the injection of those fluids into the earth. They recuperate some of that fluid, but not all - and that's the contamination of water wells / wetlands that people are concerned with.


Some of the fluid clearly remains down in the hole. However, if you're injecting it into a hole filled with oil, that's not the worst thing. But yes, you obviously need to avoid the water table. 

In some of the more heavily publicized cases of so-called well contamination, the water is already mixed with minerals and oil/gas. I'm not saying it is impossible for a well to be affected, just that it does not happen very often.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Thanks for this CM, I am going to try and build a small scale version for my motor home to add heat on cool days in spring and fall.


Do keep us in the loop on your progress, Don! I'm personally more interested in these types of stories and projects than the big picture debating that this thread has filled up with. Small-scale alternative energy tech that can make an impact on our daily lives. 

I'm also thinking of attempting the solar pop can project someday to take the chill off on our winter days/nights here in Zac. The Mrs. and I spent quite a few days huddled in bed with our son to stay warm.... and I dread the day our electricity bill arrives for that period...


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Some of the fluid clearly remains down in the hole. However, if you're injecting it into a hole filled with oil, that's not the worst thing. But yes, you obviously need to avoid the water table.
> 
> In some of the more heavily publicized cases of so-called well contamination, the water is already mixed with minerals and oil/gas. I'm not saying it is impossible for a well to be affected, just that it does not happen very often.


The problem is that when it does it can make a viable farm or ranch worthless. As you mentioned trucking in water is very expensive and the guilty parties do everything possible to avoid making things right.

IMO clean water supplies have to trump all other resources.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> IMO clean water supplies have to trump all other resources.


I would rate clean water very highly, but I would not deal it a 100% trump card.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> *The problem is that when it does it can make a viable farm or ranch worthless. As you mentioned trucking in water is very expensive and the guilty parties do everything possible to avoid making things right.*
> 
> IMO clean water supplies have to trump all other resources.


exactly right, which is why this should always be looked at very carefully, and not dismissed with a few googled images as proof of safety.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> exactly right, which is why this should always be looked at very carefully, and not dismissed with a few googled images as proof of safety.


What should not be dismissed?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> What should not be dismissed?


You silly! Why the gen-u-wyne, article, of course: The unsubstantiated opinion of a progressive drummer...


----------



## FeXL

This is how you stop input from the public.

Wind Energy Meeting Silences the Public



> Government-mandated wind project meetings are supposed to be about two-way communication. But *no questions from the public are allowed*, and *the notice period is ridiculously short.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm...

Those much maligned plastic grocery bags can run your diesel truck or car



> Plastic shopping bags make a fine diesel fuel, researchers report


----------



## FeXL

The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project At California’s Ivanpah Plant



> A giant solar-power project officially opening this week in the California desert is the first of its kind, and may be among the last, in part because of growing evidence that the technology it uses is killing birds


Good.


----------



## FeXL

Another Tesla, up in flames.

Tesla Model S catches fire while sitting in a Toronto garage



> Earlier this month, a Tesla Model S sitting in a Toronto garage ignited and caught on fire. The car was about four months old and was not plugged in to an electric socket, says a source.


----------



## CubaMark

A few months ago there were a couple of reports of Tesla's catching fire after striking debris on the highways down in the USA. After both cases, the rabid critics of electric cars were all over the news, proclaiming the coming of the Apocarlypse.... then someone took a moment to investigate how many car fires there are every day in the USA... gas-powered vehicles, mind you.... which certainly puts a couple of Tesla fires into perspective. Cars do catch fire, fairly frequently.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> A few months ago there were a couple of reports of Tesla's catching fire after striking debris on the highways down in the USA. After both cases, the rabid critics of electric cars were all over the news, proclaiming the coming of the Apocarlypse.... then someone took a moment to investigate how many car fires there are every day in the USA... gas-powered vehicles, mind you.... which certainly puts a couple of Tesla fires into perspective. Cars do catch fire, fairly frequently.


I have never seen or heard of a car catching fire spontaneously while parked. I saw one catching fire once while driving.


----------



## CubaMark

*From the article cited above:*

_*Tesla confirmed that the fire occurred and sent Business Insider the following statement:*

“Dealing with occasional fires is something that every car company has to do, as no vehicle is completely fireproof under all circumstances. What matters is the number of such incidents per car, and it is worth noting that *gasoline car companies experience an average of five to ten times more fires per car than Tesla*. 

Also extremely important is the fact that there has never been a serious injury or death in a Model S as a result of a fire or any other cause. The Model S continues to have the best safety track record of any vehicle in the world. 

*In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire*.”

Shortly after the fire, seven Tesla employees visited the owner of the vehicle. The company also offered to take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire, but the owner declined._​


----------



## Macfury

That's what TESLA says. Why are you so uncritical in accepting information from sources that you favour?



CubaMark said:


> *From the article cited above:*
> 
> _*Tesla confirmed that the fire occurred and sent Business Insider the following statement:*
> 
> “Dealing with occasional fires is something that every car company has to do, as no vehicle is completely fireproof under all circumstances. What matters is the number of such incidents per car, and it is worth noting that *gasoline car companies experience an average of five to ten times more fires per car than Tesla*. _​


​


----------



## CubaMark

I trust no corporation to tell the truth.

However - the _piling on _of critics whenever an incident occurs with an electric car is, IMHO, above and beyond.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> *gasoline car companies experience an average of five to ten times more fires per car than Tesla*.


What exactly does that mean? The description is very vague & unclear.

How about we use some industry standards & count incidences per 100,000 vehicles, or something along those lines? Something in English, perhaps, that doesn't require a full staff of Philadelphia lawyers to interpret.



CubaMark said:


> *In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.*


I trust Tesla to objectively perform their own investigation like I trust the gov't to be critical of their own matters–NOT!

The "piling on", as you term it, is richly deserved, based on prior history with contemporary electric cars. It's basically new technology that, deservedly or not, is under the microscope. They need to be doing it better & safer than anyone else out there. They're not.

Back in the 70's there was a "piling on" of critics regarding fires in Ford Pintos after rear impact. Such valid criticism caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to get involved & forced Ford to recall the unsafe vehicles & upgrade them.

I'd have no problems with the same watchful eye being aimed at a current gas- or diesel-burner.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> I trust no corporation to tell the truth.
> 
> However - the _piling on _of critics whenever an incident occurs with an electric car is, IMHO, above and beyond.


dear god in heaven, did you say a couple electric cars caught fire???

holy thundering flaming batteries batman! Recall every electric car in america! STAT!


----------



## FeXL

Along with every empty commenting drummer.

Either way the world is a better place...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Along with every empty commenting drummer.
> 
> Either way the world is a better place...


He's working hard to build a reputation.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> He's working hard to build a reputation.


Oh I have a ways to catch up to you and your sarcastic comments macfury. After you whined about mine I highlighted one of yours made not a couple posts back.

I figured since you do it all the time you'd be ok with a few as long as they weren't personal. Didn't realize the rules here said only macfury is allowed to make those! :baby:

The truth is, uses I see evidence of a epidemic of electric cars catching fire much more than gas powered, this is silly, and warranted such a comment.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Oh I have a ways to catch up to you and your sarcastic comments macfury. After you whined about mine I highlighted one of yours made not a couple posts back.
> 
> I figured since you do it all the time you'd be ok with a few as long as they weren't personal. Didn't realize the rules here said only macfury is allowed to make those! :baby:
> 
> The truth is, uses I see evidence of a epidemic of electric cars catching fire much more than gas powered, this is silly, and warranted such a comment.


You'd have to work harder to offend me. I was referring to posts that contain no information.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> The truth is, uses I see evidence of a epidemic of electric cars catching fire much more than gas powered, this is silly, and warranted such a comment.


Your idea of 'truth' is as bad as your understanding of the work 'epidemic'. Three fires does not an epidemic make.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Your idea of 'truth' is as bad as your understanding of the work 'epidemic'. *Three fires does not an epidemic make.*


That's exactly my point SINC. You're absolutely correct.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> You'd have to work harder to offend me. I was referring to posts that contain no information.


I'm nt trying to offend you at all macfury. In all honesty. Just pointing out that you have lots of similar one liners that don't contain a lot of information either.

I'm not sure what the trouble is, if it's on topic, isn't personal but pertaining to the topic, even if it is a little sarcastic. I don't whine about your no info posts so I don't know why mine are a problem? Other than you don't agree?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> He's working hard to build a reputation.


Oh, that's solidly established...


----------



## FeXL

Good news.

Offshore wind farm scrapped due to fears over birds



> Plans to extend the world’s biggest offshore wind farm, the London Array in the Thames estuary, have been scrapped due to fears it would harm seabirds, in the latest blow to the government’s hopes for the industry.
> 
> In further setbacks on Wednesday, another massive project was scaled back and a leading executive suggested that turbines were unlikely to be manufactured in the UK under current policy - raising fears that overseas firms will remain the main beneficiaries of Britain’s heavily-subsidised industry.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Good news.
> 
> Offshore wind farm scrapped due to fears over birds


For some reason I seem to recall that those wind turbines in our part of the world were manufactured over in Europe somewhere.

I know someone that maintains them. I should be seeing him next week sometime, will try to remember to ask.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> For some reason I seem to recall that those wind turbines in our part of the world were manufactured over in Europe somewhere.
> 
> I know someone that maintains them. I should be seeing him next week sometime, will try to remember to ask.


Those small ones up top of Cowley Ridge are the oldest of the lot. They date back to the 80's, gotta be scaring the hell out of 30 years old now. Next are the tall ones on Cowley Ridge, they're probably 25. The next batch are the ones south of hiway 3, the white ones west of Pincher Creek on Pincher Colony land. The oldest ones there date back to mid-nineties, say, 20 years old for some of them.

Everything else, from Taber to Fort Macleod to Pincher to the Pass, are relatively new. I guess, with the exception of that single round nosed one alongside the hiway at the west access to Lundbreck Falls. That one's been there a long time, too.


----------



## FeXL

From a 2012 press release.

Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than Carbon Dioxide According to New Book, Green Illusions



> Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California – Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless.
> 
> *Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening.*


M'bold.

Where's the hue & cry?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Claim: Offshore Wind Turbines for ‘Taming Hurricanes’



> From the University of Delaware a press release I just can’t stop laughing about. Of course, they have no real-world tests of this claim, only “their sophisticated climate-weather model”. No numbers were given on turbine “mortality”, so one wonders how many would survive.


<just shaking my head...>


----------



## FeXL

Soon as the subsidy umbilical is disconnected...

Renewable Energy in Decline



> The global energy outlook has changed radically in just six years. President Obama was elected in 2008 by voters who believed we were running out of oil and gas, that climate change needed to be halted, and that renewables were the energy source of the near future. But an unexpected transformation of energy markets and politics may instead make 2014 the year of peak renewables.


He sums:



> Today, wind and solar provide less than one percent of global energy. While these sources will continue to grow, it’s likely they will deliver only a tiny amount of the world’s energy for decades to come. Renewable energy output may have peaked, at least as a percentage of global energy production.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Soon as the subsidy umbilical is disconnected...
> 
> Renewable Energy in Decline
> 
> 
> 
> He sums:


You'll notice how hydroelectricity has fallen off the "renewable" map.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> You'll notice how hydroelectricity has fallen off the "renewable" map.


Yeah, always found that interesting. Less & less it was mentioned as such, now to the point that it isn't even acknowledged.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Yeah, always found that interesting. Less & less it was mentioned as such, now to the point that it isn't even acknowledged.


When they say "renewables" they don't mean it at all. They mean "passive" energy. The Gaia worshipers who promote this crap want us to live like fleas on a dog, catching whatever energy crumbs we're thrown by chance.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Soon as the subsidy umbilical is disconnected...
> 
> Renewable Energy in Decline


Forgive me for being less than impressed by Steve Goreham and his self-published book on climate change denial. Does his background as an Electrical Engineer / MBA qualify him for climate change science expertise?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> From a 2012 press release.
> 
> Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than Carbon Dioxide According to New Book, Green Illusions
> ....
> Where's the hue & cry?


Here we go again with the unrealistic expectations that magically non-polluting, 100% efficient and global peacemaking happiness field-spreading solar technology hasn't just appeared on our store shelves.

And again with the complete denial of how many decades of petroleum-based pollutants and technological advancement....

Green technologies are still in their early days, and progress is being rapidly made to address issues of pollutants in production and environmental effects of their adoption. Why are you guys so damned opposed to the natural progression of technology?

Here's one example of a new development in solar technology that should allay much of your concerns:

*The perovskite lightbulb moment for solar power*





> ...at the Materials Research Society conference in Boston last December, where a breakthrough in perovskite solar cells was announced. If perovskites mean nothing to you read on, as they may have a very big impact on your future fuel bill.





> Materials researchers in Oxford, led by Dr Henry Snaith, have recently shown that they can make simple perovskite solar cells with *efficiencies pushing 20%.*
> 
> This is big news, because 20% makes them competitive with existing commercial silicon solar cells while being much cheaper to make in high volumes. They are also more suitable for incorporating into roofing materials and glass panels than silicon and so have the clear potential of being as fundamental to our city architecture as steel, concrete and asphalt. In other words, they could well be the materials that will make it possible to collect the 1% of solar energy we need as a nation, at a cost that can compete with fossil fuels.
> 
> Hearing research results such as this makes you grudgingly admit conferences are worth going to, and indeed gets you wondering whether we might look back in 10 years and pinpoint this as the time the solar energy revolution really ignited. One of my industry colleagues believes so; after the talk he immediately Skyped his research group, told them to stop what they were doing and get working on perovskite solar cells. The race to commercialise them is on.


(TheGuardianUK)

....also of interest, this note from the Wikipedia entry on Perovskite's solar cell applications:



> The technique offers the potential of low cost because of the low temperature solution methods and the absence of rare elements. Cell durability is currently insufficient for commercial use.[21]
> 
> Planar heterojunction perovskite solar cells can be manufactured in simplified device architectures (without complex nanostructures) using only vapor deposition. This technique produces 15% solar-to-electrical power conversion as measured under simulated full sunlight.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Forgive me for being less than impressed by Steve Goreham and his self-published book on climate change denial. Does his background as an Electrical Engineer / MBA qualify him for climate change science expertise?


No, it qualifies him for reporting the decline of the renewable energy market.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Here we go again with the unrealistic expectations that magically non-polluting, 100% efficient and global peacemaking happiness field-spreading solar technology hasn't just appeared on our store shelves.


I wouldn't mention any of these things at all if green-happy bozos weren't pointing the finger at traditional energy suppliers 24/7. If you point the finger, expect to have it pointed back at you.

I personally don't care who supplies energy, as long as I'm not asked to subsidize the hundreds of failures that the renewables sector has chalked up.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I personally don't care who supplies energy, as long as I'm not asked to subsidize the hundreds of failures that the renewables sector has chalked up.


...and yet you're happy with your tax dollars being spent to subsidize the oil and gas industry....

....fascinating....


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Forgive me for being less than impressed by Steve Goreham and his self-published book on climate change denial. Does his background as an Electrical Engineer / MBA qualify him for climate change science expertise?


Coupla questions, CM...

1) What exactly is a climate change denialist?
2) Are you using a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, in your argument?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ...and yet you're happy with your tax dollars being spent to subsidize the oil and gas industry....
> 
> ....fascinating....


We generally don't call these subsidies--we call them the costs of doing business that are routinely deducted from income. I'm happy for the oil and gas industry to receive the same deductions from income offered to other businesses, including the renewable sector. 

Fascinating!


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Here we go again with the unrealistic expectations that magically non-polluting, 100% efficient and global peacemaking happiness field-spreading solar technology hasn't just appeared on our store shelves.


Man, you are bitter. When the solution is more toxic than the problem, exactly what have you gained?



CubaMark said:


> And again with the complete denial of how many decades of petroleum-based pollutants and technological advancement....


I'm certainly not denying any of this. However, see above...



CubaMark said:


> Green technologies are still in their early days, and progress is being rapidly made to address issues of pollutants in production and environmental effects of their adoption. Why are you guys so damned opposed to the natural progression of technology?


At best, this glosses over the truth, at worst it's a crock. Practical solar cells were first produced in the 50's, 60 years ago. I grew up on a farm that had a windmill with a 32 volt generator attached (which worked but was no longer used) dating back to the 30's, 80 years ago. Mom still has a string of 32 volt Christmas lights tucked away in storage. Renewables are hardly "in their early days".



CubaMark said:


> Here's one example of a new development in solar technology that should allay much of your concerns:


Hey, progress, great news.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> ...and yet you're happy with your tax dollars being spent to subsidize the oil and gas industry....
> 
> ....fascinating....


Actually, I'm not. However, proportionally, renewables receive far higher subsidy than petroleum does.


----------



## FeXL

New renewable energy device generates power from the emission of infrared from Earth's surface



> A new renewable energy source generates power from the emission of infrared radiation from the surface of Earth to space, "a vast and untapped energy source." This "strange and new" device is "something akin to a photovoltaic solar panel, but instead of capturing incoming visible light, the device would generate electric power by releasing infrared light" to space.
> 
> How is this possible? Based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat only flows from hot to cold, i.e. from the hot Earth surface out to space. The device generates electricity by releasing infrared radiation to the -18C cold of space.


Two examples are noted.

Sounds a bit off Broadway but, interesting...


----------



## FeXL

Newly installed US wind turbines fell 92% in 2013 



> Over the past decade, the wind industry has been the U.S. poster child for scalable renewable energy development. In the fourth quarter of 2012 alone, the U.S. added a record-breaking 8.38 GW of wind turbines, surpassing 60 GW of total installed capacity.
> 
> ...
> 
> *However, in the first quarter of 2013, the wind industry installed only 0.0016 GW in the U.S., a 99.98 percent drop from the previous quarter. In the second quarter of 2013, the industry did not install a single large turbine! Overall, the annual newly installed wind capacity fell by 92 percent in 2013.*


M'bold.

Once again, as I noted earlier: Pull the plug on renewables' subsidies and the investments drop like a falling house of cards.


----------



## CubaMark

*Fight over Rooftop Solar Forecasts a Bright Future for Cleaner Energy*



> Americans have begun to battle over sunshine. In sun-scorched Arizona a regulatory skirmish has broken out over arrays of blue-black silicon panels on rooftops, threatening the local utilities that have ruled electricity generation for a century or more. With some of the best access to sunshine on the planet, Arizona boasts the second-most solar power in the U.S.—more than 1,000 megawatts and counting. The state hosts vast photovoltaic arrays in the desert as well as the nation's first commercial power plant with the technology to use sunshine at night—by storing daytime heat in molten salts.





> With these homes making their own electricity, utilities lose their most lucrative customers and confront a dwindling base over which to spread big infrastructure costs, like building new power plants or maintaining the grid. "The net-metered customer does not share equally in the overhead costs associated with the grid or other services provided by the utility, producing a very substantial 'cross-subsidy' funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more," wrote James Hughes, CEO of solar panel maker First Solar, in an op-ed in support of the utility Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) position this past June.





> Such "net metering" programs allow homeowners to zero out monthly or even annual electric bills. That means APS gets nothing from these former customers, and their number is growing. More than 15 rooftop arrays go onto Arizona homes each day, according to the Phoenix-area utility, and the number of such solar independents grew from 4,770 in 2010 to 14,524 in 2012.
> 
> In response APS and other utility companies across the country have launched a propaganda war against an energy source that still accounts for less than one quarter of 1 percent of U.S. electricity.





> Solar homeowners, on the other hand, love their lower bills and independence from utility companies. "Why should they be allowed to hold the monopoly on this power source?" asks Tom Morrissey, former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. "Why should they be the only providers? Why can't we provide for ourselves, while easing the burden on the power grid?"
> 
> The utilities have a point. If solar rooftop arrays became as ubiquitous in home design as chimneys, the U.S. grid could indeed cease to exist—an end to power lines, electrical substations and transformers atop equally archaic wooden utility poles.





> Spurred by projections of 500 percent growth for solar in the U.S., Arizona Public Services mounted a public relations campaign against its own obsolescence. Backed by EEI and other outside interest groups, APS spent nearly $4 million on TV, print and Internet ads depicting solar homeowners as freeloaders on the grid, and an economic burden to all the households without such solar panels. According to APS ads, such solar homes cost the rest of the utility's customers at least $1,000 a year, what they dubbed a "cost shift" in anodyne bureaucratic terminology concealing real malice. APS therefore proposed a surcharge, or "sun tax" in the words of opponents, of as much as $100 per month that solar homeowners would pay as their fair share of grid maintenance costs. Some Arizona residents described such ads as "deceptive at best" or "false advertising," among other, less mild epithets.





> The full costs and benefits of solar rooftops on homes remain unknown. But a survey of home sales in California found that photovoltaic systems boosted home sale prices by nearly $25,000 in 2009, according to research from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. And solar advocates point to the fact that photovoltaics on rooftops save on the costs of investing in new conventional power plants and grid infrastructure as well as the cost of meeting pollution limits or other regulations, while reducing electricity loss.
> 
> Beyond the U.S., solar energy leaders such as Germany and Spain are also now considering a kind of "solar tax" for access to the grid in order to ensure maintenance of their legacy infrastructure.





> In the end, solar may prove an unstoppable force. If solar module prices drop to 50 cents per watt, then solar power becomes as cheap as other forms of electricity in all 50 states, once installation costs are included. In addition, the technology offers some additional benefits, from far fewer climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions than even power plants burning natural gas to reduced use of water compared with the cooling needs of a big coal-fired or nuclear power plant.


(Scientific American)


----------



## Macfury

In places like Arizona, there is no reason to remain on the grid. The remaining customers will face cost increases so dramatic that solar will be affordable or them as well. 

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but in Ontario I believe there is a mandatory grid connection fee for major developments, like condominiums, that use natural gas generators. They are forced to pay something so the homes can switch to electricity in an emergency--an unfair way to make them pay for the historic malfeasance of provincial power production and transmission. Of course, being attached to the grid in Toronto's December ice storm did nothing for my emergency.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> *Fight over Rooftop Solar Forecasts a Bright Future for Cleaner Energy*





> In the end, solar may prove an unstoppable force. *If* solar module prices drop to 50 cents per watt, then solar power becomes as cheap as other forms of electricity in all 50 states, once installation costs are included. In addition, the technology offers some additional benefits, from far fewer climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions than even power plants burning natural gas to reduced use of water compared with the cooling needs of a big coal-fired or nuclear power plant.


M'bold.

*If* they can manage this without any subsidy, it's headed in the correct direction. However, what about all the toxins produced during the manufacture of said modules?


----------



## FeXL

WSJ: Shale gas can free Europe from reliance on Russia; windmills cannot deliver energy security



> Russia's invasion of Ukraine has at last focused European minds on the need to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. One solution lies right underfoot.
> 
> British Prime Minister David Cameron offered what should be an obvious fix: tapping some of the trillions of cubic feet of shale oil and gas that are estimated to be locked under the European surface. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday in the Hague, Mr. Cameron called the invasion of Crimea "something of a wake-up call" for Europe. "Energy independence, using all these different sources of energy, should be a tier one political issue from now on, rather than tier five."


----------



## CubaMark

*UFO? No, this bizarre floating wind-turbine doubles up a phone mast - and could more than HALVE energy costs*










*Buoyant Airborne Turbine (BAT)*
_The BAT is a wind generator that sits at altitudes of 1,000ft (305m) - where gusts are stronger and more consistent - and is capable of reducing energy costs by up to 65 per cent. _

* * *

_Altaeros designed the BAT to offer 'consistent, low-cost energy for the remote power market, including remote and island communities; oil and gas, mining, agriculture, and telecommunication firms; disaster relief organisations; and military bases.'

The BAT uses a helium-filled, inflatable shell to lift to high altitudes. 

Altaeros claims that at these altitudes, the winds are between five and eight times stronger than those harvested by tower turbines. 

This equates to a 65 per cent saving on energy costs, and reduces installation time from weeks to days.

High-strength chains hold the BAT steady, while also being used to transfer the electricity created back to the ground._

(DailyMailUK)


----------



## Macfury

The blade slook extremely small. Interesting design.


----------



## FeXL

I like the overall concept. Gets the blades high off the ground so no issues with bats & likely far fewer with birds. Less materials required for install.

As always, I have a few questions. I realize that the first real test is upcoming & there may be no answers to some (all?) of these yet.

1) The perennial question, is it going to be subsidized with taxpayer dollars?
2) Durability, ie., lifespan?
3) Actual output, not nameplate.
4) Is it likely that these can be used in populated areas with chains being used to anchor them down? (eg., interference with aircraft, buildings, livestock, etc.)
5) Are there any toxic chemicals produced during the manufacture thereof?


----------



## FeXL

Finding a common ground – a conversation with Dr. James Hansen on nuclear power



> So I sent an email to Dr. James Hansen mid March this year, asking whether he had ever considered sharing a platform with Anthony Watts, to jointly promote acceptance of a nuclear powered future. I made it very clear I was asking this question on my own initiative, and had not discussed it with Anthony.


This comment nails it:



> *The important thing to see about Hansen’s response is the sequence. Carbon taxes first. Then nuclear.* Does anyone believe that the greens would stick to their word and go for nuclear–they would fight it tooth and nail. What we would get from Hansen’s proposal is just the standard green dream–very high energy prices and no appreciable increase in nuclear power. Hansen, Gore, and the ruling class greens would continue to be wealthy and powerful. The poor schmucks passing out global warming pamphlets at Earth Day will be out of work and desperately poor for the rest of their lives. And that would be sustainable.


M'bold.

Bingo.


----------



## eMacMan

On the one hand I would happily support nuclear in the form of Thorium style reactors. These solve or partially solve several of the problems associated with nuclear power generation. 

OTOH I would not in any way support building more conventional nuclear reactors. The waste issue remains as unresolved today as it did 50 years ago, nor is there any real answer to that on the horizon. 

Chernobyl and Fukishima also demonstrate that core meltdowns can and will eventually occur.


----------



## CubaMark

*Why Solar Hot Water Systems Are a Good Hedge Against Rising Energy Prices*



> Horace-Bénédict de Saussure, a Swiss naturalist accidentally built a prototype of the first domestic solar thermal hot water system back in 1796...





> He built a box, painted the bottom of it black, filled it with water, covered it with two layers of glass and left it in the sun. This very basic system actually brings the water to a boil on a sunny day.
> 
> "Someday some usefulness might be drawn from this device for it is actually quite small, inexpensive and easy to make," De Saussure said of his experiment in a quote that proved to be eerily prescient.
> 
> In 2011, there were 245 gigawatts worth of solar thermal collectors in 55 different countries representing 4.2 billion people or 61 per cent of the world's population. I think it's fair to say that some usefulness has been drawn from this device.





> With the price of natural gas currently low the simple payback numbers on a residential domestic solar thermal hot water systems are quite high. The payback period drops if you have big hot water bill or if you use more expensive options to heat your water like heating oil or electricity.
> 
> While natural gas is cheap right now, it won't be forever and a solar thermal hot water system is a valuable hedge against rising natural gas and energy prices, especially in commercial applications.
> 
> While some might turn their noses up at the current economics of solar thermal hot water systems less developed countries without our huge natural gas grid are jumping all over the opportunity. China has by far the most installed capacity with 117,600 megawatts of domestic solar thermal hot water systems as of 2010.
> 
> Everyone needs warm water to clean their dishes and take a shower. Solar thermal technology has been around, and will be around for a long time to come.


(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury

I kind of see natural gas as the alternative energy to letting the sun heat up your water. Still, solar hot water is a good idea.


----------



## CubaMark

Solar hot water and solar air are two relatively inexpensive additions that can have a real impact on your annual energy bills. I mentioned in an earlier post that a pal of mine in Halifax installed a CanSolair hot air unit (photo gallery). In the winter, he says it has practically eliminated the use of his furnace during the daytime.

And Halifax is continuing its pilot project to provide solar hot water installations to citizens, with the cost amortized over (x) number of years with costs added to their property taxes.... demand to participate has outstripped the projects installation capabilities.

If the sun is there, why the hell aren't we all using it? Solar air heaters can be made from scraps, in your basement, in a day (depending on your beer consumption / work habits). Solar hot water is a little more tricky, what with the plumbing and the heat exchange tank and the glycol, but it's also not rocket science...


----------



## Macfury

I suspect largely because it doesn't look all that great. It needs to be better integrated into house design to gain wider acceptance.

Also, if you're paying $200 a month on NG in the peak of winter, and $30 in the summer, there's not a huge incentive to being a construction project.



CubaMark said:


> If the sun is there, why the hell aren't we all using it? Solar air heaters can be made from scraps, in your basement, in a day (depending on your beer consumption / work habits). Solar hot water is a little more tricky, what with the plumbing and the heat exchange tank and the glycol, but it's also not rocket science...


----------



## eMacMan

Sadly as individuals cut back on use the utilities raise either the rates or the gouge fees to compensate. Albertans are now paying a new $7 (or higher) transmission fee so Alberta utilities can sell surplus electricity to Montana. If Montana needs this electricity let them pay for the additional transmission lines and generating capacity.


----------



## CubaMark

*This is why we can't move into the alternative energy economy - because the old energy economy continues to suck up subsidies, despite the howling denials from certain characters in this forum...*



_Over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.

Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips—which get an average tax break of $3.34 on every barrel of domestic crude they produce. With Washington looking under the couch cushions for sources of new revenue, oil prices topping $100 a barrel, and the world feeling the heat from its dependence on fossil fuels, there's been a renewed push to close these decades-old loopholes. But history suggests that Big Oil won't let go of its perks without a brawl._

(Full story at Mother Jones)


----------



## Macfury

Yeah, yeah--the same damned subsidies that other companies get. We've heard it before. Cry me some more big, salty tears.


----------



## CubaMark

Ah, the indifference of the Right. Toss a few cents to support hungry families and you're an EvilTalibanLovingGodlessCommunistBleedingHeartLiberalFool. But hundreds of *B*illions of dollars in subsidies for businesses (that don't need 'em anyway to be profitable)? That's just common sense and good economic judgement.

The mind boggles.


----------



## FeXL

This has been covered before on this very thread. Proportionally, alternative energy gets higher subsidies than petroleum.

And, once again, you miss the mark. We can't get into alternative energies because they are not attractive enough for private investment. They depend upon government subsidies for their very life. Wanna take away subsidies for petroleum? Fine. Then alternatives get theirs axed, too. Twelve months down the road, we'll see who is still in business...


----------



## Macfury

Bingo. But remember that the bozos at Mother Jones include the same tax write-offs as any other business gets as "oil subsidies." Likewise, if they think that oil should be taxed at a higher rate than other products--and it isn't--why that's a subsidy too!

But CM always tilts at that windmill regarding "support for subsidies." Kill them all--just don't pretend that the oil subsidy is anything special.




FeXL said:


> This has been covered before on this very thread. Proportionally, alternative energy gets higher subsidies than petroleum.
> 
> And, once again, you miss the mark. We can't get into alternative energies because they are not attractive enough for private investment. They depend upon government subsidies for their very life. Wanna take away subsidies for petroleum? Fine. Then alternatives get theirs axed, too. Twelve months down the road, we'll see who is still in business...


----------



## FeXL

Further to this, CM, and pardon me if I sound incredulous but, your solution is to give alternatives even more welfare & subsidies?

Jeezuz...


----------



## Macfury

Well, FeXL, if they don't subsidize the alternatives, nobody will use them. Did you think that through?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Further to this, CM, and pardon me if I sound incredulous but, your solution is to give alternatives even more welfare & subsidies?


If a society, via its government, decides that it is in its best interests to pursue alternative energy sources, then it is entirely appropriate to subsidize, strategically, the industries so that they may mature and gain widespread acceptance by consumers / businesses.

This is even more appropriate in a context where the existing energy environment of big coal and oil continues to enjoy billions in subsidies when they do not need them to be profitable. If anything, the subsidies to coal/oil remove what would be naturally-occurring competition, something I would think those of you who are enthralled with the free market would embrace.

So how about this - remove the subsidies to big oil and redirect 20% of that to alternative energy research and production. You save 80% of government expenditures in that area, new, cleaner and more socially-appropriate energy sources will begin to come online.

The only "negative" are somewhat lower profits - *but still, profits* - to shareholders of companies who dominate the current energy production system.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> If a society, via its government, decides that it is in its best interests to pursue alternative energy sources, then it is entirely appropriate to subsidize, strategically, the industries so that they may mature and gain widespread acceptance by consumers / businesses.


No, it is not appropriate. 

However, applying your logic, society, in its best interests, has elected a government that strategically subsidizes oil to no greater extent than any other industry, and far less than expensive alternatives. 

So stop whining when not enough voters favour powering our homes and industries via the weather to suit your very selfish philosophical needs.


----------



## heavyall

If a society felt that alternative energies were in their best interest…. they wouldn't be alternative.

It's specifically because nobody (not even the people who so loudly proclaim them) actually wants those energy sources that they are STILL alternative. The majority of the anti-oil types still drive cars, or fly in planes, or take take diesel busses, or use plastic materials, etc, etc. IF/when the alternatives are ready for primetime, people will use them. If you have to pay tax dollars into them to make them sustainable, that means they are not ready for primetime.

A subsidy that results in a net benefit is a good subsidy. Lower taxes to get the refinery located in your town supplies jobs and brings even more money in. That's good. Cash by the trainload to make fringe technologies semi-producable, but still not affordable or in any way attractive to the mainstream, while supplying few jobs and zero return to the local economy? That's bad.


----------



## Macfury

Interestingly, I know of only one government-funded technology that has paid any boastable dividends--oil sands production technology.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> ...while supplying few jobs and zero return to the local economy? That's bad.


Other thing that cracks me up is the nonsense about "green jobs." Since windmills can't actually replace the power generated by traditional energy sources, we now have some new jobs--tending a windmill, to produce the same overall amount of power. In any other industry, this would be called horrible inefficiency. In enviro-wacko land, it is a green employment benefit.

Why not make people ride stationary bicycles outfitted with dynamos? That would create even more jobs.


----------



## CubaMark

...and with all the huffing and blowing, you all still manage to complete ignore discussing the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIES TO OIL. Sorry for the caps, but you old fogies seem to be hard of hearing... beejacon


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ...and with all the huffing and blowing, you all still manage to complete ignore discussing the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIES TO OIL. Sorry for the caps, but you old fogies seem to be hard of hearing... beejacon


Don't be a goof, CM--everybody has heard you, but you're spouting the same old nonsense. If oil was receiving any unusual subsidies not available to other industries you would have a point--however, being able to deduct your business expenses from your revenue is not a subsidy.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> If a society, via its government, decides that it is in its best interests to pursue alternative energy sources, then it is entirely appropriate to subsidize, strategically, the industries so that they may mature and gain widespread acceptance by consumers / businesses.


Gov't doesn't listen to society. Gov't listens to itself. The last thing I need is another ill-informed, pandering gov't "expert" telling me what's good for me.



CubaMark said:


> This is even more appropriate in a context where the existing energy environment of big coal and oil continues to enjoy billions in subsidies when they do not need them to be profitable. If anything, the subsidies to coal/oil remove what would be naturally-occurring competition, something I would think those of you who are enthralled with the free market would embrace.


Fine. Then nobody gets subsidies. And, in a year, when alternative energy has died a slow & painful death, the petroleum industry can carry on as usual.



CubaMark said:


> So how about this - remove the subsidies to big oil and redirect 20% of that to alternative energy research and production. You save 80% of government expenditures in that area, new, cleaner and more socially-appropriate energy sources will begin to come online.


I could care less if there is any "new" energy on the block. The old works just fine. "Cleaner" is not a word to apply to alternative energy, at any level. Compare a _complete_ accounting of the two, petroleum is still cleaner. And, WTF kind of phrase is "socially-appropriate energy"? Who, aside from you, cares if their energy is "socially-appropriate"? Who decides what "socially-appropriate" means? 

Is milking taxpayers to support an industry that cannot stand on it's own strength and/or merit, an industry that creates more pollution & toxins than the problem it was designed to correct, an industry that kills bats & birds by the hundreds of thousands worldwide, including endangered species, an industry that, through ill-informed, pandering, $hitty political decisions has caused the price of corn worldwide to increase to a point whereby even more people are starving than before, is this "socially-appropriate"? Really? You've got some twisted world view of what "socially-appropriate" behaviour is...



CubaMark said:


> The only "negative" are somewhat lower profits - *but still, profits* - to shareholders of companies who dominate the current energy production system.


Horsefeathers & bull pucky. See above...


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, further on some of that new, "socially-appropriate", energy...

Ouch. Corn biofuel could generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline



> From the “we told you so back in 2010″ department and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> 
> ...
> 
> *The findings by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln team of researchers cast doubt on whether corn residue can be used to meet federal mandates to ramp up ethanol production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.*


M'bold.

Further:

Biofuel rush is wiping out unique American grasslands



> Say goodbye to the grass. *The scramble for biofuels is rapidly killing off unique grasslands and pastures in the central US.*
> 
> Christopher Wright and Michael Wimberly of South Dakota State University in Brookings analysed satellite images of five states in the western corn belt. They found that 530,000 hectares of grassland disappeared under blankets of maize and soya beans between 2006 and 2011. The rate was fastest in South Dakota and Iowa, with as much as *5 per cent of pasture becoming cropland each year.*
> 
> The trend is *being driven by rising demand for the crops, partly through incentives to use them as fuels instead of food.*


M'bold.

I don't know how much you know about native grasslands, so let me give you this little freebie: Once native grasslands have been torn up, they can never go back. They will have to be reseeded with a domestic variety, like crested wheat grass or something similar. 

After biofuel subsidies are dead in the water...


----------



## FeXL

More Sunday smiles.

Long live satire. Amen. Germans mock their green faith.



> We’ve reached the end-game. The sensibles have all left the room and there is no point trying to fight a religion with reason. What utter foolishness to treat their ideas as sensible! The only response to satirical science (thank you Green-ecologicists) is to hold it up for the world to see its true nature.
> 
> Green-electricity may not run your heaters well, but it is excellent fuel for the funnies. Enjoy!


In summary:



> *Germans spend ten times as much as they need too for green electricity and their big green achievement is that the nation has rediscovered lignite!*


Woohoo!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

The Germans get it...

Germany’s CO2 and energy policy – about to falter?



> “The truth is that the Energy U-Turn (“Energiewende”, the German scheme aimed at pushing the “renewable” share of electricity production to 80 % by 2050) is about to fail”


----------



## FeXL

Normally I wouldn't post something like this without verifying the numbers but, at first blush, it seems reasonable. It's just a tweet.

Linky.



> SOLAR INEFFICIENCY: 143,000 solar industry workers produce 1% of U.S. electricity — while 87,000 coal employees produce 40%.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Normally I wouldn't post something like this without verifying the numbers but, at first blush, it seems reasonable. It's just a tweet.
> 
> Linky.


That's why the greenies talk about creating lots of green jobs--production is so inefficient you have to hire more people.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah. No wonder it's referred to by taxpayers as "make-work projects".


----------



## FeXL

Another taxpayer backed green project bites the dust...

Another Obama-backed 'green' company, Smith Electric Vehicles, leaves trail of unpaid bills and broken promises



> Despite $32 million in federal stimulus funds and status as one of Obama's favorite "green" companies, the firm has halted production, having built just 439 of the promised 510 vehicles.
> 
> It has also left a trail of broken promises and unpaid bills.
> 
> Smith created just a quarter of the jobs it initially promised the state of Missouri it would create in return for $1.4 million in tax credits. Meanwhile, it has also stiffed the Missouri University of Science and Technology, the state government, and a local electrical supply company, as well as its landlord, the Kansas City city government, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to interviews and reviews of public records by the Washington Examiner.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, & not the O3 in the ozone layer, either. More fallout from biofuels...

Switch from gasoline to ethanol linked to higher ozone levels



> Scientists have made a surprising discovery about ethanol: The more it was used by drivers in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the more ozone they measured in the local environment.
> 
> *The finding, reported this week in Nature Geoscience, is contrary to other studies predicting that increased use of ethanol would cut levels of ground-level ozone, or smog.*


Wonder if they used a model in those studies...


----------



## CubaMark

*Sacramento Eyes Giant Water Battery*



> The City of Sacramento, California is forging ahead with plans to construct a 400 megawatt battery made entirely out of water. That almost sounds like some kind of high tech miracle but it’s not. Water batteries, aka pumped hydroelectric facilities, use established technology and old fashioned gravity.
> 
> Pumped hydro is currently the only utility-scale energy storage technology in common use globally, including in California and the US. Another new pumped hydro project is already in the works for California, so you’re going to hear a lot more about pumped hydro in the future.





> In a pumped hydro system, water is shunted from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir at night, during off-peak hours when electricity rates are lower, so the basic idea is to save money.
> 
> You also get bonus points for using renewable energy to do the pumping. Given their potential for enormous capacity, pumped hydro systems are ideal for storing energy from intermittent sources, namely wind and solar (check out this pumped hydro system in Wales for the wind angle).
> 
> Even without renewable energy, the carbon footprint reduction and financial savings both kick in because pumped hydro can reduce or eliminate the need to build new fossil fuel power plants to handle peak use periods.
> 
> Another sustainability aspect of pumped hydro is the potential for using existing reservoirs, as illustrated by a proposed pumped hydro system in New York.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury

Sacramento is full of Crooks and Liars.


----------



## FeXL

I've read about these "water batteries" (never heard them called that before though) before. They never panned out because there was not enough difference in price between day & night time electricity costs to pay for the infrastructure.

In California, the state with the highest electricity costs in the US, this may work. However, I don't agree with the suggestion that renewables should be used to pump the water for all the reasons I've noted before.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I've read about these "water batteries" (never heard them called that before though) before. They never panned out because there was not enough difference in price between day & night time electricity costs to pay for the infrastructure.
> 
> In California, the state with the highest electricity costs in the US, this may work. However, I don't agree with the suggestion that renewables should be used to pump the water for all the reasons I've noted before.


Only renewables have largely undependable production patterns, so that's why they hope to put a better face on 'em.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> I've read about these "water batteries" (never heard them called that before though) before. They never panned out because there was not enough difference in price between day & night time electricity costs to pay for the infrastructure.


There are examples (earlier in this thread - california train initiative) that make use of existing infrastructure. The article linked above also mentions the use of existing hydro facilities.


----------



## Macfury

It's pretty funny to see _Crooks and Liars_ taking aim at anybody right of Lenin, but standing there gape-mouthed and gaga over this water battery project without even the slightest iota of skepticism.


----------



## Dr.G.

Airborne wind turbines: Meet the BAT - CNN.com

An interesting concept.


----------



## FeXL

Take away the tax payer funding...

Oh, noes: 80 percent of biofuels producers have cut back production due to federal-mandate uncertainty



> _*Almost eight in 10 biodiesel producers in the United States have cut back production* this year due to uncertainty over federal policies that encourage making the fuels, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) said.
> 
> The report released Wednesday was based on a survey the NBB conducted. In addition to the finding that 78 percent of producers reduced output, *57 percent of companies have idle or shut down plants and 66 percent have reduced their workforces or are considering it.*​_


Bold from the link.



> “Inconsistency in Washington is wreaking havoc on the U.S. biodiesel industry”? …Yeah, how about we go a little more big-picture and try, *“The U.S. biodiesel industry’s utter dependence on handouts from Washington is wreaking havoc on the U.S. biodiesel industry,”* perhaps?


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Found this interesting. An analysis of the electricity _requirements_ for wind turbines.

Energy consumption in wind facilities



> Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines -- for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon -- do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.


List inside.

I'd like to learn more about this...


----------



## FeXL

Solar panels: warm your house or burn it down? Bankrupt your company?



> Solar panels in Queensland and NSW in Australia have been providing some householders with energy in a more concentrated form than they bargained for. At least 70 houses with rooftop solar panel arrays have had solar driven burnouts. The fire risk means that nearly 30,000 faulty solar power isolators have been recalled. The company that imported them went bust on Friday. (Ain’t that the way?)
> 
> Remember if your house burns down, it is the price we pay to save the planet. It will, unfortunately, blow your personal carbon footprint through the roof. (A point that will, no doubt, grieve you as you sift through the smouldering ruins.)


----------



## heavyall

The water battery sounds like it could be a legitimate use for the alternative energy sources that cannot be relied on as a sole source (like wind and solar). Have those technologies be what's pumping the water into the higher reservoir whenever they are operational (as opposed to supplying energy to the grid), then use the hydro power to supply the main grid.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> The water battery sounds like it could be a legitimate use for the alternative energy sources that cannot be relied on as a sole source (like wind and solar). Have those technologies be what's pumping the water into the higher reservoir whenever they are operational (as opposed to supplying energy to the grid), then use the hydro power to supply the main grid.


But only if its economical. It sounds as though they're just having an orgasm because they have some way of storing a fraction of their overpriced undependable energy.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> But only if its economical. It sounds as though they're just having an orgasm because they have some way of storing a fraction of their overpriced undependable energy.


Agreed. Also, what kind of efficiencies are we talking here? And, again, is any of it taxpayer subsidized?


----------



## Dr.G.

This Glass Sphere Could Revolutionize Solar Power on Earth | Diply

Interesting .............. at least to me.


----------



## SINC

Dr.G. said:


> This Glass Sphere Could Revolutionize Solar Power on Earth | Diply
> 
> Interesting .............. at least to me.


That does indeed sound promising.


----------



## CubaMark

*I think this has been mentioned previously - but they have a cool new video, so... one more time!*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.









+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL

Well, after holding my nose through the first crappy video (less hype, more meat), I didn't want to take a chance on the second.

This little exercise raises a veritable host of further questions. The first is my usual: how much abuse of my tax dollar is this going to create? 

However, the next one that came to mind pertains to the comment about melting snow. Where is the water going to go? All it will do is create ice dams on the edges of the road 'cause unless the ditches & other runoff paths are heated, it's just going to refreeze anyway. And, how much snow will they be able to melt? An inch? A foot? 5'? 20?

The next thought I had was of its basic construction-glass. Well, that outta be fun (especially on a motorcycle) about 6 AM in mid-January, long after the sun has set and power has not been generated for about 14 hours, with about 6" of fresh snow on it. Thx, but no thanks. Oh, I know. Batteries and more tax dollars.

Will power be drawn from conventional sources at night and during overcast, raining or snowing skies to run these things? In other words, will conventional methods need to be on inefficient standby mode 24/7 to cover holes in the service?

It's being marketed as one great, big, make work project. You wanna turn me off the concept immediately, that's the way to do it.

I could go on but those were the first that came to mind.


----------



## CubaMark

I don't have all the answers, but some that were included in the video (the one you say you did see):



FeXL said:


> ...how much abuse of my tax dollar is this going to create?


The engineers did receive funding to create a prototype and do testing. Beyond that, nada so far...



FeXL said:


> However, the next one that came to mind pertains to the comment about melting snow. Where is the water going to go? All it will do is create ice dams on the edges of the road 'cause unless the ditches & other runoff paths are heated, it's just going to refreeze anyway. And, how much snow will they be able to melt? An inch? A foot? 5'? 20?


In the video it is explained that the roadway contains two underground channels - one for the electronics gear used in the roadway and which also provides space for putting current above-ground power transmission cables, communications, etc., underground. The second channel is dedicated to water runoff (the mention also potential diversion for treatment if desired). One of the benefits is reduced need (total?) for salt to melt snow & ice.



FeXL said:


> The next thought I had was of its basic construction-glass. Well, that outta be fun (especially on a motorcycle) about 6 AM in mid-January, long after the sun has set and power has not been generated for about 14 hours, with about 6" of fresh snow on it. Thx, but no thanks. Oh, I know. Batteries and more tax dollars.


Some kind of special 'tempered' glass that meet the FHD requirements for traction and whatever. The video doesn't address your specific concern about 6am snow, but your immediate leap to the "batteries and my tax dollars" bit indicates your unwillingness to even learn about the project. That's a closed mind.



FeXL said:


> Will power be drawn from conventional sources at night and during overcast, raining or snowing skies to run these things? In other words, will conventional methods need to be on inefficient standby mode 24/7 to cover holes in the service?


I don't know. I think it would only be logical that this be the case - the roadways tied into the grid to draw energy when needed (likely not a battery scenario - happy?).



FeXL said:


> It's being marketed as one great, big, make work project. You wanna turn me off the concept immediately, that's the way to do it.


This idea could create jobs. Oh, well then, it must be EVIL COMMUNIST CRAP and therefore must be dismissed out of hand 

Y'know, you *could* go to the project website and learn a bit more about it before declaring it the worst idea man has ever come up with.....

Here's a little help from that very same website:

*Did you know: *


Solar Roadways has received two phases of funding from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration for research and development of a paving system that will pay for itself over its lifespan. We are about to wrap up our Phase II contract (to build a prototype parking lot) and now need to raise funding for production. 
Our glass surface has been tested for traction, load testing, and impact resistance testing in civil engineering laboratories around the country, and exceeded all requirements.
Solar Roadways is tackling more than solar energy: The FHWA tasked us with addressing the problem of stormwater. Currently, over 50% of the pollution in U.S. waterways comes from stormwater. We have created a section in our Cable Corridors for storing, treating, and moving stormwater.

*And from the FAQ:*

_We designed our panels so the heaters are driven by the grid and not by the solar cells - the systems are independent of one another. This is because the heaters and LEDs have to work at night, when the solar cells are incapable of producing power.

The heaters will use more power than the panels can make at night or on overcast days, but keep in mind that the heaters will only be on when they are needed. It can be five below zero, but unless there is precipitation or snow drifts, there's no need to activate the heaters.

There will be some obvious obstacles such as oil spills, sandstorms, storm debris, etc. Here's the worst case scenario: if all else fails, we can replace snow plows with street sweepers where needed (vehicles with large rotating brushes). They're used here in Idaho in the spring to clear the roads of the sand that was used for traction during the winter months.

...any excess energy is placed back to the grid during daylight hours and then can be drawn back out of the grid at night.

One of our main goals is to help the environment, so we will always do what we can to make wise choices. Our circuit boards are simple and only contain small copper traces: no gold or silver required. We can use any kind of solar cells in our system: mono-crystalline, poly-crystalline, thin film, etc. We can use other materials that make sense as they are proven and become cost effective such as graphene, dye sensitive solar cells, etc. We'll weigh all of the pros and cons of each type of solar cell prior to making our final decision going into production. Same for all materials. 

*Can your Solar Roadways handle army tanks?*

Our current M1A2 Abrams tank weighs about 68 tons, or 136,000 pounds. That's a little over half of what our Solar Road Panels have passed load testing for._​
There's lots more at the site, and they're quite candid about the issues that remain to be explored (skid marks, dirt accumulation, etc). These don't seem like a bunch of left-wing hippie fanatics lookin' to reach in and pull your tax dollars right outta yer pocket...


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> I don't have all the answers, but some that were included in the video (the one you say you did see):
> 
> The engineers did receive funding to create a prototype and do testing. Beyond that, nada so far...


Well duh, it's in the testing stages. What's a mile of asphalt cost (which, BTW, is funded with taxpayer dollars) compared to a mile of solar array? What are the maintenance costs on asphalt compared to maintenance on the solar array? What's the lifespan comparison of the two?



CubaMark said:


> In the video it is explained that the roadway contains two underground channels - one for the electronics gear used in the roadway and which also provides space for putting current above-ground power transmission cables, communications, etc., underground. The second channel is dedicated to water runoff (the mention also potential diversion for treatment if desired). One of the benefits is reduced need (total?) for salt to melt snow & ice.


Fine, but the second the water leaves the heated area, it's going to freeze & damn up, just like your eves do in the winter time. If your average winter snowfall is only a couple feet, this system may manage that. However, if the numbers are closer to 20 feet, I wonder. I also wonder what kind of cold they can handle & still stay clear. If it hits -40 & stays there for a couple weeks, will the roads be clear & dry or skating rinks? I suspect the latter, unless they draw a tremendous amount of energy which, again, is a huge downfall.

As far as the reduced need for salt, not an issue here but probably good for some areas.



CubaMark said:


> Some kind of special 'tempered' glass that meet the FHD requirements for traction and whatever. The video doesn't address your specific concern about 6am snow, but your immediate leap to the "batteries and my tax dollars" bit indicates your unwillingness to even learn about the project. That's a closed mind.


No, it shows the mind of someone who has already figgered out that the only way to heat these things at 6 AM is either via batteries or the grid and both of those will, again, come out of the taxpayers pocket. Those are the only two choices. You quoted something along the lines of "the solar panels will supply energy to the grid during the day & draw it back at night". In the dead of winter, when the electricity to melt the ice/snow is needed most, there is less than 8 hours of sunlight here at 50° N latitude and when the sun is above the horizon, it's pretty low. No way they are going to come near supplying the electricity needed for the 16 hours of nightfall.



CubaMark said:


> I don't know. I think it would only be logical that this be the case - the roadways tied into the grid to draw energy when needed (likely not a battery scenario - happy?).


Actually, no. Not until a cost comparison is done between snow plows & associated costs vs running electricity through thousands of miles of highway. At first blush, it seems stupid and costly but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Greenies are already screaming blue murder about methods of electricity generation that aren't "renewable". They'll turn purple if you tell them we have to burn coal or natural gas to heat highways...



CubaMark said:


> This idea could create jobs. Oh, well then, it must be EVIL COMMUNIST CRAP and therefore must be dismissed out of hand


There is a huge difference between private business creating real jobs which will last many years and government creating make work projects with taxpayer dollars which will put everyone back on the dole when the job is done 10 months down the road. It remains to be seen which of these two categories this will fall into.



CubaMark said:


> Y'know, you *could* go to the project website and learn a bit more about it before declaring it the worst idea man has ever come up with.....


Funny, I don't recall saying that. Hyperbole, much? I do recall noting that I had a number of questions. Thank you for your efforts to that end.


----------



## FeXL

One more reason...

Renewable Energy Poses Security Risk, New Paper Warns



> A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that intermittent wind and solar energy pose a serious energy security risk and threaten to undermine the reliability of UK electricity generation.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> One more reason...
> 
> Renewable Energy Poses Security Risk, New Paper Warns


This breakneck quest to find some sort of energy storage device isn't a necessity for civilization--it's the holy grail that renewables are frantically seeking to justify their existence. We've found a great way to store energy already--it's called fossil fuels.


----------



## SINC

It's not often enough we read about the side benefits of fossil fuels and their overall benefit to mankind in general and Canadians in particular. This is one such opportunity to celebrate fossil fuels:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/C...44319/412_RNNR_Rpt07_PDF/412_RNNR_Rpt07-e.pdf


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> It's not often enough we read about the side benefits of fossil fuels and their overall benefit to mankind in general and Canadians in particular. This is one such opportunity to celebrate fossil fuels:
> 
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/C...44319/412_RNNR_Rpt07_PDF/412_RNNR_Rpt07-e.pdf


I celebrate them every time I step into the car or take a hot shower.


----------



## CubaMark

*All Our Patent Are Belong To You*
*By Elon Musk, CEO
*
_Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.

Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.

At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.

At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform. 

Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.​_
(Tesla Motors)


----------



## Macfury

When GM was the king of automakers it share its catlytic converter technology with other automakers, so Tesla is simply carrying on the tradition of the fossil-fueled car industry. This move is primarily about getting other carmarkers to adopt its battery/recharging systems to Tesla's benefit. Tesla will also continue to file patents on all new technology


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, not so much...

Wind turbine payback period claimed to be within 8 months



> From Inderscience Publishers , something sure to make greens go “See, I told you!”, except for that little fatal mistake at the end. Read on.


From the comments:



> Summary of errors:
> 
> 1. “Energy payback” doesn’t seem to properly factor in downtime with wind variability
> 2. The article makes it sound like there is a monetary payback, but no monetary payback is mentioned
> 3. No baseline was given for the time it takes a coal, nuclear, or natural gas plant to produce as much energy as it took to consume
> 4. Combine 2 and 3
> 
> Conclusion: The article gives meaningless information in an attempt to elicit a positive emotional response about green energy.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Yeah, not so much...
> 
> Wind turbine payback period claimed to be within 8 months
> 
> 
> 
> From the comments:


IOW on top of the 15-25 years it takes to pay back the cost of construction, assuming subsidized rates we can add another year for the environmental impacts.


----------



## FeXL

I searched for a definition of "carbon-free" energy & couldn't find it anywhere. By it's use, I am assuming renewable is meant. No matter what the definition, there is no such thing as "carbon-free" unless the manufacturers of equipment for said energy have come up with ways to eliminate carbon in their construction, installation or operation thereof.

It would also be interesting to breakdown what portions of renewable is hydro, nuclear, solar & wind.

Despite the hype, ‘carbon-free’ energy sources aren’t gaining traction globally



> The graph below shows data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, which was released yesterday. It shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. Guess what? It isn’t growing.


The link referenced in the above article:

Treading Water 



> In 2013 the proportion of carbon-free energy consumption was just about 13%, *representing a continuation of no trend in that measure that has continued for more than 20 years.* The measure did tick up from 2012 - from 13.1% to 13.3%, to just about equal to what it was in 1999.


M'bold.

This 20 year "no trend", despite billions of dollars of taxpayers money having been spent on renewables over the same time period.

Nice.


----------



## FeXL

Study: Illinois Renewable Energy Standard no help to state’s economy

Summary:



> “People shop for price and for quality, and that principle is no different when it comes to electricity,” Bachman said. “The renewable mandate inflates the price for a product that is not superior in quality to its competitor’s – *it doesn’t even deliver a cleaner environment. It’s basic common sense, confirmed by our study.”*


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

*What's better: a solar loan or a solar lease? *

Solar leasing is often sold on the idea that you can pay as little as $0 down and then have electricity bill savings forever after (er... till the end of the solar leasing contract, which is typically 15 to 20 years) that are greater than your monthly solar leasing payments.

Solar loans, however, are also available for as little as $0 down all across the United States.

A lot of people rail on solar leasing. The main reason is the simple assumption that solar leasing companies are profiting from their customers, taking away some of the money that homeowners could be saving from going solar by themselves. Compared to paying cash, homeowners certainly won't save/make as much money (not taking opportunity cost into account, anyway), but solar leasing competes more with solar loans than paying in cash. If you got a loan for your solar system, you would of course have to pay a good bit of interest on it, which is essentially the same as giving away some of your savings to a solar leasing company.​









...note that a solar power system can work well for over 30 years, and probably many more. If you're a very long-term thinker and planner, that definitely gives the upper hand to a loan and eventual ownership. However, it is hard to know how long solar panels built today will last, as there are no real-world examples that fit the bill. Solar panels built about 30 years ago and still performing well are from a whole different generation of solar panel production.

In the end, a loan may work better for some of you and a lease for others. You really have to crunch the numbers yourself...​
(TreeHugger)


----------



## Macfury

This is where companies like Enbridge could make a buck by offering to handle the installation/billing/amortization of these systems.


----------



## eMacMan

Not getting my head around the cash payback numbers.

I am a low level user. Annual electric bill exclusive of gouge fees is less than $700. I can't sell back more than I use and sell back cannot be used to pay the $350-500 that goes towards gouge fees.

IOW unless I go completely off grid my annual savings can be no more than $700 or roughly a 30 year payback depending on electricity rates and maintenance costs. I am sure those payback limits would equally impact either the loan or the lease figures even more severely.


----------



## SINC

*This Weird, Massive Tower May Be the Future of Energy in the U.S.*



> The news: The country's largest freestanding structure will soon start construction — and it's going to be a solar-wind tower. Projected to reach 2,250 feet, it will be considerably taller than other American landmarks like the 1,454-foot Empire State Building. Designed by Maryland-based Solar Wind Energy Tower Inc., the solar-wind hybrid facility just secured funding to build its first model, which is projected to stand near San Luis, Ariz., by 2018.
> 
> How it works: A network of sprayers emits a fine mist of water droplets over the upper lip of the structure; the mist subsequently evaporates, absorbing the ambient heat of the surrounding atmosphere (that's the solar component). The result is dense, cool air that rapidly flows to the bottom of the structure. The air reaches up to 50 mph by the time it hits the bottom, where it is diverted outwards through a series of tunnels radiating from the inside of the tube. Those tunnels hold giant wind turbines capable of generating a lot of electricity.
> 
> As Motherboard notes, the concept was first patented in 1975, and Popular Science illustrated the idea in an issue in 1981, although its version of the aeroelectric tower really was improbably huge:
> 
> The entire project is estimated to cost around $1.5 billion. The company claims that at peak performance during July and August, the tower would generate up to 1,200 megawatt-hours. However, they believe it will only produce 435 megawatt-hours in an average month. For comparison, the largest nuclear plant in the country, at Palo Verde, Ariz., generates some 3,937 megawatt-hours, while the smallest, at Fort Calhoun, Neb., produces about 502 megawatt-hours. So while the tower will be a gigantic structure, it will resemble a relatively small nuclear facility in its energy generation — except without the radioactive waste.
> 
> Technical hurdles: To operate well, these downdraft towers need massive amounts of clean, fresh water (salt would seriously degrade components) and a hot, arid climate. Both factors deeply affect the towers' output, and their productivity would significantly decline during the winter. Another difficulty is that sites that fulfill these conditions tend to be rural areas with poor infrastructure.
> 
> Solar Wind Energy says it is also exploring sites in Mexico, which, along with the Middle East, Chile and India, possess the ideal climate for the technology.
> 
> Why we should do it: Though the renewable sector is growing fast, it's still just a small slice of America's overall energy production. Bold projects like the solar-wind tower could demonstrate that alternate energy sources are viable and well worth investing in, spurring technological innovation and the development of new economic sectors.


This Weird, Massive Tower May Be the Future of Energy in the U.S. - Mic


----------



## Macfury

Damn, that's an ugly thing!


----------



## eMacMan

Not quite sure what they will be using as source for large amounts of fresh clean water. Any rivers in the area are unlikely to flow for more than 2-3 months a year. Ground water use in that area is at or close to capacity.


----------



## FeXL

Just a few things that come immediately to mind and in no particular order:

The first question for me is, how much water means "massive amounts"? In that same vein, how will greenies justify using massive amounts of water for their pet project when they already complain about the amount of water used in the extraction of petroleum? (which, incidentally, I actually agree is a concern)

1a is as has been noted above, where are they going to get all this water from? What kind of costs are going to be associated with that? You don't just pump "massive amounts" of water up a 2250 foot head for cheap and that's only accounting from ground level. 

Second question is, how much per kw/hour are we talking? A nickel? A dime? A quarter? There is no lifespan given, so the cost can't be calculated with available information. What are they projecting?

Third, on what do they base the "average" output of 435 mw/hour? I have a great deal of difficulty believing any renewable nameplate capacity. Is that a reasonable estimate?

Fourth, with this amount of water going through the system, is it going to affect local weather and how?

Fifth, what kind of cash injection is it going to take to upgrade local infrastructures to handle the construction & operation stages of the project?

Sixth, how much of this is going to be on the taxpayers back?

Seventh, how much of a green "footprint" is this the construction & operation of this project going to leave? Is it better or worse than, say, a gas fired generator? A nuclear power plant?


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there's a surprise...

97 percent of Australian renewables investment dries up without subsidies (so the ABC gives free adverts to the industry)



> We’re told “clean” energy is a viable and cost effective. But cut the government subsidies, and 97 percent of investors vanish (in Australia it’s collapsed from $2.6b annually to $80m). *The truth is that renewables are almost totally dependent on taxpayer largess. No wonder they lobby like their life depends on it. It does.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Yep, you read that correct. *Twenty-five thousand wind turbines.* And, that doesn't even count the wind & solar parts of the proposal...

California’s future energy pipe dream



> I wonder how they’ll manage to put 25,000 offshore wind turbines in place after seeing the long battle (back to 2001 for the first permit) to get Cape Wind in Massachusetts approved with enviros switching sides to protect viewsheds, and it still isn’t built. I can’t see California’s sensitive coastline to go any easier, and never mind the other projects they propose, which will have their own challenges. The biggest failure of the plan seems to be lack of backup power for when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, and the tides are lower than usual. – Anthony


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar power surging to forefront of Canadian energy*





> one of Canada’s newest solar farms is close to completion, with the final rows of photovoltaic panels now being installed. Standing among them is like being in a vast shiny sea that rolls off in all directions over the contours of the land.
> 
> “By October, this thing will be pumping power,” says project manager John Caruso, who has been nursing what he calls his “baby” to completion since work on the site began last fall.
> 
> His baby is Newboro 1, a utility-scale solar-power-generating station being built by contractor Renewable Energy Systems Canada for renewable energy developer SunEdison Canada. When it’s finished, the project’s 55,000 solar panels, mounted on more than 5,000 posts driven into the rock across 120 acres, will generate 10 megawatts of electricity for Ontario’s power grid, enough to power more than 2,000 homes.





> The Newboro project is part of a solar building boom under way across Ontario this summer, with construction crews active on about two dozen large solar projects. They will add to the more than 70 large solar farms already up and running all over the province – from Dryden in Northern Ontario, to Chatham in the Southwest, to Cornwall near the Quebec border.
> 
> While that puts Canada among the top 10 countries of the world when it comes to the amount of solar installed, the planned and operational solar farms will contribute only about 1 per cent of Ontario’s power. Still, combined with other renewables such as wind, it is helping the province to wean itself away from fossil fuels, and close its coal-fired power plants.
> 
> The action on large solar projects is taking place only in Ontario, where pro-renewable-energy government policies essentially subsidize solar installations. That has not been duplicated in any other province. Without government support, solar projects elsewhere will likely be small scale, until dropping panel prices allow the industry to compete with other forms of power. The biggest project outside Ontario right now is a small 1 MW solar farm under construction near Kimberley, B.C.





> This relative lack of opposition has cleared the way for the flurry of activity in large-scale solar, which is a direct result of Ontario’s public policy on renewable power. Its Green Energy Act passed in 2009 was designed to boost renewable energy development – and the industry that supports it – by paying high prices for electricity generated from wind, solar and other clean sources.
> 
> Under that “feed in tariff” (FIT) program, the owners of the Newboro 1 project, for example, will receive 44 cents a kilowatt hour for all the power it generates over the next 20 years, about three times more than the retail electricity rate of less than 14 cents a kilowatt hour.
> 
> Developers who won contracts under the the FIT program are now rushing to complete their projects by set deadlines, to ensure they can collect on those high power rates.





> Ontario’s solar boom is not likely to last, at least not at the current pace. That’s because last year the provincial government – under pressure from critics concerned about upward pressure on electricity prices and slower demand growth – discontinued the FIT program for large-scale solar projects.
> 
> From now on, solar farm developers will have to make competitive bids if they want to build large solar farms. Essentially, the provincial government will determine how much solar power it wants to buy, and developers will submit potential projects and say what price they are willing to sell their electricity for.
> 
> In general, the lowest bidders will get the contracts, provided their projects meet other criteria and are in locations where power is needed.





> There is one crucial factor that will allow developers to continue building money-making projects, even if the price they get for the electricity they produce is much lower than under the FIT program. The price of solar panels is continuing to fall sharply, reducing one of the key costs of building a large-scale solar farm. Solar cells cost about $76 per watt in the 1970s, according to CANSIA figures, and have now dropped to below $1 per watt.





> Alberta – with an aging fleet of coal-powered generation and an expanding population – may be the next province to add some some large-scale solar power. Private power developer GTE Power Corp. has plans for a $30-million, 15-megawatt project on 78 acres of land just outside of Brooks, Alta.
> 
> GTE president Ian Rogers says solar can work well in Alberta’s merchant market for electricity, where the supply and demand at any particular time determines the price paid to power producers.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury

Sunshine is driving this province into the poorhouse.


----------



## FeXL

> There is one crucial factor that will allow developers to continue building money-making projects, even if the price they get for the electricity they produce is much lower than under the FIT program. The price of solar panels is continuing to fall sharply, reducing one of the key costs of building a large-scale solar farm. Solar cells cost about $76 per watt in the 1970s, according to CANSIA figures, and have now dropped to below $1 per watt.


What a crock. Yes, that number looks fabulous until you factor in the cost of labour. What's that done since the 70's?

And, in the mean time, you still need backup coal, natural gas, nuclear, whatever, either idling or running full time, all the time, to cover production shortfalls due to cloudy skies and night time.

Explain to me in small words & short sentences exactly how that saves energy & greens the planet...


----------



## Macfury

When they get to a nickel a watt, give me a call.


----------



## CubaMark

_Award for most awkward photo of a politician this week goes to...._

*Princeton student from Dartmouth nears 'holy grail' of green energy storage*





> When Danielle Fong was taking her PhD in plasma physics at Princeton University at the age of 17, she wasn’t driven to be the best — she was driven by an urgency to solve the world’s energy problem.
> 
> Though she missed her mother’s cooking back home in Dartmouth — “My mom makes the best omelettes” — Fong focused on her mission to make green energy a practical reality for everyone.
> 
> “Solving the energy problem is the problem of my generation,” she said Tuesday.
> 
> And the 26-year-old believes she has come up with a way to do that — she just has to prove it to the industrial sector.
> 
> Fong believes she has cracked the problem of how to store renewable energy, like wind power, so the resource can still be used when the wind isn’t blowing. Think about it: storage is critical when you’re relying on resources that don’t provide constant energy.





> Fong’s technology is a “world first” and her backers include Bill Gates, France’s Total, which is one of the world’s largest petroleum companies, and the provincial government.





> the unique technology will use compressed air to store energy. The idea for using compressed air isn’t new — but Fong’s method is, allowing greater efficiency than ever before and enabling far larger amounts of energy storage.
> 
> She developed a system to inject very fine, yet dense, water spray into the air during compression, which ultimately allows for higher pressure expansion and efficiency.





> “It works in the lab but we haven’t shown it to work in the field in an environment where cold weather occurs and we haven’t shown it to work where we’re harnessing the power of waste heat energy from woodchips or any other industrial source,” Fong said. “This will be a world first.”
> 
> The system is expected to begin operating in 2016.


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury

If we spent more money on developing our traditional energy reserves and less on building crutches for green energy, our economy would be much healthier.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, progress...

A sunny Ontario experiment gone wrong



> That glare coming off selected southern Ontario farmlands these days is not the result of some secret state experiment with atomic vegetables. No, it’s the product of another form of state-sanctioned mad science that is costing Ontarians dearly without doing diddly to improve the environment.
> 
> ...
> 
> The newly re-elected Liberal government scaled down the FIT program last year, but not before a small group of savvy operators hit the sweet spot by locking into its risk-free cash flow. *One 10MW solar farm under construction in eastern Ontario’s cottage country will get 44 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces over 20 years.
> 
> Compare that to the average 8.55 cents per kWh that Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator says it cost to produce power in the province in 2013.*


Further:



> Quite simply, neither wind nor solar are reliable sources of electricity. In its latest 18-month outlook, the IESO forecasts that 99.5 per cent of Ontario’s 12,947 MW of installed nuclear capacity will be available during summer consumption peaks. But it predicts only 13.7 per cent of the 1,824 MW of installed wind capacity will be available. Solar is even less reliable. *So, when wind and solar actually do produce power, it’s usually dumped.*


All emphasis mine.


----------



## Macfury

Ahh, _progressive_...


----------



## FeXL

<snort>


----------



## eMacMan

Whooda thunk it.



> IVANPAH DRY LAKE, Calif. (AP) — Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant's concentrated sun rays — "streamers," for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair.
> 
> Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one  "streamer" every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator's application to build a still-bigger version.
> 
> The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.
> ...


Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Probably both guesses are low!

FWIW Locally the geese and duck populations are waaaaaaaaaay down. Course that could not possibly have anything to do with 7-800 wind turbines in the region.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> FWIW Locally the geese and duck populations are waaaaaaaaaay down. Course that could not possibly have anything to do with 7-800 wind turbines in the region.


You guys have ground your axes pretty much down to the wooden handle by now... and your irrational hatred of alternative energy initiatives is, quite simply, a sad thing to behold.

Here's some food for thought:


*9 leading causes of bird deaths in Canada*

An Environment Canada study released Tuesday shows that more than 270 million birds are killed in Canada every year from human-related activity, which includes deaths caused by cats owned, or not controlled well, by humans.

Richard Elliot, director of wildlife research for Environment Canada, said in an interview the estimated figure of 270 million is out of a total of 10 billion birds. "We've got a lot of birds, and that's probably a good thing because we're killing a lot."

The report looked at wild birds and not the millions of chickens, turkeys and other birds that are raised to be slaughtered for the food industry.

* * *​
After cats, both domestic and feral, the biggest bird-killers are collisions with tall structures and road deaths. Combined, these three causes are responsible for 95 per cent of deaths.

Somewhat surprisingly, the oil and gas industry and wind turbines, which have both been blamed for causing bird deaths, didn't make it onto the list of top killers.
* * *​
1. Domestic and feral cats: 200 million

2. Power lines, collisions and electrocutions: 25 million

_Wind turbines accounted for only 16,700 kills. But wind power is expected to grow tenfold over the next decade._​
3. Collision with houses or buildings: 25 million

4. Vehicle collisions: 14 million

5. Game bird hunting: 5 million

6. Agricultural pesticides 2.7 million

7. Agricultural mowing: 2.2 million young birds, equivalent to one million adult birds

8. Commercial forestry: 1.4 million nests, equivalent to 900,000 adult birds

9. Communications towers: 220,000​

(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

We mention these things because of the obsessive counting of possible wildlife deaths associated with traditional (and stable) energy sources by eco-weeenies, CubaMark. You would never have come to the rescue with that list if someone had counted bird deaths in the oil sands. This simply shows how biased you are to alternative energy sources and demonstrates your irrational hatred for fossil fuels.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> We mention these things because of the obsessive counting of possible wildlife deaths associated with traditional (and stable) energy sources by eco-weeenies, CubaMark. You would never have come to the rescue with that list if someone had counted bird deaths in the oil sands. This simply shows how biased you are to alternative energy sources and demonstrates your irrational hatred for fossil fuels.


(A) you will note that I included, and did not attempt to distract, from the point in the article that the oil & gas industry's bird kill record is minimal (truly a surprise to me).
(b) I have no irrational hatred for fossil fuels. But I do want to see us move away from them as quickly as possible. I am willing to see society incur a cost for moving in that direction more quickly, while you appear quite willing to dismiss the widespread economic waste associated with fossil fuels (massive subsidies) and the countless untallied effects on environment, health, etc., associated with that industry.


----------



## Macfury

I credit you for (A), CubaMark. Pat on the back for ya!

We have already dealt with the myth of massive fossil fuel subsidies and found them to be a fraction of those offered to struggling green energy. Let the rising price of fossil fuels and consumer preference drive the creation of alternative energy sources as with all energy transformations of the past. The eco-crowd is never willing to trust that either will be a sufficient driver of the change they want to see. Why do you suppose that is, CM? Why must taxpayers bring in uncompetitive energy sources on their dime?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> We have already dealt with the myth of massive fossil fuel subsidies and found them to be a fraction of those offered to struggling green energy.


Uh, no - that's insane. Truly insane. Where do you get this stuff?



*Government subsidies for renewable energy cause great consternation to those who believe in the sanctity of free markets.*

_"If they can't stand on their own feet, then why support them?" the argument goes.

But in actual fact, most energy sources are subsidised, and none more so than fossil fuels. Indeed in straight numerical terms, subsidies for oil, coal and gas far outweigh those for renewables.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 global fossil fuel subsidies totalled $544bn (£323bn; 392bn euros), while those for renewables amounted to $101bn. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the total for hydrocarbons nearer $2 trillion._

(BBC News, 29 April 2014)​



Macfury said:


> Let the rising price of fossil fuels and consumer preference drive the creation of alternative energy sources as with all energy transformations of the past. The eco-crowd is never willing to trust that either will be a sufficient driver of the change they want to see. Why do you suppose that is, CM? Why must taxpayers bring in uncompetitive energy sources on their dime?


Solar efficiency is rapidly approaching cost-parity with fossil fuel energy sources, and that efficiency is coming because of those subsidies that helped to push the industry. Same with battery / capacitor technology for storage. If we can get there even a little bit earlier, why not do it? The spinoff benefits in avoiding environmental damage and curtailing negative repercussions on human health pay off in multiples. _For the greater good_, something that Conservatives (and apparently you Libertarians) have a hard time grasping.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Uh, no - that's insane. Truly insane. Where do you get this stuff?


You are confused because you haven't actually looked at the figures that contribute to the so-called subsidies. They include little things like writing off the costs to your business--the same "subsidy" that any other company gets. The totals also include such inanities as deciding that oil taxes should be higher than other business taxes, then calling it a subsidy because they aren't. It's simple sleight of hand and it caught you napping. We've been through those same damned figures here two or thee times and still you drag them out as meaningful.



CubaMark said:


> Government subsidies for renewable energy cause great consternation to those who believe in the sanctity of free markets.
> 
> "If they can't stand on their own feet, then why support them?" the argument goes.


Absolutely. The small subsidies received by fossil fuels should be eliminated--along with the massive ones to alternative energy.



CubaMark said:


> Solar efficiency is rapidly approaching cost-parity with fossil fuel energy sources, and that efficiency is coming because of those subsidies that helped to push the industry. Same with battery / capacitor technology for storage. If we can get there even a little bit earlier, why not do it? The spinoff benefits in avoiding environmental damage and curtailing negative repercussions on human health pay off in multiples. _For the greater good_, something that Conservatives (and apparently you Libertarians) have a hard time grasping.


There is literally no advantage to this strategy and it does not contribute to the "greater good." It takes money from the pockets of those who would not reasonably support such investments and picks far more losers than winners. In many cases it simply serves corporations who are along for the joke--look at the literal collapse of the "green" energy sector as subsidies are pared back. Nothing worthwhile has been achieved, other than the creation of a "green elephant" that works in fits and starts and requires massive fossil fuel back-up.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there's a surprise...Not!

Analysis: Solar & wind power costs are huge compared to natural gas fired generation



> Ed Hoskins has done an analysis of cost ratios, and no matter what your viewpoint of economics might be, the numbers here don’t lie. Without being propped up by subsidies, solar and wind aren’t even in the race as their competitiveness leaves them at the starting line while cheap natural gas (aided by fracking) runs laps around the race course.


The money quote (no pun intended):



> *In summary, the figures show that these three major nations of the Western world have spent about ~$0.5trillion to create Renewable Energy electrical generation capacity nominally amounting to ~5.8% of their total generation. This capacity could be reproduced using conventional natural gas fired electrical generation for ~$31 billion or ~1/16 of the costs expended.*


Yeah, my emphasis.

Half a trillion bucks. $500,000,000,000. Five hundred billion dollars.

How many cures for cancer could that money have found? How many water wells could that have dug? How may starving children could that have fed? How many people could that have furnished dependable, inexpensive, gas-powered 24/365 electricity to? How many research projects regarding safe molten salt or thorium reactors could that have funded?

F'ing idiots... 

That, BTW, in over 10 years & nearly 7000 posts, is the first time I've ever used that emoticon.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL, whoever is handling publication over at "wattsupwiththat" needs a lesson in referencing.

"Ed Hoskins" study that is cited in the linked posting must be well-known among the anti-alternative energy crowd, but anyone visiting the site for the first time wouldn't have a clue who he is.... nor did they bother to link to his original article (here, fyi)

As for the lovely display of figures and charts and such, I see lots of info on production costs, subsidies, whatever, but I see zero discussion of environmental and social costs (most traditional economists never seem to learn how to subtract...). Unless I overlooked it?

The first paragraph includes this:_ "...solar and wind aren’t even in the race as their competitiveness leaves them at the starting line while cheap natural gas (aided by fracking) runs laps around the race course..."_

So... fracking is accepted as a foundational element in this analysis... where is the discussion on the environmental and social costs of that technology? The contamination of water sources, off-gassing, etc.?


----------



## Macfury

There's little value in going that route because most enviro-wackos simply declare the environmental/social costs of any fossil fuels as "infinite." Likewise, they often see an economic benefit in inefficiency--an increase in employment to fine-tune windmills or solar panels, for example--when more BTUs could be generated at less cost with fewer workers.

Clearly you don't believe $500 billion covers it...



CubaMark said:


> FeXL, whoever is handling publication over at "wattsupwiththat" needs a lesson in referencing.
> 
> "Ed Hoskins" study that is cited in the linked posting must be well-known among the anti-alternative energy crowd, but anyone visiting the site for the first time wouldn't have a clue who he is.... nor did they bother to link to his original article (here, fyi)
> 
> As for the lovely display of figures and charts and such, I see lots of info on production costs, subsidies, whatever, but I see zero discussion of environmental and social costs (most traditional economists never seem to learn how to subtract...). Unless I overlooked it?
> 
> The first paragraph includes this:_ "...solar and wind aren’t even in the race as their competitiveness leaves them at the starting line while cheap natural gas (aided by fracking) runs laps around the race course..."_
> 
> So... fracking is accepted as a foundational element in this analysis... where is the discussion on the environmental and social costs of that technology? The contamination of water sources, off-gassing, etc.?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> There's little value in going that route because most enviro-wackos simply declare the environmental/social costs of any fossil fuels as "infinite." Likewise, they often see an economic benefit in inefficiency--an increase in employment to fine-tune windmills or solar panels, for example--when more BTUs could be generated at less cost with fewer workers.
> 
> Clearly you don't believe $500 billion covers it...


Your position on the inclusion of environmental costs in the analysis speaks volumes.

One does not need to be an "enviro-wacko" to anticipate opportunity costs in any economic analysis. Your prejudice is showing.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Your position on the inclusion of environmental costs in the analysis speaks volumes.
> 
> One does not need to be an "enviro-wacko" to anticipate opportunity costs in any economic analysis. Your prejudice is showing.


You have to be an enviro-wacko to grossly exaggerate environmental costs to make any kook-fringe energy project seem viable. You also need to be an enviro-wacko to completely avoid addressing the economic opportunity costs of your kook-fringe plans.


----------



## CubaMark

See what happens? I ask FeXL a serious question about the inclusion of environmental costs in the economic analysis to which he linked, and immediately the Master of Derision pops up (sadly, unlike a whack-a-mole, which would be at least entertaining) to label anyone who dares suggest that fossil fuel production has negative repercussions as "enviro-wackos".

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the height of argument and debate at ehMac. _Bienvenidos!_


----------



## Macfury

Why would it matter, since the fickle nature of wacko energy sources requires extensive fossil-fuel back-up anyway?

Besides, when you were asked to estimate the environmental costs of creating storage batteries for electric cars, you remained mum.

Siempre serás bienvenido aquí, Señor Wacko!




CubaMark said:


> See what happens? I ask FeXL a serious question about the inclusion of environmental costs in the economic analysis to which he linked, and immediately the Master of Derision pops up (sadly, unlike a whack-a-mole, which would be at least entertaining) to label anyone who dares suggest that fossil fuel production has negative repercussions as "enviro-wackos".
> 
> And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the height of argument and debate at ehMac. _Bienvenidos!_


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Why would it matter, since the fickle nature of wacko energy sources requires extensive fossil-fuel back-up anyway?


You must have been an amazing dodgeball athlete back in your school days....



Macfury said:


> Besides, when you were asked to estimate the environmental costs of creating storage batteries for electric cars, you remained mum.


I don't know - and could not estimate - those costs. I suppose I could waste an hour Googling for info, but as you have so often said to me: _"Why should I do your work for you?"_


----------



## Macfury

Exactly--so why ask FeXL to do your heavy lifting on sussing out social and environmental costs that you want addressed?



CubaMark said:


> ...as you have so often said to me: _"Why should I do your work for you?"_


----------



## CubaMark

I didn't ask him to suss out those costs - I simply asked if they were included in the analysis. I'm happy to go check 'em out *if* they're in there.

Plus, I asked nicely. I wasn't an ass about it.


----------



## Macfury

Since you have no clue what they might be, I'll give you an answer--they are so trivial that they fall within the margin of error. About $6 to $7 per day.



CubaMark said:


> I didn't ask him to suss out those costs - I simply asked if they were included in the analysis. I'm happy to go check 'em out *if* they're in there.
> 
> Plus, I asked nicely. I wasn't an ass about it.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Since you have no clue what they might be, I'll give you an answer--they are so trivial that they fall within the margin of error. About $6 to $7 per day.


I don't think we're talking about what you think we're talking about


----------



## Macfury

This is the sum total of environmental and social costs on a daily basis.



CubaMark said:


> I don't think we're talking about what you think we're talking about


----------



## heavyall

CubaMark said:


> So... fracking is accepted as a foundational element in this analysis... where is the discussion on the environmental and social costs of that technology? The contamination of water sources, off-gassing, etc.?


They don't take into account the Godzilla related costs either. For the same reason.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> They don't take into account the Godzilla related costs either. For the same reason.


Gamera consumed all of the flame in several nuclear reactors--don't say that doesn't affect energy costs!


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> I didn't ask him to suss out those costs - I simply asked if they were included in the analysis. I'm happy to go check 'em out *if* they're in there.
> 
> Plus, I asked nicely. I wasn't an ass about it.


I don't know if the costs you are interested in are there or not. Most of the questions you asked have been discussed at length on this thread.

And, quite frankly, I'm not interested in engaging you on this or any other topic, CM. You are not interested in facts & data, you continuously miss the forest for the trees, you fail to accept criticism and you provide little evidence that you are truly interested in discussing the topics.

When these & other issues are brought up, suddenly we are all curmudgeonly.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Thx, but, no thanks.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting read from Stamford University regarding fracking.

Stanford publishes a report on the balanced use of fracking



> Fracking’s consumption of water is rising quickly at a time when much of the United States is suffering from drought, but extracting natural gas with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling compares well with conventional energy sources, the study finds. *Fracking requires more water than conventional gas drilling; but when natural gas is used in place of coal or nuclear fuel to generate electricity, it saves water. From mining to generation, coal power consumes more than twice the water per megawatt-hour generated than unconventional gas does.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the other hand, fracked gas requires less than a hundredth the water of corn ethanol per unit of energy.*


More:



> In the eastern United States, fears of contaminated drinking water have raised more concerns than fracking’s water consumption. *Gas and chemicals from manmade fractures thousands of meters underground very rarely seep upward to drinking-water aquifers, the study says. The real threats are failures in the steel and cement casings of wells nearer to the surface and the disposal of wastewater, the study finds.* Numerous previous studies have shown that casings fail between 1 percent and 10 percent of the time, depending on geology and well construction.


Further, from the first comment (link to the paper also there):



> Interesting to note that it is stated that PV require no water for manufacture.
> 
> Here: Photovoltaics Manufacturing, Polysilicon | Solar Power
> 
> shows the processes gone through to get PV panels.
> 
> They look very water hungry to me.


----------



## FeXL

Further on fracking.


Study: Fracked shale gas impacts have positive and negative benefits, but there’s no reason not to make it part of the energy mix



> Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually faired better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.


More:



> The researchers compared shale gas to other fossil-fuel alternatives, such as conventional natural gas and coal, as well as low-carbon options, including nuclear, offshore wind and solar power (solar photovoltaics).
> 
> The results of the research suggest that the average emissions of greenhouse gases from shale gas over its entire life cycle are about 460 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. This, the authors say, is comparable to the emissions from conventional natural gas. For most of the other life-cycle environmental impacts considered by the team, shale gas was also comparable to conventional natural gas.
> 
> *But the study also found that shale gas was better than offshore wind and solar for four out of 11 impacts: depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans, as well as the impact on freshwater and marine organisms. Additionally, shale gas was better than solar (but not wind) for ozone layer depletion and eutrophication (the effect of nutrients such as phosphates, on natural ecosystems).*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

A use for solar energy I can get behind.

Solar energy-driven process could revolutionize oil sands tailings reclamation



> Cleaning up oil sands tailings has just gotten a lot greener thanks to a novel technique developed by University of Alberta civil engineering professors that uses solar energy to accelerate tailings pond reclamation efforts by industry.
> 
> Instead of using UV lamps as a light source to treat oil sands process affected water (OSPW) retained in tailings ponds, professors Mohamed Gamal El-Din and James Bolton have found that using the sunlight as a renewable energy source treats the wastewater just as efficiently but at a much lower cost.


The irony.

Listen for the progs to scream...


----------



## FeXL

What? Say it ain't so...

Renewables don't work



> Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: *there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

One more on fracking.

Landmark Fracking Study Finds No Water Pollution 



> The final report from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, found no evidence that chemicals or brine water from the gas drilling process moved upward to contaminate drinking water at a site in western Pennsylvania.


----------



## FeXL

Destroying peat bogs during the construction of wind turbines has unforeseen consequences.

Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists



> Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms.
> 
> But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe’s equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.
> 
> *British peatland stores at least 3.2 billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country’s most important carbon sink and among the most important in the world.
> 
> Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.*


M'bold.

Tsk, tsk...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> What? Say it ain't so...
> 
> Renewables don't work


Well...... if you delve into the comments on that story and the source of the original report, plus a little poking around the intertubes, you'll find a lot of well-reasoned arguments against its conclusions (and importantly, its assumptions). As one commenter has noted, the original study uses data that is now 7 years out of date.

There are ample examples of energy storage systems that can address many of the potential roadblocks raised by the study. The efficiencies of solar production are improving _daily_, as is the reduction in toxic / exotic / expensive material inputs.

This aggressive pavlovian response to anything 'green' is terribly tired. A shame that people are so rabidly against the possibility of moving away from the fossil fuel economy that they dismiss and ridicule efforts to find creative and sustainable paths away from it.


----------



## Macfury

Not surprised to see this knee jerk support of anything painted any shade of green... the truth is most of the "sustainable" energy sources are ridiculous medieval folk remedies in a world that needs high tech energy solutions that are currently being fulfilled by fossil fuels.



CubaMark said:


> This aggressive pavlovian response to anything 'green' is terribly tired. A shame that people are so rabidly against the possibility of moving away from the fossil fuel economy that they dismiss and ridicule efforts to find creative and sustainable paths away from it.


They're not there by alonggggg shot. You get a day older every day, but it doesn't mean you will live forever.



CubaMark said:


> There are ample examples of energy storage systems that can address many of the potential roadblocks raised by the study. The efficiencies of solar production are improving _daily_, as is the reduction in toxic / exotic / expensive material inputs.


----------



## Kosh

FeXL said:


> Destroying peat bogs during the construction of wind turbines has unforeseen consequences.
> 
> Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Tsk, tsk...


 I really don't think wind turbines farms are the way to go. Yes wind turbines for small applications may be ok, but on a large scale I don't think they work. They take too much stress from the wind and cost too much to put up and maintain. 

My mom once commented when she watched a reporter reporting from the middle of a wind farm, "are they really any good when half of them are damaged and not working". Sure enough, a quarter of them were broken and not even running.


----------



## Macfury

Solar is great for efficient production of hot water. The loss of energy converting it to electricity is staggering.



Kosh said:


> I really don't think wind turbines farms are the way to go. Yes wind turbines for small applications may be ok, but on a large scale I don't think they work. They take too much stress from the wind and cost too much to put up and maintain.
> 
> My mom once commented when she watched a reporter reporting from the middle of a wind farm, "are they really any good when half of them are damaged and not working". Sure enough, a quarter of them were broken and not even running.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Solar is great for efficient production of hot water.


Completely agree. And it's dirt-cheap for anyone with a few tools and some ability.



Macfury said:


> The loss of energy converting it to electricity is staggering


"Staggering"? Hyperbole much? There are lots of ways to do it, some more expensive than others. And solar panel prices are on a constant march downward.

And even if there is a loss of energy in the conversion - well - given that the source is pretty much akin to infinite, is that really a problem?


----------



## Macfury

It's not a problem unless rate payers have to foot the bill.

I'm all for people experimenting--just don't have me pay for the experiments. I suspect some nanotech solution will come along soon enough to throw all of this stuff on its ass.



CubaMark said:


> And even if there is a loss of energy in the conversion - well - given that the source is pretty much akin to infinite, is that really a problem?


----------



## jef

Ohio Scientists Invent World's First Rechargeable Solar Battery | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

We are getting there...


----------



## eMacMan

Yet another someday article.

My big concern here is lithium on the roof of the house. Of course: Lithium+Water=Fire and 25 years is a very long time for any roof mounted item to maintain a perfect seal against moisture.

No mention as to weight but that could be another concern at least for retro-fitting.


----------



## Macfury

Sun Gas will catch you all by storm:

http://psyclonecontacts.com/email-campaigns/10612UF-ASG-SunGas-10-13-14-WO


----------



## FeXL

So, couple of articles about cold fusion. First one is an update on Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat. There's something about this does just doesn't pass the sniff test, not limited to but including the fact that despite this fact that this was s'pose to be an independent test, there were times when only he was allowed access. That, & the fact that the "independent" 3rd party are apparently a group of his buds.

Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline



> Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5 megawatt-hours, or “far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.” The researchers were also allowed to analyze the fuel before and after the 32-day run, noting that the isotopes in the spent fuel could only have been obtained by “nuclear reactions” — a conclusion that boggles the researchers: “… It is of course very hard to comprehend how these fusion processes can take place in the fuel compound at low energies.”


Lubo isn't impressed:

Cold fusion: science which is not a science



> Andrea Rossi is not only a crackpot but a convicted crook who has so far spent four years in prison. His newest generation of "cold fusion" gadgets, E-Cat, has been hyped at least since 2011.


Hmmm, I wonder how he really feels...

However, the Skunk Works (yes, those guys), are working on a version of their own.

Encouraging: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details



> Hidden away in the secret depths of the Skunk Works, a Lockheed Martin research team has been working quietly on a nuclear energy concept they believe has the potential to meet, if not eventually decrease, the world’s insatiable demand for power.
> 
> Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.


----------



## FeXL

The answer isn’t blowing in the wind



> Wind Power Reassessed: A review of the UK wind resource for electricity generation will make uncomfortable reading for those who continue to put their faith in wind farms. The author, Dr Capell Aris, has analysed the data on wind speed and direction collected from a total of 43 sites across the UK (22), Ireland and northern Europe over a period of nine years. He then used this data to calculate the output of a fleet of wind farms.
> 
> The results will be no surprise to anyone who has looked at this topic in any detail: *output is highly variable, and the entire fleet would only produce 80% or more of its rated output for about one week a year.* The problem is that, however much we hear about wind being a free resource and the cost of equipment coming down, the effect of adding more and more wind turbines to the electricity grid is to push prices up with only a modest impact on carbon dioxide emissions (the whole reason for current policy) and no improvement in energy security.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Sanity: Subsidies for solar farms to be cut to help safeguard farmland



> Farmers will lose their right to claim subsidies for fields filled with solar panels under new plans to ensure more agricultural land is dedicated to growing crops and food. The move will help rural communities who do not want their countryside blighted by solar farms.
> 
> Britain has some of the best farmland in the world and ministers want to see it dedicated to agriculture to help boost our food and farming industry that is worth £97 billion to the economy.
> 
> The change, which will come into effect from January 2015, will mean that farmers who choose to use fields for solar panels will not be eligible for any farm subsidy payments available through the Common Agricultural Policy for that land.


----------



## FeXL

Nontechnical paper at PNAS about bat behaviour at wind turbines.

Full paper: Behavior of bats at wind turbines

Abstract



> Wind turbines are causing unprecedented numbers of bat fatalities. Many fatalities involve tree-roosting bats, but reasons for this higher susceptibility remain unknown. To better understand behaviors associated with risk, we monitored bats at three experimentally manipulated wind turbines in Indiana, United States, from July 29 to October 1, 2012, using thermal cameras and other methods. We observed bats on 993 occasions and saw many behaviors, including close approaches, flight loops and dives, hovering, and chases. Most bats altered course toward turbines during observation. Based on these new observations, we tested the hypotheses that wind speed and blade rotation speed influenced the way that bats interacted with turbines. We found that bats were detected more frequently at lower wind speeds and typically approached turbines on the leeward (downwind) side. The proportion of leeward approaches increased with wind speed when blades were prevented from turning, yet decreased when blades could turn. Bats were observed more frequently at turbines on moonlit nights. Taken together, these observations suggest that bats may orient toward turbines by sensing air currents and using vision, and that air turbulence caused by fast-moving blades creates conditions that are less attractive to bats passing in close proximity. Tree bats may respond to streams of air flowing downwind from trees at night while searching for roosts, conspecifics, and nocturnal insect prey that could accumulate in such flows. Fatalities of tree bats at turbines may be the consequence of behaviors that evolved to provide selective advantages when elicited by tall trees, but are now maladaptive when elicited by wind turbines.


----------



## FeXL

On a more accurate method of total cost accounting for renewables.

More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve



> A system mix that primarily employs conventional synchronous generation technology will generally have load following capability in excess of needs, accommodating some level of penetration for intermittent resources. When there is sufficient hydro, gas and coal resources higher levels of renewables can be backed up at moderate costs. However *when renewables are increased dramatically or the resource mix is altered to remove significant amounts of conventional technology, the additional costs needed to support wind and solar generation can be extreme.*


More:



> From this consideration alone we see that it is inappropriate to compare solar and wind to more conventional power sources by looking at energy costs alone. *In terms of the critical task of balancing the system, wind and solar load do not help, but rather instead impose significant burdens.* These burdens cannot be ignored as increasing levels of such intermittent generation are added to the system.


All bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

Falling fossil fuel prices should cull a number of the Medieval companies pushing wind and solar.


----------



## FeXL

Not if they keep getting $500 million bailouts like this. And, this after $1.6 billion in construction handouts. 

World's largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan



> Obama's green energy scorecard has already racked up over $2.7 billion in losses, and now the *world's largest solar/fossil fuel/bird-incinerating plant, co-owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG Energy*, is asking for an additional $539 million in free taxpayer funds to pay off their $1.5 billion federal loan.
> 
> _"the plant has not lived up to its clean energy promise. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it's supposed to, a disappointing 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity from January through August, not the million megawatt-hours it promised."​_


M'bold.

More:



> In addition, *the plant recently filed with regulators to greatly increase the fossil fuels burned by the "solar" plant's inefficient boiler system,* due to insufficient heat input from the Sun on cloudy days and at night. The plant wants to burn 1,575 million standard cubic feet [mmcf] of natural gas every year, which will increase its CO2 emissions 59% to 94,749 tons per year.


M'bold.

Further:



> *"This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us - the taxpayer for their pet project," said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. "It's actually rather obscene."*


Bold from the link.

Ya think?

More, yet:



> The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by *Google* and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, *the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.*


Bold from the link.

Related:

Obama’s 1.6 Billion Dollar Ivanpah Solar Plant Can’t Pay Its Bills – Needs Bailout



> “*This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout*, i.e. a bailout from us – the taxpayer for their pet project,” said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. *“It’s actually rather obscene.”*​


M'bold.

Again, ya think?

How anybody with two brains cells to rub together can support any of this garbage is beyond me...


----------



## Macfury

Abundant and affordable energy isn't compatible with "progressivism."



FeXL said:


> Not if they keep getting $500 million bailouts like this. And, this after $1.6 billion in construction handouts.
> 
> How anybody with two brains cells to rub together can support any of this garbage is beyond me...


----------



## FeXL

Even China can’t jump-start the electric car



> _The Chinese government’s goals were to have 500,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2011 (accounting for 5 percent of total vehicle sales) and 5 million on the road by 2020. But, as the authors point out, “in mid-2013, China had only about 40,000 electric vehicles on the road, more than 80 percent of which were in public fleet vehicles, such as taxis and buses.”_​


----------



## CubaMark

*Texas, the U.S. wind energy leader now looks to battery storage (Includes interview and first-hand account)*

Texas, home of the oil and gas industry, is the U.S. leader in installed wind energy. As its energy mix for electricity continues to change, it has begun to deal with issue of battery storage similar to California and New York.

Texas, the long time hometown to the nation's oil and gas industry, now has the most installed wind energy generation in the country and continues to add more wind generating capacity each year going forward. According to the American Wind Energy Association in its latest 2014 quarterly production data, Texas has installed more than 12,752 megawatts (MW) of wind energy and currently has more than 40 new wind projects in various stages of development. Its total wind energy output is on par with many U.S. nuclear plants and it has double the amount of wind production as California and more than four times the amount of wind energy generated in neighboring Oklahoma, it close cousin in the oil and gas industry.

* * *​
...report titled, "The Value of Distributed Electricity Storage in Texas, Proposed Policy for Enabling Grid-Integrated Storage Investments" was released ahead of Oncor's formal filing with the Texas Public Utility Commission.

* * *​
Among the report's key findings is in Texas, similar to other US states, the electric utility industry lacks regulatory incentives to value and monetize the full benefits of battery storage. 

* * *​
The report also pointed to rapid changes occurring in the battery chemistry industry in regard to current and future pricing cost trends. It stated, "Due to recent developments, electricity storage appears to be on the verge of becoming quite economically attractive. Most importantly, several battery storage manufacturers have indicated that their costs will decrease substantially over the next few years."

* * *​
Oncor will face significant hurtles and challenges to its battery storage request to Texas regulators. The electric utility industry is under increasing pressure to maintain its centralized monopoly based business model as it faces rising prices for oil, coal, and nuclear generating sources, repeated damage to local grid service due to increasing weather extremes even as the cost for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, battery storage and LED lighting continue to come down in costs.

* * *​
These developments and others will have major implications on the US electric grid system in whole and in parts according to Matt Roberts, the Executive Director of the Washington DC based, Energy Storage Association.


To learn more about wind energy, go to the American Wind Energy Association at; AWEA - American Wind Energy Association
To read the Brattle Group's report, to: Welcome - The Brattle Group
To learn more about Sam Jaffe's research on the battery industry, go to: Dispute Consulting & Business Advisory Consulting Firm - Navigant Careers | Navigant
To learn more about the Energy Storage Association, go to: Energy Storage Association

(DigitalJournal)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Among the report's key findings is in Texas, similar to other US states, the electric utility industry lacks regulatory incentives to value and monetize the full benefits of battery storage. )


Translation: It cannot afford them without public subsidy.


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone with enough brain power to melt the snowflakes on their forehead...

Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’



> A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. *After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.*





> _“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
> *Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.*”​_


First comment:



> *This is one of the very few times I was pleased to see someone buying hook, line, and sinker the Warmist’s claims. It means they were really motivated, and gives them some street cred in saying renewable policy needs to be reconsidered.*


Related:

Google Engineers give up on renewables fixing the climate (but they still miss the point)



> Most of their article is about the engineering hurdles of dispatchable and distributed energy. But they also talk about the Google time management philosophy, their 70-20-10 rule (70% core work, 20% cutting edge but viable, 10% “crazy” possibilities). *What they don’t seem to realize 70:20:10 is pointless if 100% of their time is spent solving a problem that doesn’t exist. The Google innovation approach is a pot-luck dip. Five percent of any project — and it’s the first 5% — should be about testing all the assumptions and right back to the very first one.* If Google did this research it would have been obvious, and years ago, that not only were renewables unlikely to reduce CO2, but that reducing CO2 was pointless, and indeed, probably counter-productive.


All bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Bit of an eye-opener, even for a cynic like me.

Renewable Energy – Solar and Wind-Power: capital costs and effectiveness compared



> In summary, these figures show that these three Western nations have spent of the order of at least ~$0.5trillion in capital costs alone, (conservatively estimated, only accounting for the primary capital costs ), to create Renewable Energy electrical generating capacity.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Across the board overall solar energy is about ~34 times the cost of comparable standard Gas Fired generation and 9 times less effective.
> 
> Wind-Power is only ~12 times the comparable cost and about 4 times less effective.*
> 
> *The same total electrical energy output could have been produced using conventional natural gas fired electrical generation for ~$31 billion or ~1/16 of the actual capital costs expended on renewable installations.* Had conventional Gas Fired technology had been used, the full ~31 GW generating capacity would have provided non-intermittent and wholly dispatchable electricity production generated as and when needed.
> 
> *The following calculations only provide conservative estimates of Renewable Energy installation capital costs. They discount entirely the major additional costs of*:
> 
> * supporting backup generation
> * connection to the grid from remote locations
> * the large differentials in ongoing maintenance costs.


Bold mine.



Tell me again why my tax dollars should be used to shore up this Ponzi scheme.

Unbelievable...


----------



## FeXL

Paper in _Science_ from 2008.

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt

Abstract (open access, registration required)



> Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. *Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a “biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.* In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Solar farms will still need subsidies far beyond 2020, industry admits



> Solar farms will still be reliant on subsidies for up to another 14 years, the trade body for the industry has admitted - despite previously claiming the technology could be subsidy-free by 2020.
> 
> ...
> 
> But on Wednesday the [Solar Trade Association] issued fresh analysis on solar farm costs and admitted: “We see solar farms as ‘subsidy free’ between 2025 and 2028.”


The fly in the ointment:



> *The subsidies, running to tens of millions of pounds each year, are paid for through levies on consumer energy bills.*


----------



## FeXL

What Big Wind Doesn’t Want You To Know



> A Portland-based wind energy company is appealing to a U.S. district court to stop the Department of the Interior from releasing information about birds killed by wind turbines that would, the suit claims, cause “irreparable harm” to Pacificorp, which operates more than a dozen wind farms.


What kind of harm does this cause for the dead birds & bats?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## FeXL

In Canada, too...

$50M southern Ontario biodiesel plant goes into receivership



> WELLAND, Ont. — This southern Ontario city’s $50-million biodiesel plant — which was once heralded as the future of the clean fuel industry — has gone into receivership and will be sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## FeXL

No surprises.

Japan’s Turn to Coal Belies Claim That Climate Change Mitigation Comes Cheap



> And after almost three and a half years … the state of the Japanese electricity sector puts the lie to Paul Krugman and like-minded green energy enthusiasts. As reported last week by Reuters, utilities in Japan are burning a record amount of coal, and they intend to increase coal capacity by a further 40 percent, climate be damned. According to reporters Aaron Sheldrick & Osamu Tsukimori, “Japan’s appetite for cheap coal, to counter a soaring oil and gas bill after the nuclear shutdown, saw it import a record 109 million tons of coal in 2013.”


----------



## CubaMark

*Nova Scotia: Wind Farm Map*

*EDIT to remove a big-ass graphic that messed up page formatting (what happened to auto-scale down?)*

(NSPower)


----------



## Macfury

I now see the amount of wind power as the mark of a have-not province.



CubaMark said:


> *Nova Scotia: Wind Farm Map*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (NSPower)


----------



## CubaMark

We've been "have-not" for quite some time, long before the wind farm installations. Odd that you would draw a correlation.... Sadly, decades of Liberal & Conservative mismanagement have left Nova Scotia in dire straits.... and the NDP government, which tried its best, could not win a second term to continue the process of fixing past mistakes. That's one problem with our democracy... voters get scared and go back to the 'comfortable' parties that got them into the current mess...


----------



## Macfury

"Have-not" since it's become clear that wind farms create a hardship for consumers with no environmental benefit. They are generally installed as some sort of trophy by governments and foisted on consumers without the ability to push back.



CubaMark said:


> We've been "have-not" for quite some time, long before the wind farm installations. Odd that you would draw a correlation.... Sadly, decades of Liberal & Conservative mismanagement have left Nova Scotia in dire straits.... and the NDP government, which tried its best, could not win a second term to continue the process of fixing past mistakes. That's one problem with our democracy... voters get scared and go back to the 'comfortable' parties that got them into the current mess...


----------



## CubaMark

*Island States Throw Off the Heavy Yoke of Fossil Fuels*



The Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, on a quest to become the world’s first sustainable island state, has taken a giant leap in its programme to cut energy costs.

Last week, the government broke ground to construct the country’s second solar farm, and Prime Minister Dr. Denzil Douglas told IPS his administration is “committed to free the country from the fossil fuel reliance” which has burdened so many nations for so very long.

* * *​
Electricity costs more than 42.3 cents per KWh in St. Kitts and Nevis.

Construction of the second solar plant is being funded by the St. Kitts Electricity Corporation (SKELEC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan). SKELEC is assuming 45 percent of the cost and the Republic of China (Taiwan) 55 percent of the costs.

The first solar farm, commissioned in September 2013, generates electricity for the Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport.

(IPS)


----------



## Macfury

Poor backwards St. Kitts--they'll be stuck under the yoke of expensive solar farms as the rest of the world basks in cheap fossil fuels.


----------



## FeXL

In certain places & under special circumstances, solar is a viable alternative. 

Shocka, CM, I know.

An isolated island nation where electricity costs 42.3 cents/KWh may be one of those situations. On top of a trailer or motorhome out in the boonies where there isn't an electrical hookup is another. No argument.

However, where there is a readily available supply of nuclear, hydroelectric, coal or natural gas generated electricity, the premiums commanded by solar & wind generated electricity make zero financial sense and current construction materials make zero "green" sense.

Just one question. On an island nation in the Caribbean where land square footage is at a premium, where are they going to put all of these windmills & solar panels? Out on the already, by their own admission, dying reefs? Or are they going to cut down the indigenous rain forests? Perhaps the tourists won't mind having the miles of wonderful black sand beaches sprinkled with little wind & solar farms. Jes' askin'...

Oh, and two observations. One, "Green" policies increase unemployment, not the opposite. And two, if that honourable gentleman from UNEP had spent 18 of his last 25 years observing global temperatures instead of chasing ghosts, he would have noticed that there has been no statistically significant global temperature increase during that period.

Have a nice day...


----------



## FeXL

On the other side of the coin...

Cape Wind Is Dead! (U.S. offshore wind stuck at zero)



> Cape Wind was supposed to be America’s first offshore wind project. Chief sponsor Jim Gordon labored since 2001 (14 years!) on his vision of 130 massive spinning fans sited in shallow federal waters off New England’s historic coastline (468 MW at maximum capacity). Mr. Gordon was the darling of environmental groups and green-minded politicos who pushed big wind at any price.
> 
> *Last week, the project was dealt a fatal blow when utilities who contracted to buy the energy terminated their agreements.*


M'bold.



> _“Cape Wind was wrong project, wrong time, wrong place. It was too big and costly. Its impacts were poorly mitigated and its benefits highly questionable. In the end, it was the regulatory arrogance of the Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and the Obama Administrations that did the most harm. A lot of people were offended and willing to stand up to the abuses...​_


It is truly a beautiful day when realization dawns...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> In certain places & under special circumstances, solar is a viable alternative. .


I always like digging in a little deeper on these things. 42.3 cents a KWH is based on $110/bbl oil. What would it be at half that price? In 2008, they were paying only 30 cents a KWH. 

In St. Kitts, the government pays ZERO for electricity--completely unmetered--and transmission losses are extremely high. I'll be curious to see if switching to solar actually brings down the cost of electricity.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I always like digging in a little deeper on these things.


Good on ya. The truth is rarely revealed in these press releases.


----------



## FeXL

If it's only viable when subsidized, your technology isn't really viable...



> Ken Johnson, chief spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, the main solar trade group, said that his group planned to lobby Congress to extend the credit beyond 2016.


----------



## Macfury

How dare you call it non-viable just because nobody wants to buy it!



FeXL said:


> If it's only viable when subsidized, your technology isn't really viable...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> How dare you call it non-viable just because nobody wants to buy it!


<hanging my head> beejacon


----------



## CubaMark

*Senior Abbott MP Concedes Australians Ready to Leave the Grid*

_A senior member of Australia’s ruling Coalition has conceded that Australian consumers are ready to leave the grid, and rely instead on solar and storage, and suggested that state-owned assets such as electricity networks need to be sold quickly before they lose too much value.

The admission was made on ABC News Radio on Friday morning by Steve Ciobo, a parliamentary secretary in the Tony Abbott government and the Federal Member for Moncrieff, in Queensland, where the state government is looking to privatise its energy assets.

The comments are interesting because it is the first time that a senior Abbott government member has acknowledged that rooftop solar and the emergence of battery storage is going to disrupt the market and devalue network assets.

It is signifiant because it recognises what is widely accepted within the industry itself – that cleaner and distributed energy is going to grow, and underlines why the Coalition governments in Queensland and NSW are keen to privatise their electricity grid sooner rather than later._​
(Renew Economy via Cryptogon)


----------



## Macfury

Not cleaner--cheaper. Anybody would leave the grid if it were cheaper. That said, it makes a fool of anyone suggesting that the government should be farming solar energy and piping it through the grid doesn't it?


----------



## FeXL

While I haven't read the article, I'd like to offer the reason why Aussies are ready to leave the grid: Some of the higher electricity costs in the world.

Price of Electricity in Australia



> In 2013 the average price of electricity in Australia is on average around 22cents per kilowatt hour


Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh

The second link lists Aussie electricity as 29 cents per kWh in 2011.

Either way, yes, I entirely understand. Once the price of electricity gets that high, even expensive alternatives like solar begin to make sense. Especially with their gov't subsidies...


----------



## Macfury

Interestingly, that link pushing solar also blames renewables and FITT projects for the high price of electricity. So if Australia kill solar and wind on the grid, they will also kill the home solar revolution because electricity will be back to market prices. Seems like a better deal than selling their electrical systems at bargain basement prices.




FeXL said:


> While I haven't read the article, I'd like to offer the reason why Aussies are ready to leave the grid: Some of the higher electricity costs in the world.
> 
> Price of Electricity in Australia
> 
> 
> 
> Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh
> 
> The second link lists Aussie electricity as 29 cents per kWh in 2011.
> 
> Either way, yes, I entirely understand. Once the price of electricity gets that high, even expensive alternatives like solar begin to make sense. Especially with their gov't subsidies...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> While I haven't read the article, I'd like to offer the reason why Aussies are ready to leave the grid: Some of the higher electricity costs in the world.
> 
> Price of Electricity in Australia
> 
> 
> 
> Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh
> 
> The second link lists Aussie electricity as 29 cents per kWh in 2011.
> 
> Either way, yes, I entirely understand. Once the price of electricity gets that high, even expensive alternatives like solar begin to make sense. Especially with their gov't subsidies...


When you factor in the gouge fees that's about what we are paying in Southern Alberta.

A recent gas/electric bill was $110 of which only $40 dollars was for gas and electricity. That works out to about 25¢/KWH on the electrical portion.


----------



## Macfury

Still you have to pay for the infrastructure--not just the electricity, so I appreciate that the items are separated on the bill. That said, the non-electrical portion is way out of whack.


eMacMan said:


> When you factor in the gouge fees that's about what we are paying in Southern Alberta.
> 
> A recent gas/electric bill was $110 of which only $40 dollars was for gas and electricity. That works out to about 25¢/KWH on the electrical portion.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Still you have to pay for the infrastructure--not just the electricity, so I appreciate that the items are separated on the bill. That said, the non-electrical portion is way out of whack.


Sounds good except that is already a part of the energy cost. The gouge fees just line the pockets of the privateers.

One of those fees is to pay for expanded transmission capabilities. Best guess is the intent is to sell power to Montana at Albertans expense.


----------



## Macfury

We have a separate line for distribution on these Toronto bills.



eMacMan said:


> Sounds good except that is already a part of the energy cost. The gouge fees just line the pockets of the privateers.
> 
> One of those fees is to pay for expanded transmission capabilities. Best guess is the intent is to sell power to Montana at Albertans expense.


----------



## FeXL

A Sin Of Commission



> Another Senate inquiry is investigating a sin of commission that started under Howard’s watch and continues to this day, namely the proliferation of wind turbines under the RET Scheme.


Interesting observation:



> No electric power producer would take power from a wind turbine operation if they had the choice. All the wind turbines in Australia have been forced upon the power companies that take their output.
> 
> So the question has to be asked why do we have wind turbines in the first place?


Not a rhetorical question.

Another, excellent, observation:



> Wind turbines are made using energy from coal at about 4 cents per kWh and provide energy thought to cost of the order of 10 cents per kWh. *In effect, they are machines for taking cheap, stable and reliable energy from coal and giving it back in the form of an intermittent and unpredictable dribble at more than twice the price.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another perfect example of the uselessness of wind power...

Wind Power Goes AWOL Right When Freezing Brits Need It Most



> UK electricity demand hit its highest level this winter on Monday – while wind turbines generated their lowest output, official figures show.
> 
> Cold weather saw UK demand hit 52.54 gigawatts (GW) between 5pm and 5.30pm, according to National Grid.
> 
> At the same time, low wind speeds meant the *UK’s wind turbines were producing just 573 megawatts of power, enough to meet only one per cent of demand* – the lowest of any peak period this winter, Telegraph analysis of official data shows.
> 
> Earlier on Monday wind output had dropped even lower, generating *just 354 megawatts at 2pm, or 0.75 per cent of Britain’s needs* – the lowest seen during any period this winter.


So, how many billions of dollars have been spent on a system that supplied, at best, a stunning 1% of energy needs?

The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare...

Excellent read.


----------



## Macfury

Boxer the horse realizes he just needs to work a little harder, spend some more cold winters and suffer some more before the green paradise finally emerges...



FeXL said:


> Another perfect example of the uselessness of wind power...
> 
> Wind Power Goes AWOL Right When Freezing Brits Need It Most
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many billions of dollars have been spent on a system that supplied, at best, a stunning 1% of energy needs?
> 
> The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare...
> 
> Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

I really think the the idjits who propose these policies, who bankroll them, who get them constructed, they're the ones who should be solely supplied by wind & solar power. 

All it would take is one good winter storm like the one mentioned in the article & the bastards would come crawling back on blue fingers & frozen knees, snotcicles hanging from their noses, to the warm & brightly lit homes supplied by electricity from fossil fuels, never to utter the words "renewable energy" again...


----------



## SINC

Interesting if it continues to work out, especially cost/benefit ratio:

Carbon capture system works, SaskPower says - Saskatchewan - CBC News


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Interesting if it continues to work out, especially cost/benefit ratio:
> 
> Carbon capture system works, SaskPower says - Saskatchewan - CBC News


Even if it works, what's the point in capturing harmless carbon? A giant waste of money.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Even if it works, what's the point in capturing harmless carbon? A giant waste of money.


Beats a carbon tax all to hell though.


----------



## Macfury

Alas, any carbon tax has nothing to do with carbon, and everything to do with exacting greater control over citizens.



SINC said:


> Beats a carbon tax all to hell though.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Alas, any carbon tax has nothing to do with carbon, and everything to do with exacting greater control over citizens.


Last Carbon Capture number I have is $7 Trillion$. Works out to about $1000 a head. Except over 90% of the planets population do not have $1000 so that's more like $10,000/head or $30,000+/household.

Nice money for the Gores and the Banksters 'cause we all know that is exactly the intended target for all those captured carbon bucks. OTOH pretty harsh for the 50% of Canadians who are just squeaking by as is.


----------



## Macfury

It's always presented as a "tax on the rich"--who simply pass the cost down to all products and services. 



eMacMan said:


> Last Carbon Capture number I have is $7 Trillion$. Works out to about $1000 a head. Except over 90% of the planets population do not have $1000 so that's more like $10,000/head or $30,000+/household.
> 
> Nice money for the Gores and the Banksters 'cause we all know that is exactly the intended target for all those captured carbon bucks. OTOH pretty harsh for the 50% of Canadians who are just squeaking by as is.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It's always presented as a "tax on the rich"--who simply pass the cost down to all products and services.


If they limit themselves to the 1% then that works out to $1 Million/head. Since the rich can buy key US senators for $100,000 each and split the cost with their rich buds, I really don't see it ever being a tax on the rich.


----------



## eMacMan

Been awhile since we fought this battle but I see the ad links have once again raised their ugly heads. And yes that does link directly to a Target website.tptptptp


----------



## jef

*Solar by day; Tesla at night...*

Elon Musk says Tesla will unveil a new kind of battery to power your home | The Verge

:clap:


----------



## Macfury

A home fuel cell for backup would be great. I wonder how long one of them could supply back-up power on a tank of hydrogen?



jef said:


> Elon Musk says Tesla will unveil a new kind of battery to power your home | The Verge
> 
> :clap:


----------



## FeXL

Renewable Energy's Hidden Costs



> Because electricity and heat account for 41 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, curbing climate change will require satisfying much of that demand with renewables rather than fossil fuels. But solar and wind come with their own up-front carbon costs. Photovoltaics require much more aluminum—for panel frames and other uses—than other technologies do, according to a 2011 study at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Alloys for wind turbines demand lots of nickel. Those metals are carbon culprits because they are produced in large amounts by high-energy extracting and refining processes.


Ignoring the BS in the first sentence, a good read. Great visual aids. Interesting that they use the old term, "rapeseed", instead of the politically correct "canola".


----------



## FeXL

Further on renewable subsidies.

Report: Solar Energy Subsidies Cost $39 Billion Per Year



> “In spite of government’s best efforts to encourage innovation by solar energy companies and encourage Americans to rely more heavily on solar electricity, solar power continues to be a losing proposition,” the report said. “American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. *But none of it has worked.*”


M'bold.

Yep.



> “After decades of massive ‘investments’ and disappointing results, it is time that Americans critically evaluate whether our faltering federal solar initiatives deserve continued support,” the report said. *“With so little to show for so many costly initiatives, it should be apparent to objective observers that federal solar power efforts have not been a productive or prudent use of precious tax dollars.”*


M'bold.

Gee, ya think?

How many water wells in third world countries could $39,000,000,000 have dug? How many forms of cancer could have been cured? How much poverty could have been eliminated? And that is just the American slice of the pie...

Anybody who supports this boondoggle really needs to shake their head...


----------



## FeXL

Further on rated output.

Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity!



> The left box shows a total of 39,612 MW of installed rated capacity. The maximum energy fed in was 29,687 MW (74.9% of rated capacity) briefly in December. The absolute minimum was only 24.0 MW (0.06%), probably barely enough to power a single large cement mill.
> 
> *The average was 5868 MW or 14.8% of the installed rated capacity.*


Bold from the link.

Amazing.

Further and even more important in my mind:



> _One does not even see any real available baseload – a sort of reliable minimum output to rely on._​


Why is that important? How do you balance output like that with coal or natural gas fueled generators? Throttle up, throttle down, up, down, up, down. And, suddenly, your efficiency goes out the window for those forms of generation, as well.


----------



## FeXL

EU Policy Mash Roils Markets Before Paris Climate Deal



> The European Union’s carbon market, designed to save the environment, is being undercut by a patchwork of national subsidies for renewables and misaligned energy policies that have helped cut in half the volume of power being traded.
> 
> *The bloc wasted a quarter of the $550 billion spent on renewable energy*, according to analysis by consulting firm Bain & Co. presented last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Some energy-saving policies cost more than 18 times the price of the region’s carbon allowances, Bain said. Power-trading volume in 2014 was 46 percent that of three years previously, broker data show.


M'bold.

Only 25%? Hell, that should be considered a success!



> About 10 percent of the installed power capacity in Germany, the region’s biggest market, is unprofitable,


Just wondering how much that number skyrockets up when all the subsidies are removed...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Further on rated output.
> 
> Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity!
> 
> 
> 
> Bold from the link.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Further and even more important in my mind:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that important? How do you balance output like that with coal or natural gas fueled generators? Throttle up, throttle down, up, down, up, down. And, suddenly, your efficiency goes out the window for those forms of generation, as well.


A while back I took the time to put together a spreadsheet showing the number of hours per day of sustained wind over 20 KPH, in our fairly windy part of the province. Did this for a 6 year span. Worked out to an average of about 5.25 hours a day. Since turbines have a rather narrow range where they generate rated power, it is possible the 15% of rated capacity is high. If not, given a true wholesale cost of around 7¢/KWH that is still a 20+ year payback. That does not include interest on borrowed money, any maintenance or replacement costs. Nor does it reflect the cost of new power lines. Just covers the cost of the initial investment. 

Even using a very low 3% loan rate, that would kick the payback up to at least 25 years.


----------



## FeXL

Further on renewable subsidies.

Booker And The Dogger Bank Wind Farm



> _The BBC naturally got very excited by the news that Ed Davey, our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has given the go-ahead to the largest offshore wind farm in the world – 400 monster turbines covering 436 square miles of the North Sea (see James Delingpole’s feature on page 16)._


Oh, goody...



> _What the BBC didn’t mention was that this £8 billion project, producing on average 840 megawatts of electricity, *will earn for its mainly Norwegian and German owners some £900 million a year in subsidies, paid by all of us through our electricity bills.*_


Feeling fleeced yet? No? How about this, then:



> _Neither did the BBC mention that, in Manchester, another foreign-owned consortium is currently building, *for only an eighth of the capital cost, a gas-fired power station. It will produce a similar amount of electricity, up to 880 megawatts, whenever it is needed and without a penny of subsidy.*_


All italics from the link, all bold mine.

Jeebus...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Interesting that they use the old term, "rapeseed", instead of the politically correct "canola".


You're sounding like a cantankerous old right-winger there, FeXL.

Why on earth would you think "canola" is the _politically correct_ word for rapeseed?

Canola is a derivative of certain kinds of rapeseed varieties. But Canola is not interchangeable with all rapeseed varieties. The Rapeseed Association of Canada changed it's name to the Canola Association of Canada in 1980, reflecting its control of the trademark "Canola" and to reflect its production orientation.

It's like anything you guys don't like, you just throw the term "politically correct" at it as a kind of slander, which seems rather juvenile to we sane humans...


----------



## Macfury

"Politically correct" is a pejorative. It's tinkering with language to provide salve for fools... no sane human would favour it.



CubaMark said:


> It's like anything you guys don't like, you just throw the term "politically correct" at it as a kind of slander, which seems rather juvenile to we sane humans...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> "Politically correct" is a pejorative. It's tinkering with language to provide salve for fools... no sane human would favour it.


Sums it up for me, thx.

Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming>Climate Change>Global Climate Disruption>Global Weirding.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Why on earth would you think "canola" is the _politically correct_ word for rapeseed?


j


----------



## CubaMark

I see. Because of "jokes and rude comments" - not because some bleeding heart lefty thought it would hurt 'some immigrant woman's feelings'. "Politically correct" still does not apply.

And - typo - "Canadian oil" where it should say "canola oil" 

How the heck did we end up on this topic in an_ alternative energy_ thread?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I see. Because of "jokes and rude comments" - not because some bleeding heart lefty thought it would hurt 'some immigrant woman's feelings'. "Politically correct" still does not apply.


Because they were afraid some bleeding heart would get offended. It isn't usually the "progressive" who does the renaming.



CubaMark said:


> And - typo - "Canadian oil" where it should say "canola oil"


The "Can" in Canola is "Canadian. Can-ola.



CubaMark said:


> How the heck did we end up on this topic in an_ alternative energy_ thread?


You got us off track because you though FeXL was being politically incorrect regarding leftists.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> I see. Because of "jokes and rude comments" - not because some bleeding heart lefty thought it would hurt 'some immigrant woman's feelings'.


You do go on, don't you?

Who the hell said anything about 'some immigrant woman's feelings'?


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs me an article that quantifies data...

Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas



> As we all know, burning coal and gas to produce electricity is BAD, but burning wood is GOOD.
> 
> But what do the actual figures tell us?
> 
> I asked DECC to supply comparative figures CO2 produced/MWh, for coal, gas and biomass (specifically wood pellets). I specifically requested that the biomass figures should purely relate to emissions from the power stations, and not to include “whole life” calculations.


Excellent, short read.


----------



## eMacMan

Forgetting CO2 I would suggest wood pellets would be a relatively high source of real pollutants.

High quality coal and natural gas have very low levels of outside elements such as Sulfur, not at all true of wood by products. Ash levels will vary a great deal depending on the biomass source.


----------



## FeXL

Further on bionass.

Myths About Biomass



> It is often claimed that producing electricity from biomass is carbon neutral, and that the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is simply taken back out when forests are replanted.
> 
> Unfortunately, things are not as simple as this.


No, really?



> None of this should have come as any surprise, because *research two years earlier found that the use of whole trees for biomass would increase greenhouse gas emissions, based on a whole life cycle basis, by at least 49% compared to using coal over 40 years.*


M'bold.

Numbers you won't see on MSM...


----------



## FeXL

Further on bird shredder nameplate capacities.

German Black Forest Wind Turbines Yielded Only 11.8% Of Rated Capacity In 2014! … “Frightening Results”



> _"All wind turbines in Baden Wurttemberg produced a total of 699,564 MWh of power. *That corresponds to an annual mean wind power feed-in of 79.9 MW or 11.8% of the available annual mean of 676.9 MW.”*_​


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on solar farms frying birds.

Test at Tonopah solar project ignites hundreds of birds in mid-air



> “According to Rudy Evenson, Deputy Chief of Communications for Nevada Bureau of Land Management (NBLM) in Reno, as reported by Re Wire, a third of the newly constructed plant was put into action on the morning of Jan. 14, redirecting concentrated solar energy to a point 1,200 feet above the ground.”
> 
> *“Unfortunately, about two hours into the test, engineers and biologists on site started noticing “streamers” – trails of smoke and steam caused by birds flying directly into the field of solar radiation. What moisture was on them instantly vaporized, and some instantly burst into flames – at least, until they began to frantically flap away. An estimated 130 birds were injured or killed during the test.”*


M'bold.

Where's the hue & cry?


----------



## FeXL

Another one (four) bites the dust...

Q-Cells Files for Insolvency as Solar Bankrupcties Rise



> Q-Cells SE (QCE), once the world’s biggest solar-cell maker, filed for insolvency today, *the fourth large solar company from Germany to do so since December.*


M'bold.

I know, I know. You can such cheap solar panels from China...


----------



## Macfury

Think of all of the morons who called for their state, province, country to "get in on the ground floor" and become the premiere solar panel maker in the world. They were pi ssing and moaning that the train was already leaving for Chine, but with massive government funding...

Nice to see that idiocy exposed. If you want cheap panels, buy them form China as long as they're dumb enough to subsidize their manufacture.



FeXL said:


> know, I know. You can such cheap solar panels from China...


----------



## FeXL

The Swiss get. it. Big time...

Green Fiasco: 92% Of Swiss Voters Reject Carbon Tax In Referendum



> A proposal replacing the main consumer tax with a new levy on non-renewable energy has suffered a blistering defeat in Sunday’s nationwide ballot. The proposal by the Liberal Green Party won only 8% of the vote, according to final official results. *Sunday’s result was the second worst in modern Swiss history.*


Bold from the link.

Article links a number of news stories on the topic.


----------



## CubaMark

*Japanese Scientists Manage to Beam Energy Wirelessly Through the Air with Pinpoint Accuracy*



> Japanese scientists have successfully transmitted energy wirelessly, which is a key step to making solar power generation in space a possibility. The team at JAXA used microwaves to deliver 1.8 kilowatts of power - enough to run an electric kettle - through the air with pinpoint accuracy to a receiver 170-feet away.





> "Solar power generation in space has many advantages over its Earth-based cousin, notably the permanent availability of energy, regardless of weather or time of day. While man-made satellites, such as the International Space Station, have long since been able to use the solar energy that washes over them from the sun, getting that power down to Earth where people can use it has been the thing of science fiction," reports PhysOrg.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.








> The idea, said the JAXA spokesman, would be for microwave-transmitting solar satellites—which would have sunlight-gathering panels and antennae—to be set up about 36,000 kilometres (22,300 miles) from the earth.
> "But it could take decades before we see practical application of the technology—maybe in the 2040s or later," he said.
> "There are a number of challenges to overcome, such as how to send huge structures into space, how to construct them and how to maintain them."
> 
> 
> Read more at: Japan space scientists make wireless energy breakthrough


(Phys.org via Techeblog)


----------



## Macfury

Well, maybe it will come to something.


----------



## FeXL

New biomass burner.

UEA Launch Propaganda Drive For Their Straw Burning White Elephant



> The proposed straw burning power station for Norwich is creating a fair amount of controversy there.
> 
> Locals are understandably concerned by the very real pollution that will be emitted, in terms of toxins and particulates, not to mention the noise and pollution from lorries and tractors carting the straw along country roads to take it for processing into pellets.
> 
> The pellets will then need to be shipped by diesel trains into Norwich four times a week.
> 
> Many argue that the much more sensible alternative would be to build a gas powered CHP station, using existing gas mains into the site.
> 
> *The current strike price for Dedicated Biomass with CHP is £125/MWh, although the final agreed price will be subject to auction. Nevertheless, this will inevitably be well above the current market price of around £43.*


And that's just the economic folly of the project. Details inside.


----------



## FeXL

Great Britain is starting to get it.

“Rush for renewable energy has been ‘most expensive policy disaster in modern British history”



> _ * Shifting to wind and solar power has increased costs to consumers
> * Ditching green energy targets would save households £214 a year
> * Report into renewable energy carried out by The Centre for Policy Studies
> * *Found the rush to go green has been the 'most expensive policy disaster'*
> * Say no British Government has carried out analysis of costs vs benefits
> * Annual cost of renewable target is said to be a staggering £9 billion
> _


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

*Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won*

_Deutsche Bank says solar market is massive, will generate $5 trillion in revenue by 2030. It describes solar plus storage as next the killer app, and says even in India there will be 25% solar by 2022._

Deutsche Bank has produced another major report that suggests solar will become the dominant electricity source around the world as it beats conventional fuels, generates $5 trillion in revenue over the next 15 years, and displaces large amounts of fossil fuels.

In a detailed, 175-page report, the Deutsche analysts led by Vishal Shah say the market potential for solar is massive. Even now, with 130GW of solar installed, it accounts for just 1 per cent of the 6,000GW, or $2 trillion electricity market (that is an annual figure).

But by 2030, the solar market will increase 10-fold, as more than 100 million customers are added, and solar’s share of the electricity market jumps to 10 per cent. By 2050, it suggests, solar’s share will be 30 per cent of the market, and developing markets will see the greatest growth.

“Over the next 5-10 years, we expect new business models to generate a significant amount of economic and shareholder value,” the analysts write in the report. Within three years, the economics of solar will take over from policy drivers (subsidies),

Their predictions are underpinned by several observations. The first is that solar is at grid parity in more than half of all countries, and within two years will be at parity in around 80 per cent of countries. And at a cost of just 8c/kWh to 13c/kWh, it is up to 40 per cent below the retail price of electricity in many markets. In some countries, such as Australia, it is less than half the retail price.

The case for solar will be boosted by the emergence of cost-competitive storage, which Deutsche describes as the “next killer app” because it will overcome difficulties in either accessing the grid or net metering policies. “We believe reduction(a) in solar storage costs could act as a significant catalyst for global solar adoption, particularly in high electricity markets such as Europe,” it writes.​
(RenewEconomy)


----------



## Macfury

Read the damned links, Cuba! The technology _does not exist_ and the prediction that it will exist _is based on a computer mode_l:



> The solar industry report, published on Friday,* said that while costs for the greater majority of available battery technologies remained prohibitive, economically competitive batteries were the “killer app” and the “holy grail” of solar penetration.
> *
> 
> “Using conservative assumptions and no incentives, *our model indicates *that the incremental cost of storage will decrease from ~14c/kWh today to ~2c/kWh within the next five years,” the report says.


Solar has never been adopted in any widespread sense because it's "at parity"! That will be a long way off.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> _Within three years, the economics of solar will take over from policy drivers (subsidies),_​


You a betting man, CM? I'm not, but I will bet you large that solar (or wind) will not stand without significant subsidies in the foreseeable future.



CubaMark said:


> _Their predictions are underpinned by several observations. The first is that solar is at grid parity in more than half of all countries, and within two years will be at parity in around 80 per cent of countries. And at a cost of just 8c/kWh to 13c/kWh, it is up to 40 per cent below the retail price of electricity in many markets. In some countries, such as Australia, it is less than half the retail price.
> _​


Well of course solar is reaching parity. With world governments destroying coal, natural gas & nuclear generating capacity the planet over, the cost of electricity is skyrocketing everywhere. What do you suppose Jug Ears was talking about when he noted that the "cost of electricity must necessarily skyrocket"? That is the only way that renewables can compete!

Please go back to your Econ 101 texts & bone up on supply, demand & gov't interference in free enterprise markets...


----------



## FeXL

Further on renewable subsidies.

Wind Farm Owners Upset That Their Subsidies May End!



> The British wind power industry is up in arms at the prospect that the Tories will scrap subsidies for any more onshore wind farms, if they win the election.


Hey, if, as has been noted elsewhere, renewables are now at parity with their fossil fuel cousins, no subsidies should be required. Right? beejacon


----------



## FeXL

What some consider "progress".

Yeehaw...

The German electricity crisis – twice the price, but everyone’s going broke



> Germany — is aiming for a 40% cut in carbon by 2020, and have “led the way” with solar and wind power. Electricity bills are now twice the price of those in North America, and some 800,000 poor people had their power cut off because they can’t pay their bills. Despite the high prices, gas power has become uneconomic, even though it is one the best methods for dealing with the erratic energy delivered from wind and solar.


And,



> Nuclear can’t save them, they will have none after 2022 when the last reactor turns off.


Stupid, stupid, stupid...


----------



## Macfury

The Germans are the poster children for the "green"revolution. They will freeze in the dark, knowing they are enlightened citizens of the world. The lucky ones may have copies of CubaMark's encouraging reports on renewables to burn as fuel before they finally succumb to hypothermia.


----------



## FeXL

They can hold their heads high, however, knowing full well all the global warming they prevented.

All the while China & India offset the German savings by several orders of magnitude...


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs me a good Josh cartoon in the morning...

Tuesday tee hee – Solar panels with added features


----------



## FeXL

Further on electricity for everyone except Africans...

The Energy Crisis in Africa.



> _Without abundant fuel and power, prosperity is impossible: workers cannot amplify their productivity, doctors cannot preserve vaccines, students cannot learn after dark, goods cannot get to market. Nearly 700 million Africans rely mainly on wood or dung to cook and heat with, and *600 million have no access to electric light*. Britain with 60 million people has nearly as much electricity-generating capacity as the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, minus South Africa, with 800 million.​_


Bold from the link.

Somebody gets it:



> _Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank, as saying that is hypocritical for western governments, made rich by fossil fuels, “to say to African countries, ‘You cannot develop dams, you cannot develop coal, just rely on these very expensive renewables’. African countries will not listen.”​_


Yep...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> I jes' luvs me a good Josh cartoon in the morning...
> 
> Tuesday tee hee – Solar panels with added features


As with many articles today the comments reveal more than the article itself.


----------



## FeXL

One more reason.

Wind Turbines useless for carbon reduction — From $50 – $120 ton. Greens should hate them!



> You would have to be bonkers to use wind turbines to reduce CO2. The Australian RET Review estimates that the cost of reducing CO2 via wind power is $32 – $72 per ton of CO2 avoided, which means it’s far more expensive than the Direct Action plan, which costs $14 per ton.


----------



## FeXL

How 'bout we look at wind power consistency?

How Intermittent Is Wind Power?



> According to Gridwatch, wind power averaged 1901GW during April, some 5.9% of UK total demand. Hardly awe inspiring, but the reality is really far, far worse, as this average hides huge variations within the month, as the chart below makes clear.
> 
> ...
> 
> As the wind ebbed and flowed, wind’s contribution ranged from a low of 79MW, or 0.2% of demand, up to 21.2%. Even within a day, there have still been huge variability
> 
> ...
> 
> During the month, less than 1% of demand was being supplied by wind on 789 occasions, i.e. 9% of the time, For 34% of the time, it failed to exceed 3% contribution.


In other words, money well spent...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article on designing a power grid & the difficulties (read: additional costs) renewables introduce to the problem.

Transmission planning: wind and solar



> Greater penetration of renewable resources will limit the options available to operators while at the same time increasing uncertainty around expected generation patterns. To accommodate such uncertainty the choices are to: 1) increase grid costs and infrastructure, 2) limit the operational flexibility of the grid , 3) increase generation costs through backup generation resources or 4) live with increased risks and degraded reliability. Likely all four are and will continue to occur to some extent as the penetration of intermittent resources increases.


Good read.


----------



## Macfury

From now on I will refer to all "renewable energy" as "intermittent power."


----------



## FeXL

So, apparently Tesla is pushing a new "lo cost" battery for residential.

Tesla announces low cost batteries for off grid homes



> Elon Musk has announced the release of a new storage battery for home use. The new battery in principle dramatically reduces the cost of going “off grid” – powering your house entirely from solar or wind, and using the battery to provide backup power, to ensure continuous supply.


So, is it _really_ cost effective? The Chiefio finds otherwise...

Tesla Home Battery Hype

He notes:



> I can buy 2.76 times as much battery storage per dollar with small retail deep cycle marine batteries. So even if they only last 3 to 4 years each, my life cycle cost at 10 years is the same or lower. Hmmmm….
> 
> *Somehow I’m not feeling the love…*


M'bold.

Yep.

In sum:



> Ok, with all that out of the way, I’m just not particularly impressed. *This looks to me like yet another Subsidy Farm for Musk.* Yeah, he will sell them; largely to the same uber-rich folks who can buy his toy cars, some to true believers who will get a little benefit from the subsidy structure. But from a $/result point of view, I’m not seeing much to make my heart go pitty-pat.


Another interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Not without its downfalls but interesting nonetheless.

New chemical recipe to store solar energy, release it as heat, such as for creating steam



> Regardless of method, when you store energy there is a theoretical limit to the energy density… And then there is reality. In theory a kilogram of the right molecules could store a megajoule of energy if they were perfectly designed. With that amount of energy you can heat three liters of water from room temperature to boiling.
> 
> A kilo of Skov’s molecules can boil only 75 centiliters but it does that in just three minutes. This means that his molecules could bring to the boil 15 liters of water per hour and Skov as well as his supervisor are convinced that this is just the beginning.


Iron out the wrinkles, scale it up, throw it out into the free market, see if it sinks or swims.


----------



## CubaMark

*The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades*












> A Spanish company called Vortex Bladeless is proposing a radical new way to generate wind energy that will once again upend what you see outside your car window.
> 
> Their idea is the Vortex, a bladeless wind turbine that looks like a giant rolled joint shooting into the sky. The Vortex has the same goals as conventional wind turbines: To turn breezes into kinetic energy that can be used as electricity. But it goes about it in an entirely different way.
> 
> Instead of capturing energy via the circular motion of a propeller, the Vortex takes advantage of what’s known as vorticity, an aerodynamic effect that produces a pattern of spinning vortices.





> At the base of the cone are two rings of repelling magnets, which act as a sort of nonelectrical motor. When the cone oscillates one way, the repelling magnets pull it in the other direction, like a slight nudge to boost the mast’s movement regardless of wind speed. This kinetic energy is then converted into electricity via an alternator that multiplies the frequency of the mast’s oscillation to improve the energy-gathering efficiency.
> 
> Its makers boast the fact that there are no gears, bolts, or mechanically moving parts, which they say makes the Vortex cheaper to manufacture and maintain. The founders claim their Vortex Mini, which stands at around 41 feet tall, can capture up to 40 percent of the wind’s power during ideal conditions (this is when the wind is blowing at around 26 miles per hour).


(Wired)


----------



## Macfury

Interesting to see if it will perform if they actually build one.


----------



## CubaMark

A new study from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) —not from a bunch of eco-freak economists— puts the fossil fuel subsidy at $10-million.* Per minute.*

What was it MF said? Oh, yes....



Macfury said:


> *We have already dealt with the myth of massive fossil fuel subsidies and found them to be a fraction of those offered to struggling green energy. *Let the rising price of fossil fuels and consumer preference drive the creation of alternative energy sources as with all energy transformations of the past. The eco-crowd is never willing to trust that either will be a sufficient driver of the change they want to see. Why do you suppose that is, CM? Why must taxpayers bring in uncompetitive energy sources on their dime?


Given the amount of subsidies to the fossil fuel regime, you might want to re-examine what you are referring to as "uncompetitive".

*Fossil fuel subsidies are $5.3 TRILLION*

_To put things in perspective: "The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments."

The IMF itself, which is not exactly a hotbed for hippies, calls the findings "shocking" and says that the numbers are an "extremely robust" estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels.​_
(TreeHugger)


----------



## Macfury

CM, the problems with this report are exactly the problems I highlighted earlier. 

Supposing I look at wind energy and decide that it should be taxed at 20%, but nobody is taxing it. By the definition of the report, that represents a 20% subsidy.

If I claimed that use of wind power represents a lost economic opportunity and assign an arbitrary value to that loss, the report methodology would call it a subsidy.

If you had seriously understood what I said earlier, and actually read this report, you would have realized it.

You're shooting blanks again. This is the same kook-fringe stuff you've peddled before.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> This is the same kook-fringe stuff you've peddled before.


Man, I knew you had an ego, but... this takes the cake. 

I have serious disagreements with the IMF on economic policy (there is no humanity in the policy prescriptions it has historically endorsed) but its has served its own goal - advancement and security of the capitalist economic system - faithfully.

That you would consider the IMF as "kook-fringe stuff"... well... what more is there to say?


----------



## Macfury

If you bothered to do even a little cursory reading of the report, it is not endorsed by the IMF.

Once the "researchers" state that they believe governments need more revenue, therefore not taxing energy higher is a subsidy, you know there are serious problems with the paper.



CubaMark said:


> Man, I knew you had an ego, but... this takes the cake.
> 
> I have serious disagreements with the IMF on economic policy (there is no humanity in the policy prescriptions it has historically endorsed) but its has served its own goal - advancement and security of the capitalist economic system - faithfully.
> 
> That you would consider the IMF as "kook-fringe stuff"... well... what more is there to say?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> If you bothered to do even a little cursory reading of the report, it is not endorsed by the IMF.


By "not endorsed" you refer to the standard "The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management". Which is used whenever the organization in question is conducting research rather than announcing policy or public position. You read too much into the inclusion of this statement.

And yet, it's published by the IMF Fiscal Affairs department, hosted and published on the IMF website. Yup, I'm sure the IMF will completely disavow any of the conclusions drawn in this study. Any day now. .... **crickets**



> Once the "researchers" state that they believe governments need more revenue, therefore not taxing energy higher is a subsidy, you know there are serious problems with the paper.


Sigh. It's quite infuriating when one sees a properly-prepared academic study, well-researched and cited, with solid underlying data drawn from the existing literature updated with 2014+ data, the response to which from the usual suspects is "Agh! Taxes! Commies!"

For those interested, download the paper and read it yourself. 

*The key findings of the study are the following:** (emphasis mine)*

*Post-tax energy subsidies* are dramatically higher than previously estimated—$4.9 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2013, and projected to reach $5.3 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2015.
*Post-tax subsidies *are large and pervasive in both advanced and developing economies and among oil-producing and non-oil-producing countries alike. But these subsidies are especially large (about 13–18 percent) relative to GDP in Emerging and Developing Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and Pakistan (MENAP), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). 
Among different energy products, *coal accounts for the biggest subsidie*s, given its high environmental damage and because (unlike for road fuels) no country imposes meaningful excises on its consumption.
*Most energy subsidies arise from the failure to adequately charge for the cost of domestic environmental damage*—only about one-quarter of the total is from climate change—so unilateral reform of energy subsidies is mostly in countries’ own interests, although global coordination could strengthen such efforts.
The fiscal, environmental, and welfare impacts of energy subsidy reform are potentially enormous. *Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by $2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP),* cut global CO2 emissions by more than 20 percent, and cut pre-mature air pollution deaths by more than half. After allowing for the higher energy costs faced by consumers, this action would raise global economic welfare by $1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP).

Finally! Economists who have learned how to _subtract_ from GDP by accounting for the environmental damage of the fossil fuel industry. And by including environmental costs in the equation, we can now cue the blue-faced rants of the fossil fuel fans in 3.... 2.... 1....


----------



## Macfury

CM, this paper is just a heaping helping of confirmation bias. Copying and pasting its key findings does not make it any stronger. I have offered to go point to point with you on some of the other muddle-headed material you bring to EhMac, but when I expend the effort, you tend to leave the site for a week or so, and completely abandon the thread. 

Do you understand the material well enough to debate it, or are you just going to appeal to the authority of the IMF, with which you mostly disagree on other matters? Do you think you're up to it on this paper, or will you simply hide behind: "I just thought it was interesting"?

As FeXL notes, the IMF is now asking for $89 trillion to deal with "climate change." Do you suppose this disgrace of an academic paper is part of that gambit?


----------



## FeXL

No surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States



> Electricity prices are soaring in states generating the most wind power, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Although U.S. electricity prices rose less than 3 percent from 2008-2013, the 10 states with the highest percentage of wind power generation experienced average electricity price increases of more than 20 percent.


----------



## Macfury

Blame it on the Koch brothers for providing affordable and reliable electricity elsewhere.



FeXL said:


> No surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
> 
> Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States


----------



## FeXL

On conventional sources of electricity.

India Plan 60% Increase In Coal Output By 2020



> As is the case with China, India need every bit of energy they can lay their hands on, if they want to improve their economy and people’s standards of living. They also know that intermittent, expensive renewables can only fill part of the gap, hence the plan to push forward on coal and gas.


IEA: Falling Oil Prices Are Derailing The Future Of Renewable Energy



> The greenies are wailing, and it’s SO UNFAIR!


<snort>

Wah frickin' wah...

Why Skeptics Should Encourage Energy Use from Fossil Fuels Where Economically Justified



> What the world needs is not decreased fossil fuel use but increased use with careful control of conventional pollutants using conventional controls where needed and justified. Conventional controls are much less expensive and much more certain to be effective than attempting to reduce fossil fuel use in order to reduce conventional pollution.


EPA Plan to Ban Coal Hits Major Roadblock



> The EPA proposal to impose a de facto ban on new coal-fired power plants received more than two million comments from the public - but it looks like it was just one five-page comment from the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) that sent EPA scrambling back to the drawing board.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the costs of Tesla's home battery.

Why Tesla’s Powerwall Is Just Another Toy For Rich Green People



> You may have heard about Elon Musk’s plans to save us all from climate apocalypse by selling us all Tesla batteries, so that we can store electricity from wonderful solar panels.
> 
> A couple of articles which go into the economic detail and find that the idea just does not stack up.
> 
> *It sounds like an attempt to offset the losses from their core auto business.*


Yep...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on the costs of Tesla's home battery.
> 
> Why Tesla’s Powerwall Is Just Another Toy For Rich Green People
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...


A friend pointed out that when Musk started blaming Chinese consumers for refusing to buy Teslas, the bloom was off that rose.


----------



## Macfury

Glad I didn't waste more time on debating that IMF money grab with CubaMark. He's predictably lost interest again.


----------



## FeXL

Of course, there is still the obligatory nod to global warming.

European Biofuel Bubble Bursts



> Ten years of debate in the European Union over the detrimental effects of the demand for biofuels for transport on food prices, hunger, forest destruction, land consumption and climate change have come to an end.


Only took 'em a decade, huh? Fairly quick for gov't work. Wonder how long it'll take the US...



> “Let no-one be in doubt,” said Robbie Blake, Friends of the Earth Europe’s biofuels campaigner, “the biofuels bubble has burst. These fuels do more harm than good for people, the environment and the climate. The EU’s long-awaited move to put the brakes on biofuels is a clear signal to the rest of the world that this is a false solution to the climate crisis. This must spark the end of burning food for fuel.”


And:



> Commenting on the vote, Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth International’s food sovereignty coordinator, said: “While the EU has not gone far enough to stop the irresponsible use of food crops for car fuel, *this new law acknowledges a reality that small-scale food producers worldwide know* – that biofuel crops cripple their ability to feed the world, compete for the land that provides their livelihood, and for the water that sustains us.”


M'bold.

Food producers weren't the only ones to know the concept was not only self-defeating but stupid.



> With the vote, the European Union has agreed to put a limit on biofuels from agricultural crops at *seven percent of E.U. transport energy* – with an option for member states to go lower. Before the vote, the expected ‘business as usual’ scenario was for biofuels to account for *8.6 percent of E.U. transport energy by 2020*. Current usage stands at *4.7 percent*, having declined in 2013.


M'bold.

Only a politician would consider those numbers a victory. That said, progress is made acknowledging there is a problem in the first place...


----------



## FeXL

This runs hand in hand with those who think tax deductions given to all businesses, including oil companies, are a form of subsidy.

Stealing Money From Consumers Adds “Value To The Economy” – In Renewable Fantasy Land



> Making people pay more for their electricity does not _“add value to the national economy”_, as the scamsters claim. It simply takes money away from consumers, which they could otherwise have spent on something else.


Italics from the link.

Yep...


----------



## Macfury

Like Obama's claim that Food Stamps add value to the economy. They dink the same swamp water.



FeXL said:


> This runs hand in hand with those who think tax deductions given to all businesses, including oil companies, are a form of subsidy.
> 
> Stealing Money From Consumers Adds “Value To The Economy” – In Renewable Fantasy Land
> 
> 
> 
> Italics from the link.
> 
> Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, if not charging oil companies for the cost of polluting the environment is a subsidy, what is it when the shoe is on the other foot?

The darker side of solar power



> It’s not clear if these [Ontario] voters would be as gung-ho about solar power, however, if they considered the environmental implications of its expansion. The industry doesn’t talk much, or at all, about the downsides of manufacturing solar panels or where all these panels will end up when they conk out. Think of how much toxic waste is generated by consumer electronics and you get a small inkling of what a world lit with solar power, and the batteries needed to store their energy, might look like.


Further:



> [Solar p]anel production also generates highly toxic byproducts. Chinese panel makers used to just dump silicon tetrachloride on fields near their factories. China now requires panel makers to recycle almost all of this waste, though San Jose State University environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney says, “It remains to be seen how well the rules are being enforced.”


And



> Making electric batteries is even dirtier than making solar panels. Ask the poor Chinese folk whose crops, air and water have been ruined by the “graphite rain” generated by nearby mines. The average smartphone contains about 15 grams of graphite, but an electric car battery contains 50 kilograms of it.


Jes' askin'...


----------



## CubaMark

Any industrial process creates byproduct / pollution. And while y'all are hot and heavy to jump on the dirty side of battery and solar panel fabrication, has anyone done an analysis of the equivalence? Is the battery / solar industry dirtier than the fossil fuel industry per unit of energy, accounting for all comparable factors (including, for example, the 25+ year lifetime of a solar panel once fabricated, compared to the one-use-then-its-gone energy output of gasoline)?


----------



## Macfury

Go find out. Frankly, it hardly matters to me as long as the junk is properly disposed of. Only eco-weenies seem to be obsessed with such data.



CubaMark said:


> Any industrial process creates byproduct / pollution. And while y'all are hot and heavy to jump on the dirty side of battery and solar panel fabrication, has anyone done an analysis of the equivalence? Is the battery / solar industry dirtier than the fossil fuel industry per unit of energy, accounting for all comparable factors (including, for example, the 25+ year lifetime of a solar panel once fabricated, compared to the one-use-then-its-gone energy output of gasoline)?


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Any industrial process creates byproduct / pollution.


Why, yes, Yes, they do. So how come this is one of the very few articles that actually address the issues associated with solar panels whereas you can find hundreds of impact studies re: petroluem?



CubaMark said:


> And while y'all are hot and heavy to jump on the dirty side of battery and solar panel fabrication, has anyone done an analysis of the equivalence? Is the battery / solar industry dirtier than the fossil fuel industry per unit of energy, accounting for all comparable factors (including, for example, the 25+ year lifetime of a solar panel once fabricated, compared to the one-use-then-its-gone energy output of gasoline)?


Dunno. Why don't you go conduct some research, see if you can find an article that says just that? I managed to find this one.

While you're at it, perhaps you can also find who is responsible for the levelling & clean-up of all those abandoned, rusting, non-operative wind mills mounted on the hundreds-of-tons-of-concrete bases scattered throughout the US & Europe.

Jes' sayin'...


----------



## Macfury

US green energy use highest since 1930s | Money - Home

Dig beneath the headline and you can see that most of these "renewables" include existing hydro projects, wood burning and unsustainable biofuels:



> 1. Hydro -- 2.5%
> 2. Wood -- 2.2%
> 3. Biofuels -- 2.1%
> 4. Wind -- 1.8%
> 5. Waste -- 0.5%
> 6. Solar -- 0.4%
> 7. Geothermal -- 0.2%


See those little guys up there? That's the piddling contribution of our intermittent power— wind and solar!


----------



## Macfury

Obama administration OKs Arctic drilling | Politics - Home

Well, Obama finally did something I can get behind!


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Obama administration OKs Arctic drilling | Politics - Home
> 
> Well, Obama finally did something I can get behind!


Yes and no. 

Presumably those strict safety protocols will be the same ones so rigorously enforced in the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## Macfury

I can still get behind the concept of Arctic drilling. Give Obama a beak--I'm not generally throwing any rose petals his way.


----------



## FeXL

So, the fruit loops & whackos have hit a new low in determining what qualifies as a subsidy to Big Oil.

Potholes In Their Arguments



> What these good folks refer to as _“post-tax energy subsidies”_, on the other hand, are not subsidies in the usual sense. They are not money that flows to the energy companies at all.
> 
> To highlight the difference, let me give you a crystal-clear example of what the IMF considers to be a _“post-tax energy subsidy”_ to the evil oil industries … but first I am obliged to warn you that like I said, this stuff is not for the lily-livered or the faint of heart. So I’ll offer you one last chance to avoid spoiling your digestion … any takers? OK, for those remaining hardy souls, one of the IMF’s many, many “post-tax energy subsidies” is …
> 
> _The cost of fixing the potholes on the road to my humble abode.​_
> Truly. I’m not making this up. Pot-hole repair is part of their _“post-tax energy subsidy”_ that they claim is going to the energy companies. It’s listed under the rubric of _“non-carbon externalities”_.


You can't make this stuff up...


----------



## FeXL

And, despite the fact that every educated person on the planet knows that growing biofuels & burning them in your gas tank is stupid from about a half-dozen different directions, here comes the EPA.

EPA pushes forward with biofuels



> _Burning hundreds of millions of tonnes of staple foods to produce biofuels is a crime against humanity. Since 2007, the EU and US governments have given lavish support to agribusinesses to fill car fuel tanks with food – compulsory targets, and tax breaks and subsidies(pdf) worth billions annually. The result? Increased hunger, land grabbing, environmental damage and, ultimately, hundreds of thousands of lives lost.​_


and



> _First is an increase in world hunger. Almost all biofuels used in Europe are made from crops, such as wheat, soy, palm oil, rapeseed and maize, that are essential food sources for a rapidly expanding global population. Europe now burns *enough food calories in fuel tanks every year to feed 100 million people.*​_


Bold from the link.

And, despite that?



> US investment in biofuels are to be expanded under proposals advanced by the US EPA.


Brilliant...


----------



## FeXL

There's been a number of articles out recently claiming that solar power has hit parity with fossil fuel powered electricity. None of these have been honest & not included subsidies, nor has the actual weather been analyzed.

Solar grid parity?



> There are many journal articles, media stories, NGO papers, and blogs claiming solar already has, or soon will, reach general grid parity. Grid parity is when the cost of solar equals the cost of conventional electricity alternatives. It should also mean equal *without* subsidies like feed in tariffs (FiT), net metering, and tax credits.
> 
> This seemingly simple idea is not so simple. Grid parity depends on what sort of solar, on whose grid, and in what location. Solar needs insolation (sunlight energy), and that is quite variable with latitude and regional cloudiness.


M'bold.

Very good article outlining where solar power _may_ make financial sense & all the places it doesn't even come close...


----------



## FeXL

Only in the US can you become a billionaire on gov't subsidies funded by the taxpayer...

Elon Musk Rakes In $4.9bn In Subsidies



> Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
> 
> "He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. *"That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."*


M'bold.

That's OK. I think he'll be able to retire comfortably on $5 billion...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Only in the US can you become a billionaire on gov't subsidies funded by the taxpayer...
> 
> Elon Musk Rakes In $4.9bn In Subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> That's OK. I think he'll be able to retire comfortably on $5 billion...


I'm changing my name to Elon Musk! 

Seriously I could live out the rest of my life very happily with 1/10th of 1% of what he's raked in.


----------



## Macfury

I believe he's also the world's highest paid executive.



eMacMan said:


> I'm changing my name to Elon Musk!
> 
> Seriously I could live out the rest of my very happily with 1/10th of 1% of what he's raked in.


----------



## FeXL

Further on biomass flaws.

The Reality Behind Europe’s Obsession With Biomass



> For the sake of a greener Europe, thousands of American trees are falling each month in the forests outside this cotton-country town.
> 
> Every morning, logging crews go to work in densely wooded bottomlands along the Roanoke River, clearing out every tree and shrub down to the bare dirt. Each day, dozens of trucks haul freshly cut oaks and poplars to a nearby factory where the wood is converted into small pellets, to be used as fuel in European power plants.


Stupid, stupid, stupid...


----------



## Macfury

We'll be 100% "decarbonized" by the year 2100! Woo-hoo!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees to G7 'decarbonization' by 2100 - Politics - CBC News


----------



## FeXL

Even more on the folly of biomass.

What green vision? US forests burned to make costly UK electricity and produce more CO2



> *The Green movement have come full circle, from protecting forests and attacking coal, to preserving coal and destroying forests.* The most interesting question for me (apart from wondering how long it can continue) is what the UK environmental movement is going to do with this. Do they care about forests? Do they care about the electricity bills inflicted on the poor? Do CO2 emissions matter?
> 
> *In the UK, the Drax plant was once the largest coal fired power station. Now, thanks to £340 million in ‘green’ subsidies (and the rest) it makes electricity that is twice as expensive, produces more CO2, and apparently razes US forests to do it.*


Bold from the link.

Further:



> The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the UK Drax plant was paid by the British taxpayer to burn “millions of tons of wood pellets” which the company says are from _” dust and residues from sawmills”_. *But according to witnesses, environmentalists and workers, the wood is coming from US forests that are clearfelled to supply it.* The Mail on Sunday has accounts from a senior forester in the firm in North Carolina that supplies Drax. He claims the company is clear-felling forests that aren’t suitable for logging, and that most of the wood ends up as pellets and chips.


M'bold.

Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

High-tech solar projects fail to deliver



> The $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar power project in California's Mojave Desert is supposed to be generating more than a million megawatt-hours of electricity each year. But 15 months after starting up, the plant is producing just 40% of that, according to data from the U.S. Energy Department.


More:



> Ivanpah isn't the only new solar-thermal project is struggling to energize the grid. A large mirror-powered plant built in Arizona almost two years ago by Abengoa SA of Spain has also had its share of hiccups. Designed to deliver a million megawatt hours of power annually, the plant is putting out roughly half that, federal data show.


Further:



> NRG and Abengoa say their plants will reach power targets once the kinks are worked out.


Sounds an awful lot like "More money, please..."


----------



## FeXL

Further on Ivanpah.

Oh, this is rich...

Solar Fossil Fueled Fantasies



> Sometimes when I’m reading about renewable technologies, I just break out laughing at the madness that the war on carbon has wrought.


No argument.

So, what's the issue?



> No, the part that I didn’t know about Ivanpah (and other solar steam plants), the part that got me smiling, was that there is a problem with a solar tower that is generating steam. This is that steam turbines don’t do well at all with half a head of steam. For full efficiency a turbine needs full pressure steam in order to operate. And it has to have full pressure, not when the valves are closed to let the pressure build up, but when the turbine is actually using the steam.
> 
> And *since you can’t store steam, that in turn means that Google can’t start up their you-beaut solar tower until fairly late in the morning.*


M'bold.

Well, that's rather...inconvenient. So you have a solar steam plant that can't operate any more than, what, 8-10 hours a day max, 'cause you gotta warm up all the water that cooled off overnite. So, how do you increase the output? With our old friend, fossil fuels, of course!



> Well, the solution that the good engineers hired by Google came up with was simple.
> 
> *Start the sucker up using natural gas.* That way, first you can heat the cool boiler water before the sun comes up. Then, as more and more solar energy comes online during the morning, you can taper off on the natural gas.


M'bold.

So, here's the money shot:



> _"One big miscalculation was that the power plant requires far more steam to run smoothly and efficiently than originally thought, according to a document filed with the California Energy Commission. *Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much help from fossil fuels to get plant humming every morning.*"​_


M'bold.

Ha!

So, in 2100 when all fossil fuel use has been legislated out of existence, just how the hell are they going to pre-heat the boilers?

I know! Biomass! They can start burning dehydrated, ground up saguaro cacti!!!! Grown locally, of course... 

<just shaking my head>


----------



## FeXL

Further on biomass.

Deforestation in the UK



> More wood being burnt from British woods than since industrial revolution. – David Rose


More:



> _But what ex-teacher Pountney and Wilson saw looked to them like utter desolation. *They came across a stand where about 50 mature oaks, some 300 years old, had been felled the previous winter.* Their trunks lay in ragged piles, some sawn into roundels.​_


M'bold.

'Nuf said...


----------



## Macfury

Heaven forfend they should develop their natural gas reserves...



FeXL said:


> Further on biomass.
> 
> Deforestation in the UK


----------



## FeXL

Ya think?! 

Rising green energy levies 'risk public backlash'



> Rising green levies on energy bills risk causing a public backlash that will undermine efforts to tackle climate change, a leading left-wing think tank has warned.
> 
> Ministers should overhaul a series of badly-designed policies that will otherwise leave consumers paying billions of pounds more than necessary for green energy over the next decade, the IPPR said on Wednesday.


It must be getting bad when even the progressives are figgering it out...


----------



## FeXL

Father's Day smiles... 

Matt does wind turbines



> The world's finest cartoonist is having some fun at the expense of the subsidy junkies...


<snort>


----------



## CubaMark

When you guys get tired of taking potshots at wind, solar, tidal energy... how about putting some thought into alternative energy sources that you might find acceptable? Or are you stuck on the teat of the drilling rig?


----------



## Macfury

There is no need for alternate energy sources at this point. They will be developed when the price of fossil fuels rise. If someone could develop a cheaper and more reliable source of energy than fossil fuels, I'm all ears.



CubaMark said:


> When you guys get tired of taking potshots at wind, solar, tidal energy... how about putting some thought into alternative energy sources that you might find acceptable? Or are you stuck on the teat of the drilling rig?


----------



## Dr.G.

South Canoe: Largest wind farm in province officially opens | The Chronicle Herald

Here in Lunenburg, we might be getting some of electricity from these turbines. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> South Canoe: Largest wind farm in province officially opens | The Chronicle Herald
> 
> Here in Lunenburg, we might be getting some of electricity from these turbines. We shall see.


My condolences.


----------



## FeXL

They're not pot shots. They are the truth about wind, solar & biomass. Sorry they hurt.

You want to know what I would get behind? I'd love to see some of those untold billions pissed away on wind, solar & biomass under the guise of saving the planet invested in research on thorium reactors.

Interestingly, very few on the left find nuclear attractive. Do you?



CubaMark said:


> When you guys get tired of taking potshots at wind, solar, tidal energy... how about putting some thought into alternative energy sources that you might find acceptable? Or are you stuck on the teat of the drilling rig?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> You want to know what I would get behind? I'd love to see some of those untold billions pissed away on wind, solar & biomass under the guise of saving the planet invested in research on thorium reactors.
> 
> Interestingly, very few on the left find nuclear attractive. Do you?


From what I know of thorium reactor technology, it looks somewhat promising. The nuclear waste produced is lesser in quantity (by ???) than typical reactors, though still as dangerous to humans and the environment. 

Interestingly - again, from what I have read - that you would be interested in supporting its development, since by all accounts it requires significant *subsidy* to get off the ground due to much higher startup costs. 

I also recently read that we're a few years away from the next phase of testing for a multinational fusion reactor, but that project has had, shall we say, a number of challenges. 

I'll dig up citations if folks are interested (or cannot use Google). It's late, I'm tired.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Interestingly - again, from what I have read - that you would be interested in supporting its development, since by all accounts it requires significant *subsidy* to get off the ground due to much higher startup costs.


As there isn't an extant operational thorium reactor yet, no one can accurately predict costs.


----------



## heavyall

CubaMark said:


> When you guys get tired of taking potshots at wind, solar, tidal energy... how about putting some thought into alternative energy sources that you might find acceptable? Or are you stuck on the teat of the drilling rig?


Nothing wrong with any of those in concept, they just don't cut it in practice.

For any energy source to replace fossil fuels, it's going to have to be less expensive and more reliable than fossil fuels. 

The research money, IMO, really needs to go to energy storage. Besides the cost, the biggest fault of solar and wind are the fact that they still require the established grid because you can neither count on the energy when you need it, nor store excess until you do. Battery tech has not kept up with the pace of other development in energy sources and in electronic use patterns.


----------



## CubaMark

heavyall said:


> For any energy source to replace fossil fuels, it's going to have to be less expensive and more reliable than fossil fuels.


This is the crux of our conflict in this forum. Those of us who think we should be investing and pursuing the integration of and eventual switchover to renewables / alternatives *see the petroleum industry as far more expensive* than do you fellas.

It seems as though the majority of proponents of fossil fuels are unable (unwilling?) to appreciate the massive environmental effects of burning dead dinosaurs - and I'm not even entering into the discussion on climate change, since that would lead us off on a tangent that's been adequately ranted about in another thread.

Imagine New York or LA without fossil fuel-burning cars. Smog alerts and air quality leading to health issues would be nonexistent. Yes, the power has to come from somewhere - but a centralized power plant producing electricity is much easier to deal with in terms of pollution reduction than millions of individual pollution machines. Technologies for the cleaner production of energy - whether it be fossil or otherwise - applied to a few electricity-producing plants is easier to implement and much more effective even in the short term.

And for those who complain about the materials used in the production of solar panels, it seems as though you consciously ignore the constant ongoing improvement in panel efficiency and the ever-changing mix of mineral components, reducing toxicity while improving quality. 

For those of us who believe alternatives are worth pursuing _now_, it seems as though y'all are intentionally against moving away from fossil fuels against all evidence that indicates it's not only possible, but rational and over the long-term, a net benefit to society.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> This is the crux of our conflict in this forum. Those of us who think we should be investing and pursuing the integration of and eventual switchover to renewables / alternatives *see the petroleum industry as far more expensive* than do you fellas.


It's because the math listing the externalities of fossil fuels is so effed up that it beggars belief. All of the lists you've presented here include an item along this line: "We believe that the government could raise five times a much tax revenue from selling gas and oil, and because it doesn't, that's a subsidy." That's simply crazy.

Nobody here cares if someone _chooses_ to drive an electric car. Each person can weigh the pros and cons and externalities and can decide which fuel is better for them. You're free to blow your money on an air-powered car if you like, but you won't convince anyone by pushing a command-and-control vision for alternate energies, forcing people to buy moon buggies by making the cost of better choices artificially prohibitive.

In fact, switching old fashioned coal plants to natural gas would probably be the lowest hanging fruit for the type of metrics you crave.

Here's the thing. At some point, it won't matter what the externalities are--some new power source will be way cheaper than fossil fuels at point of purchase. Are you simply afraid that the price of fossil fuels will be cheaper forever?



CubaMark said:


> ...and I'm not even entering into the discussion on climate change, since that would lead us off on a tangent that's been adequately ranted about in another thread.


There's been ranting on your part, but no discussion. You leave when pressed to discuss specifics.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> For those of us who believe alternatives are worth pursuing _now_, it seems as though y'all are intentionally against moving away from fossil fuels against all evidence that indicates it's not only possible, but rational and over the long-term, *a net benefit to society.*


What your blinkered perspective routinely ignores is that, today, society is where it's at, warts & all, on the back of inexpensive fossil fuels. Pretty damned beneficial, I'd say.

And, the best way to raise third world countries out of abject poverty is not expensive, subsidized renewables but affordable fossil fuels. 

You allude to bad air quality for the poor denizens of New York & LA. After the horrific drive home through the smog, these self-same "sufferers" open the door to central air-conditioning, hit the light switch, turn on the 6+1 stereo & source the 55" LCD television, reach into a cold refrigerator for a nice craft beer & warm up supper in the microwave, afterwards running the dishwasher & doing a couple loads of wash. Just before hitting the sack they take a luxurious shower to wash off some of that terrible smog.

How about the millions in Africa who can do none of that & are forced to burn dung & brush in their huts for cooking & a little light as a bonus? How would you like to breath that every day? 

And you want to sell them an expensive windmill or an expensive solar panel & an expensive freaking battery?

The hypocrisy abounds...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> What your blinkered perspective routinely ignores is that, today, society is where it's at, warts & all, on the back of inexpensive fossil fuels. Pretty damned beneficial, I'd say.


Yes--society accepts the externalities that have resulted in comfort and prosperity.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL, the context of the developing world is quite obviously very different than that of a major urban North American city. I live in -what for some odd reason is no longer considered "developing" despite the horrific levels of poverty that exist here- Mexico. The problems this country faces are immense, and despite being an oil-producing nation, the outright thievery here means very little of that has managed to "trickle down" to the general populace. And with current reforms to allow foreign investment in the oil industry here, PEMEX isn't long for this world as a publicly-owned entity. Mexico is -if it's possible- even more "in love" with its cars than is the USA. Massive highway infrastructure and the balance of SUVs and trucks to cars must easily be around 50%. Gas guzzling all around. And emissions controls? Forget about it. If it can roll under it's own power, there appears to be no state body capable (or interested) in dealing with pollution (let alone safety).

There have been half-assed attempts to build wind farms around this state and in other parts of the country - but in this context, I'm very cynical. See "thievery" noted above. It's pretty much impossible to do anything here without half the budget of whatever project going into a politician's bank account.

More appropriate here is solar, which is making fairly significant progress in rural areas, mainly as a source of power for water pumps for irrigation (our state is semi-desert / arid). The power grid here is frailer than Havana's in the mid-1990s, again quite surprising for a NAFTA partner and "modern" economy.

We receive an average of 2676 hours of sunlight per year (of a possible 4383) with an average of 7:19 of sunlight per day (2/3 what Las Vegas receives). With a predominantly flat-roofed construction of homes and buildings, the potential for efficient solar installation here is enormous. 

Perhaps the biggest adaption to solar power here has been with solar hot water heaters. Since the vast majority of the municipal-supplied water is not potable, but rather used for showering and/or boiled for use as cooking / drinking water, the solar heaters tend to be simple and relatively inexpensive (installed, a 15-tube model with storage tank that serves a family of 5+ runs around $650 Cdn). These are direct heating units - unlike North American standard units, in which the solar heater uses a high-heat fluid (glycol) with a transfer tank that moves the heat over to the internal hot water system for general-use and home heating.

In many very rural communities, there are a number of initiatives - mostly led by NGOs - to address the issue of in-house contamination from fires that cause significant lung disease problems among primarily women and young children, since they fires are often indoors in confined and not-very-well ventilated spaces. Solar cookers are gaining popularity among those populations, which apart from reducing exposure to smoke from charcoal or wood fires, also reduces women's labour requirements (gathering of wood) and expenses (purchase of charcoal).

In the African context, solar cookers are in widespread use, and solar-powered water pumps likewise have a strong following. Both of these technologies reduce women's labour (walking for hours to bring water from a river or distant well) and fear of violence (rape is a very present danger when women travel such distances accompanied only by their children). 

In the African case especially, fossil fuels (gasoline, kerosine or natural gas) are an expense that many cannot afford. As for oil / gas being inexpensive... a barrel of oil is at $59.61 USD today - and yet gasoline prices remain as high as they were when a barrel was topping $100/barrel... even accounting for the time needed for the market to 'adjust', the industry appears to be a bit miserly in its transfer of those reduced costs to consumers in North America. Imagine how the poor in many developed countries are coping?

Technology-wise, developing nations have an advantage in the move to renewables to Developed countries do not: a lack of existing infrastructure / investment. In communications, land-line ownership is vastly lower in the developing world simply because mobile phone technology became available long before there was a capability to extend land line service to many areas. This leapfrogging of technologies also applies to alternative energy adoption. Rather than pay for the installation of long-distance transmission lines for electricity, local solar plants can be erected for a fraction of the cost to serve rural residents.


----------



## CubaMark

*How Ontario Is Leading Energy Storage in Canada*

In Canada, it's Ontario that's leading the way in deploying energy storage systems in the field. While the Tesla Powerwall won't be available to the public until next year, Panasonic Eco Solutions and a couple of other partners are doing an interesting pilot project in Oshawa.

They're installing 30 combined solar PV and battery projects. It's a 6 kilowatt solar system and the batteries can store up to 10 kilowatt-hours.

* * *​
"The fact is that storage can play in dozens of different areas of the electricity market, whether it's just providing backup, whether it's time shifting whether it's bulk storage for holding wind energy, when the wind's blowing and we don't need it or solar energy when we want to deploy it at a later time. Whether it's just doing voltage regulation or grid regulation. Sorting it out and coming up with rules once they nail that, I think it's going to open up this whole world of innovation," says Tyler Hamilton, editor of Corporate Knights magazine.

Ontario is testing a range of battery applications. They've funded 34 megawatts worth of projects with the technologies ranging from batteries to flywheels to even hydrogen and thermal storage.

Ontario plans to roll out 50 megawatts worth of energy storage and while it doesn't compare to California's pledge to install 1,300 megawatts, it's still a very good start.

* * *​
Jason Rioux is a vice-president at NRStor, an energy storage company in Ontario. They're involved in a two-megawatt flywheel project featuring Temporal Power's technology but they've also partnered up with Tesla to sell and deploy their residential and commercial products.

"The closer you get to the load, the more value you can deliver to rate payers, and so we see a lot of opportunity for grid scale projects to solve grid scale problems but we also see residential projects distributed out amongst all of the load centers across the province or across the country to be able to deliver significant benefit back to the system," says Rioux.

"This is just the beginning. The cost of these technologies will continue to decrease and be more economic to more people."

* * *​
And when established companies are making big bets on storage over natural gas peaker plants you know you've hit a tipping point. Energy storage is going to change every thing.

(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury

They're working on storage to solve the problem of "green" energy—not to provide economical power to Ontario. The province has reached a tipping point alright--a tipping point of massive subsidy.

But go ahead CM and tell me how buying massive batteries will make energy more affordable. I'm listening...


----------



## Macfury

After taking into consideration all graft and corruption, it sounds like urban Mexicans largely favour fossil fuels, while rural Mexicans find some benefit in sunlight. Good for both groups! Use what works for you.

Likewise, if rural Africans prefer renewables, I wouldn't force gas down their throats. However, I've heard prominent Africans express their concern that they require POWER to develop a modern economy, not Mickey Mouse sun-cookers.




CubaMark said:


> FeXL, the context of the developing world is quite obviously very different than that of a major urban North American city. I live in -what for some odd reason is no longer considered "developing" despite the horrific levels of poverty that exist here- Mexico. The problems this country faces are immense, and despite being an oil-producing nation, the outright thievery here means very little of that has managed to "trickle down" to the general populace. And with current reforms to allow foreign investment in the oil industry here, PEMEX isn't long for this world as a publicly-owned entity. Mexico is -if it's possible- even more "in love" with its cars than is the USA. Massive highway infrastructure and the balance of SUVs and trucks to cars must easily be around 50%. Gas guzzling all around. And emissions controls? Forget about it. If it can roll under it's own power, there appears to be no state body capable (or interested) in dealing with pollution (let alone safety).
> 
> There have been half-assed attempts to build wind farms around this state and in other parts of the country - but in this context, I'm very cynical. See "thievery" noted above. It's pretty much impossible to do anything here without half the budget of whatever project going into a politician's bank account.
> 
> More appropriate here is solar, which is making fairly significant progress in rural areas, mainly as a source of power for water pumps for irrigation (our state is semi-desert / arid). The power grid here is frailer than Havana's in the mid-1990s, again quite surprising for a NAFTA partner and "modern" economy.
> 
> We receive an average of 2676 hours of sunlight per year (of a possible 4383) with an average of 7:19 of sunlight per day (2/3 what Las Vegas receives). With a predominantly flat-roofed construction of homes and buildings, the potential for efficient solar installation here is enormous.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest adaption to solar power here has been with solar hot water heaters. Since the vast majority of the municipal-supplied water is not potable, but rather used for showering and/or boiled for use as cooking / drinking water, the solar heaters tend to be simple and relatively inexpensive (installed, a 15-tube model with storage tank that serves a family of 5+ runs around $650 Cdn). These are direct heating units - unlike North American standard units, in which the solar heater uses a high-heat fluid (glycol) with a transfer tank that moves the heat over to the internal hot water system for general-use and home heating.
> 
> In many very rural communities, there are a number of initiatives - mostly led by NGOs - to address the issue of in-house contamination from fires that cause significant lung disease problems among primarily women and young children, since they fires are often indoors in confined and not-very-well ventilated spaces. Solar cookers are gaining popularity among those populations, which apart from reducing exposure to smoke from charcoal or wood fires, also reduces women's labour requirements (gathering of wood) and expenses (purchase of charcoal).
> 
> In the African context, solar cookers are in widespread use, and solar-powered water pumps likewise have a strong following. Both of these technologies reduce women's labour (walking for hours to bring water from a river or distant well) and fear of violence (rape is a very present danger when women travel such distances accompanied only by their children).
> 
> In the African case especially, fossil fuels (gasoline, kerosine or natural gas) are an expense that many cannot afford. As for oil / gas being inexpensive... a barrel of oil is at $59.61 USD today - and yet gasoline prices remain as high as they were when a barrel was topping $100/barrel... even accounting for the time needed for the market to 'adjust', the industry appears to be a bit miserly in its transfer of those reduced costs to consumers in North America. Imagine how the poor in many developed countries are coping?
> 
> Technology-wise, developing nations have an advantage in the move to renewables to Developed countries do not: a lack of existing infrastructure / investment. In communications, land-line ownership is vastly lower in the developing world simply because mobile phone technology became available long before there was a capability to extend land line service to many areas. This leapfrogging of technologies also applies to alternative energy adoption. Rather than pay for the installation of long-distance transmission lines for electricity, local solar plants can be erected for a fraction of the cost to serve rural residents.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> FeXL, the context of the developing world is quite obviously very different than that of a major urban North American city.


Yes, exactly my point. Sorry you missed it. That was us a little more than a century ago.

My father grew up in the 30's in a house warmed by a wood burning stove that also supplied heat for cooking. Limited light was furnished by a couple of coal oil lanterns. My mother also grew up in the 30's, with the same "luxuries". I have one of her old coal oil lanterns & we fire it up for our children when I'm feeling nostalgic. Later, her folks installed a small windmill which provided erratic 32 volt DC power. To this day she has a set of old Christmas lights from that period. In 1950 AC electricity was installed in our rural area. I still recall our old self-feeding coal burning furnace from the 60's & dad's yearly trips to Taber with the 3 ton truck to pick up a load. It was my job to remove the clinkers. We eventually moved to a propane furnace & ultimately, natural gas. As little as 25 years ago I recall going out to visit relatives in Saskatchewan & many of them still used wood for heat, although they had bowed to the reliability of the electrical grid.

A hundred years ago, 75, even as little as 50 years ago, much of what we now consider the developed world had issues with reliable energy. _We were developing ourselves, especially the rural areas._

Similarly, that's where many people in Africa, & the Middle & Far East are today. They're looking for a relatively inexpensive form of reliable energy. I'm not suggesting that a power line be strung out to every grass shack in the savana. And, in the face of little other choice, I think that solar cookers are a reasonable option. However, there are many villages that could benefit from a buried power line supplied by low emission natural gas fired generators.

That said, there are massive reserves of both oil & natural gas in Africa which could be extracted & used almost immediately. 

From the above link:



> “Gas is seen as an intermediate carbon product before a lower carbon-reliant energy future [develops]. We can expect a ‘gas age’ of between 30 and 40 years before we resolve the renewable-energy storage issues and enter an even lower-carbon future.


Why wait the 30 years or more for renewables to become affordable?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> However, I've heard prominent Africans express their concern that they require POWER to develop a modern economy, not Mickey Mouse sun-cookers.


I've read a number of articles about renewable energy saying exactly that. I believe I've even linked to a couple in this thread.

Why are first world nations using as much inexpensive, reliable fossil fuel as they can, while furnishing us with the more expensive & less reliable, renewable?


----------



## CubaMark

_A long, but interesting, read:_

*Why the Saudis Are Going Solar (The Atlantic)*


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar garden proposed for Nelson, B.C., could be a 1st in Canada*










The City of Nelson, B.C., could become the first in Canada to build a community solar garden that would provide residents with "clean" energy and credits towards their power bill.

The project, put forward by the city-owned and -operated utility Nelson Hydro, would allow people to purchase power from a solar panel farm for 25 years, and receive a credit that would go towards balancing, and eventually reducing, costs on their bills.

It's in the preliminary stages, said Carmen Proctor of Nelson Hydro, who said interest in the project is growing.

"People here really do care about the environment and they are really progressive in their way of thinking," said Proctor.

She was introduced to the idea a couple of years ago at a conference in the U.S., where community solar farms are growing. Based on a successful pilot program in Nelson aimed at encouraging people to make their homes more energy efficient, she says she knew the concept of a community solar garden would be well received in the southeastern B.C. city.

*How it works*

A community solar garden is a centralized solar panel farm that gives homeowners and businesses access to solar energy without having to install and maintain panels on their own roof.

The price of the electricity purchased from the proposed solar project in Nelson would cost residents more, but initial community feedback indicates people would be willing to pay the extra costs, said Proctor. 

It's about more than trying to save money, she said, and added costs eventually will even out.

Nelson Hydro is still working out detailed costs, but says people could end up investing something like $1,000 for a solar panel space for 25 years. They can either pay a lump sum up front or make monthly payments of about $3.47 until the solar panel space is paid off.

Depending on how much energy the solar panels produce, it could take roughly 12 to 15 years for residents to recoup the costs of their investment, but once the space is paid off, people would then slowly start to save money, said Proctor.

The amount of the credit that will be put towards hydro bills would depend on how families invest in the project, the amount of energy produced and current electricity rates.

The benefit of the 25-year contracts, she said, is long-term energy price stability.​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

That's the way to run these projects. Rope off all of the people who think solar energy is the cat's ass and then make them voluntarily pay the premium. Nobody gets hurt.



CubaMark said:


> *Solar garden proposed for Nelson, B.C., could be a 1st in Canada*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The City of Nelson, B.C., could become the first in Canada to build a community solar garden that would provide residents with "clean" energy and credits towards their power bill.
> 
> The project, put forward by the city-owned and -operated utility Nelson Hydro, would allow people to purchase power from a solar panel farm for 25 years, and receive a credit that would go towards balancing, and eventually reducing, costs on their bills.
> 
> It's in the preliminary stages, said Carmen Proctor of Nelson Hydro, who said interest in the project is growing.
> 
> "People here really do care about the environment and they are really progressive in their way of thinking," said Proctor.
> 
> She was introduced to the idea a couple of years ago at a conference in the U.S., where community solar farms are growing. Based on a successful pilot program in Nelson aimed at encouraging people to make their homes more energy efficient, she says she knew the concept of a community solar garden would be well received in the southeastern B.C. city.
> 
> *How it works*
> 
> A community solar garden is a centralized solar panel farm that gives homeowners and businesses access to solar energy without having to install and maintain panels on their own roof.
> 
> The price of the electricity purchased from the proposed solar project in Nelson would cost residents more, but initial community feedback indicates people would be willing to pay the extra costs, said Proctor.
> 
> It's about more than trying to save money, she said, and added costs eventually will even out.
> 
> Nelson Hydro is still working out detailed costs, but says people could end up investing something like $1,000 for a solar panel space for 25 years. They can either pay a lump sum up front or make monthly payments of about $3.47 until the solar panel space is paid off.
> 
> Depending on how much energy the solar panels produce, it could take roughly 12 to 15 years for residents to recoup the costs of their investment, but once the space is paid off, people would then slowly start to save money, said Proctor.
> 
> The amount of the credit that will be put towards hydro bills would depend on how families invest in the project, the amount of energy produced and current electricity rates.
> 
> The benefit of the 25-year contracts, she said, is long-term energy price stability.​
> (CBC)


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> That's the way to run these projects. Rope off all of the people who think solar energy is the cat's ass and then make them voluntarily pay the premium. Nobody gets hurt.


Agreed.

However, nobody in their right mind would invest their money in a questionable scheme with a 12-15 year payback.

I know, I know...


----------



## FeXL

Green Energy Subsidies Spiral Out Of Control



> The cost of subsidising new wind farms is spiralling out of control, government sources have privately warned.
> 
> Officials admitted that so-called “green” energy schemes will require a staggering £9 billion a year in subsidies – paid for by customers – by 2020. This is £1.5 billion more than the maximum limit the coalition had originally planned.
> 
> The mounting costs will mean every household in the country is forced to pay *an estimated £170 a year* by the end of the decade to support the renewable electricity schemes that were promoted by the coalition.


Bold from the link.

Nice.

Had a new vendor for electricity drop by last week. Main selling point was that they were pushing _renewable_  energy.

I smiled briefly before I completely decimated his sales pitch on how wunnerful windmills were. I started with the concrete needed to form the base of the windmills & the distribution towers, headed into the tax-payer funded subsidies they required to stay competitive & moved on into the erratic nature of the supply, which then had to be backed up by gas powered generators inefficiently idling online at all times ready to fill the holes. He attempted to interrupt a few times in the middle of my diatribe but I just wagged my forefinger & wouldn't allow him. I finished by telling him I didn't appreciate the piling up of dead birds & bats under the windmills. 

At that point, he had nothing further to add & thanked me for my time. By the time he turned around & left, his head was down & his shoulders slumped. 

I wouldn't be surprised if he changed jobs the next day...


----------



## Macfury

I explained to my son the other day the meaning of Bull****... er, _Bullfrog_ Power signs on people's lawns.



FeXL said:


> Had a new vendor for electricity drop by last week. Main selling point was that they were pushing _renewable_  energy.


----------



## machspeed5

the old joke is that we're apparently 30 years away from fusion energy. but they've been saying that for several generations. i guess we never get any closer. hehe


----------



## Macfury

machspeed5 said:


> the old joke is that we're apparently 30 years away from fusion energy. but they've been saying that for several generations. i guess we never get any closer. hehe


Yep. I keep getting sucked into those reports where some guy claims he's already figured it out. When it arrives, they won't believe the person who invented it.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, this has got Greenies up in arms...

UK Government slashes renewables incentives



> The British renewables industry is horrified at the latest UK budget, which has slashed the green climate change levy, *and provided a mild tax cut for faltering North Sea oil extraction businesses.*


M'bold.

Subsidy! Subsidy, I tell you!!!

UK Government cuts green subsidies, investment falls, calls for “more subsidies” rise



> That didn’t take long. The recent UK election means the conservative government has the power to get rid of some subsidies for “low carbon”, “green” electricity, and make it easier for oil and gas. Renewable energy companies are feeling the pain, and complaining bitterly. *Of course, if they were competitive, they wouldn’t need the subsidies and the stock market would throw money at them.*


M'bold.

Not a subsidy! Not a subsidy, I tell you!!!

Renewables Must Now Pay Climate Change Levy



> It seems the greenies are all up in arms that the Chancellor has removed the exemption from the Climate Change Levy for renewable energy providers.
> 
> The levy was originally introduced in 2001 as a charge to businesses on their electricity bills, intended to incentivise them to save energy, rather than encourage renewable provision.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the *subsidy sharks* in the renewable sector are furious that they won’t be able to make quite as much money


M'bold.

"Subsidy Sharks". Hmmm. Rather like that...


----------



## Macfury

Attract private capital? That's only for viable businesses!


----------



## CubaMark

Denmark recently produced, via wind turbines exclusively, 140% of its domestic power needs (the remainder was exported to Germany and Norway). This was at 3:00am, when wind was blowing particularly strong and over the course of several hours.... earlier the evening before, that figure was 116% of demand. 

The power exported to Norway and Germany was stored in hydroelectric systems for later use, something that Denmark doesn't have the capacity to do. The major challenge for renewables - storage - is exemplified here.

Here's a live view of Denmark's national power grid, indicating the import and export of electricity. (image below is a static example).


----------



## Macfury

I'm not sure I understand the reason for the article CM. It says that Denmark wants to produce half of it electricity needs by renewables by 2020. That means wind traditionally produces _less than _half their needs--say generously 35%. If on this day wind produced 140% of needs, then their wind farms are routinely operating at 25% capacity. That would not strike me as a reason to celebrate.


----------



## FeXL

What The Solar Industry Forgot To Tell You!



> The solar industry has apparently been bragging about how much power it has been producing recently. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten to tell us the full story.
> 
> *In overall terms, solar only generated 1.2% of UK’s electricity last year.*


M'bold.

Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

No surprise that politicians can be bought. Wonder how much influence his offer had on Shrillary's statement & who else is going to step up to the plate...

US Billionaire Tom Steyer to candidates: Back 50% renewables by 2030, if you want my financial support



> US billionaire Tom Steyer, who made large amounts of money from coal, before going “green”, has demanded that political candidates who want his financial help must support a renewable target of 50% by 2030.


Even he doesn't ask for 100%...


----------



## FeXL

All correlations are purely coincidental...

EU Electricity Prices & Renewable Energy



> No prizes for spotting the connection.


----------



## FeXL

There's a surprise...

European Renewable Energy performance for 2014 falls far short of claims



> Summary: By 2014 European Union countries had invested approximately €1 trillion, €1000,000,000,000, in large scale Renewable Energy installations.


And, what do you get for a trillion euros?



> The actual measured output by 2014 from data supplied by the Renewables Industry has been 38 Gigawatts or 3.8% of Europe’s electricity requirement, *at a capacity factor of ~18% overall.*


Bold from the link.

Stunning.

He sums:



> The Renewable Energy industry could not exist without the Government mandated subsidies and preferential tariffs on which it depends.
> 
> Without Government subsidies and consumption mandates the Renewable Energy industry is not a viable business proposition.
> 
> Viewed from the point of view of the viability of a nation’s electrical supply grid, Renewable Energy would never be part of the generating mix without its Government mandate, Government subsidies and Government interference.


From the comments:



> This is like a slow economic suicide – stupid stupid stupid.


----------



## FeXL

If my tax dollars have got to subsidize the bastards, may as well use all the innovation we can.

Making better solar panels by mimicking butterfly posture



> A team of experts...showed that by mimicking the v-shaped posture adopted by Cabbage White butterflies to heat up their flight muscles before take-off, the amount of power produced by solar panels can increase by almost 50 per cent.


Interesting observations in the comments about additional costs.


----------



## FeXL

Article is thin on details & some of the statements just don't add up.

Claim of new efficiency milestone in a new solar battery



> After debuting the world’s first solar air battery last fall, researchers at The Ohio State University have now reached a new milestone.
> 
> In the Journal of the American Chemical Society, they report that their patent-pending design–which combines a solar cell and a battery into a single device–now achieves a 20 percent energy savings over traditional lithium-iodine batteries.
> 
> The 20 percent comes from sunlight, which is captured by a unique solar panel on top of the battery, explained Yiying Wu, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Ohio State.
> 
> The solar panel is now a solid sheet, rather than a mesh as in the previous design. Another key difference comes from the use of a *water-based* electrolyte inside the battery.


M'bold.

First question I have is, will this water-based battery freeze?


----------



## FeXL

Related to Shrillary's announcement to have the US 100% on renewables in 10 years.

The Green Mirage

Abstract (open access)



> This paper discusses a recently published business magazine article projecting massive growth in the solar industry over the next 20 years. We have analyzed the business, scientific, and engineering backgrounds of two well-known gentlemen quoted in the article and searched for business interests that would benefit from such growth either by way of early investment and subsidy capital or long term net revenue. We have analyzed the utility industry’s need to replace an existing 440 GW of fully operational and cost effective generating capacity in light of its projected retirement of plants due to age coupled with the potential increase in demand based on partial electrification of the transportation system. We conclude with the analysis of the feasibility of powering the U.S. electricity needs by a solar-only generation infrastructure based on system components and the feasibility of extremely large volume manufacturing, capital costs and the huge land areas required.


Key Concepts:



> *· 29.3 billion 1 square meter solar panels are required for 100% solar power in the U.S. based on current demand 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
> 
> · 29.3 billion 1square meter panels would cover 29,333 km2 which equals 7.2 million acres, or almost all of Maryland and Delaware.
> 
> · If 1 square meter PV panels were manufactured at the rate of 1 per second, it would take 929 years to manufacture 29.3 billion panels
> 
> · The cost of a solar only approach exceeds $15.27 trillion
> 
> · To meet all energy demands for transportation, industrial, and commercial-agriculture would require 176 billion solar panels and 5,574 years to produce*
> 
> · Moore’s Law is not applicable to the production or deployment of solar panels
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> · Increases in “solar cell efficiency” have little impact on land area to produce utility scale power
> 
> · Unsubsidized Solar has applicability in rural areas and developing countries with low population density
> 
> · Google’s Green Energy Project RE<C was canceled; “Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach; Suggest “A disruptive fusion technology…”


M'bold.

Stunning numbers.

Excellent, lengthy treatise on the subject. _Much_ in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting endorsement.

Berkeley Earth endorses Natural Gas as a ‘bridge fuel’



> Can natural gas help us reduce climate change by acting as a bridge fuel away from coal? New research from Berkeley suggests that it can, even if it modestly delays the date at which we switch to renewables.
> 
> ...
> 
> Natural gas has two major benefits over coal: it has less carbon emissions per unit of chemical energy, and can be converted into electricity at a higher efficiency (less energy is lost as waste heat). These two combined mean that the CO2 emissions from new natural gas power plants can be as little as one third of the emissions of existing coal plants.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the relationship between installed renewable capacity & the cost of electricity (post 1270).

Obama May Finally Succeed!



> Currently, we get about 4% of our electricity from wind and solar. He wants to jack it to 28%, meaning we need seven times the installed capacity. Currently we have about 231 kW/capita of installed wind and solar (see Figure 1). So Obama’s plan will require that we have a little less than seven times that, 1537 kW/capita. And assuming that we can extend the relationship we see in Figure 1, this means that the average price of electricity in the US will perforce go up to no less than 43 cents per kilowatt-hour. (This includes the hidden 1.4 cents/kW cost due to the five cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy paid to the solar/wind producers).
> 
> Since the current average US price of electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour … that means *the true price of electricity is likely to almost quadruple in the next 15 years.*


Bold from the link.

Further:



> And given that President Obama famously predicted that under his energy plan electricity prices would necessarily “skyrocket” … *it looks like he finally might actually succeed at something.*


M'bold.

Woohoo!


----------



## FeXL

Further on Obama's hate for anything petroleum related.

Obama spurns natural gas in climate rule



> The president once touted gas as an essential clean bridge fuel to wean the United States off dirtier fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, and it was seen as a key to his landmark climate change rule for power plants.
> 
> But when Obama unveiled the finalized rule this week, he barely spoke about natural gas. Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) boasted that the new regulation will accommodate a large transition from coal power directly to renewables like wind and solar, skipping over natural gas altogether.


----------



## FeXL

The president's 'Clean Power Plan' is worse than you think



> According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, *President Obama's "Clean Energy Plan" would take 33% of productive electrical capacity off the grid by 2020.* And the Washington Free Beacon notes that another report shows that the plan would close 48% of all coal-fired plants in the country.
> 
> As the Wall Street Journal points out, this plan is "regulation without representation." The president's rules would usurp the traditional role of states in managing their own electrical generation and saddle the economy with enormous costs while empowering the EPA to control vast swaths of the American economy.


M'bold.

Kinda speaks for itself, no?

Related:

Obama’s Cunning Plan Is Worthless



> o emphasise, it is only CO2 emissions from power plants that are targeted. According to the US Energy Administration, the electricity sector only produce about 36% of the country’s total emissions, with the rest coming from the use of fossil fuels by transport, households, industry and commerce.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, a reduction of 32% from the 2005 figure, means a drop to 1729 million tonnes, in other words a cut of 443 million tonnes from 2013 levels.
> 
> Total CO2 emissions in the US, according to the BP Energy Review, were 5941 million tonnes in 2013, so a cut of 443 million is a paltry 7%. In terms of global emissions, it is only 1%!
> 
> *Is this really going to save the planet?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Just...brilliant.

USDA Putting Solar Panels on Chicken Coops



> The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is spending millions on green energy projects for farms, including putting solar panels on the tops of chicken coops.
> 
> The federal agency announced Friday that its Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) will spend $63 million on solar panels and wind turbines for the farming industry.


----------



## FeXL

A Simple Tale About Switching To Renewable Power: Requirements & Consequences.



> The tale below is fictional, but every one of its elements and issues has been or will be experienced somewhere in the process of switching electrical power production from fossil fuels to renewable wind and solar. *Hopefully this tale will illustrate in a non-technical way some of these complications and potential issues that can and often will arise.* My reference to “city” and “government” and “city fathers” are generic and could apply to different entities and scales.


M'bold.

It'll still go over some people's heads...


----------



## Macfury

Where's MacDoc when you need him?

For Norway, Oil at $50 Is Worse Than the Global Financial Crisis - Bloomberg Business


----------



## FeXL

As always, blithely ignoring the obvious, I'm sure...


----------



## Macfury

We sure hear a lot less about Norway, anyway.


----------



## CubaMark

_There's a fair amount of spin here... but it is a logical move to capture farm-produced gas for use in on-farm machinery. In fact, it's being done. But I don't know many average developing country farmers who could afford to buy one of Holland's rigs. It would seem to make more sense to convert existing farm equipment to run on alternative fuels._

*This Methane-Run Tractor Could Be a Gamechanger*



Luca Remmert's dream of running a self-sustainable farm is within sight. He produces energy from corn and grain near the northern Italian city of Turin and hopes in the not too distant future to run all of his eight tractors on methane generated at the farm. 

Remmert's 1,100-acre La Bellotta farm has been testing a second-generation prototype of what will be the first tractor to run on methane, the T6 by New Holland Agriculture. Methane would be 30% cheaper than diesel. And for farms that produce their own bio-methane—a type of gas that is produced by the processing of organic waste—the costs of fuel would drop to nothing. The technology will likely be attractive to farmers in many developed economies, particularly those that are turning to the production of biofuel due to a squeeze on profits on food products.

The methane-run T6 will hit production in about five years, according to New Holland. The prototype produces 80% less pollution than a standard diesel tractor and will help meet future EU greenhouse gas targets. But for a farm to get the most savings out of it, it would have to be able to produce bio-methane, which has significant up-front equipment costs.​
(Newser)


----------



## Macfury

Producing energy from corn is petty crazy.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Producing energy from corn is petty crazy.


True but lots of other source stock available, particularly with combined livestock operations.

Plenty of potential in Ottawa what with the huge quantities of BS piling up during an election campaign.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Producing energy from corn is petty crazy.


Assuming that corn is the only source of methane production on a farm is pretty crazy.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Assuming that corn is the only source of methane production on a farm is pretty crazy.


The article states:


> He produces energy from *corn and grain *near the northern Italian city of Turin..


I'm not sure how many cows you would need to to run the tractor from manure gas. 

This Canadian company:

Clean Energy Production | Anaerobic Digestion | Resource Recovery | Anaergia

has a way of making sewage produce even more methane than it normally would so it can provide more fuel for generators.


----------



## FeXL

So, whaddya gonna do, CM?

Hang some sort of overpriced apparatus off the ass end of a cow to collect methane? What's that gonna cost? How about the collection system that this is all gonna be dumped into? How much is that? What about the labour to collect the methane from a couple dozen up to several hunnert head? And, the first time she finds a chunk of barbed wire or a fencepost to scratch herself on, it all ends up tangled in the fence or on the ground? Or she comes into heat, only to have it crushed by the bull mounting her? Or it's crushed by a cow that's being playful & mounting her? Or she lays on the ground? Or, or, or...

You're right. There are many sources of methane on a farm. Nearly all of which make far more sense than to collect a cow's farts...

City slickers. Jeezuz...


----------



## FeXL

So, bird shredders may not be immune to prosecution, after all...

Federal court throws out scheme allowing windmills to kill bald and golden eagles for the next 30 years



> A US District Court in San Jose, California has ruled invalid a Department of the Interior regulation allowing wind energy and some other companies to kill bald and golden eagles for the next 30 years, in the name of “clean energy.”


Nice.

I find the disconnect between the alarm raised by the killing of one lion & the amazing silence of the masses over the killing of thousands of raptors every year by wind farms stunning...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> So, whaddya gonna do, CM?
> 
> Hang some sort of overpriced apparatus off the ass end of a cow to collect methane? What's that gonna cost?


Figures it would go right over your head. Ever heard of manure? You guys sure sling enough of it around here. I mean... seriously? You ACTUALLY thought this involves strapping a balloon onto a cow's arse? 



FeXL said:


> How about the collection system that this is all gonna be dumped into? How much is that?


Farmers know how to get 'er done. Why are you assuming industrial capacity mechanisms? There are lots of folks already doing this DIY-style!



FeXL said:


> What about the labour to collect the methane from a couple dozen up to several hunnert head? And, the first time she finds a chunk of barbed wire or a fencepost to scratch herself on, it all ends up tangled in the fence or on the ground? Or she comes into heat, only to have it crushed by the bull mounting her? Or it's crushed by a cow that's being playful & mounting her? Or she lays on the ground? Or, or, or...


I am dumbfounded at your thinking that this involved a cow's arse balloon methane collection apparatus....



FeXL said:


> City slickers. Jeezuz...


Grew up on a farm. Cows. Pigs. Chickens. Whole nine yards. _Assumptions much?_

Where's the emoticon for shaking my head so much at the inanity of your post that I've given myself whiplash....?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> the amazing silence of the masses over the killing of thousands of raptors every year by wind farms stunning...


And how many pigeons are murdered daily in cities with massive glass towers? Tear 'em down now! FeXL the environmentalist has spoken!

The environmental devastation wreaked upon this globe by the oil extraction industry is something you cannot (will not) see, but a few birds get smacked by a propeller, and you lose your s**t? 

How many birds die annually being struck by aircraft taking off from airports around the world? Ban travel! Everybody stay the hell home!

No weeping for the dolphins, whales, and bazillion other examples of marine life murdered in the Gulf of Mexico?

_n 2013 it was reported that dolphins and other marine life continued to die in record numbers with infant dolphins dying at six times the normal rate. One study released in 2014 reported that tuna and amberjack that were exposed to oil from the spill developed deformities of the heart and other organs that would be expected to be fatal or at least life-shortening and another study found that cardiotoxicity might have been widespread in animal life exposed to the spill._ (Deepwater Horizon Spill)​
*You are suspiciously selective in your outrage.*


----------



## FeXL

The photograph you furnished was not one of manure flying out of a cow's arse...

I made an assumption based on that photo that you were talking about bovine farts, not bovine manure. That, & the bugaboo from warmists is always burps & farts, not manure. Combine that with the well-known fact that, even though there is a significant amont of methane in manure (~65%), there is far more methane emitted on a daily basis through bovine burps & farts (~300 liters/day), it was a safe assumption.

If you meant manure, you should have shown an illustration of a good, old-fashioned cow patty, not a lit fart. Just doesn't carry the same histrionics, I guess...



CubaMark said:


> Ever heard of manure?


----------



## FeXL

Blah, blah, blah...

Get a grip. Your histrionics are hilarious.

While the unnatural death of any organism at man's hands is unfortunate, how about a little perspective? How many pigeons are on the face of the planet? The single reference I could find was 600,000,000. How many bald eagles? ~70,000. How many golden eagles? ~200,000

Lose a million stinky, disease ridden pigeons, you still have 599,000,000 left. Lose a million bald eagles & golden eagles and...oh, there aren't that many in the first place.

Yes, we all have our little bugaboos & yours are just as suspiciously selective as anyone else's on these boards. 

All I ask is that you be able to defend your position.



CubaMark said:


> And how many pigeons are murdered daily in cities with massive glass towers? Tear 'em down now! FeXL the environmentalist has spoken!


----------



## FeXL

Oh, & further to this? It's not illegal to kill a pigeon...



CubaMark said:


> And how many pigeons are murdered daily in cities with massive glass towers? Tear 'em down now! FeXL the environmentalist has spoken!


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article on Aussie wind energy output.

Megawatts that come and go — Wind energy, shaking up the National Grid in Australia



> This postmodern art is what wind power looks like on our national electricity grid. (Like a kindergärtner on steroids). There are 35 wind farms on this spaghetti graph, spread across 6 of our 8 states and territories. They cover thousands of square kilometers and are connected in allegedly the largest electricity grid in the world. This frenetic action covers the last two weeks, and is pretty normal.


Take a look at that first graph, then riddle me this: If you were the manager of the National Grid, how difficult would it be to balance that...mess, with coal & natural gas, all the while avoiding brown- & blackouts across the continent? 

Follow up question: How much extra coal & natural gas is being burned (and, consequently, further polluting the atmosphere) constantly spinning up & slowing down turbines, furnaces, etc.?


----------



## FeXL

Is this what Alberta's electricity sector will look like in 4 years or less?

Ontario’s Power Trip: How Hydro is walloping Ontario business



> Over the past several months there has been a constant din of noise from all business segments in Ontario about the high price of electricity and its effects. Electricity prices have risen as they have absorbed the high costs of 20-year contracts for renewable energy in the form of wind and solar as additions to Ontario’s electricity grid. Ontario currently has a huge surplus which results in as much as 20 per cent of our generation exported at fire sale prices. Couple that with a drop in demand, annual spending of $400 million on conservation messages, smart meters that allow time of use (TOU) pricing and the Hydro One, OPG and other Ministry of Energy employees enjoying wages and benefits that outstrip the private sector means electricity bills for all segments of businesses and households are now a drain on the economy versus an attraction for new business and the jobs they might create.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there' a surprise...

AP EXCLUSIVE: California measure fails to create green jobs



> Three years after California voters passed a ballot measure to raise taxes on corporations and generate clean energy jobs by funding energy-efficiency projects in schools, *barely one-tenth of the promised jobs have been created, and the state has no comprehensive list to show how much work has been done or how much energy has been saved.*


M'bold.

Good enough for gov't work...


----------



## FeXL

So, how much solar power is actually feeding into the grid?

Solar Power? Forget It!



> If you believed everything you read in the press, you would think that solar power was transforming the world’s energy market. Well, think again!
> 
> If you thought that the amount of power generated from wind was pitiful, just wait till you see what solar is producing.


----------



## FeXL

Further on all those Green jobs in California.

Tom Steyer’s Big Fat Lemon



> _On Monday, the Associated Press reported that the program has “created” just 1,700 jobs in three years — just under 600 jobs per year or roughly five percent of what was promised, at the cost of $175,000 per job. Even that paltry figure fails to account for opportunity costs — i.e. jobs lost statewide because of the forced diversion of economic resources away from productive industries and toward green energy. The number of net jobs created is likely zero or less than zero, which is to say that probably a few hundred or a few thousand jobs have been destroyed so far at a cost of $300 million.​_


Nice...


----------



## FeXL

Good.

Apple and Google Pour Billions Down a Green Drain



> Business has been captured by Climatism, the belief that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Leading businesses announce plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, purchase renewable energy, use vehicle biofuels, and buy carbon credits. But there is no evidence that commercial policies to “fight” climate change have any measureable effect on global temperatures.
> 
> Apple and Google, the darling companies of the millennial generation, have spent billions trying to halt global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> *But both of these leading companies have swallowed the misguided theory of human-caused climate change, hook, line, and sinker.*


Wonder how much effect this has on Apple's plummeting stock price...


----------



## FeXL

Nuclear too scary? Back to coal...

Two coal-fired power plants set for Fukushima



> Five Japanese firms have joined forces to construct two coal-fired power plants in Fukushima.
> 
> ...
> 
> They will use an integrated coal gasification combined-cycle (IGCC), which the companies claim is the “next-generation clean coal technology”. They expect it to cut CO2 emissions by around 15% in comparison with the latest conventional coal-fired power plant.


----------



## FeXL

So, on the left side of the Atlantic, we have this:

Obama: $12 billion new federal loan guarantees for renewables



> _President Obama is committed to taking responsible steps to address climate change, promote clean energy and energy efficiency, drive innovation, and ensure a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. That is why at Senator Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit later today, he is announcing a robust set of executive actions and private sector commitments to accelerate America’s transition to cleaner sources of energy and ways to cut energy waste.​_


(edit) An article on those subsidies:

US Green Energy Subsidies ‘Unfair and Ineffective’, Study Finds | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)



> A University of California study has slammed the fairness, efficiency and effectiveness of billions of dollars of so-called green energy subsidies provided by the US government.
> 
> The US federal government has paid $US18.1 billion in tax credits since 2006 aimed at encouraging American households to install energy-efficient windows, air conditioning schemes, rooftop solar in their homes and buy electric and other hybrid vehicles.
> 
> *The study has found the bottom 60 per cent US households by income received about 10 per cent of the value of the four main ‘green energy’ tax credits available, while the top 20 per cent (those with annual incomes above $US75,000) extracted 60 per cent of the benefit.*


M'bold.

What's that old saw about the rich getting richer?

(/edit)

And on the right:

FITs to burst



> The headline news is that rooftop solar subsidies are going to be slashed from 12.6p to a token 1.6p per kWh. *All those claims that solar is close to being cost-competitive with traditional forms of electricity are therefore now going to be given a fairly rigorous testing. If the claims are true then we can look forward to solar panels spreading to every rooftop.*


M'bold.

<snort>

More:

Renewables subsidies are slashed in UK. Solar, Wind, Hydro industry “shocked”



> *Renewable power is always as “cheap as coal” except when subsidies are slashed, then it’s “the end”, “terrible”, and “fragile”.*
> 
> If only renewable power could actually compete with coal.


M'bold.

If only...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, how are those carbon credit thingies working out, anyway?

Carbon credits undercut climate change actions says report



> The vast majority of carbon credits generated by Russia and Ukraine did not represent cuts in emissions, according to a new study.
> 
> The authors say that offsets created under a UN scheme "significantly undermined" efforts to tackle climate change.
> 
> *The credits may have increased emissions by 600 million tonnes.*
> 
> In some projects, chemicals known to warm the climate were created and then destroyed to claim cash.


Further:



> *"This was like printing money."*


More:

Another carbon credit fraud – $2b. The faked fixed unfree market feeds crooks and makes no difference to emissions.



> The Russians and Ukrainians were just copying the Chinese and Indians who were rorting the exact same carbon-credit game five years ago. We have learned nothing.


Yep...

All bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

I remember India's Tata motors claimed it was building a low-grade coal plant, then "changed its mind" and said it was building a high-grade coal plant--it then collected a payout on massive carbon credits.

The big problem with carbon credits is that they have no real value, so there is no real market. We might value the air we breathe, but there is no market price for a molecule of air--that's the sort of scale carbon markets are working on to invent a trading price for carbon.


----------



## FeXL

China having production issues, sans subsidies, too.

China’s Wind and Solar Developers Hit by Subsidies Short of Plan – Bloomberg Business



> China’s wind and solar developers are getting much less than they anticipated in handouts from the government because of a quirk in subsidy policies, threatening to stymie growth in the world’s biggest market for clean energy.
> 
> ...
> 
> Left to continue, the trend may foreshadow a reckoning for what has become the engine of growth in the global renewables industry. While China’s hunger for energy is un-sated, less money flowing to developers could ultimately constrain China’s capacity to generate power from nonpolluting sources.
> 
> *“This will weaken enthusiasm for investment and go against the development of renewable power in the long run,” Meng said.*


'Course it will! Take away the only money in the equation to be made & suddenly everyone takes their money & goes home...


----------



## FeXL

OK, so how about that big, new carbon capture coal plant? Plans moving right along?

Carbon capture, clean coal plant goes bankrupt, only $4.4b over budget



> TonyfromOz explained how fatal the numbers on “carbon capture” are. (It’s like the GFC of engineering). The new coal plants cost 60% more to build and waste something like 40% of the entire energy they generate to “catch” a beneficial fertilizer and and stuff it in a small hot hole underground.
> 
> *It’s hard being first, but hey, the plant is only 2 years behind and $4.4 billion over budget. *Part of the costs are due to delays because of wet weather.


M'bold.

Further:



> (Apparently the climate models did not see that coming…)


Ouch!


----------



## FeXL

Cartoon addressing the $12 million in loan guarantees.

Wednesday wit – Josh on yet more wasted Green


----------



## FeXL

So, whose profiting from the Clean Energy Tax Credits?

The Hood Robin Syndrome



> There’s a new study out, under the imprimatur of the Energy Institute of the Haas School of Business in Berkeley, California, entitled The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits. As the title implies, it looks at who actually profited from the various “green energy” tax credits across the United States. *SPOILER ALERT! It wasn’t the poor folks.*
> 
> How much money are we talking about? *Well, the paper says that from 2006 to 2012, the taxpayers have been on the hook for $18 BILLION DOLLARS to fund these subsidies, money that would have otherwise gone into the General Fund.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

<just shaking my head>

The artificial tree: the “green” replacement for real trees?

Summary:



> Is it just me, or is there something deeply unsettling about the modern green movement, and its infatuation with technological monstrosities? They build bird frying solar collectors, and bird and bat chopping windmills, to save the birds and bats. They ignore devastating industrial pollution in China, to ensure the supply of Rare Earth elements required to build their wind turbines and electric cars. And now they want to build artificial trees, because they think natural trees aren’t up to the job.
> 
> How much of the natural world do greens intend to bulldoze, dig, pave over, pollute, incinerate or slice up, in order to save “nature”?


----------



## FeXL

Little thought exercise: What would it actually take to go 100% solar in the US?

Going Solar: System Requirements For 100% U.S. Solar Generated Utility Baseload Electricity



> This paper explores the system requirements to replace this generation capacity with a photovoltaic only generation scheme. Topics include the definition of peak power demand, time of use issues, reserve power requirements, storage to provide power when there is no sunlight, and the various engineering challenges associated with managing a large area synchronous AC power grid.


A few salient quotes:



> To generate the system requirements of 1,100 gW, a fixed solar array would have to have an area of 1,100,000,000,000/37.5 sq meters, made up from 29.333 billion, 1 meter square panels, covering an area of 29,333 km2 or a square with sides of 171.3 km long. *This is about the size of Belgium and 50% bigger than Israel, just for the silicon PV cells.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Note that If 1 square metre PV panels were manufactured at the rate of 1 per second, *it would take 930 years to manufacture 29.3 billion panels.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *To store 4,400 gWh would need 4.4 million of these 40 foot containers costing $3,300,000,000,000 or $3.3 trillion.* As a quick error check on the numbers calculated above, the total power handling capability of 4.4 million containers each supplying a power requirement 66.67 kW will be 4,400,000 X 66.67 kW = 293.3 gW, matching the requirement outlined in the Demand Profile above.
> 
> *For 4.4 million containers, the containers would cover an area of 130.8 million m2 = 130.8 km2 or a square with sides 11.44 km long; but adequate access space must also be provided, adding substantially to the total.*


All bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

What if the wind stopped blowing?

Renewable fail: Weakest US winds for 40 years



> The Financial Times reports that the USA is experiencing the weakest wind speeds for 40 years, which is having a dramatic impact on wind energy businesses.


----------



## FeXL

A Solution to Success



> America is voluntarily shutting down its energy production after only a little more than a century since the industrial revolution. In fear of a nearly undetectable amount of warming from CO2, in the face of massive and well known benefits of this particular gas in the atmosphere, we have decided that fear of the unknown will dominate and destroy our progress.


More:



> *Climate models do not match observation* — tell that to Bart Verheggan and watch the fireworks fly — they do not match, they have failed and no amount of left-wing sophistry can help them. That does not even slow the rampant decision making by our government. No amount of common sense deters the power mad or the good feeling scientists. It’s all about limitation, all about reservation, and it is falsely labeled as progressive.


M'bold.

Further:



> *There is no ‘renewable energy solution’ in existence. What is worse, there NEVER will be.* We use too much power today for exaggerated science of ‘renewable energy’ to actually solve the problem. In the future we will need dramatically more energy, not less. Renewable in today’s terms means incident solar power or geothermal and our required energy needs cannot be rationally met that way. *It is a pipe dream which will not exist.* Nuclear can solve the problem, as can gas, oil and coal while we continue to improve our nuclear technology. Solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal, can never do it. They WILL never do it. *The watts don’t exist in the required density, nor does the technology.* *I’m just an engineer so you should listen to your stupid green feelings instead, or perhaps that know-nothing journalist with a big smile who looks great in a short skirt or whatever you like.* I will just continue to see you as a moron until you change your mind and you will then achieve the prestigious label of one of Id’s previously ignorant.


All emphasis mine.

Excellent.


----------



## FeXL

YNoKyoto: Burn, Baby, Burn



> Using woodchips as a renewable alternative to coal is like using sperm whales to replace gasoline.


Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

Burn baby burn.

Japan: Building coal plants is “climate finance”



> The Minerals Council of Australia has pushed back at coal divestment campaigns, by pointing out that Japan has joined the Asian infrastructure rush, by offering “climate finance” loans to aid the *construction of up to 1000 new high tech coal power plants throughout Asia.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the likelihood of 100% Renewables.

100% Renewables Myth Destroyed



> Think Climate analysis found that no constraints had been applied to the cost, speed of roll-out, materials requirements, support or planning concerns for each system. None of the proposed systems was found to be feasible, with some demand forecasts used describing "a world that doesn’t exist and probably won’t".


Yep. Nope...


----------



## FeXL

This...this is what renewable subsidies & green incentives breeds.

Green’ Cars Meltdown As VW Emissions Scandal Rocks Car Industry



> The federal government paid out as much as $51 million in green car subsidies for Volkswagen diesel vehicles based on falsified pollution test results, according to a Times analysis of the federal incentives.


Nice.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> This...this is what renewable subsidies & green incentives breeds.
> 
> Green’ Cars Meltdown As VW Emissions Scandal Rocks Car Industry
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.


Interesting in that the fines against VW for slimeball emissions readings, were greater than fines against GM's faulty ignition switches. Unlike VWs election like deceptions, the GM switches actually killed a few people!


----------



## FeXL

Fabulous.

WSJ: Moonbeam leads way on lowering living standards; wants to reduce energy use of Californians to North Koreans today



> California Gov. Jerry Brown has a vision: When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, he wants his fellow Californians to emulate North Koreans. Meanwhile, many of Mr. Brown’s fellow Democrats—including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders—will settle for putting Americans on a par with residents of Mexico.
> 
> ...
> 
> *They have pledged to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, (aka 80 by 50).*


M'bold.

Further:



> What would 80 by 50 mean for individuals? According to the International Energy Agency, the world per capita average for carbon-dioxide emissions is 4.51 tons a year. Residents of California are responsible for the emission of about twice that amount, 9.42 tons a year. Assuming that the state population doesn’t increase, an 80% cut means the average Californian would be emitting 1.88 tons by 2050.
> 
> In other words, those *future Californians will be asked to emit less carbon dioxide than do current residents of North Korea. In 2012, according to the IEA, the average North Korean was responsible for 1.83 tons of carbon dioxide. Per capita GDP in North Korea: $1,800 a year.*
> 
> Achieving 80 by 50 on a national basis will be similarly painful. In 2012 per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. totaled 16.15 tons. Achieving 80 by 50 would mean each resident of the U.S.—where per capita GDP is $54,600 a year—would emit 3.23 tons annually. *That’s less than Mexicans, who emit 3.72 tons and have a per capita GDP of about $10,400 a year.*


M'bold.

Must. Re-elect. Jerry. Brown.


----------



## FeXL

On Fusion.

The Lords on fusion



> As has always been the case with fusion, the timescales discussed run to decades and project managers try to justify themselves with talk of spin-off benefits. However, Lord Peston noted that there is something of a problem with trying to use global warming as justification for the vast expenditure:
> 
> _Lord Peston: I am a bit lost again—as you can tell, I get lost all the time. How can technology that will be available in 40 to 80 years possibly influence climate change? If we have to save the planet in the next 40 years, we are doomed anyway. You cannot use the climate change argument.​_


Further:



> _You are talking about cloud-cuckoo-land, are you not?​_


<snort>

Hey, I like the concept of fusion reactors. However, we need results in the short to medium term...


----------



## FeXL

Longish, good article on the cost of renewables to the poor.

For Climate Alarmism, The Poor Pay The Price



> The starkest fact, hidden in Stern’s chapter on ethics, is the plight of the world’s poor. One of the most positive aspects of the last 20 years has been the doubling from 1.5 billion to 3 billion of the number of people in the world living in what the World Bank calls “the middle class”: those who have electricity and running water in the dwelling they call home. BP data shows that this has coincided with a 40 per cent increase in global energy demand, 88 per cent of which has been provided by fossil fuels, and less than 1 per cent by renewables. The World Bank predicts that by 2035 the middle class will grow from 3 billion to 5 billion out of a total population of 8 billion. BP estimates that the world demand for energy will increase by another 40 per cent in total; more than 80 per cent of that will again be provided by fossil fuels.
> 
> *It would be immoral to stop that process.*


----------



## FeXL

So, the cost of CCS is prohibitive. No surprise...

Drax Pull Out Of CCS Project



> _Selby, Yorkshire: Drax today announced it remained committed to fulfilling its current work on a Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) feasibility and technology development project (FEED), but once completed, would not be investing further and will withdraw as a partner of Capture Power Ltd, the developer of the White Rose CCS project.​_


Further:



> As Reuters reports, the UK government has committed £1 billion for two CCS projects, including the one at Drax.
> 
> Currently the project is only at the FEED stage, (Front End Engineering and Design). The Final Investment Decision was expected late this year.
> 
> Given the large amount of funding available from the government, and the no doubt generous strike prices that would be negotiated, it is hard to believe the “lack of money” excuse offered.
> 
> It seems much more likely that Drax have realised the very real likelihood that the project will never be commercially viable.


More:

The fading dream of CCS 



> *The pretence that carbon capture and storage can ever be a viable technology is looking increasingly hard to maintain*, with the news that Drax will pull out of the White Rose CCS project in Yorkshire once the current phase is complete.
> 
> It's amusing to recall Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph just three weeks ago, telling us that the UK had "hit the jackpot" on the CCS front


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Asia’s coal power climate joke



> Mother Jones is celebrating that China has just committed $3.1 billion to help poor countries fight climate change. Mother Jones cautiously states they don’t know what China means by this statement. My guess is they know very well what China probably means – but they don’t want to detract from their climate story.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The net outcome of this charade, in my opinion, is Western politicians are committing to skyrocketing energy prices and unworkable renewables schemes, inanely celebrating that everyone is onboard with their lunacy, while at the same time, China and Japan are busy helping their Asian neighbours make coal power even cheaper.*


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on CCS.

CCS projects may be uninsurable



> _Insurers will be reluctant to cover projects that capture carbon emissions and store them permanently underground, or they may charge “large risk premiums”, according to Royal Dutch Shell.
> 
> “Insurance will be able to address only part of the financial risk exposure,” Shell said in a report on its planned Peterhouse Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) project that the company posted on the Department of Energy & Climate Change website.
> 
> *“As the risk can currently neither be defined nor quantified, no insurance solutions are available,” Shell said.*​_


M'bold.

Oops...


----------



## FeXL

Nuclear down under.

Aussie Nuclear Industry: “renewables won’t get us across the line”



> The nuclear industry has announced plans to lobby the Australian government, to advocate nuclear power as an affordable, practical alternative to renewables.
> 
> ...
> 
> If Australia’s newly greened government is determined to waste taxpayer’s money on CO2 emissions reduction, *nuclear power at least has the advantage that it works.* You can convert a modern economy to nuclear power without ruining it. France for example, generates around 75% of their electricity from nuclear power.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another "new" fusion process.

A new fusion process



> A collaboration between researchers in Sweden and Icelands claim to have developed a new nuclear fusion process. It's based on deuterium, and takes place in in small laser-initiated reactors. More importantly they say that they have already got it generating more power than it consumes.


Interesting, if true.


----------



## CubaMark

*Some news on the geothermal front in Canada:*

*Why is Canada so far behind in geothermal power?*

Geothermal energy is generated using the naturally-occurring heat found in rocks and liquid deep underground. A geothermal power plant uses steam captured directly or indirectly from the heat to drive a turbine, which, in turn, produces electricity. Environmentalists have long championed the renewable nature of the process. Most geothermal facilities operate on a closed-loop system, where the extracted water is pumped directly back into the ground after it’s been used for electricity production, and can be reused for decades.

* * *​
In France, where a new network of deep wells under Paris is under construction, geothermal is seen as a safer alternative to the aging nuclear industry. Paris already has the largest concentration of geothermal facilities in Europe, delivering power and heat to residential homes, schools and offices. French industry advocates measure the country’s current geothermal electricity capacity at 16.5 MW. The national plan is to reach 80 MW by 2020.

Oregon, meanwhile, opened its first commercial geothermal plant, a 22-MW facility in the Neal Hot Springs, in 2012. The plant supplies about 24,000 homes on the Idaho power grid.

Energy experts say Canada has the potential to be a global leader in geothermal power production. The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA), a non-profit advocacy group, estimates the country could produce 5,000 MW of geothermal power by 2025. That’s enough to power five million homes and replace the installed coal-fired power plant fleet in Alberta, as well as all of the coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants in Saskatchewan, CanGEA says.

Yet Canada has virtually no commercial power facilities planned.

* * *​
Money is another significant barrier. Comparatively low costs for hydroelectricity and fossil fuels have made geothermal exploration less attractive to investors leery of funding a risky start-up.

“If you are going to invest in geothermal or oil and gas, you are going to pick oil and gas first,” said Jason Switzer, national director of consulting and projects with the Calgary-based Pembina Institute.​
(Globe & Mail)

*ALSO an update on Springhill: *Springhill geothermal researchers eye opportunies —CBC News (Sept. 26, 2015)


----------



## Macfury

Well, duh! Who wants to be a leader in more expensive energy?



> Money is another significant barrier. Comparatively low costs for hydroelectricity and fossil fuels have made geothermal exploration less attractive to investors leery of funding a risky start-up.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Well, duh! Who wants to be a leader in more expensive energy?


Why do you always miss the point?

Define "more expensive". Up-front costs to develop the resource may be more expensive, but what are the long-term costs?

Geothermal requires _minimal_ _external_ inputs (electricity for the pumps) which, depending upon the system, could make use of solar / wind or lower-impact fossil fuel sources. Heck, maybe convection takes care of much of the circulation - I don't know.

And what are the negatives? There are no emissions (caveat: depending on pump power input). The water is a closed-loop.

It appears that any time an alternative to the massively expensive, massively polluting, fossil fuel system is presented, you have a Pavlovian reaction to find fault even where it is minimal.


----------



## Macfury

Price efficiency IS the point! The article does not refer only to up front costs, but the cost of the energy itself. If it could be produced more cheaply than any other energy over the long haul, many companies would already be into it, if only to supply their own neesds.

There's some low-hanging fruit in transfer of waste heat from sewage pipes that won't break the bank. However, I will attempt to put the kibosh on anything that makes my high energy bill higher. I know lefty/enviro types have been praying for fossil fuel prices to go through the roof, but they have not. Sure, rich folk don't care how high their energy bills go, but decisions like this disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class.

Also look at what happened in this film when foolish scientists attempted to harness the geothermal energy of magma:







CubaMark said:


> Why do you always miss the point?
> 
> Define "more expensive". Up-front costs to develop the resource may be more expensive, but what are the long-term costs?
> 
> Geothermal requires _minimal_ _external_ inputs (electricity for the pumps) which, depending upon the system, could make use of solar / wind or lower-impact fossil fuel sources. Heck, maybe convection takes care of much of the circulation - I don't know.
> 
> And what are the negatives? There are no emissions (caveat: depending on pump power input). The water is a closed-loop.
> 
> It appears that any time an alternative to the massively expensive, massively polluting, fossil fuel system is presented, you have a Pavlovian reaction to find fault even where it is minimal.


----------



## CubaMark

Oh, those silly scientists!

:yikes:


----------



## Macfury

Like the poster says--might happen tomorrow.


----------



## SINC

The lighter side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYonANque_s


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that. It's perfectly fine to tax the hell out of fossil fuels, but the second that renewables get equal treatment, the hue & cry starts...

What Green Future? Spain adds solar tax, punishes the wind industry, loses “65,000 renewable jobs”



> Remember, all developed countries are going Green, and Clean Energy is everywhere. It’s only (insert your country) that is falling behind.
> 
> When you hear this, think of Spain. It is so green it’s just passed a tax on solar panel generation, so solar users finally pay for grid backup. This Spanish government has been building a renewable future with so much enthusiasm that their wind industry is described as “striken” and it’s estimated that the current government there has cost “65,000 green jobs”.


Further:



> *This evil government thinks businesses selling solar energy to the grid should be treated … like businesses, and worse, suffer from free market prices. Oh the horror...*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

What does wind power actually cost?

The Real Cost Of Wind Power



> We saw the headlines last week of claims that wind power is now the cheapest source of electricity. As I pointed out at the time, such claims ignore the fact that wind needs back up capacity, and therefore cannot be directly compared with conventional, dispatchable capacity.
> 
> I have now had a chance to do some detailed costing, based on the EIA calculations that they published in June.


He sums:



> *Compared with the CCGT cost per MWh of $80.45, claims that wind power is now the cheapest source of electricity are utterly ludicrous.*


M'bold.

Related:

Britain’s Insanely Expensive & Utterly Pointless Wind Power Fiasco Exposed



> Derek Partington, a former Chartered Engineer, has spent a lot of time in the last six years, researching the effectiveness of wind turbines. His findings are damning


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

I've said it all along: When renewables _total cost_ becomes affordable & they become as _dependable_, they will take over fossil fuels. Until then...

Coal Trumps Solar in India



> One year ago, environmentalists hailed this tiny village as the future of clean energy in rural India. Today, it is powered by coal.
> 
> Dharnai, a community of about 3,200 people in eastern India’s Bihar state, had been without electricity for three decades. So when activists with Greenpeace set up a solar-powered microgrid in July of 2014, the excitement was palpable. But, residents said, the problems started almost immediately.
> 
> When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, “We want real electricity, not fake electricity!”
> 
> *By “real,” they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By “fake,” they meant solar.*


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

*Rooftop solar costs vs the grid: A city by city guide*








_Perth, it suggest, offers the biggest difference because it has excellent sunshine, and the grid costs are higher.

Solar is just one third the cost of the grid, *and that is after a subsidy to the fossil fuelled-grid of more than $500 a household*. Without that, grid prices would be at least 25 per cent higher.

Little wonder, then, that the local grid operator predicts that within 10 years nearly every home in Perth could have rooftop solar, and its energy minister says rooftop solar is not just the future, but it could provide 100 per cent of daytime demand by 2025._​
(OneStepOffTheGrid)


----------



## Macfury

There are always sunny locations where rooftop solar PV is less expensive on an individual homeowner level. However, solar farms are not so fortunate. I don't know why they talk about the "fossil-fueled grid," since Australia has also made wasteful investments in wind power.

The key to the success of home solar is individual choice, not force feeding inefficient solar down the grid.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the iron...

So, you may have read about that large solar array down in Nevada. Well, apparently they use a fair amount of natural gas.

"Fake": $2.2B Ivanpah solar plant runs on so much NATURAL GAS, it's subject to cap and trade!



> It was built with $2.2 billion in government loans and grants.
> 
> You don’t need a government loan to build a real power plant — they make money.
> 
> But a solar power plant doesn’t.
> 
> The thing is, despite all those mirrors, the Ivanpah solar plant doesn't even make power.
> 
> *Solar power is so inefficient that Ivanpah actually has to run on natural gas -- so much so that it's now subject to cap and trade regulations!*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

No surprise to anyone who has been paying attention...

Electric Car Sales Crash Once The Feds Are No Longer Helping



> It only took a month for electric car sales to drop 90 percent after a 15 year old tax credit for electric car buyers expired in Georgia.
> 
> The $5,000 subsidy for electric vehicles expired last June and has gutted the electric sector, reducing popular green models like the Chevy Volt to single digit sales across the entire state, reported Watchdog.org. The subsidy is under fire for being a 15-year-long giveaway, rather than a worthwhile incentive.
> 
> “*I thought the credit turned from an incentive into a virtual entitlement*,” Georgia Republican state Rep. Chuck Martin told Watchdog.org.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

No surprises here, either...

Green Investments Tanking



> Global government cuts in green energy subsidies will continue to threaten alternative energy investments going forward. According to the Guardian, the U.K. was forced to cut a green tax relief program due to uncertainty in the market. Jan-Willem Bode, director of one of the largest green energy organizations in the U.K. said Wednesday, “Many shareholders feel like pulling the plug right now because it is just too much negativity thrown at the sector.”


Gotta hate when those taxpayer funded subsidies stop rolling in...


----------



## FeXL

Further on biomass.

CCC Question Future Of Biomass

He sums:



> As I have noted previously, there are huge environmental concerns in the US and elsewhere about the chopping down of forests for biomass. Besides, there are air quality issues as well, whilst burning wood pellets at Drax will simply put more CO2 into the atmosphere for many years to come.
> 
> All of this eventually eventually found its way into even the thick head of Ed Davey, and now we see the CCC expressing grave doubts about the contribution from biomass beyond the capacity already committed.
> 
> The bottom line is that biomass was never introduced to cut emissions, but simply as a stopgap way of meeting EU targets.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, if you've been paying attention you know that the UK has been shutting down coal powered electricity generators in favour of installing more wind capacity.

How's that working out for them?

Dead calm



> Yesterday it seems that National Grid had to invoke its emergency procedures as outages at coal-fired power stations and an almost complete lack of a contribution from the wind fleet led to generation margins falling to dangerously low levels.


Related:

OMG moment



> _Traders watched in amazement as prices surged, with the grid paying £2,500 per MWh to one operator, Severn Power, as it bought in emergency supplies; the usual going rate is around £60.​_


Also:

Madness On Stilts!



> _*Analysis of publicly available figures shows that companies have registered to build a total of about 1.5 gigawatts of diesel power under a government scheme to encourage back-up energy for the grid.*​_


M'bold.

Just...brilliant.


----------



## CubaMark

*19 years to build... * 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Related: Nuclear Fission Works Fine, But Not Fusion. Here's Why | WIRED


----------



## FeXL

So, with all the taxpayer based subsidies, government support, glowing reviews from the MSM, how are the targets for mass destruction of the world's economy, I mean, installed renewables coming along?

UK Will Miss Renewable Targets – Amber Rudd



> _Britain will miss a major legally-binding renewable energy target, Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, has privately admitted in a letter to other cabinet ministers leaked to the press.
> 
> In a candid private message to senior Tories, Ms Rudd downplayed the chances of the UK sourcing 15 per cent of energy, including for transport, power and heating, from renewables by 2020.​_


EU Falling Well Short Of Renewable Energy Targets



> _Daisy Sands, head of energy at Greenpeace, said the leaked letter showed “the dark side of the government’s incoherent energy policy in full technicolour”.
> 
> “For the first time, we learn that the government is expecting to miss the EU’s legally binding renewables target,” she said. “This is hugely shocking. But more deplorably, it is wilfully hiding this from public scrutiny. The government is planning on cutting support for the solar and wind subsidies in the name of affordability.”​_


Perhaps if they just threw more of someone else's money at it...

Do I need the [/sarc] tag here?


----------



## FeXL

Thirty-Eight Years Of Subsidies



> I bring all of this up for three reasons. The first is to show just how little our ~ hundred billion dollars in solar and wind subsidies has bought us. If that was supposed to be our insurance policy, it’s not only a failure, it’s a cruel joke. It’s cruel because that amount of money could provide clean water for everyone on the planet …
> 
> The second reason is to highlight the continuing failure of these “We’re all DOOOMED!! We’re running out of energy!” kind of prophecies. President Carter was neither the first nor the last of these serial failed doomcasters.
> 
> The third reason is to highlight the ludicrous nature of the claims that solar and wind are making serious inroads into the global demand for energy. They are not. Solar and wind are a rounding error. Despite almost forty years of subsidies, despite renewable mandates, despite carbon taxes, despite cap-and-trade, despite a hundred billion dollars spent on this Quixotic quest, solar and wind have barely gotten off the floor. Look at that chart, and give me a guess for how long it will take for solar and wind to catch up with fossil fuels.


He sums:



> As far as I’m concerned, giving one more dollar to either solar or wind subsidies is a crime against the taxpayer, as well as against the economy … *after almost forty years of fruitless subsidies, they’ve had their chance and they still don’t measure up. Time to stop throwing good money after bad.*


M'bold.

No argument.


----------



## FeXL

So, here's a fly in the ointment I hadn't heard of before.

If the developer of the wind farm doesn't pay their bills, the landowner is on the hook for the cash.

Angry Neighbours Shoot-Up Wind Turbines; as Hosts Hit With $Millions in Developers’ Debts

(halfway down the page, *Warning Against Wind Farm Liens*)



> The Past President of the Huron-Perth Landowners’ Association is advising area farmers to do their research and get legal advice before signing wind turbine development leases for their properties.
> 
> Dave Hemingway is concerned property owners may be left on the hook for millions of dollars of wind turbine construction work that hasn’t been paid for.
> 
> Hemingway says turbine construction contractors have applied liens against six properties — four of them since June.
> 
> He says he discovered the newer liens when he double-checked legal documents early this month.
> 
> The total value of the liens is over $32 million.


One more reason to say no...


----------



## FeXL

German Power Industry Facing Meltdown Because Of Subsidised Renewables



> _E.on, Germany’s largest electric power producer, announced that it lost over 7 billion euros in the 3rd quarter, reports Germany’s flagship news magazine Spiegel here.
> 
> The loss stems from the writing down the value of coal and gas power generation assets by billions of euros due to the steep drop in wholesale electricity prices. The write-off was necessary in light of the dismal future the fossil industry faces. Plainly said: Germany’s Energiewende, transition to renewable energies, which mandates power companies buy up solar, wind and other green energies at exorbitant prices, and even when they are not needed, continues to rapidly erode the German base-power production.
> 
> Tens of thousands of once high-paying industrial jobs are now in jeopardy.​_


----------



## FeXL

Green Tech and the climate crisis syndicate



> Renewable Portfolio Standard advocates recently held their 2015 National Summit. The draft RPS agenda suggests it was quite an event – populated by bureaucrats, scientists and consultants who have jumped on the climate and “green energy” bandwagon, to follow the money.
> 
> Indeed, they are no longer content with 10% corn ethanol in gasoline, or some wind and solar power in the electricity mix. Now they want to convert the entire electrical grid from fossil-fuels to renewable sources and, if Catholic bishops get their way, totally eliminate hydrocarbons by 2050, despite the horrendous impacts that would have on workers, families and the world’s poorest people.
> 
> *There’s certainly a lot of money to be made. The green revolution is estimated at $1.5 trillion per year, which means potentially huge profits for those with political connections. Many who are making big bets on green technologies are ultra-wealthy people who say they are protecting the planet, when they really seem to be “protecting their wealth for future generations” of family members and cronies.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Number of questions about this.

Crack it! Energy from a fossil fuel without carbon dioxide



> The production of energy from natural gas without generating carbon dioxide emissions could fast become a reality, thanks to a novel technology developed by researchers of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). In a joint project initiated by Nobel Laureate and former IASS Scientific Director Professor Carlo Rubbia, the two institutions have been researching an innovative technique to extract hydrogen from methane in a clean and efficient way.


More:



> Instead of burning methane (CH4), its molecular components, hydrogen (H2) and carbon (C), can be separated in a process called 'methane cracking'. *This reaction occurs at high temperatures (750°C and above)* and does not release any harmful emissions.


M'bold.

What's gonna power the reactor? Solar? Wind? Not likely...

Related:

Gas crackers



> It would be interesting to do the maths here - just how much black carbon might be produced, how much energy would be required to turn it into structural materials and so on. At the moment I remain somewhat unconvinced that this is the breakthrough claimed.


----------



## FeXL

Let's examine the efficacy of green energy.

1 million German households had power shut off in last three years due to green energy cost



> In the great industrial nation of Germany power companies are going broke, and 350,000 households are getting their electricity turned off each year because they can’t afford the bills. *In a nation of 82 million, power companies are issuing some 6 million threats to cut electricity.*


M'bold.

Need I say anything more?


----------



## Macfury

My Ontatio electricity bills are now so high that they easily fall within a shut-off formula during one billing cycle. I routinely receive shut-off notices within one billing cycle--that is, before the next bill arrives,





FeXL said:


> Let's examine the efficacy of green energy.
> 
> 1 million German households had power shut off in last three years due to green energy cost
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Need I say anything more?


----------



## CubaMark

*Underwater balloons could give us a new way of storing renewable energy*








While solar or wind farms are now contributing more energy than ever to the world's power supply, traditional energy sources are often required at peak times or to supplement renewable sources during dips in availability - at night, for example. So Canadian startup Hydrostor has invented a system of pressurised underwater balloons that can store renewable energy until it's needed, which could reduce the need for diesel or gas as a back-up source of power.

The company says its solution can last twice as long as the best batteries we have today, and at a much lower cost. The first facility has been set up in Lake Ontario near Toronto, with a series of balloons set 55 metres under the surface of the water and connected to the power grid via a pipeline.

"Compressed air's been around for 40 years," Hydrostor CEO Curtis VanWalleghem told Canadian Manufacturing. "It's finding places to store the air that's been the problem [and] why it hasn't been massively adopted. We open it up to thousands more sites because we use hydrostatic water pressure."

The material used by the underwater balloons - known technically as accumulators - is the same used to raise sunken ships from the ocean floor. Compressed air is at the heart of the system....​




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




​
(ScienceAlert)


----------



## FeXL

Sounds like a great idea! 

Or, we could just quit pissing away money on unproven, inefficient, ecology-destroying, tax-payer funded renewable energy systems with a veritable host of storage & backup issues and use efficient, available, low emission, competitive natural gas instead...


----------



## Macfury

Barking that the energy grid's problem is "storage" is ludicrous. That is only a problem related to solar and wind. 

Fossil fuels are stored energy that can be accessed almost instantaneously.




FeXL said:


> Sounds like a great idea!
> 
> Or, we could just quit pissing away money on unproven, inefficient, ecology-destroying, tax-payer funded renewable energy systems with a veritable host of storage & backup issues and use efficient, available, low emission, competitive natural gas instead...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Sounds like a great idea!
> 
> Or, we could just quit pissing away money on unproven, inefficient, ecology-destroying, tax-payer funded renewable energy systems with a veritable host of storage & backup issues and use efficient, available, low emission, competitive natural gas instead...












If it was good enough for my granpappy, it's good enough for me! We don't need no 'advances', no 'progress', no techno-diddly-what! All this new fangled stuff those kids are thinking up these days ain't worth spit!


----------



## Macfury

Nope. If it works better, is more efficient and less costly it's good enough for me.

Wind and solar power are medieval! You're the luddite!



CubaMark said:


> If it was good enough for my granpappy, it's good enough for me! We don't need no 'advances', no 'progress', no techno-diddly-what! All this new fangled stuff those kids are thinking up these days ain't worth spit!


----------



## FeXL

That's it? That's the extent of your argument?

I just listed off 10 solid reasons why mankind shouldn't be using renewables & all you got is a content free snappy comeback?

When you got nuttin'...



CubaMark said:


> If it was good enough for my granpappy, it's good enough for me! We don't need no 'advances', no 'progress', no techno-diddly-what! All this new fangled stuff those kids are thinking up these days ain't worth spit!


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

Go Green, Get Diesel!!



> _*Wind and solar power firms are being encouraged to install the [diesel] generators, which pour out CO2, a greenhouse gas, and toxic nitrogen dioxide, on their sites in order to provide standby generating capacity and prevent the lights going out during periods of peak demand.*
> 
> The giant Roundponds solar farm, near Melksham, Wiltshire, is among the first green generators to take advantage. The directors of Hive Energy, which owns it, have won permission to put diesel generators near the solar panels — despite local objections.
> 
> Similarly, First Renewable has won permission for a diesel farm next to its wind turbines and solar panels at Kettering Energy Park in Northamptonshire.​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Ten year old article I hadn't seen before.

Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed



> The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case,” he says.
> 
> *Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.* Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil’s National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. “But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about.”


M'bold.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Ten year old article I hadn't seen before.
> 
> Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed


_This figure takes into account the CO2 released during construction and decommissioning of the power station, and methane emissions from decomposing vegetation in the area flooded to make the reservoir. Building a dam may require the removal of trees that help absorb carbon from the atmosphere. When land is cleared for construction, greenhouse gases also escape from the soil and future capacity to absorb carbon is lost too. 

The carbon footprint involved in making and transporting the concrete used to construct a large-scale hydroelectric power station is significant. Making cement, an ingredient of concrete, releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. *But the working life of a large-scale hydroelectric power station can exceed 100 years, so when the average lifetime emissions of a hydroelectric power station are calculated, these initial CO2 emissions are offset by the subsequent decades of zero-carbon electricity generation*._ (EDF)​


----------



## FeXL

_With the proposed IPCC guidelines, tropical countries that rely heavily on hydroelectricity, such as Brazil, *could see their national greenhouse emissions inventories increased by as much as 7%*​_
M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Renewables: The Big Investment Opportunity which Needs Generous Government Support




> Our old friend Tim Flannery, whose advice helped convince the Australian Government to squander billions of dollars on useless desalination plants, claims that renewables are a “huge economic opportunity”.
> 
> ...
> 
> If costs are “plummeting”, why do renewables need such generous government support to prosper? *Could it be that renewables are still ridiculously expensive, despite any alleged price drops?*


M'bold.

Yes.


----------



## Macfury

Placing obese people on stationary bicycles and having them pedal generators is also a great employment opportunity. It's amazing how many people you can employ when you embrace inefficiency.



FeXL said:


> Renewables: The Big Investment Opportunity which Needs Generous Government Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Yes.


----------



## FeXL

Related to the above post about affordability.

The thrust is, they want to build a tidal lagoon that will generate electricity. Simple, right? 

Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves?



> Just as a reminder for those who may have forgotten, *the Tidal Lagoon project is looking for something in the region of a guaranteed price of £168/MWh, for every unit of electricity they produce, indexed linked for the next 35 years.
> 
> This compares to a current market price of under £50/MWh.
> 
> And for what? The lagoon will produce about 429 GWh a year. In comparison, the new 880 MW gas-fired plant, currently being built at Carrington, is capable of generating 14 times as much.*
> 
> Furthermore, the lagoon cannot even generate power all the time when we need it.
> 
> As for the idea that anybody else in the world would want to buy our “intellectual property” in how to produce electricity at three times the normal cost, the mind boggles!
> 
> 
> 
> So we will end up paying a guaranteed subsidy of £50 million a year to a project which will actually generate little more than a pittance in terms of electricity.
> 
> It is hardly surprising the banks are hovering like flies around a jam jar!


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

Wahhh, if Canada doesn't get into tidal generation, we will be left behind!!

In light of all of the European and Chinese solar panel companies that have gone belly up over the past five years, I've heard no apologies from our resident solar-pheliacs who thought we would be "left behind" on economic opportunity if we didn't develop a homegown solar panel manufacturing base.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sure some progressive politicians have long drooled over the Bay of Fundy. And, at 3x the going rate, it's a Wynne, Wynne situation...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I kill me...


----------



## FeXL

Climate Divestment Rhetoric, Meet Reality



> The Australian ABC has unusually printed an almost balanced article, about the future prospects of coal, in which they contrast the sharp divide between green divestment rhetoric, *and the market reality, which is that demand for coal is soaring.*


M'bold.

Versatile, readily available, inexpensive. Everything renewables aren't...


----------



## FeXL

On the amount of space required for renewables vs nuclear.

We Don't Need No Stinking Giant Fans

Oh, & from the comments:



> There is a poll
> 
> "Do you support the Alberta government’s climate change plan that will include a carbon tax, etc.?"
> 
> At The Lethbridge Herald – myLH.ca â€º Your News, All Day, Your Way
> 
> Maybe you can add your bit.
> 
> They are probably sorry that they asked.
> 
> 
> No (74%, 331 Votes)
> Yes (26%, 115 Votes)


You can add my "No" vote to the totals...


----------



## FeXL

And another one...

Solar Company On Verge Of Spain’s Largest Bankruptcy



> Spanish renewable energy company Abengoa on Thursday applied for preliminary protection from creditors and called in lenders to start negotiating the terms of an agreement that would prevent a definitive suspension of payments.
> 
> In accordance with Spanish insolvency laws, the company has four months to reach an out-of-court agreement with its creditors.
> 
> *Abengoa is on its way to becoming the biggest bankruptcy case in Spanish business history...*


M'bold.

Further:



> Remember those words – _When you have a company that is based on subsidies, it is no surprise they run into financial trouble because their business model isn’t based on economics; it’s based on politics._
> 
> We keep being assured that solar technology can compete against fossil fuels. But if it could, Abengoa would not be on the verge of bankruptcy.


Italics from the link.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anyone whose been paying attention.

Europe’s biomass boom is destroying America’s forests



> I’ve covered this issue in the past, but a new report from the US Natural Resources Defense Council provides yet more evidence of the damage being to done to natural forests there by European demand for biomass, fuelled by climate driven subsidies.


Further:



> _*It is clear that the massive additional demand for biomass being driven by the bioenergy industry now threatens to destroy ecosystems that can never be replaced.* A small amount of bioenergy requires a very large quantity of biomass and can drive enormous shifts in the landscape. Thus, even a limited number of conversions to bioenergy can have major impacts on the ground.​_


M'bold.

B-b-b-b-but we care so much for the planet!!!

He sums:



> The smug, self satisfied do-gooders in the EU should be hanging their heads in shame at the damage that their policies are bringing about.


----------



## Macfury

Progressives want to be judged on their intentions, not results.



FeXL said:


> Not news to anyone whose been paying attention.
> 
> Europe’s biomass boom is destroying America’s forests
> 
> 
> 
> Further:
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> B-b-b-b-but we care so much for the planet!!!
> 
> He sums:


----------



## FeXL

So, Bill Gates & a handful of friends are putting together a billion bucks to fund renewables research.

First thing I thought was, "Good! At least it's not the taxpayers money."

Then, I read what turned out to be a rather prescient comment:



> Don’t believe Bill Gates promise until you see it. If history is a guide he will want more than matching funds from the taxpayers directly or indirectly.


Couple minutes later I ran across this article:

Bill Gates and the strings he attaches

And, sure, enough, BINGO!!!:



> _Led by Gates, about 20 private business leaders have signed on to the initiative, *making their pledges conditional on governments also pledging more money*, said a former U.S. government official who is familiar with the plan.​_


M'bold.

And, let's not forget another failed large scale effort from a certain search engine:



> This isn’t the first time a project to make renewables viable has been attempted. Back in 2014, WUWT reported about a similar attempt led by Google, which was a total failure.
> 
> ...
> 
> I applaud Bill’s enthusiasm – who wouldn’t want cheap magic solar panels, which eliminated the need to ever pay another electricity bill. But if the Google experience is any guide, it seems unlikely that another billion dollars will make a significant difference.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Unbelievable...

Lynemouth Biomass Gets EU Go Ahead For £1.1bn Subsidy



> Well, biomass certainly is not “clean”, under any definition of the word. Demand for wood pellets is creating huge environmental problems in America, and their burning here is just as polluting as coal.
> 
> As for CO2, biomass will not do anything to reduce actual (as opposed to EU defined ones) of CO2 in the short or even medium term.
> 
> And affordable? *Lynemouth will receive a guaranteed, and index linked, price of £105/MWh (at 2012 prices) till 2027, more than double the market price.*
> 
> Secure? Depends on how long the US is willing to see its forests being destroyed.
> 
> £1.1bn? And for what?


As opposed to clean, available, natural gas...


----------



## FeXL

Once again, you prove without a doubt that you are incapable of comprehending the slightest nuance, the smallest of words, in the English language.

Go back & research what the word "rate" means. Once realization dawns, post your response here.

Then I'll address the rest of your post.

And, seriously...Wiki? Reference fail...



CubaMark said:


> Hah. No Not even close.


----------



## FeXL

There's a surprise, & doubly so. Not...

California Government Abandons Rooftop Solar, Favors Big Utilities



> California has stunned green advocates, by excluding rooftop solar from their renewable energy mandate.


Well, why?



> LA Times speculates that this shift in policy was *due to pressure from utilities and unions – rooftop solar installers are not extensively unionised, compared to workers in large solar utility plants.*


M'bold.

'Nuf said...


----------



## FeXL

Further on biomass.

University of East Anglia’s Biomess



> The University of East Anglia’s involvement in the Norwich straw burning biomass project, which is on the verge of going bust, is not their first foray into such projects.
> 
> In 2009, they launched their own wood chip plant on campus. This has not exactly been a rousing success, as the Norwich Radical website relates:
> 
> ...
> 
> _* The plant cost £10M to build including a £1M DEFRA subsidy, and was designed to make UEA self-sufficient in power and heat.
> * *After spending five years trying to get the wood-burner to work it has now completely failed and has had to be converted to natural gas.
> * During this time, the burner produced toxic ash that was deposited on the campus, at one point causing the Environment Agency to intervene.
> * Over the period the wood-burner was in operation, 2009-2013, emissions of CO2 actually went up.* No figures are available for 2014. This increase is the more remarkable, given that the wood-burner was never working at anything near full capacity.​_


M'bold.

"Well, you never even gave it a chance! Burning wood is an immature science!! Throw more taxpayer money at it!!!"

Yep...


----------



## CubaMark

An update on a story I posted awhile back from California, where a company is developing a gravity-based electricity storage system using trains and weights.

*Gravity Train as Energy Storage*








Energy grids running on renewable energy sources need storage. The most common way to store energy on a grid scale is through “pumped” hydropower, where the excess energy available during off-peak is used to pump and store water at a higher elevation, which can then be released to produce electricity as gravity pulls it down to a lower elevation again. The Taum Sauk Hydroelectric Power Station in Missouri works exclusively on pumped-storage. Pumped hydro is effective, but needs lot of water and a suitable site for storage. Can the same principles be applied without using water as the prime mover?

A California-based company called Advanced Rail Energy Storage (ARES) has come up with a unique land-based alternative that could provide grid scale energy storage using electric locomotives.

ARES’ technology uses rail cars carrying heavy blocks of concrete that are pushed to the top of a grade using excess power from renewable energy plants during off-peak hours when electricity demand is low. When the grid requires energy to meet periods of high demand, the rail cars are released back down the hill, generating electricity through regenerative braking. The company says *the system can respond to increases or decreases in demand in a matter of seconds, boasting a charge/discharge efficiency of 80 percent, and can deliver constant power for periods of up to eight hours.*

* * *​
...the company has been granted permission by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to construct the grid energy storage system in the mountains of Nevada, in the United States. In a few years from now, a fleet of automated 300-ton electric-traction-drive shuttle trains should be moving up and down a 7.2% grade slope providing 50MW of fast response power *to help stabilize the California electricity grid*. ​(AmusingPlanet)​


----------



## Macfury

When the California grid needs a fleet of concrete trains to help stabilize it, you know that grid is in DEEP design trouble.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> When the California grid needs a fleet of concrete trains to help stabilize it, you know that grid is in DEEP design trouble.


Indeed. I remember well the massive blackouts in California during the energy crisis of 2000-01. I found it quite hypocritical of Americans to be pointing at Cuba's electrical generation crisis and frequent blackouts during the economic crisis (from '89 onward) brought about by the loss of some 80% of their foreign trade when the Soviet Union collapsed, while Californians were likewise sitting in the dark due in the 'greatest country on earth'. Hilarious.

So now it's renewables to the rescue! 

These storage systems are essential in the planning and implementation of renewables into a grid - it's surprising that more research and investment hasn't been done to date.

California claims they can handle the Renewables influx without any problem, and that they end up selling that energy to neighbouring states - more $$ into state coffers.


----------



## Macfury

California isn't close to producing a surplus of energy.


----------



## FeXL

If these people were truly interested in saving the planet from evil CO2...

Greenpeace: Nuclear Fusion Research is Risky and Ignorant



> Greenpeace has strongly condemned investment in the International ITER Fusion Project, claiming the money spent on ITER should instead be spent on renewables.
> 
> ...
> 
> Greenpeace also opposes nuclear fission.


Even James Hansen backs nuclear...


----------



## FeXL

So, you cull all your coal & gas generating capability in the name of cutting back CO2 emissions and, when the renewables can't fill the grid, you go to...diesel?

Diesel farms in line for power payout



> "In the same week that world leaders are in Paris negotiating a climate deal, *the UK government is handing out new subsidies to the most polluting form of electricity generation available*," said Jimmy Aldridge of the Institute of Public Policy Research.
> 
> "This is allowing sky-high returns for diesel investors, but terrible value for money for consumers" he said.


M'bold.

Brilliant...


----------



## FeXL

Comrades In LaLa Land



> Away in LaLa Land, Comrade Harrabin and co think that we will soon be able to do away with those nasty fossil fuels.
> 
> *Back in the real world, we know that fossil fuels account for 87% of all energy consumption.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Not only that. Consumption of fossil fuels has been steadily rising for years.
> 
> ...
> 
> But surely renewable energy is growing so fast that it will soon overtake all other sources?
> 
> ...
> 
> Whoops!


M'bold.

Whoops, indeed...

Good graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting idea. However, again, just an expensive bandaid to fix the main problem with renewables: variability of supply.

Underwater Balloons – a new idea in Energy Storage?



> Hydrostor has created an interesting innovation in energy storage. The energy is stored as compressed air, in giant underwater balloons.


This raises some questions in application. The first one that comes to mind for me is, what if there are no large bodies of water nearby in which to install these balloons? Do you just not construct a ballon farm then? Or do you need to construct an expensive power grid to & from the closest body of water with enough size to accomodate these balloons? Two, how will this perform in lakes that freeze in winter, ie., the raising of water levels as the balloons are inflated?


----------



## CubaMark

Y'know, it's like you go out of your way to try and find fault with anything that isn't fossil fuel-positive.

It's like a religion with you... no.. a cult. Yeah, a cult.

:yikes:


----------



## Macfury

Trying to endlessly find expensive ways to fix up obvious flaws in costly wind and solar power... that's a cult.



CubaMark said:


> Y'know, it's like you go out of your way to try and find fault with anything that isn't fossil fuel-positive.
> 
> It's like a religion with you... no.. a cult. Yeah, a cult.
> 
> :yikes:


----------



## FeXL

Y'know, it's like you go out of your way to try and find fault with anything that isn't renewable.

It's like a religion with you... no.. a cult. Yeah, a cult.



CubaMark said:


> Y'know, it's like you go out of your way to try and find fault with anything that isn't fossil fuel-positive.
> 
> It's like a religion with you... no.. a cult. Yeah, a cult.


----------



## FeXL

Further on overpayments to not produce renewable energy.

Windfall



> _An energy giant was paid nearly £600,000 in less than a month – to turn off its windfarm and not produce any electricity.
> 
> Some or all of SSE’s 33 turbines at Strathy North were shut down almost daily between November 12 and December 10.
> 
> Last night, campaigners branded the situation “scandalous”, but the power company said it had to play its part in balancing the needs of the National Grid.​_


----------



## FeXL

Interesting.

German Continuous Nuclear Fusion Reactor Milestone



> Germany has activated its new Wendelstein 7-X Stellarator reactor for the first time, briefly testing its ability to heat and contain a Helium plasma. The German Stellarator is the first nuclear fusion reactor ever built which has a chance of hitting break even – or at the very least, of maintaining a sustained nuclear fusion reaction for up to half an hour at a time.


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs it when they start eating their own...

Naomi Oreskes: James Hansen is a Denier



> Naomi Oreskes has accused climate scientists like James Hansen, who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.


Further:



> I can’t help feeling Oreskes has well and truly jumped the shark with the ridiculous claim that scientists like Hansen, Wigley et al are “deniers”, because they don’t believe in renewables. As WUWT reported a while ago, *even Google couldn’t find a way to make renewables viable – so it seems unlikely anybody else will succeed where Google failed.*
> 
> As for Oreskes objections to nuclear power, her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. *Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Now, lets see how many maintain their solar panels...

Solar panel payouts SLASHED by two thirds as Cameron makes mockery of climate change deal



> Investing in installations at home will no longer be attractive to British families and could now take more than 20 years for upfront costs to be recouped, critics said.


B-b-b-b-but, won't they do it just for the satisfaction derived from saving the planet?


----------



## SINC

The Insane Cost of Ontario's Energy Calamity: Consumers Forced to Pay $170 Billion for Pointless Wind Power


----------



## FeXL

Japan, S. Korea plan new coal-fired plants despite global climate deal



> Less than a week since signing the global climate deal in Paris, Japan and South Korea are pressing ahead with plans to open scores of new coal-fired power plants, casting doubt on the strength of their commitment to cutting CO2 emissions, Reuter reported.
> 
> Even as many of the world’s rich nations seek to phase out the use of coal, Asia’s two most developed economies are burning more than ever and plan to add at least 60 new coal-fired power plants over the next 10 years.
> 
> South Korea did scrap plans for four coal-fired power plants as part of its pledge to the Paris summit, but *20 new plants* are still planned by 2021.
> 
> In Japan, *41 new coal-fired power plants* are planned over the next decade, and taxes favor imports of coal over cleaner-burning natural gas.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Green Electricity in Denmark, Germany, costs three times as much as US



> It’s a bit costly trying to control the weather:
> 
> _“Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).”​_
> That’s $21 billion that could have been spent on health or education that was used instead to feed the Green Machine.
> 
> A few handy facts to memorize. The cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour:
> 
> *Denmark, 42c; Germany 40c*, and the USA, *12.5c*.
> 
> Wind and solar power supplies 28% of electricity in Germany (is it really that high?) This is what Australia is aiming for?


Bold from the link.

Pretty please, can we install more windmills & solar panels? I want my electricity costs to increase by 325%...


----------



## SINC

Wind Power Investment Collapses in Sweden, Denmark, Finland & Norway – STOP THESE THINGS


----------



## FeXL

Australians don’t want to pay more for Green-power. What was a pitiful 1% of the grid, shrank by half.



> What could possibly go wrong? According to badly done, ambiguous surveys, everyone in Australia “loves” green energy, and believes in climate change. But according to actual payments, hardly anyone wants to cough up any cash for it, (unless the government is waving a big stick). Poor Greenpower appears to have gotten its business advice from the ABC, or the CSIRO.
> 
> How much of the Australian grid is voluntarily green? Would that be 28% (our target for 2030)? Nope. It’s not even five percent. Instead a mere one electron in every 200 is voluntarily “green”. It’s a pathetic half a percent.
> 
> *All Australians are free to pay an extra 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt to get their energy “green” from GreenPower. But even at the height of the 2008 -Gore-Rudd era only 1% of all the electricity was bought up by green consumers willing to voluntarily pay more for “clean” energy. Since then, though the volunteers have left in droves.*


M'bold.

Yep.

Related:

Aussie Green Power Scheme Collapse



> When individuals, businesses and governments tighten their belts, unnecessary luxuries like expensive green energy are often top of the list of costs to be cut.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting take.

Is Global Warming Fear Killing Wild Bees and Raising Sea Level?



> I had argued that an agricultural trend where increasing acreage of natural and agricultural habitats have been increasingly converted to corn for silage and biofuels in addition to the importation of exotic European diseases. Using corn for biofuel makes no sense in terms of CO2 reduction or energy efficiency, et due to global warming hysteria government agencies have subsidized the spread of corn fields. *Corn is wind pollinated and provides no nectar resources for pollinators.* Corn has been steadily replacing pollinator friendly wild plants and pollinator friendly agricultural plants like soybean.
> 
> *Cornfields also require irrigation that has also increased the extraction of groundwater.* Groundwater extraction has now been projected to raise sea level by 0.87 mm/year, accounting for 25% of the estimate current sea level rise.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Indian Energy Experts Baffled by Green Hostility to Nuclear Power



> The Hindu reports on a fascinating top level debate occurring at a conference in India, between politicians and energy experts. The energy experts are struggling to understand why nuclear power is not the favoured Western option for reducing CO2 emissions.


I find it baffling, too.


----------



## FeXL

A couple of articles subsidy-related.

EU probe into British Drax Biomass Subsidies



> The British Drax biomass plan has received a substantial setback. The Drax project is a plan to “save” the environment by chopping down vast tracts of forest in the USA and Canada, shipping the wood to Britain, and burning it in a modified coal plant. *But the government subsidies Drax negotiated to make this scheme profitable, have attracted negative attention from European regulators.*


M'bold.

Ooops...

Nevada reversal: solar earnings rate drops from 12c to 2c — May “destroy rooftop solar power”



> In Nevada there is a lot of sunlight and a lot of solar panels, but they generate electricity at a cost of 25 – 30c per kWhr. With subsidies and tax benefits, the cost “falls” to 15c. (In this context, the word “falls” means “is dropped on other people”.) But the retail rate for electricity is 12.5c. *So having solar panels doesn’t help you much unless you can sell that excess electricity, which the state of Nevada was buying at 12.5c. That price sounds fine and dandy til we find out that they could have bought the same electricity at wholesale rate of around two cents.
> 
> So Nevada has decided that’s what the state will pay… 2c, not 12.5c.* The latest decision is to apply normal free market rules. Nevada will now pay wholesale rates for electricity. No more shopping for boutique electrons.
> 
> Taking into account all the tax cuts, subsidies and total costs, who would have thought that paying 15 times the wholesale rate for electricity would be economically unsustainable?


M'bold.

Hate when that happens...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Indian Energy Experts Baffled by Green Hostility to Nuclear Power
> 
> I find it baffling, too.


*How soon we forget.*


Three Mile Island nuclear accident
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster
Fukushima Nuclear Disaster


----------



## FeXL

I forget nothing.

OMG!!! Three whole incidents among well over 400 currently running reactors, untold hundreds of millions of hours of safe operation. Brutal...

All of which could have been prevented if proper safety & construction protocol would have been observed.



CubaMark said:


> How soon we forget.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> I forget nothing.
> 
> OMG!!! Three whole incidents among well over 400 currently running reactors, untold hundreds of millions of hours of safe operation. Brutal...
> 
> All of which could have been prevented if proper safety & construction protocol would have been observed.


_"Three whole incidents...."_ sorry, I don't have the energy to compile an extensive list of disasters and near-disasters to satisfy whatever magical number in your head is the threshold for something to be of concern. Not to mention, speaking from experience, nothing I do will sway you from your position (which as we all know - you've told us - is perfectly logical and the only correct way to view the world).

There is also the tandem issue of highly dangerous nuclear waste disposal / storage. But hey, out of sight, out of mind, right?

*Nuclear waste must be out of sight, but not out of mind | Environment*

...the disposal of radioactive waste is a lot trickier. Whether you support the future use of nuclear power or not, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to dispose of this waste securely.

Radioactive waste is such a problem because it remains dangerous for tens of thousands to millions of years. To put that in context, 10,000 years ago our ancestors were hunting with flint blades, and nearly 1m years ago early humans were making their first tentative steps on to British soil. Who knows what will happen in the next million years​
(The Guardian)​


----------



## Macfury

Admit it. You're just a technophobe, CM.



CubaMark said:


> _"Three whole incidents...."_ sorry, I don't have the energy to compile an extensive list of disasters and near-disasters to satisfy whatever magical number in your head is the threshold for something to be of concern. Not to mention, speaking from experience, nothing I do will sway you from your position (which as we all know - you've told us - is perfectly logical and the only correct way to view the world).
> 
> There is also the tandem issue of highly dangerous nuclear waste disposal / storage. But hey, out of sight, out of mind, right?
> 
> *Nuclear waste must be out of sight, but not out of mind | Environment*
> 
> ...the disposal of radioactive waste is a lot trickier. Whether you support the future use of nuclear power or not, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to dispose of this waste securely.
> 
> Radioactive waste is such a problem because it remains dangerous for tens of thousands to millions of years. To put that in context, 10,000 years ago our ancestors were hunting with flint blades, and nearly 1m years ago early humans were making their first tentative steps on to British soil. Who knows what will happen in the next million years​
> (The Guardian)​


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Admit it. You're just a technophobe, CM.


Haw! Far from it :lmao:

I'd support alternative reactor approaches that are magnitudes lower in danger quotient. Research into Thorium and other possibilities, for example..


----------



## FeXL

Good. Then I won't have to engage in a one-sided conversation on acceptable risk...



CubaMark said:


> ...sorry, I don't have the energy to compile an extensive list of disasters and near-disasters to satisfy whatever magical number in your head is the threshold for something to be of concern.


When I get new information, I always re-evaluate my position. Period. If you haven't seen any sea changes here, perhaps it's because your "evidence" is less than compelling...



CubaMark said:


> Not to mention, speaking from experience, nothing I do will sway you from your position (which as we all know - you've told us - is perfectly logical and the only correct way to view the world).


No argument. For me, the biggest bugaboo with fission _is_ the waste.



CubaMark said:


> There is also the tandem issue of highly dangerous nuclear waste disposal / storage.


Yeah, imagine where fusion reactors could be with the hundreds of billions of dollars pissed away on imaginary problems like "global warming"...



CubaMark said:


> I'd support alternative reactor approaches that are magnitudes lower in danger quotient. Research into Thorium and other possibilities, for example..


----------



## CubaMark

*The Crazy, Brilliant Plan For A Huge Hydropower Plant In South America's Driest Desert*

*A solar farm will pump seawater up the Andes mountains, so renewable power can be available day and night.*








​Stuck between the Andes Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, the Atacama Desert is one of the driest places on Earth. But the area's weird geography means that it will soon be home to a massive hydropower plant—the first step in a new system that could theoretically provide all of South America with 100% renewable energy.

The new plant, called the Mirror of Tarapaca, will generate solar power during the day and use that to suck seawater up a tunnel to a top of a mountain, where the water can be stored in a natural reservoir. At night, the plant will drop the water back down, generating power as it falls.

Unlike solar or wind power on its own, it's a guaranteed source of energy at any time of the day.

* * *​
The coastline of Chile is one of the few places in the world where the design can work. "Chile has the best conditions in the world for solar plants—roughly 15% better than Arizona," he says. "It's really stunning. But Chile also has the best conditions in the world for pump storage running with seawater. That means we can produce flat, steady power at a very reasonable price."​
(FastCompany)


----------



## Macfury

Sounds interesting, but it strikes me that they may be overselling its generating capacity--all of South America?



CubaMark said:


> *The Crazy, Brilliant Plan For A Huge Hydropower Plant In South America's Driest Desert*


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Sounds interesting, but it strikes me that they may be overselling its generating capacity--all of South America?


BINGO!!!

The type of people who subscribe to this sort of BS are the same ones who think they can build a solar generating station in the desert somewhere in the US & pipe it over the whole country.

They clearly have zero concept of transmission losses...


----------



## FeXL

Big surprise. Pull the funding, the whole charade collapses...

Ongoing Renewables Investment “Crisis” in Australia



> Aussie Greens are lamenting that banks are still unwilling to lend to green projects, because they are worried about the reliability of political support, and the continuity of the generous government subsidies which make green projects possible.


----------



## FeXL

Bankers Reaping the Rewards of German Green Energy Instability



> The German energy traders are doing something similar. Every time they shave a slice off a swing in the spot price of power, they absorb some of the risk which end users of power would otherwise face on their own.
> 
> But there is a cost – the trader’s profits come straight from the bottom line of productive businesses which use electricity. Fine if there was a point to all this activity – but *all this increased volatility, risk, and cost is completely artificial. It is purely a product of insane German energy policies.* In the real world, the profits the energy traders make from damping down this politically inflicted price uncertainty, from selling a sliver of safety to end users who are at the mercy of the green madness, is yet another component of the hideous macroeconomic cost of renewable energy.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Why hydro costs so much



> Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne blundered into green energy, without doing their homework





> Indeed it was their ideological blunder into so-called “green” energy, mainly wind but also solar and biomass, that put hydro rate increases on steroids
> 
> This to the point where the electricity portion of the hydro bills of residential consumers and small businesses increased 80% from 2004 to 2014, according to Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, with no end in sight.
> 
> Indeed, when you examine the annual reports by the auditor general on Ontario’s electricity system, you find the Liberals repeatedly making the same mistake.
> 
> *That is, failing to do basic due diligence and ignoring or sweeping aside regulatory safeguards in promoting green energy.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

(h/t SDA)

Well, look who is just waking up...

Wind energy has issues



> Alberta’s shift to renewable energy and away from coal is going to be bad news for Albertans, members of the Foothills Little Bow Municipal Association heard Friday.


Nah, really?



> One issue with wind farms is spatial distribution, meaning wind farms are spread out over a large area. Power has to be gathered and transported over large distances.
> 
> “In Alberta, *we have the capacity for 1,463 Mw of wind*, and we gather that over a huge area,” he said, noting wind energy production is gathered from an area the size of The Netherlands in southern Alberta.
> 
> *Often, wind generation is only able to hit an average of 30 per cent of capacity* due to periods where it slips below the five per cent threshold (considered to be zero output). That instability in power levels is a major issue for supplying power to Albertans.
> 
> In contrast, *the Sheerness generating station near Hanna has a capacity of 780 Mw.*
> 
> *“It provides more electricity than all the wind turbines in Alberta,” Schaupmeyer said*, adding coal generation also has stable output.


M'bold.



> *Another issue with wind power is that it must be backed up due to the intermittent nature of power generation.* Backup is handled through the use of natural gas, but it causes a redundancy in the system as wind power and natural gas power then overlap.
> 
> “We duplicate that capacity,” said Schaupmeyer. *“When you build a wind farm, you better have something to back it up.*
> 
> “Wind will often be effectively redundant, and all of our electricity will be coming from natural gas when the wind is not blowing.”


M'bold.

Amazing this hit the local paper on page 3...


----------



## FeXL

If anybody is serious about decarbonizing the economy, nuclear is the only way to go...

Is nuclear the cheapest way to decarbonize electricity?



> The table shows that the cheapest way to achieve the greatest reductions in CO2 emissions intensity of electricity is with mostly nuclear and little or no wind. GB could achieve the 50g/kWh target with 31 GW of new nuclear and no wind or CCS for 3% real cost increase. It could achieve the same emissions intensity as France, 42 g/kWh in 2014, with 32 GW of new nuclear and no wind or CCS for ~4% real cost increase above the base cost.


Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Again, the shortfall of wind shows it's ugly head.

Wind Power Down To 0.1%



> At 5pm yesterday, electricity generation from wind farms dropped to a paltry 72 MW, just 0.1% of total demand of 52.1 GW.
> 
> The 24-hour period up to 10.30 pm was little better, averaging just 0.3%
> 
> Fortunately there is still enough gas and coal- fired capacity to fill the gap, but, as the Center for Policy Studies reported last year, this reserve capacity is becoming increasingly tight.


Yes, enough. For now...

More:



> *We are continually told that wind power does not need 100% back up capacity, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we do. Meanwhile solar power, according to DECC statistics, produces at less than 5% of capacity in Q1, and even less in January, so is utterly irrelevant at this time of year.*
> 
> We certainly need to replace every bit of lost coal-fired capacity with gas-fired, as coal plants come to the end of their lives in the next few years, and there is no sign of that happening yet.


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

*Nevis Has A Date With Geothermal Energy*










Legislators on the tiny volcanic island of Nevis in the northern region of the Lesser Antilles say they are on a path to going completely green and have now set a date when they will replace diesel-fired electrical generation with 100 per cent renewable energy.

The island, with a population of 12,000 currently imports 4.2 million gallons of diesel fuel annually, at a cost of 12 million dollars, a bill it hopes to cut down significantly. Nevis consumes a maximum of 10 mw of energy annually.

* * *​
when that plant switches on in December of 2017, fully 100 per cent of Nevis’ electricity will be supplied by renewables. Nowhere else in the world can boast that and so it will make us the greenest place on planet earth. That’s the new tagline – the greenest place on planet earth.”

Nevis is the smaller island of the pair, known as the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. It is home to active hot springs and a large geothermal reservoir. Seven volcanic centres have been identified on Nevis and drilling at three sites has indicated that the geothermal reservoir is capable of producing up to 500 mw of constant base load power year round.

* * *​
Traditionally we pay anywhere from 40 to 45 US cents per kilowatt hour. Geothermal is being offered at about 17 or 18 cents per kilowatt hour. So just imagine, your operating costs are cut dramatically and how that can attract businesses.​
(IPS)


----------



## Macfury

Guess they're sorry they invested in all of those solar panels if geothermal can provide 50 times their requirements.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/71155-alternative-energy-sources-113.html#post1879458


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Guess they're sorry they invested in all of those solar panels if geothermal can provide 50 times their requirements.


Why they would have even considered any other option besides geothermal in the first place is beyond me.


----------



## Macfury

Because it's 2015?



FeXL said:


> Why they would have even considered any other option besides geothermal in the first place is beyond me.


----------



## FeXL

Saturday Silliness – wind turbine photo of the year



> The entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop global warming by reducing the amount of CO2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> In the attached picture, recently taken in Sweden, freezing cold weather has caused the rotor blades of a wind turbine to ice up bringing the blades to a complete stop.
> 
> To fix the “problem” a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them.
> 
> *The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again).*
> 
> The attached picture is a metaphor of the complete insanity of the climate change debate.


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

On that shining star of renewable energy, Denmark...

Denmark & Wind Power



> We have had some discussion about the amount of wind power being generated in Denmark, which hit 41% of total electricity in 2014. Denmark is often held up by proponents of wind power to prove that large amounts are both feasible and can be easily integrated into national grid systems.
> 
> It is therefore worth putting the figures into perspective.


Further:



> It is immediately apparent from these figures that Danish wind output can easily be absorbed into the German grid. In addition, a lot of Denmark’s electricity is exported to Scandinavia, where it can be used for pump storage.
> 
> And on the reverse side, it is not a problem for Denmark to import the small amounts of power it needs from Germany and Scandinavia, when the wind stops blowing.
> 
> *Making this system work on a much bigger scale however would be a totally different problem.*


M'bold.

There's the fly in the ointment.


----------



## FeXL

OK, let's assume that the UK will go all renewable. What will it take?

If the UK were to try and achieve COP21 ideas – hold on to your hats!



> *So COP21 (and our very own Climate Change Act) is asking the UK to build 750 more Drax sized power stations4 or 1.5 million more wind turbines.* And, of course, we would need to completely rebuild the electricity Grid to take this nearly 75 fold increase in load. Also every street in the UK will need to be dug up to install much higher capacity cabling.


M'bold.

Better get a start on 'er. Gotta be done in 10 years...

Related:

Hunky dory



> The Institute of Mechanical Engineers has a report out today which looks at the UK's energy situation. It seems that we have a bit of a crisis ahead.
> 
> _The loss of coal by 2025, along with growth in demand and the closure of the majority of our nuclear power stations will therefore be significant, leaving a potential supply gap of 40%–55%, depending on wind levels.​_


More:



> To bridge this gap, the Institute sees no option but new gas=fired power stations and UK shale gas. As they explain though, there are some slight problems with this strategy. *If there is no increase in demand then we are only (only!) going to need 30 new CCGT power stations.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, the eternal question...

Are wind and solar energy already competitive with fossil fuels?



> If renewable energy is cheaper than dirty fossil fuels, why isn’t everyone adopting them? Are we so irrationally addicted to polluting energy sources that we won’t even embrace cheaper and cleaner alternatives?
> 
> Well, as you might have guessed, it turns out that wind and solar energy isn’t cheaper than fossil fuels in the real world. Quite the opposite.


More:



> Truth is, wind and solar PV will be trivial contributions to global energy for the next quarter century. The International Energy Agency estimates that today just about 0.5 per cent of global energy comes from solar and wind (see graphic below). *Even in 2040, even if* everyone does everything they’ve promised at the Paris climate summit, the world will get just 2.4% of its energy from solar and wind.
> 
> Still, it will cost a fortune. *This year the world will spend about $106 billion on subsidies for solar and wind, and even by 2040 it will not be cheaper than fossil fuels – we will still have to pay $84 billion in subsidies annually.*


M'bold.

Yeah, not so much...


----------



## FeXL

New Biomass & Prawn Plant For Anglesey

I get right to the summary:



> It’s a strange world where we can force an aluminium plant to close entirely because of high energy prices, replace it with a woodburning power plant which requires massive subsidies to make it economical, with most of the profits being exported to China, and somehow regard it as a success!
> 
> Still, at least we’ll get some prawn cocktails out of it.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

The diesel dilemma: “dirty” generation in the capacity market



> As we have all known for a while, the UK is becoming increasingly reliant on small scale diesel generators to provide back up capacity for when the wind forgets to blow.
> 
> We already know that the cost is high and we have regular debates about how “dirty” it is. (No names, no pack drill, Peter!)
> 
> 
> 
> But this article from the energy specialist news site, Utility Week, really is an eye opener. It underlines just how self contradictory UK energy policy has become. *It also highlights how government intervention can make things much worse*


M'bold.

Ya think? 

Said before, worth repeating:

Government has no business being in business...


----------



## FeXL

Brilliant!

President Obama Proposes $10 per Barrel Carbon Tax



> President Obama has proposed a $10 per barrel carbon tax to fund renewable energy, and to “encourage” people to stop using oil.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly, surely...

Germany's Fusion Reactor Creates Hydrogen Plasma In World First



> Scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany have successfully conducted a revolutionary nuclear fusion experiment. Using their experimental reactor, the Wendelstein 7-X (W7X) stellarator, they have managed to sustain a hydrogen plasma – a key step on the path to creating workable nuclear fusion.


----------



## FeXL

Woohoo!!!

USC: we can make fuel directly out of Carbon Dioxide



> From the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and the “fuel out of thin air” department comes this announcement that says right off the bat it can’t compete with oil, especially when gasoline is now under $2 a gallon in some parts of California.


Hell, shovel a few billion dollars into the project, it'll become compatible with oil in no time. Jes' like other renewables...


----------



## FeXL

What's this? Fracking is safe? Say it ain't so...

A clean bill of health for shale?



> Environmentalists like to claim that unconventional gas developments are going to cause us all to die of cancer or asthma. It's fair to say that few of these claims are quite as bonkers as Friends of the Earth saying that the sand used in fracks is a dangerous carcinogen. However, while the other claims are not quite that absurd, they are not exactly grounded in good science.
> 
> A paper published today in a journal called Science of the Total Environment describes a review of the evidence for actual health impacts from unconventional gas and conclude there is little evidence of adverse health effects that you would want to describe as "firm". Of the 1000 articles the authors reviewed, fewer than 100 were considered worthy of further attention based on the quality of evidence presented. Only 7 could be considered "highly relevant". Health impacts were mostly "inferred rather than evidenced".


Huh...


----------



## SINC

Seems Mr. Gates has some reservations and rightly so:

An interview with Bill Gates on sustainable energy and conservation - The Hindu


----------



## FeXL

Good.

Competition to Achieve Viable Nuclear Fusion Heating Up



> The international ITER Fusion project might be mired in cost overruns and severe delays, but competition is heating up, between China and Germany, to create a viable nuclear fusion reactor.
> 
> Back in December, WUWT reported that Germany had started testing their Stellarator Fusion Reactor with Helium Plasmas.
> 
> Since that time, China has responded with a 100 second sustained fusion burn – a feat they hope in the near future to extend to 1000 seconds (16 minutes).


----------



## FeXL

Just the beginning, alright...

Alberta to offer solar panel rebates to farms, municipalities: 'This is just the beginning'



> The program offers rebates of up to 75 cents per watt. *According to figures from a provincial report, that’s not quite enough to make the cost of solar power equal to that purchased from the grid.*
> 
> “It’s intended to provide an incentive,” said Phillips. “It may not equalize, but it’s intended to remove the barriers.”


M'bold.

Huh? I thought parity had been reached? Somebody has been bull$h!tting?

Nah...


----------



## FeXL

So, I've commented on the stupidity of biomass, especially the cutting down of southern US forests, pelletizing them, shipping them overseas to England & burning them in the converted Drax coal plant, among others.

Here's some numbers. Excellent read.

Pulp Fiction



> In England and across Europe, the most popular source of renewable energy is wood. But chopping down trees — many of them in the U.S. — and burning the wood heats the planet more quickly than burning coal. Yet plants like Drax receive financial support to switch from coal to wood. That’s because of an entrenched loophole in the EU’s climate rules.
> 
> That loophole treats electricity generated by burning wood as a “carbon neutral” or “zero emissions” energy source — the same as solar panels or wind turbines. When power plants in major European countries burn wood, the only carbon dioxide pollution they report is from the burning of fossil fuels needed to manufacture and transport the woody fuel. European law assumes climate pollution released directly by burning fuel made from trees doesn’t matter, because it will be re-absorbed by trees that grow to replace them.
> 
> The assumption is convenient, but wrong. Climate science has been rejecting it for more than 20 years. It ignores the decades it can take for a replacement forest to grow to be as big as one that was chopped down for energy— or the possibility that it won’t regrow at all. The assumption also ignores the loss of a tree’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide after it gets cut down, pelletized and vaporized.
> 
> *The accounting trick allows the energy industry to pump tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year and pretend it doesn’t exist.*


M'bold.

More:



> *Analysis of Drax data reveals that its boilers release 15 to 20 percent more carbon dioxide when they burn wood than when they burn coal. That doesn’t even factor in the loss of a forest’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide after it’s cut down and used for electricity, nor does it account for pollution from drying and transporting the wood.*


M'bold.

Now, pull the other one...


----------



## FeXL

This could post just as easily in the American Political Thread.

Clinton's Solar Scheme Would Cost Taxpayers $200 Billion/Year, Have No Effect on CO2 Levels



> Hillary Clinton says she wants to deploy a half-billion more solar panels in her first term as president.






> JunkScience.com Publisher Steve Milloy tells MRCTV.
> 
> _“The solar industry says there are now over 22,700 MW of solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 4.6 million average American homes. If the average panel produces 200kW then there are about 113 million or so panels currently installed in the US.
> 
> “So Hillary’s plan (500 million panels) is to almost quintuple the number of solar panels in the US.”​_
> And, since U.S taxpayers already pay $39 billion/year in solar subsidies, Clinton wants to spend almost $200 billion/year subsidizing solar power, Milloy explains.
> 
> What’s more, even if Americans shell out the $200 billion required by Clinton’s solar scheme, the effects on CO2 levels would be negligible:
> 
> _*“None of this will make any difference. You can stop all U.S. CO2 emissions for the rest of the century and you would make virtually no difference in atmospheric CO2 levels.”*​_


M'bold.

That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

Aussie Coal Exports Surge to New High



> _THE latest coal export data has shown Gladstone Port exported 5.8 million tonnes of coal in January – 400,000 tonnes more than in January 2015 and more than 1 million tonnes more than in January 2012.
> 
> The Abbot Point, Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay export terminals near Mackay exported a total of 12.6 million tonnes, up from 8.8 million tonnes in 2012.​_


Guess all those windmills & solar panels aren't doing such a bang-up job...


----------



## FeXL

A subsidy by any other name.

Revealed: the great wind farm tax ‘con’



> Ministers have been accused of planning a U-turn that would see consumers fund new onshore wind farms through green levies.
> 
> *The Government confirmed it was “looking carefully” at a wind industry proposal to continue public financial support for new turbines, despite a manifesto pledge to halt expansion.*
> 
> Critics described the proposal as a con, and said the Conservatives’ policy had been “crystal clear” that the subsidies would stop.
> 
> *Under the plan, households would still be forced to pay millions of pounds on their energy bills to fund new wind farms – but the payments would no longer be defined as subsidies.*


Thought the cost of renewables had reached parity with fossil fuels...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> What's this? Fracking is safe? Say it ain't so...
> 
> A clean bill of health for shale?


Hey! I can pick and choose quotes from that report too! A report, which, incidentally, does not say that "Fracking is safe"! *m'bold*, as you would say:

Overall, there was very limited systematically gathered, scientific evidence of health effects directly caused by UNGD activity. Notably, this review identified only seven studies as ‘highly relevant’, demonstrating the lack of research on direct health impacts associated with UNGD. More importantly, while evidence of the environmental cause of adverse health impact was lacking, several scholars and experts voiced concerns about the potential for adverse health outcomes. These *concerns were based on credible evidence of detrimental environmental impact and strongly suggest that the lack of evidence of health impact does not dismiss claims of health impact.* The available evidence, or lack thereof, is not sufficient cause to rule in or rule out significant or specific, future, or cumulative health impacts of UNGD activities.

*It is probable that the lack of evidence on direct causal links between environmental hazards and health outcomes is a result of the rapid expansion of this industry in a short period of time — leaving evidence-based research activities with very little time to respond. Additionally, there is the potential for environmental health outcomes with longer latencies for which effects may not yet be seen.*

While some authors are adamant about the potential health harm, it remains difficult to credibly assess the extent of the risk posed to the public, and implications for government agencies and the resource companies, while *this gap in scientific knowledge remains*. Future work needs to be focussed on research that includes baseline monitoring and prospective studies to summarise, diagnose, and predict what environmental health impacts of UNGD might be.​


----------



## heavyall

That's a good point Mark. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (good or bad). 

I do think, however, that it really illustrates the reason why the left side of this area of discussion gets less traction than they would hope. When those in favour of fracking say that there is no evidence of environmental harm from fracking, what they are saying is factual. It's the truth, but it's just not the whole story. Those opposed to fracking shoot themselves in the foot by insisting that it's a fact that fracking has caused (fill in environmental disaster de jour here). There simply is no evidence to support those claims, because there is little to no evidence one way or the other. Instead, they should be concentrating on the part that you highlighted -- the fact that we just don't know. Nobody knows, it's moved far too fast with far too little oversight. And it's the kind of thing we *should* know, one way or the other.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, this is rich. I'm gonna enjoy this...

Blah, blah, blah...here we are!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"So, in the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, we're still going to stipulate that there may, possibly, maybe, might be an issue in the future & we reserve the right to bring up that evidence then. Perhaps."

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Beautiful!

Only one thing, CM. Real science doesn't work that way. Politics, yes, not science. You draw conclusions based on the available evidence which, in this case, is stated clearly: "evidence of the environmental cause of adverse health impact was lacking". That is the conclusion. Period. End of paragraph.

Later on, if additional evidence arises, that position, that conclusion, can be revisited. 

You might think that these two positions sound similar. They're not.

One says, with all the information we have now, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that fracking causes health issues.

The other says, trust us, there must be some boogeyman out there somewhere that draws a link between fracking & health, we just haven't found it. Yet. But, we will...



CubaMark said:


> More importantly, while evidence of the environmental cause of adverse health impact was lacking, several scholars and experts voiced concerns about the potential for adverse health outcomes. These *concerns were based on credible evidence of detrimental environmental impact and strongly suggest that the lack of evidence of health impact does not dismiss claims of health impact.* The available evidence, or lack thereof, is not sufficient cause to rule in or rule out significant or specific, future, or cumulative health impacts of UNGD activities.​


Fracking is a 65 year old technology. While there have been a few relatively minor changes recently, the basic process remains the same: fracturing rock with hydraulic pressure. What is so difficult to track? Nobody is reinventing the wheel, here.

And, if no health related issues have shown up in the last 10, 20, even 50 years, then it must be a fairly benign process.



CubaMark said:


> *It is probable that the lack of evidence on direct causal links between environmental hazards and health outcomes is a result of the rapid expansion of this industry in a short period of time — leaving evidence-based research activities with very little time to respond. Additionally, there is the potential for environmental health outcomes with longer latencies for which effects may not yet be seen.*​


They can be as adamant as they want. Where is the evidence supporting their conjecture? That's how science works. None? Sorry...

And, notice the weasel word: "might". Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Add 'em all up & you still have SFA...



CubaMark said:


> While some authors are adamant about the potential health harm, it remains difficult to credibly assess the extent of the risk posed to the public, and implications for government agencies and the resource companies, while *this gap in scientific knowledge remains*. Future work needs to be focussed on research that includes baseline monitoring and prospective studies to summarise, diagnose, and predict what environmental health impacts of UNGD might be.​


The same Fruit Loops & Whackos who are paranoid about fracking are the self same Fruit Loops & Whackos promoting Globull Warming (who, incidently, don't have any empirical evidence either & must resort to lawsuits to attain their end). 

It's all part of the same agenda. Promote expensive taxpayer funded renewables & cut back inexpensive, readily available fossil fuel energy.


----------



## FeXL

Uh-oh...

The UK just struck oil

That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

Well, that'll alleviate some of the pressure from coal close-ups.

EDF to keep four UK nuclear plants open for years longer



> The announcement comes amid concern about the amount of energy available to keep the lights on, due to the closure of many of Britain’s ageing power plants.
> 
> Meanwhile, EDF has yet to finalise the investment for a new nuclear plant to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
> 
> It has agreed a deal in principle under which China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) will pay a third of the cost of the £18bn project in exchange for a 33.5% stake.
> 
> An EDF board meeting to approve the plan earlier this year is thought to have been postponed. Reports suggested the company was struggling to find the cash for its 66.5% stake.


----------



## FeXL

Drugs...

Peak Exaggeration? Solar, wind may save life in the Universe for 4 billion years: “top” climate scientist



> Thinking big about our destiny, think of this: the ultimate habitability catastrophe for Earth is when the Sun leaves the main sequence and turns into a Red Giant. That happens in about 4 billion years. However, long before that — in only about 500 million years — the Sun gets bright enough to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and turn us into Venus, sterilizing all life on Earth. We waste half the main sequence lifetime of the Sun.
> 
> *However, if we last long enough, technology will make it easy to block enough sunlight to save the Earth from a runaway, buying us another 4 billion years of habitability.*


----------



## FeXL

More drugs...

Energy Dept Spends $7 Million On North Alaska Solar Power, Except It’s Dark 24/7



> The Department of Energy (DOE) announced Monday it will provide $7 million in technical support for solar power to Native Alaskan tribes, especially those in the far north.
> 
> *The parts of Alaska where the DOE intends to spend the cash have nearly 24 hours of darkness in the winter, which is precisely when Alaskans need the most electricity.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Settin' on a whole pool of Alternative Energy...

Britain Strikes Black Gold at ‘Gatwick Gusher’



> Shares in UK Oil and Gas Investments soared by as much as 77pc after the Aim-listed developer announced that oil from its well near Gatwick Airport in Surrey flowed at a faster rate than expected. UK Oil and Gas (Ukog) has claimed that oil from the so called “Gatwick gusher” at Horse Hill flowed from 900m below ground level to the surface without extra help from operators, and at a better rate than expected of 463 barrels a day. Ukog and its partners in Horse Hill have claimed that *more than 9.2 billion barrels of oil* lie under the 55 square kilometre licence area in the Weald Basin.


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

Remember when the alt-energy types used to tout energy independence as a reason for investing in uneconomical technologies? Guess that one's dropped off their radar with discoveries such as this.


----------



## CubaMark

*Seasonal sun: N.W.T. village intends to go solar, but only in summer*









[Google Map]​
While the rest of Canada talks and talks about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, one tiny northern town is leading the way in actually doing it.

Colville Lake, high in a corner of the Northwest Territories, has successfully tested a system of batteries and solar panels that should allow the community to run entirely on the sun’s energy — at least in the summer.

“There is really no other community that I know of that is structured this way,” said Myra Berrub, manager of energy services for the Northwest Territories Power Corp.

Colville Lake, a Dene community of about 150, needed to replace its aging diesel generator. The corporation installed a new one, but supplemented it with batteries and an array of solar panels capable of generating 136 kilowatts.

When it’s dark, Colville Lake runs off diesel. The batteries save fuel by absorbing and storing any power in excess of demand, so the generator always runs at maximum efficiency.

As more light returns after the dark days of winter, the use of solar power will expand until it meets all the community’s needs.

The community now sees about eight hours of low-angle sunlight a day. By late May, sunlight is virtually 24-hour.

* * *​
Colville Lake may become a model, said Berrub.

“If costs do come down in the future and net savings are there, it would certainly be something we would consider for other communities.”

So far, solar power does cost more than diesel — mostly because of the expensive batteries, said Berrub. The $7.8-million system received a $1.3-million subsidy from the territorial government.

There are other benefits to moving away from diesel.

“You don’t have the exhaust and you don’t have the noise. It’ll be really exciting to have the community quiet without the diesels running.”​
(680News)​


----------



## Macfury

If Toronto relied on barrels of diesel trucked in 800 miles, it would make sense for Ontario too.


----------



## FeXL

$52,000/person for solar that will provide energy for < 6 months of the year. Wonder what they figger the cost recovery is on that. Coupla hunnert years?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> $52,000/person for solar that will provide energy for < 6 months of the year. Wonder what they figger the cost recovery is on that. Coupla hunnert years?


It's a model for other northern communities to collect subsidies from the government. The article already says it isn't cost effective at all.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> It's a model for other northern communities to collect subsidies from the government. The article already says it isn't cost effective at all.


Sounds very much like the identical issues as the Alaskan investment in post 1443 above. When you actually need the energy, you ain't got none...


----------



## FeXL

Japan Gives Go Ahead To New Coal Fired Plants



> The Japanese government has decided to relax its opposition to coal-fired power.
> The country’s environment ministry issued objections to five new coal-fired stations in 2015 but the industry ministry has persuaded them to accept voluntary steps by power companies to curb emissions.


From the comments:



> Reality Bites, love it.
> Putting your nation before the UN, as it should, it is a pity the UK doesn’t do the same.


Or Canada...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Or Canada...


Or Alberta.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Or Alberta.


Yeah...


----------



## FeXL

Ya don't say...

Obama admits ‘solar and wind’ not ‘regular, reliable’ without ‘good ways to store power’



> PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Thanks to the investments we made in the Recovery Act we’ve seen huge gains in our advanced battery industry. Because, solar and wind don’t work unless we’ve got good ways to store power when the sun’s out or the winds blowing so that it can be used in a regular, reliable way.”
> 
> President Obama Speaks on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
> Jacksonville, FL
> February 26, 2016


Wonder how often batteries, switching gear, etc., gets costed into that whole "renewables are at parity with fossil fuels" meme...


----------



## CubaMark

*Indian Point nuclear plant called "disaster waiting to happen"*








The recent radioactive leak at New York's Indian Point nuclear power plant is prompting renewed calls for the site to be shut down, amid growing concerns about the potential damage a nuclear accident could do in one of the most densely populated parts of the country.

In the past year alone there have been a number of mishaps at Indian Point, including a power failure in the reactor core, a transformer fire, an alarm failure, and the escape of radiated water into groundwater. The plant sits about 25 miles north of New York City, so a serious mishap could potentially put millions of people in harm's way.

"It's a disaster waiting to happen and it should be shut down," Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, a watchdog organization dedicated to protecting the Hudson River, told CBS News.

* * *​
Gov. Andrew Cuomo is joining with organizations like Riverkeeper, the National Resources Defense Council and others in seeking the permanent closure of the plant.

* * *​
Earlier this month, Entergy Corporation, which owns Indian Point, reported increased levels of tritium-contaminated water at three monitoring wells, with one well's radioactivity increasing by as much as 65,000 percent.

* * *​
In a statement issued February 11, Cuomo, who has spent years fighting for the closure of Indian Point, said that the recent leak there had been getting worse. "Today, Entergy reported that the level of radioactive tritium-contaminated water that leaked into groundwater at the Indian Point Nuclear facility last week has increased by 80 percent since the initial report [February 5]," the statement read. Cuomo also directed the state's Departments of Environmental Conservation and Health to investigate the cause of the radioactive leak.​
(CBS News)


----------



## SINC

Now that's scary. That noted, nuclear power has been used successfully for years with only a few hiccups. Is this going to be another?


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Now that's scary. That noted, nuclear power has been used successfully for years with only a few hiccups. Is this going to be another?


That's the thing with current-generation nuclear fission plants: a "hiccup" has the potential to do enormous damage.

I think a lot of the degree of comfortableness people have with nuclear lies with the "out of sight, out of mind" nature of the nuclear waste disposal. It's an enormous (and for all intents and purposes, eternal) risk to health & environment.


----------



## FeXL

It's not a "hiccup". At best, it's shabby maintenance procedures & poor workmanship. At worst, it's negligence. It's not the physics that's failing, it's the human factor.

As SINC and I have both pointed out, executed properly, nuclear generation works just fine every day on this planet.



CubaMark said:


> That's the thing with current-generation nuclear fission plants: a "hiccup" has the potential to do enormous damage.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> It's not a "hiccup". At best, it's shabby maintenance procedures & poor workmanship. At worst, it's negligence. It's not the physics that's failing, it's the human factor.


Yep. The drive for profits, which means reduce inputs - like the human factor; maintenance; inspections; proper workmanship... 



FeXL said:


> As SINC and I have both pointed out, executed properly, nuclear generation works just fine every day on this planet.


Well, not every day. And then there's the matter of nuclear waste disposal... and that's not counting the illegal nuclear waste dumping!


----------



## FeXL

Is it the drive for profit?

Or is it because some government department ain't doing its job. US nuclear plants operate under _constant_ surveillance. Why have the existing issues not been brought up by government inspectors? And, if they have, why have they not been addressed?



CubaMark said:


> Yep. The drive for profits, which means reduce inputs - like the human factor; maintenance; inspections; proper workmanship...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Is it the drive for profit?
> 
> Or is it because some government department ain't doing its job.


Oh, so now you WANT more government regulation and oversight of private businesses?

It's so hard to keep things straight with you.... 

beejacon


----------



## FeXL

Nice job! High five's! You missed the point completely! Again...

You blamed the issues with this reactor on the free market. However, this reactor (as do all reactors in the US) operates under intense government scrutiny. Put 2 and 2 together. If there are issues with this reactor, then it follows that the gov't inspectors aren't doing their jobs...



CubaMark said:


> Oh, so now you WANT more government regulation and oversight of private businesses?


Not if you use facts & logic.



CubaMark said:


> It's so hard to keep things straight with you....


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Nice job! High five's! You missed the point completely! Again...


Uh, no - but I believe _you_ did....



FeXL said:


> You blamed the issues with this reactor on the free market. However, this reactor (as do all reactors in the US) operates under intense government scrutiny. Put 2 and 2 together. If there are issues with this reactor, then it follows that the gov't inspectors aren't doing their jobs...


*So you agree with me.* Capitalist enterprises will seek to maximize profits at all costs, including the cost to human health & security. That the nuclear power inspector regime did not succeed in heading off these problems isn't the point: if anything, it argues for an increased inspection effort.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> ....executed properly, nuclear generation works just fine every day on this planet.


And on the occasions when it is _not_ executed properly, it's not just a bad *day* on the planet.. it's a bad *forever*.

*Norway's Radioactive Reindeer*










_Thirty years ago, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster took place, releasing massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, which drifted across much of Russia and Europe. 

Today, Sami reindeer herders in central Norway are still affected by the fallout, as their herds feed on contaminated lichen and mushrooms. As reported by Amos Chapple and Wojtek Grojec, in this story from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Reindeer meat is a mainstay in the Scandinavian diet. The meat from one reindeer currently fetches around $400 for the Sami herders. But only if the deer isn’t too radioactive to eat.” 

Even though Norwegian authorities enforce a relatively high contamination limit for food (3,000 becquerels per kilogram—compared the EU limit of 600), some years—even as recently as 2014—reindeer pulled aside for slaughter have to be released back into the wild because they are too radioactive._​
(TheAtlantic)


----------



## Macfury

> Even though Norwegian authorities enforce a relatively high contamination limit for food (3,000 becquerels per kilogram—compared the EU limit of 600), some years—even as recently as 2014—reindeer pulled aside for slaughter have to be released back into the wild because they are too radioactive.


A lot of reindeer saying: "What good thing did I do to avoid being slaughtered!?


----------



## FeXL

It most certainly is the point. Did you read the link I provided? Inspections 10-25 times per year with increased vigilance when problems occur. 

From the NRC site:



> During the course of a year, NRC specialists may conduct *10 to 25 routine inspections at each nuclear power plant*, depending on the activities at the plants and problems that may occur. Team inspections regularly review fire protection, plant design, and corrective actions. Special team inspections may focus on a specific plant activity, such as maintenance or security, or *a team may be sent to the plant to look at a specific operating problem* or accident.


M'bold.

The problems at the plant in your link are nothing new. 

From your link:



> In the past year alone there have been a number of mishaps at Indian Point, including a power failure in the reactor core, a transformer fire, an alarm failure, and the escape of radiated water into groundwater.


Why haven't they been dealt with in the past by the gov't inspectors?

We don't need more inspectors. We need the inspectors who are there to do their damn jobs. This has nothing to do with those bastard capitalists because they can be shut down at any time for not following protocol, _by the gov't_.



CubaMark said:


> That the nuclear power inspector regime did not succeed in heading off these problems isn't the point: if anything, it argues for an increased inspection effort.


----------



## FeXL

Latest biomass plant fails to get off the ground.

Norwich’s Generation Park halted, with creditors owed £3m



> Let us be absolutely clear about this. The UEA, but in particular Trevor Davies, have blown a lot of public money on this pet scheme of theirs, based, it seems, on a very weak business case. Indeed, the only purpose the project seems to have had is to satisfy their desire to put the UEA and city at _“the forefront of carbon reduction”._
> 
> Not only have they wasted taxpayer money, they have also cost creditors a good deal.
> 
> There should now be a full investigation by the proper authorities, to decide whether this is a misuse of public money.


If?


----------



## FeXL

For some, it takes a while to sink in.

Better Late Than Never



> The EDP [Eastern Daily Press] has finally caught up with internet bloggers!
> 
> _Almost £13m has been spent by the University of East Anglia (UEA) on two environmental schemes that have not materialised, it has emerged.​_


----------



## FeXL

Most of these relate to renewables, going to post it here.

Energy News Round Up



> 1) Abengoa unit files for U.S. bankruptcy with up to $10 billion in debt
> 
> 2) Energy price war spreads to gas as US shale storms global market, stalks Russia
> 
> 3) Forget Paris: New EU Energy Security Framework Based On Natural Gas
> 
> 4) MIT Study: Green Energy Can’t Work Unless You Tax Everything
> 
> 5) Will cheap gas kill electric and hybrid cars?


From 4):

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have confirmed what many in the energy world already knew: *Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with conventional, more reliable power plants.*

M'bold.

So much for parity...


----------



## CubaMark

*Fukushima Disaster Nearly Destroyed Japan, Government Nuclear Safety Adviser Majored in Economics*








Japan’s prime minister at the time of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami has revealed the country came within a “paper-thin margin” of a nuclear disaster requiring the evacuation of 50 million people.

In an interview to mark the fifth anniversary of the disaster, Naoto Kan described the panic and disarray at the highest levels of the Japanese Government as it fought to control multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.

He said he considered evacuating Tokyo and all other areas within 250km of the plant, and declaring martial law. “The future existence of Japan as a whole was at stake,” he said. “Something on that scale, an evacuation of 50 million, it would have been like a losing a huge war.”

Kan admitted he was frightened and said he got “no clear information” out of Tepco, the plant’s operator.

He was “very shocked” by the performance of Nobuaki Terasaka, his government’s nuclear safety adviser.

“We asked him, ‘Do you know anything about nuclear issues?’

“And he said, ‘No, I majored in economics’.”​
(NZ Herald via Cryptogon)


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> We don't need more inspectors. We need the inspectors who are there to do their damn jobs. This has nothing to do with those bastard capitalists because they can be shut down at any time for not following protocol, _by the gov't_.


You don't trust the government; you do trust the government; you don't trust the government; you do trust the government;.... is there a scientific term for your condition? :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Yes, it's called PuttingUpWithMarks$hit...

'Sides, where did I give the impression anywhere that I trust the gov't?



CubaMark said:


> You don't trust the government; you do trust the government; you don't trust the government; you do trust the government;.... is there a scientific term for your condition? :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

So, how's renewables stacking up in Europe?

Renewable Energy In The EU



> I often look at the performance of renewables in the UK. Ed Hoskins has analysed EU performance, which is clearly no better than ours.
> 
> There are a couple of interesting graphs below.


----------



## CubaMark

*FPL nuclear plant canals leaking into Biscayne Bay, study confirms*

A radioactive isotope linked to water from power plant cooling canals has been found in high levels in Biscayne Bay, confirming suspicions that Turkey Point’s aging canals are leaking into the nearby national park.

* * *​
...water sampling in December and January found tritium levels up to 215 times higher than normal in ocean water. The report doesn’t address risks to the public or marine life but tritium is typically monitored as a “tracer” of nuclear power plant leaks or spills.

The study comes two weeks after a Tallahassee judge ordered the utility and the state to clean up the nuclear plant’s cooling canals after concluding that they had caused a massive underground saltwater plume to migrate west, threatening a wellfield that supplies drinking water to the Florida Keys. The judge also found the state failed to address the pollution by crafting a faulty management plan.

This latest test, critics say, raise new questions about what they’ve long suspected: That canals that began running too hot and salty the summer after FPL overhauled two reactors to produce more power could also be polluting the bay.​
(Miami Herald)


----------



## FeXL

OMG!!! 215 times normal!!! Better shut down every nukular reactor on the planet!!! Hurry, spend the money on renewables before somebody checks to see if this is actually an issue!!!

Do you research these topics before you go fear-mongering, CM? Do you? Are you so desperate to fulfill your wish of coating this planet with solar panels & windmills that you don't even bother with the most basic of questions? Like, what's the normal level of tritium in the environment?

'Cause I don't know a whole helluva lot about Tritium but the fist link I clicked on from a search engine just dispelled all the BS you spread here.

A bit of perspective:

Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards



> How does the radiation dose from nuclear power-related tritium compare to the dose a person receives from natural background radioactivity or from medical procedures?
> 
> *Tritium is present naturally in the environment and the radiation produced by natural tritium is identical to the radiation produced by tritium from nuclear power plants.
> 
> *The tritium dose from nuclear power plants is much lower than the exposures attributable to natural background radiation and medical administrations.
> 
> *Humans receive approximately 50% of their annual radiation dose from natural background radiation, 48% from medical procedures (e.g., x-rays), and 2% from consumer products. Doses from tritium and nuclear power plant releases account for less than 0.1% of the total background dose (NCRP, 2009) As an example, drinking water for a year from a well with 1,600 picocuries per liter of tritium (comparable to levels identified in a drinking water well after a significant tritiated water spill at a nuclear facility) would lead to a radiation dose (using EPA assumptions) of 0.3 millirem (mrem). That dose is:
> 
> o at least 2,000 to 5,000 times lower than the dose from a medical procedure involving a full-body computed tomography (CT) scan (e.g., 500 to 1,500 mrem from a CT scan)
> o 1,000 times lower than the approximate 300 mrem dose from natural background radiation
> o 50 times lower than the dose from natural radioactivity (potassium) in your body (e.g., 15 mrem from potassium)
> o 12 times lower than the dose from a round-trip cross-country airplane flight (e.g., 4 mrem from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles and back)


So, at 215x normal it's 9-23x less than the dose received from a CT scan and nearly 5x less than natural background radiation.

Your chemistry lesson is done for the day. Your homework assignment needs to be handed in before day's end & don't forget to study, this will be on the mid-term...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Do you research these topics before you go fear-mongering, CM? Do you? Are you so desperate....
> 
> So, at 215x normal it's 9-23x less than the dose received from a CT scan and nearly 5x less than natural background radiation......
> 
> Your chemistry lesson is done for the day. Your homework assignment needs to be handed in before day's end & don't forget to study, this will be on the mid-term...


By Jeebus, you are the most unpleasant, confrontational, egotistical, childish person I have ever come pixel-to-pixel with in an online forum. tptptptp

Read the first sentence of the article I cited:

"A radioactive isotope linked to water from power plant cooling canals has been found in high levels in Biscayne Bay, confirming suspicions that Turkey Point’s aging canals are leaking into the nearby national park."​
Do you see anywhere in that or the rest of my post any "fear mongering"? Any declarations that a massive radiation-induced apocalypse is about to descend upon the people of Florida? No, because I did not make any such allegation.

Turkey Point's canals are leaking outside of its designated zone. That's it. It's a failure in containment of the internal environment. It is an _indication_ that all is not right with that plant. What's the saying? "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Turkey Point appears to have issues it has so far been unable to control. Only further investigation (by those inspectors who you trust / don't trust / need to up their game / whatever) can reveal what's happening there.

YOU are the hyped-up-on-righteousness excitable child who continues to launch hyperbole, distort reality via innuendo and "truths" that you create out of thin air. YOU are the internet bully who loves nothing more than to whack people upside the head from behind, and then laugh to your feeble-minded friends while looking for affirmation that "Yeah, you're a big man!",

You are a waste of time to anyone who engages with you. My masochistic streak has taken us this far, and while this is a minor issue upon which to do it, we have arrived at the straw / camel scenario.

Adios, you unlikable little man. Enjoy your bully days. Like the quintessential high school quarterback who enjoyed mountains of attention and peaked at 17, you too shall pass into oblivion and be forgotten. It can't happen soon enough.


----------



## FeXL

Time to deal with this. 

First off, a great big, fat, "WOOHOO!!!" More on that later.

Yes, when you included the "215x" number in your quote without any additional perspective, clarification or explanation.



CubaMark said:


> Do you see anywhere in that or the rest of my post any "fear mongering"? Any declarations that a massive radiation-induced apocalypse is about to descend upon the people of Florida?


What's it like to be so insecure that an online forum can drive you into such paroxysms of hyperbole?

"...whack people upside the head from behind..."?

"...laugh to your feeble-minded friends..."?

Serious?

"Yeah, you're a big man!"?

Telegraphing, much?



CubaMark said:


> YOU are the internet bully who loves nothing more than to whack people upside the head from behind, and then laugh to your feeble-minded friends while looking for affirmation that "Yeah, you're a big man!",


Masochistic? You? And here I thought these little tete a tetes were rather endearing, continuously reinforcing the fact that you couldn't argue your way out of a wet, paper sack, you are incapable of empirically defending your position without _ad hominem_ attacks against many people on these boards and you are a self-avowed hypocrite, PhD an' all...



CubaMark said:


> My masochistic streak has taken us this far, and while this is a minor issue upon which to do it, we have arrived at the straw / camel scenario.


Promise? No, really, promise?

You mean I no longer have any of this to look forward to?

Pardon me while I shout out a massive and heartfelt, "WOOHOO!!!"

You say goodbye like it's a bad thing. I'm having significant difficulty finding anything negative about it...



CubaMark said:


> Adios, you unlikable little man.


I'll be many things when I'm gone. And, not that it matters to me one way or t'other but, forgotten will _not_ be one of them. And, even if I'm gone tomorrow, at least I won't die a hypocrite...



CubaMark said:


> ...you too shall pass into oblivion and be forgotten. It can't happen soon enough.


----------



## FeXL

Back on topic.

British biomass burner Drax under investigation.

New Report Seeks Securities and Exchange Commission Investigation of Misleading Climate Claims by Biomass Industry Giant



> _The report highlights misleading claims from Enviva’s SEC filings and public statements in three main areas:
> 
> 1) Company claims that burning wood pellets reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal, without disclosing that emissions from burning the pellets are not included in the tally – just the emissions from pellet manufacturing and transport.
> 
> 2) Complex and contradictory statements that obscure Enviva’s use of whole trees for pellets, including mature hardwoods and wetland forests that are not replanted.
> 
> 3) Inaccurate and misleading portrayals of current US and European policy developments, such as incorrect statements about EPA’s regulation of wood-burning power plants, and failure to disclose decreases in bioenergy subsidies for a major Enviva customer in the UK, Drax Power.​_


Related:

Wood-pellet fuel emits more carbon than coal’: U.S. watchdog to probe shock claims on power giant Drax’s ‘green’ supplier



> _Britain’s biggest power station has been plunged into crisis by a bombshell complaint to America’s financial regulator over its biggest supplier of ‘green’ fuel.
> 
> The complaint alleges that the supplier to the Drax plant in North Yorkshire, US group Enviva, used a loophole in EU and UK law to falsely claim to American investors that its wood-pellet fuel emits far less carbon dioxide than coal.
> 
> *It also attacks Enviva’s claims that its operations are ‘certified’ for ‘sustainability’. In fact, the UK body responsible for such certification – chaired by Dorothy Thompson, who is also chief executive of Drax – is still auditing Enviva.*​_


M'bold.

Oh, I'd like to see a bit of disinfectant sunshine on this...


----------



## SINC

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

An excellent read:



> *Twenty Bad Things About Wind Energy, and Three Reasons Why*
> 
> Editor note: This is an updated version of a previous post at MasterResource: “Wind Spin: Misdirection and Fluff by a Taxpayer-enabled Industry” which was itself an update of “Fifteen Bad Things About Wind Energy, and Three Reasons Why,” one of the two most read posts in the history of MasterResource.
> 
> Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle, it morphs into a different shape and escapes your grasp. Let’s take a quick highlight review of how things have evolved with wind merchandising.


https://www.masterresource.org/grassroots-opposition/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> An excellent read:


Nice summary.


----------



## FeXL

Renewables industry collapsing in Europe — still a $329 billion subsidised global cash cow



> Here’s a detail that tells us how big the malinvestment is here. There are nearly half a million people in Europe working in wind and solar to generate expensive electricity:
> 
> _Jobs are being lost as a result. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, employment in solar photovoltaics in Europe fell by more than a third to 165,000 jobs in 2013, the last year for which it has yet collated figures. Jobs in wind energy rose slightly, by more than 5% in 2013, to nearly 320,000 across the bloc, with more than half of these in Germany.​_
> *Imagine if those people were doing something useful?*


M'bold.

Yep.

Imagine if this money & energy were funnelled into medical research, providing clean, drinkable water for humans, livestock & plant food, etc.


----------



## FeXL

Bloomberg’s Renewable Fantasyland



> *He fails to explain why, if costs of wind/solar are so low, they need any subsidies at all.*
> 
> But let’s look more closely at his claimed costings, which I always take with a large pinch of salt. They certainly don’t stack up against what the US EIA is saying.
> 
> According to them, the cost of onshore wind is $73.60/MWh, and solar $125.30. Note also that they are based on unrealistically high capacity factors of 36% and 25%. DECC’s figures for the UK are 26% and 11%.


M'bold.

Good question...

In sum:



> It is not difficult to see why renewables are seen in the UK as ludicrously expensive.
> 
> *It is a sad state of affairs when a supposed expert from Bloomberg has such difficulty with simple facts.*
> 
> If costs really are as Mr Leibreich suggests, then let wind and solar operators bring their installations to the UK, and operate without subsidies, and on the basis that they will have to compete on the open market to sell their output with no guarantee that they will be able to sell it all.
> 
> Somehow, I don’t think we’ll be buried in the rush!


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Rolls-Royce angling as medium term solution to UK power crisis



> Rolls-Royce is engaged in discussion with the UK government over the possibility of its expertise being used to develop small modular nuclear reactors as an alternative to larger projects such as the controversial Hinkley Point C plant.
> 
> The company argues that the mini reactors it is championing are a more viable medium-term solution to Britain’s looming energy crisis, although the first crop of new large reactors will still need to be deployed.


It'll never happen. The left don't like nuclear...


----------



## SINC

Yep. 

Germans Face Wind Powered Economic Nightmare: €Billions Squandered on Subsidies, as CO2 Emissions Rise – STOP THESE THINGS


----------



## SINC

3D solar towers offer up to 20 times more power output than traditional flat solar panels


----------



## CubaMark

_An interesting read...._

*Saudi Arabia Plans $2 Trillion Megafund for Post-Oil Era: Deputy Crown Prince*


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _An interesting read...._
> 
> *Saudi Arabia Plans $2 Trillion Megafund for Post-Oil Era: Deputy Crown Prince*


Not really an alternative energy story though.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Not really an alternative energy story though.


But it is significant, as the second-largest oil-producing country (after Russia) is contemplating a future post-oil. Saudi Arabia is making large investments in domestic solar energy production, too.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> But it is significant, as the second-largest oil-producing country (after Russia) is contemplating a future post-oil. Saudi Arabia is making large investments in domestic solar energy production, too.


Yes, I remember that. I think the bigger story is that oil is becoming so inexpensive that it will be around for a long time to come.


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> Yes, I remember that. I think the bigger story is that oil is becoming so inexpensive that it will be around for a long time to come.


Especially now that we know there is a lot more of it than we ever thought there was.


----------



## FeXL

China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted



> The Chinese government isn’t building any new wind turbines because most of the new electricity created was wasted, causing serious damage to the country’s electrical grid.


More:



> The amount of electricity generated by a wind turbine is very intermittent and doesn’t coincide with the times of day when power is most needed. This poses an enormous safety challenge to grid operators and makes power grids vastly more fragile.


Further:



> “*We’ve known for a long time that levelized cost comparisons understate the cost of wind and solar because such estimates don’t take into account the cost of building new transmission from remote wind-rich generation sites to population centers*,” Marlo Lewis, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “*But now we find another cost should be included when new transmission lines aren’t built: the wasted power that can’t be delivered.*”


M'bold.

Yep.

So much for parity. Or should that be, parody...


----------



## FeXL

*Because it's 2015!*

Terence Corcoran: Clean, green and catastrophic



> In Washington Thursday, Prime Minister Trudeau brought his Liberal green message to Washington, telling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that green industries are the backbone of a strong economy.
> 
> Maybe it depends on what “backbone” means and on one’s definition of a “strong economy.” The latest news on green and clean energy fails to support the standard definitions of either concept. *In the wake of government action around the world, industrial plants are closing, so-called green operations are failing, prices are soaring, subsidies are rampant, jobs are being lost, competitiveness eroded and energy consumers, especially the poor, are threatened by regressive carbon taxes.
> 
> What’s green and clean is turning catastrophic.*


M'bold.

Not news to anyone who has been paying attention.


----------



## FeXL

Wonder of wonders...

Temporary Reprieves For Fiddlers Ferry & Eggborough



> Following the closure of Longannet and Ferrybridge coal power stations last week, there is news that the other two due to close, Fiddlers Ferry and Eggborough may have a temporary reprieve.


So, why the reversal of policy? Wouldn't have anything to do with this?

How is Britain going green? By shutting down industry



> *Britain has the highest energy costs in Europe*, thanks to decisions taken not in Brussels but in Whitehall. Crusaders like Ms Leadsom have, over the years, made sure that our manufacturers feel the force of green levies, unlike Germany, which exempts its own industry. The idea is that by making energy more expensive, people are encouraged to use less of it. This is working very effectively, as the soon-to-be-unemployed Welsh steelworkers will attest. If the plant closes, carbon emissions in Port Talbot will fall dramatically.


M'bold.

More:



> If manufacturing simply transfers abroad, that won’t do a thing to reduce global carbon emissions. It is pure industrial suicide. David Cameron’s government is now considering what it can do to help the steelworks. He ought to have thought it all through more carefully before signing up to Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act. *The prospects for British factories will improve when we stop blaming the Chinese for being so competitive and realise that the problem lies not in Beijing, but at the Treasury and the Department for Energy and Climate Change.*


M'bold.

Related (different link, same title):

How is Britain going green? By shutting down industry


----------



## FeXL

So, despite the injection of millions of taxpayer dollars as subsidies, they _still_ can't make it happen...

Jolly green giants toppled



> The companies named in the second headline are two of the largest players in the renewables field, so it's pretty big news that they are on the brink of exctinction, despite all the millions in taxpayers' money that has been poured into them by wise and noble politicians.
> 
> Who knows, perhaps there might be room in the marketplace for coal-fired power stations after all.


Good. Whatever it takes to educate the public on what kind of fraud renewables really are...


----------



## FeXL

Further on all things green & subsequent fallout.

Green Energy Catastrophe



> 1) SunEdison, The World’s Largest Green Energy Company Is Facing Bankruptcy.
> 
> 2) Spain’s Abengoa Files for Chapter 15 Bankruptcy in U.S.
> 
> 3) TATA to sell UK steel operation
> 
> 4) The GWPF calls for the fifth carbon budget to be delayed
> 
> 5) China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted
> 
> 6) EDF engineers urge delay for Hinkley Point C


Related:

Solar Firms Going To The Wall



> Two renewable energy companies have closed in the wake of cuts to government subsidies which have dried up order books and driven firms into liquidation.


Wait a minute... I thought there was parity. If there truly is parity & fossil based systems can make it without subsidies, why can't renewables? Things that make you go hmmm.

Sunny daze...


----------



## FeXL

So, in the midst of billions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies, shuttering coal-powered electrical generators, renewables bankruptcies, increasing unemployment, industry deserting, skyrocketing electrical costs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

What else can we glean from this wunnerful little socialist experiment?

Well, quite frankly, it kills people..

Green Europe Lets Its Poor Freeze To Death



> NoTricks has details of a documentary film to be aired tonight on European television station ARTE. The documentary presents how Europe’s electricity prices are spiralling out of control, and the horrible consequences this is having on the continent’s citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> The situation, we are discovering, is far more disturbing than even the earlier worst case scenarios every imagined. FOCUS reports (emphasis added):
> 
> _In 2014 in Europe there were about *40,000 winter deaths because millions of people were unable to pay for their electric bills* – the so-called energy poverty currently *impacts about ten percent of all Europeans.* In the past 8 years the price of electricity in Europe has climbed by an average of 42 percent.”​_


Bold from the link.

I hope you bastards are proud of yourselves... tptptptp


----------



## FeXL

The folly continues...

Booker On The Looming Energy Disaster



> _far darker shadow is hanging over Britain than that of the collapse of our steel industry. As she is the sister of a leading figure in the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, we may not be surprised by the warning from Amber Rudd, our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, that “Brexit” would raise our energy bills by £500 million a year. Her brother Roland, as a key behind-the-scenes strategist for Stronger in Europe, might be described as “the Rudd who doesn’t want us to leave the sinking ship”.
> 
> But in making that “half a billion a year” claim, Ms Rudd must hope that we don’t recall those recent figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility projecting that within four years – due entirely to her own Government’s policies – *we will be paying £13.6 billion a year in climate change levies alone, up a further £7.6 billion from the year just ending*.​_


Guess there'll be a few more dead this winter...


----------



## FeXL

This is an interesting story about a small business that refused to negotiate in a buyout by a larger local chain. Not much that's related to this thread topic, right?

However, if you read further, you run across a short paragraph that speaks volumes.

Sunripe rejects buyout from Ottawa grocery chain. “They aren’t us,” says Willemsen



> With LED lighting and a natural gas generator Willemsen says the store will be able to go off the Provincial power grid.
> 
> *“Natural gas is so inexpensive that we will be able to produce our own electricity cheaper than buying it from Hydro One”.*


M'bold.

Stunning...


----------



## CubaMark

*Heritage Gas price outrage fuels commercial customer exodus*

A Halifax landlord says soaring prices and shabby treatment by Heritage Gas is driving him to switch from natural gas to propane.

"Close to a 400 per cent increase, which is nothing we have ever experienced before with any other commodity," said Peter Giannoulis Jr. of Cosmos Properties.

Cosmos is one of dozens of commercial customers that have moved to propane. 

One of the region's largest landlords, Killam Properties, told CBC News it has converted two of its apartment buildings to propane.

Giannoulis Jr. says his company has already switched some of its properties over and is evaluating whether to do so at the rest.

"We did not want to go to this step, but we have to think of our own financial situation," 

* * *​
The landlords say they invested $350,000 converting their buildings to natural gas three years ago.

When they first started using natural gas the price was around $4 per gigajoule, but jumped to about $20 per gigajoule within a year.

"When the price to heat buildings goes up three to four times, it's not something can sustain,"​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

> To stop the exodus of companies like Cosmos, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board gave Heritage Gas approval this week to slash prices for about 1,100 commercial customers.


It's a shame that the government regulatory agency kept prices abnormally high for so long.




CubaMark said:


> *Heritage Gas price outrage fuels commercial customer exodus*
> 
> A Halifax landlord says soaring prices and shabby treatment by Heritage Gas is driving him to switch from natural gas to propane.
> 
> "Close to a 400 per cent increase, which is nothing we have ever experienced before with any other commodity," said Peter Giannoulis Jr. of Cosmos Properties.
> 
> Cosmos is one of dozens of commercial customers that have moved to propane.
> 
> One of the region's largest landlords, Killam Properties, told CBC News it has converted two of its apartment buildings to propane.
> 
> Giannoulis Jr. says his company has already switched some of its properties over and is evaluating whether to do so at the rest.
> 
> "We did not want to go to this step, but we have to think of our own financial situation,"
> 
> * * *​
> The landlords say they invested $350,000 converting their buildings to natural gas three years ago.
> 
> When they first started using natural gas the price was around $4 per gigajoule, but jumped to about $20 per gigajoule within a year.
> 
> "When the price to heat buildings goes up three to four times, it's not something can sustain,"​
> (CBC)


----------



## SINC

Yep, that is true.


----------



## zen.state

@SINC

Maybe you shouldn't use these trashy images with text to make points. Especially with such bad grammar. It reads as if the reader has a Russian accent.

All trash does is show that you're trash. Is that the profile you want out there? Think about it.

To all the neocons out there... you're not helping yourselves when you take every opportunity you can to show how subhuman you are. You're part of a society, so act like it.


----------



## SINC

zen.state said:


> @SINC
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't use these trashy images with text to make points. Especially with such bad grammar. It reads as if the reader has a Russian accent.
> 
> All trash does is show that you're trash. Is that the profile you want out there? Think about it.
> 
> To all the neocons out there... you're not helping yourselves when you take every opportunity you can to show how subhuman you are. You're part of a society, so act like it.


Every once in a while I like to post things at the left's level to be sure they get the message.


----------



## CubaMark

From the ultra-lefty Bloomberg business site 

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Bloomberg

Rather than cite little bits, best to read it all.


----------



## FeXL

Yep. Crushing, all right...

Germany To Abandon $1.1 Trillion Wind Power Program By 2019



> Germany plans to stop building new wind farms by 2019, gradually turning away from its $1.1 trillion wind power program, according to a Thursday report in Berliner Zeitung.
> 
> The government plans to cap the total amount of wind energy at 40 to 45 percent of national capacity, according to the report. By 2019, this policy would cause a massive reduction of 6,000 megawatts of wind power capacity compared to the end of 2015’s capacity.
> 
> “The domestic market for many [wind turbine] manufacturers collapses completely,” Julia Verlinden, a spokesperson for the German Green Party, told Berliner Zeitung.


More:



> The government estimates that it will spend over $1.1 trillion financially supporting wind power, *even though building wind turbines hasn’t achieved the government’s goal of actually reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.*
> 
> Germany *created lucrative subsidies and tax benefits for wind power in 2011* after it decided to abandon nuclear power entirely by 2022 following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. German utilities are already suing the government for $21 billion over the nuclear shutdown plan.
> 
> *Electricity from new wind power is nearly four times as expensive as electricity from existing nuclear power plants*, according to analysis from the Institute for Energy Research. The rising cost of subsidies is passed onto ordinary rate-payers, which has triggered complaints that poor households are subsidizing the affluent.


M'bold.

This article doesn't even begin to touch on the subject of the near impossibility of balancing grid loads with the intermittency of large renewable generation.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> From the ultra-lefty Bloomberg business site
> 
> Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Bloomberg
> 
> Rather than cite little bits, best to read it all.


I read it all. Pretty awful article because it counts government subsidies as "growth." It also fails to account for its own failure of internal logic--falling fossil fuel prices are bad while falling solar prices make it competitive? 

Yes, we'll see more use of solar. No, so-called renewables are not "crushing" fossil fuels.
Bloomberg himself is a lefty, so the slant of the article is not surprising.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I read it all. Pretty awful article because it counts government subsidies as "growth." It also fails to account for its own failure of internal logic--falling fossil fuel prices are bad while falling solar prices make it competitive?


I read it, too. There were so many holes in the argument that it wasn't even worthwhile addressing.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Germany's wind future.

German govt plans will “kill” wind industry



> Sigmar Gabriel, the German Economy Minister, has announced they’d like to amend the Renewable Energies Act (EEG) in the next few months or so. The plan is for the total amount of renewable energy on the grid to be capped at 40 – 45% by 2025. It was at 33% at the end of 2015 but was still climbing rapidly. Check out the eyewatering transition being planned now:
> 
> _A study by consultants ERA on behalf of the Green Party’s parliamentary group concludes that under these provisions the development of wind energy will collapse fairly soon: A target of 45 percent would mean that only 1500 megawatts could be installed annually after 2018, according to the study. That’s less than half as the average of wind energy installed in the past five days.​_
> Boom, meet Bust.


----------



## MacGuiver

zen.state said:


> @SINC
> To all the neocons out there... you're not helping yourselves when you take every opportunity you can to show how subhuman you are. You're part of a society, so act like it.


I don't follow the logic where pointing out the fact that windmills are bird choppers makes you "subhuman"? I thought the left was all about the environment and animal welfare?


----------



## CubaMark

Forget subsidies, some companies are doing everything they can to keep users from 'going solar', including adding taxes!

Solar tax to delay solar a desperate money making move | Scoop News


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Forget subsidies, some companies are doing everything they can to keep users from 'going solar', including adding taxes!
> 
> Solar tax to delay solar a desperate money making move | Scoop News


If they don't want to pay for being hooked up to the grid, they should disconnect from it.


----------



## vancouverdave

It might make sense to separate distribution (grid hookup for buyer or supplier) fees from unit consumption rates.


----------



## Macfury

vancouverdave said:


> It might make sense to separate distribution (grid hookup for buyer or supplier) fees from unit consumption rates.


That's what they're doing. The solar users are free to disconnect, but if they want to sell back to the grid or want to have back-up grid power, they pay the grid fee.


----------



## heavyall

zen.state said:


> To all the neocons out there...


Who? I've yet to meet a Canadian neocon. Do they even exist?


----------



## FeXL

So, not being a rocket surgeon, I'm having difficulty figgerin' this one out...

If the price of your electricity is so high that building power lines from China so they can supply you with coal-fired power makes financial sense, don't you have a bigger problem in the first place?

China Looks To Export Surplus Energy To Germany



> _China’s proposed investments in long-distance, ultra-high voltage (UHV) power transmission lines will pave the way for power exports as far as Germany, the head of the national power grid said on Tuesday as he launched an initiative for cross-border power connections.
> 
> Exporting power to central Asia and beyond falls into China’s “one belt, one road” ambitions to export industrial overcapacity and engineering expertise as it faces slowing growth at home. The plan would allow enormous hydropower dams, coal-fired power plants and wind farms in frontier regions such as Xinjiang to sell into higher-priced markets overseas. The “belt” refers to the land route from Asia to Europe, while the “road”, curiously, refers to the sea route via the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Talk of exporting power is a reversal for China, which as recently as 2004 suffered rolling blackouts across its manufacturing heartland. But huge investments in power in the decade since, and the construction of a number of dams, nuclear reactors and coal-fired plants due to begin operating in the next 10 years, mean the country faces a growing surplus.
> 
> Liu Zhenya, chairman of State Grid, told reporters that *wind and thermal power produced in Xinjiang could reach Germany at half the current cost of electricity there. *“There are so many resources, but no market. We need to find it externally.”​_


M'bold.

Jes' askin'...


----------



## FeXL

Just because you're third world, doesn't mean you're stupid...

Green energy dropping out of mix in developing world



> _Developing countries that already have a high share of renewable energy in their power mix are unlikely to grow this share further due to *skyrocketing demand for cheap electricity*, a report warns.
> The study by intergovernmental organisation the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) says that many developing countries made huge strides towards deploying renewable technologies over the past decade — but this rise is now levelling off. *Instead, these countries are turning towards fossil fuels to meet the energy demands of their citizens*, IRENA says.​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

First world politicians, on the other hand...

Treasury Dept. sitting on solar scandal far worse than Solyndra



> For more than three years, the Treasury Department has been looking into fraud committed by solar companies who received taxpayer loans from the Obama administration. *But they have yet to release their findings, and Congress wants to know what the hell is going on.*


M'bold.

More:



> That solar program appears to be little better than a slush fund for Democratic Party contributors. When there's $25 billion in basically free money floating around, the charlatans and crooks will have a field day. That appears to be what transpired here.
> 
> It's no mystery why Treasury is dragging its heel on the investigation. Solar power is part of the president's ever burgeoning "legacy," and to have a multi-billion-dollar scandal taint it just won't do. When government picks winners and losers, you will inevitably see those who have figured out how to game the system to cheat taxpayers while lining their pockets illegally.


----------



## SINC

https://www.technocracy.news/index....ternative-energy-industry-full-meltdown-mode/

Pending Bankruptcy Of Largest Solar Company Puts Alternative Energy Industry Into Full Meltdown Mode


----------



## Macfury

But CubaMark keeps saying that solar is kicking ass... not sucking it.



SINC said:


> https://www.technocracy.news/index....ternative-energy-industry-full-meltdown-mode/
> 
> Pending Bankruptcy Of Largest Solar Company Puts Alternative Energy Industry Into Full Meltdown Mode


----------



## FeXL

Further on China selling electricity to Germany.

Coal power on the rise: Will China end up selling electricity to Germany?



> Get a load of this. *China has been adding a new idle coal fired plant nearly every week. It is building 368 coal fired plants and planning a further 803.* The Greens think the Chinese have over capitalized, made a bubble, and have built a bunch of white elephants (maybe they have). But Germany has crippled its electrical generators in order to make the weather cooler, and pays exorbitant prices per kilowatt hour that are driving businesses overseas. Merkel is still trying to get solar power to work in a land where the only thing that will make the current panels economic is if the Earth changes its orbital tilt.
> 
> Well say hello to the savvy Chinese investors who may be able to solve both problems. It seems hard to believe but all that surplus energy might just find its way to Germany. With new ultra hot coal power there is talk they can produce electricity so incredibly cheap they can send it on ultra high voltage lines all the way to Berlin. Barking? They’ll probably earn carbon credits for doing it too.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, the only way they remain financially viable is if the price of electricity is high.

Hundreds of Dutch green energy windmills operating at a loss



> _Hundreds of wind turbines in the Netherlands are operating at a loss and are in danger of being demolished. The main cause is the very low energy prices, which mean that the maintaining the turbines cost more than what the generated energy bring in, the Financieele Dagblad reports based on own research.
> 
> Subsidies for generating wind energy are in many cases no longer cost-effective. Smaller, older windmills in particular are running at a loss, but even newer mills are struggling to be profitable with insufficient subsidies.​_


In a free market, sans taxpayer funded gov't subsidies, this renewable energy albatross would not be on our backs...


----------



## FeXL

Another one bites the dust...

Happy Earth Day: Company Once Considered ‘Poster Child’ Of Clean Energy Files For Bankruptcy



> It’s one thing when government decides to run your business into the ground thanks the endless red tape, which is what President Obama is doing with coal. It’s another thing to go under because Americans simply want affordable energy, carbon emission be damned (and rightfully so), and don’t want to pay a lot of money. I know, how rational of them. SunEdison was once a $10 billion giant in the clean energy business. It has now filed for Chapter 11 protections, while also showing that clean energy isn’t the future. It’s only a great way to burn a lot of other people’s money


More:



> Energy for America estimated that we could have enough *energy from coal for an additional 9,800 years, 580 years for natural gas, and 530 years for oil.*


M'bold.

More than enough time for an affordable, dependable, free-market solution to develop...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> More than enough time for an affordable, dependable, free-market solution to develop...


The renewed urgency for getting on the green bandwagon has nothing to do with either some imaginary tipping point for global warming, or because we are missing out on some incredible business opportunity. It's stark, raving fear over the increased efficiency of extracting virtually unlimited supplies of fossil fuels at affordable prices.


----------



## CubaMark

*New Record Set for World's Cheapest Solar*

The price of solar power dipped to another record low on May 1 when five international companies bid as little as 2.99 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to develop the latest phase of work at Dubai’s enormous Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum solar park, which will be one of Earth’s largest solar plants when complete.

* * *​
“This not only marks the lowest cost ever for solar power, but also easily beats all available fossil-fuel options in Dubai on cost,” explained Dr. Moritz Borgmann, a partner at of the cleantech advisory group Apricum.

* * *​
Case in point: Borgmann pointed that the state utility, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), gave its planned 1,200-megawatt coal-fired Hassyan power station a much higher tariff of 4.501 cents per kWh.

Meanwhile, the power produced from natural gas—the United Arab Emirates’s main source of power—costs 7 cents per kWh on average.

How does Dubai’s record-low solar tariff compare to the U.S.? As Electrek pointed out:



> In the USA, in 2014 and with incentives, utility scale solar projects averaged $.05/kWh. On this bid alone, five companies bid below $.045/kW—without subsidies!



(EcoWatch)


----------



## Macfury

What is the cost to the consumer?



CubaMark said:


> *New Record Set for World's Cheapest Solar*
> 
> The price of solar power dipped to another record low on May 1 when five international companies bid as little as 2.99 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to develop the latest phase of work at Dubai’s enormous Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum solar park, which will be one of Earth’s largest solar plants when complete.
> 
> * * *​
> “This not only marks the lowest cost ever for solar power, but also easily beats all available fossil-fuel options in Dubai on cost,” explained Dr. Moritz Borgmann, a partner at of the cleantech advisory group Apricum.
> 
> * * *​
> Case in point: Borgmann pointed that the state utility, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), gave its planned 1,200-megawatt coal-fired Hassyan power station a much higher tariff of 4.501 cents per kWh.
> 
> Meanwhile, the power produced from natural gas—the United Arab Emirates’s main source of power—costs 7 cents per kWh on average.
> 
> How does Dubai’s record-low solar tariff compare to the U.S.? As Electrek pointed out:
> ​
> (EcoWatch)


----------



## FeXL

Build a wind turbine on your land, receive a construction lien?

Huron East farmers hit with $32 million liens by wind turbine construction contractors



> Over $32 million in construction liens have been placed against St. Columban area farms. In many cases, it seems, they were applied without the farmers’ knowledge.
> 
> Six liens, valued at over $32 million, have been applied to local properties by wind turbine construction contractors, according to the Service Canada registry. From documents obtained four of the six liens have been applied since June 2015.
> 
> In addition, three Superior Court Certificates indicate that legal action has been initiated and, according to court records obtained Oct. 5, 2015, this continues to be an ongoing issue.


----------



## FeXL

Issues 2016: What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?



> Some of America’s most prominent politicians want national mandates for renewable electricity. Had these politicians considered the surge in electricity costs that have occurred in Europe in recent years, they might have been less eager to push such mandates.
> Key Findings
> 
> * Between 2005, when the EU adopted its Emissions Trading Scheme, and 2014, residential electricity rates in the EU increased by 63 percent, on average; over the same period, residential rates in the U.S. rose by 32 percent.
> * EU countries that have intervened the most in their energy markets—Germany, Spain, and the U.K.—have seen their electricity costs increase the fastest: during 2008–12, Germany’s residential electricity rates increased by 78 percent, Spain’s rose by 111 percent, and the U.K.’s soared by 133 percent.


Link to PDF paper inside.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Issues 2016: What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?
> 
> 
> 
> Link to PDF paper inside.


"Progressive" governments don't see this as a problem if they are to serve Gaia.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Issues 2016: What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....EU countries that have intervened the most in their energy markets—Germany, Spain, and the U.K.—have seen their electricity costs increase the fastest: during 2008–12, Germany’s residential electricity rates increased by 78 percent....
Click to expand...

_*And yet.....*_

Germany had so much renewable energy on Sunday that it had to pay people to use electricity

On Sunday, May 8, Germany hit a new high in renewable energy generation. Thanks to a sunny and windy day, at one point around 1pm the country’s solar, wind, hydro and biomass plants were supplying about 55 GW of the 63 GW being consumed, or 87%. Power prices actually went negative for several hours, meaning commercial customers were being paid to consume electricity.








“We have a greater share of renewable energy every year,” said Christoph Podewils of Agora. “The power system adapted to this quite nicely. This day shows again that a system with large amounts of renewable energy works fine.”

Critics have argued that because of the daily peaks and troughs of renewable energy—as the sun goes in and out and winds rise and fall—it will always have only a niche role in supplying power to major economies. But that’s looking less and less likely. Germany plans to hit 100% renewable energy by 2050, and Denmark’s wind turbines already at some points generate more electricity than the country consumes, exporting the surplus to Germany, Norway and Sweden.

Germany’s power surplus on Sunday wasn’t all good news. The system is still too rigid for power suppliers and consumers to respond quickly to price signals. Though gas power plants were taken offline, nuclear and coal plants can’t be quickly shut down, so they went on running and had to pay to sell power into the grid for several hours, while industrial customers such as refineries and foundries earned money by consuming electricity.​
(Quartz)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _*And yet.....*_


At least you were honest in clipping the article. If the price of power has doubled and for a few hours you pay businesses--but not residents--to consume power, there is no benefit, especially to the suffering public.


----------



## FeXL

Sure. Until the last of the coal-fired plants are shut down in the near future.

We'll see how honest an assessment you make about all the brown- & blackouts then...



CubaMark said:


> _*And yet.....*_


----------



## FeXL

BBC’s False Claims About China Solar Power Exposed



> Dr David Campbell, Professor of Law, tore to shreds the latest piece of blatant propaganda from the BBC, as I reported yesterday here.
> 
> Essentially, the BBC Radio 4 programme, Costing the Earth, enthusiastically described the extremely vigorous growth of the Chinese solar energy industry. It concluded that this growth was an important part of developments that undermined what was pejoratively labelled the ‘China excuse’ for western countries not to adopt very demanding emissions reductions targets, the excuse being that the size of Chinese emissions made those targets pointless. Far from China’s emissions and projected emissions making such targets pointless, this growth was changing China’s energy mix in a way that would so reduce China’s emissions as to allow western reductions to succeed. In particular, ‘China’s coal consumption’, it was claimed, is ‘now declining’.
> 
> Professor Campbell, being a legal expert, naturally produced a detailed demolition of the BBC claims, and in doing so showed their naivety and dishonesty. As was pointed out though, there is maybe a need for a simple statement of the facts, which would serve the same purpose.


Biased Beeb?  Ya don't say...


----------



## FeXL

Just when you thought we'd poured enough taxpayer subsidized foodstuffs into our gas tanks, the EPA says it's not enough.

EPA wants to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline



> The Environmental Protection Agency wants to increase the amount of renewable fuel in the nation's gasoline supply by about 700 million gallons in 2017.
> 
> The agency proposed adding 18.8 billion gallons of renewable fuel to gasoline in 2017 in the newest Renewable Fuel Standard announced Wednesday afternoon. That would cause renewable fuel to make up 10.44 percent of the nation's gasoline supply in 2017, the EPA said.


Further:



> The proposed standard could push past the blend wall, which oil companies characterize as the point at which a car's engine can be harmed by having too much ethanol in gasoline. About two-thirds of the vehicles on the road are covered for the damage in their warranties, according to biofuel groups.


Well, I'm sure that the auto manufacturers will sleep at night, knowing they'll be on the hook for a bunch of warranty work. As for the other 1/3 of us who aren't covered, I guess we're just screwed...


----------



## eMacMan

I think that calling GMO corn, food stuff is a long stretch. Nowadays I have given up things like cornchips, and any breakfast cereals containing corn. If it happens to contain GMO corn it attacks my gut, so its just not worth the risk.

That said the land would be far better utilized producing food crops and the Senator from Iowa can go straight to hell!


----------



## CubaMark

*Bay of Fundy power turbine to be installed next month*








​The first of two towering turbines designed by Cape Sharp Tidal to harness the immense power of the Bay of Fundy will be installed next month off the coast of Nova Scotia, a company official announced Thursday.

Sarah Dawson, the community relations manager for the project, said one of the five-storey high, two-megawatt turbines built in Pictou by Aecon Atlantic Industrial Inc., will be loaded on a barge during the first week of June and travel around the province until it reaches the test site near Parrsboro.​







...once connected to the power grid, the turbines will provide enough electricity for about 1,000 homes.

The new turbines are a bigger and more robust version of a turbine tested by OpenHydro and Nova Scotia Power in 2009 that was heavily damaged by the Bay of Fundy's powerful currents.

Meanwhile, Black Rock Tidal Power Inc. has announced that its tidal power platform will also be built by Aecon and installed at the same test site near Parrsboro in 2017.​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

Only 1,000 homes? That seems like a very bad investment.


----------



## Aurora

Macfury, that's what I thought when I read it.


----------



## Macfury

Aurora said:


> Macfury, that's what I thought when I read it.


Yeah, look at the size of it!


----------



## CubaMark

You guys missed the part where this is a *research* project, right?


----------



## CubaMark

*Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*








Portugal kept its lights on with renewable energy alone for four consecutive days last week in a clean energy milestone revealed by data analysis of national energy network figures.

Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says.

News of the zero emissions landmark comes just days after Germany announced that clean energy had powered almost all its electricity needs on Sunday 15 May, with power prices turning negative at several times in the day – effectively paying consumers to use it.​(The Guardian)​


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Portugal kept its lights on with renewable energy alone for four consecutive days last week in a clean energy milestone revealed by data analysis of national energy network figures.
> 
> Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says.


That this is a milestone shows how feeble and unreliable these sources are. Essentially, these reports are saying that these countries have already installed enough renewables to completely meet all of their energy needs--but that the are so inefficient that they celebrate when these systems actually do what they're supposed to for a couple of days. 

Traditional energy can do the same 24/7/365. Of course, these systems were probably running in the background while their inefficient counterparts sputtered along.



CubaMark said:


> News of the zero emissions landmark comes just days after Germany announced that clean energy had powered almost all its electricity needs on Sunday 15 May, with power prices turning negative at several times in the day – effectively paying consumers to use it.


Paying _industrial _consumers to use it while sticking it to the populace--who are in government-engineered energy poverty.


----------



## FeXL

OK, so they don't like coal. Fine. WTF is wrong with inexpensive, dependable, readily available natural gas?

Varcoe: Power industry turmoil leaves NDP juggling many issues at once



> Alberta will need an injection of at least $16 billion invested in new electrical generation as the province phases out coal power in the coming years.


Idiots...


----------



## FeXL

That’s a 97% consensus at Shell that renewables are not profitable



> So despite twenty years of relentless spin that “Clean Green Energy” is the future, 97% of investors know it isn’t.
> 
> Once again, the green sector have overplayed their hand. Shell‘s been good to them, pandering to the fear campaign for years, donating to their causes, and lobbying for carbon credits (because even and oil and gas company can get extra profits from big-government gravy into “sequestration” and biofuels.) But the green activists were not content. Too much is never enough.
> 
> _Oil and gas companies have come increasingly under the spotlight particularly after the COP21 agreement in Paris at the end of last year and its reinforced goal to limit global carbon emissions._​
> The CEO knows exactly how much money solar energy makes:
> 
> _Van Beurden said all the top 10 solar companies in the world represent $14bn in capital employed and invested $5 billion in solar energy last year, but *none had so far paid any dividends.*_​
> With no grip on numbers, Green activists will push into fantasy land every time.


Bold from the link.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Woohoo!!! Break out the champagne, me boyos!

BBC’s Matt McGrath Gets His Name Right, But Not Much Else

He sums:



> This sort of journalism from the BBC is all too common. Too often, they report a highly biased presentation from a vested interested group as if it was 100% fact, but fail miserably to question, or put such claims into a proper perspective.
> 
> When you complain, they simply revert to a “we are only reporting what they said” defence.
> 
> Such journalism, if I can be excused from calling it that, is shoddy, unprofessional and blatantly biased.


Related:

Renewables “Surge” From 1.2% To 1.4%!!



> In other words, *in two years the contribution from wind/solar/bio increased from 1.2% to 1.4%.*
> 
> They don’t know total final energy consumption figures for 2015, but their data does suggest that this percentage may have increased to about 1.6% last year.
> 
> This is what Matt McGrath calls “surging”!


M'bold.

Breathtaking... :clap:


----------



## FeXL

Alright, let's put this petroleum subsidies vs renewables subsidies thing to bed, once & for all.

On a Btu Basis, Renewable Subsidies are 49 Times Greater than Fossil Fuel Subsidies



> The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently performed two studies evaluating fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidies—one in April and one in May. From those studies, in 2009:
> 
> * Renewable energy subsidies were 49 times greater than fossil fuel subsidies when evaluated on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis of production. In other words, when making a comparison based on the amount of energy produced, renewable subsidies were 49 times greater than fossil fuel subsidies.
> * On a straight amount-of-subsidy basis, renewable fuels received over 6 times more tax revenue dollars than fossil fuels received, as estimated by the Joint Tax Committee.
> * Renewables received a 77 percent share of total federal energy incentives in 2009, while fossil fuels received a 13 percent share but produced more than 7 times the energy.


So, not only on a heat unit basis, but in sheer dollars and in incentives. In addition, this data is from 2009. Does anybody think this situation changed in the following 5 or 6 years?

Me, neither...

Renewable energy sources received 25 times more in taxpayer subsidies per energy unit produced than fossil fuels in 2010



> In 2010, renewable energy received $14 billion of government taxpayer subsidies, while fossil fuels energy sources received only $4 billion of taxpayer handouts that year, according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and reported in today’s WSJ by Bjorn Lomborg in an op-ed. According to energy production data from the EIA, the US produced 8.12 quadrillion BTUs of renewable energy in 2010 from geothermal, solar, wind and biomass sources, while the energy produced from fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) totaled 58.2 quadrillion BTUs.
> 
> The chart above displays the dollar amount of taxpayer subsidies per billion BTUs of energy produced in 2010, and shows that renewable energy in 2010 received 25 times more in taxpayer subsidies than fossil fuels, adjusted for the amount of energy produced: $1,724 per billion BTUs of renewable energy produced vs. less than $69 per billion BTUs of fossil fuel energy produced.


The Real Deal on US Subsidies: Fossil’s $72B, Renewable Energy’s $12B

Report: Solar Energy Subsidies Cost $39 Billion Per Year



> *Despite billions spent in investments over decades, solar energy will only make up 0.6 percent of total electricity generation in the United States*, according to a report released by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA).
> 
> “In spite of government’s best efforts to encourage innovation by solar energy companies and encourage Americans to rely more heavily on solar electricity, solar power continues to be a losing proposition,” the report said. “American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked.”


M'bold.

Let's look at overall effectiveness, as well:

Renewable Energy – Solar and Wind-Power: capital costs and effectiveness compared



> In summary, these figures show that these three Western nations have spent of the order of at least ~$0.5trillion in capital costs alone, (conservatively estimated, only accounting for the primary capital costs ), to create Renewable Energy electrical generating capacity.
> 
> Nominally, this total nameplate generating capacity at ~153GW should amount to about ~26% of their total electricity generation, were it fully effective. However, because of there is an inevitable ~20% capacity factor applicable across the board for all renewables, the actual cumulative energy output by from these Renewable sources only results in ~5% of the total electricity generation for these nations.
> 
> Across the board overall solar energy is about ~34 times the cost of comparable standard Gas Fired generation and 9 times less effective.
> 
> Wind-Power is only ~12 times the comparable cost and about 4 times less effective.
> 
> *The same total electrical energy output could have been produced using conventional natural gas fired electrical generation for ~$31 billion or ~1/16 of the actual capital costs expended on renewable installations.* Had conventional Gas Fired technology had been used, the full ~31 GW generating capacity would have provided non-intermittent and wholly dispatchable electricity production generated as and when needed.


M'bold.

Yep.

Related:

The Real Cost Of Wind Power

He sums:



> Compared with the CCGT cost per MWh of $80.45, claims that wind power is now the cheapest source of electricity are utterly ludicrous.


Yep.

The Levelized Cost of Electric Generation



> As a result, for all of the non-dispatchable power sources, those gray bars in Figure 1, *you need to add at least seven cents per kilowatt-hour to the prices shown there*, so you’ll have dispatchable power when you need it. Otherwise, the electric power will go out, and you’ll have villagers with torches … and pitchforks …


M'bold.

Analysis: Solar & wind power costs are huge compared to natural gas fired generation



> In summary, the figures show that these *three major nations of the Western world have spent about ~$0.5trillion to create Renewable Energy electrical generation capacity nominally amounting to ~5.8% of their total generation.* This capacity could be reproduced using conventional natural gas fired electrical generation for ~$31 billion or ~1/16 of the costs expended.


M'bold.

On the other side of the coin, you get the Pissers & Moaners complaining that all they got was $12 billion. And for what? Total output that can be measured in the single digits? Jeezuz...

Related (should all subsidies be eliminated?):

Subsidies for Oil, Gas and Nuclear vs. Renewables



> Every energy source in the last 400 years of U.S. history has been subsidized. Should we encourage or kill subsidies for energy?


Aside from the normal tax breaks for the upgrading of equipment & such that every business gets (and many Greenies interpret as "subsidies"), yes, I have no problem killing energy subsidies entirely.

More:



> Jigar Shah, the CEO of the Carbon War Room, said in a recent blog entry, "*The federal government should get rid of permanent energy subsidies for all energy sources, including fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels. This would force everyone to innovate, compete and win -- or lose -- on their own merits.  *
> 
> Shah continues, "The truth is that permanent energy subsidies do more harm than good. They don’t encourage established energy providers to innovate ('Why bother when we get free money from the government?') and they don’t force new providers to rapidly scale their innovations. Permanent subsidies are just plain bad for business -- and history has shown us time and time again, solutions to big problems that are bad for business have no hope of success."


M'bold.

Yep. Especially the last bit...


----------



## FeXL

More solar spin.

BBC spin hides the great solar energy fiasco



> _But, despite all the billions poured into this “solar boom”, not its least startling feature is the regularity with which the companies investing in it go bust. One of the first, in 2011, despite being given more than half a billion dollars by President Obama, was a US firm Solyndra.
> 
> This was followed in 2013 by the collapse of Solar Trust of America, given a $2.1 billion loan guarantee by the Obama administration to build the largest solar farm in the world in California. Last March, the collapse of Europe’s largest solar company, Abengoa, after building two billion-dollar solar farms in the US, was the largest bankruptcy in Spanish history. Another giant US firm, Sun Edison, last year valued at $10 billion, has seen its shares fall from $33.44 last July to barely a cent.
> 
> Among those enraged by Sun Edison’s bankruptcy have been the residents of several Wiltshire villages, who only agreed to the US firm covering 56 acres of their countryside in blue panels because their communities were promised £40,000, of which they will now never see a penny.
> 
> This is only one of a cluster of solar farms in the country around Melksham, several more of which have left residents far from happy. Last year plans to cover 200 acres of productive farmland at Snarlton were turned down by Wiltshire planners – who were then overruled by a government inspector. In nearby Broughton Gifford, villagers were furious when Wiltshire council gave permission to the owner of another solar farm to install 10 large diesel generators, to provide very lucrative backup to the grid when the sun isn’t shining on his solar panels._


Brilliant.


----------



## FeXL

Hell, I dunno. I would've held up an anemometer long before construction began. Guess they couldn't afford one before all the subsidies started...

England not windy enough, admits wind industry chief



> _*England is not windy enough to justify building any more onshore wind turbines, the chief executive of wind industry trade body has admitted.*
> 
> Hugh McNeal, who joined RenewableUK two months ago from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, insisted the industry could make the case for more onshore turbines in some parts of the UK, despite the withdrawal of subsidies.
> 
> But he said this would “almost certainly” not be in England, as the wind speeds were not high enough to make the projects economically viable without subsidy._


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

This is what passes for economic analysis these days:

Is Canada ready for a world awash in $0 oil? - The Globe and Mail

If oil approached $0 nobody in their right mind would be using "renewables"--unless the NDP and Liberals forced them to.


----------



## FeXL

Again, what's this???!!! 

World’s Leading Experts Warn Of Dangers Of Relying On Renewable Energy



> Have the world’s energy experts finally woken up to the path to oblivion they have been sleepwalking down?
> 
> From PEI:
> 
> _*Power industry professionals remain to be convinced about the credibility of renewables*, yet are being urged to adapt to what some analysts maintain is inevitable, unstoppable change in the sector.
> That scepticism was perfectly encapsulated during the Financial Times Energy Transformation Strategies event in London, when speakers questioned the data surrounding renewable penetration and the ability of wind and solar power to replace baseload capacity.
> Philip Lambert, CEO of Lambert Energy Advisory and former adviser to Statoil told the gathering last week he had never seen ‘so little confidence in the industry, along with a draining of investment and support’ despite suspicion that renewables weren’t yet proven to be reliant in powering economies._​


M'bold.

Are some actually coming to their senses?


----------



## FeXL

Excellent read.

Forget The Wind Industry Lies, Onshore Wind Is Twice The Price Of CCGT

In sum:



> The intrinsic operation of CCGT [gas turbine] is not economically unviable at current wholesale prices. What is making new gas plants unviable is government regulation that prevents them from competing on a level playing field with renewable energy.
> 
> *Strip away the subsidies to wind, the anti-competitive system of CfDs and carbon pricing, and new investment will take place in gas without any need for any “subsidy” at all.*


M'bold.

Now, who has the cojones...


----------



## CubaMark

_Gee, you guys are all so much smarter than, for example, Apple. I wonder why you're not billionaires?_

*Apple Energy deeper dive: Is this Apple running its own microgrids or more?*










Apple Inc has founded a new, fully owned, subsidiary known as Apple Energy and that this entity had applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC regulates power companies) to be able to sell electricity and other power grid services to anyone that is not a public utility. Does this mean that you can now buy clean electricity made on the roof of the Apple Spaceship? Unless you are a large corporate electricity user within 10-30 miles, probably not. However if we step back and take a broader view, something interesting is happening – the likes of Apple, Google, Ikea and others including even Walmart are showing us a small piece of the future of much smarter electricity grid owned by many instead of the few.

The most probable business structure that Apple will assume is more similar to an Independent Power Producer (IPP) than a pure electric utility. An IPP will produce electricity on their own and sell energy to a local group at a discount – like a business or, as in the case of Community Solar, to many individuals, but won’t have the very serious legal responsibility to build power lines, keep the broader grid up, produce power 24/7, etc. 

* * *​
Apple has shown that it will put its money where its mouth is when it comes to clean energy. Last week we broke that Apple’s Union Square store in San Francisco was using a walkable, building integrated solar panel. In early 2015, Apple signed the largest solar procurement deal for a company that isn’t a utility, an $850M solar development contract with First Solar to build a 130MW, 1,300 acre solar power plant to offset all of its California electricity usage. Many other clean energy developments have been undertaken – including biogas and solar plants in North Carolina, Nevada, and to balance out their supply chain solar plants and more in China. The new Apple Spaceship will will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, generated by 4 megawatts of baseload biogas fuel cells and 16 megawatts of rooftop solar. One of the neatest things is that the site is designed as a microgrid—which allows Apple to disconnect from the local grid and power the campus autonomously when grid power goes down, providing energy resiliency. In February of this year, Apple issued a bond for $1.5B to invest in renewable energy globally.​
(ElecTrek)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _Gee, you guys are all so much smarter than, for example, Apple. I wonder why you're not billionaires?_


What's that supposed to mean? It sounds unhinged.


----------



## FeXL

How China Dominates The Solar Panel Industry



> If you want a good example of why China was perfect happy to sign up to the Paris Treaty, just look at the solar panel industry.
> 
> The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany has just published its annual report into the Photovoltaic industry, showing just how China has come to dominate worldwide production of PV cells and modules:
> 
> ...
> 
> *According to Fraunhofer, which is the largest solar energy research institute in Europe, China now accounts for 71% of global module production.*
> 
> Little wonder their government is so keen for the world to invest billions in solar power.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

You're a fan of renewables, CM. Let's see a copy of your financial statement...

Of course Apple is interested in renewables. With all the subsidies available from the US gov't, they're guaranteed to make money. Wait 'til the Americans reverse their cranial rectal inversion like the EU finally is & start pulling the carpet out from underneath the subsidies. Just like in the EU, American interest will flag pretty quickly, too.



CubaMark said:


> _Gee, you guys are all so much smarter than, for example, Apple. I wonder why you're not billionaires?_


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You're a fan of renewables, CM. Let's see a copy of your financial statement...
> 
> Of course Apple is interested in renewables. With all the subsidies available from the US gov't, they're guaranteed to make money. Wait 'til the Americans reverse their cranial rectal inversion like the EU finally is & start pulling the carpet out from underneath the subsidies. Just like in the EU, American interest will flag pretty quickly, too.


Exactly why I was wondering about the weirdo opening statement in CM's post. IKEA became an electricity producer in Ontario because it snapped up a contract in which the government pays FIVE times the going rate for electricity. I don't blame them for grabbing that deal--it's only that the government was idiotic to offer it. Despite all these subsidies, deeper in the article, we get:



> CEO Tim Cook famously told investors questioning Apple’s renewable energy investments, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”


Yep--renewables are helping Apple stockholders to live like kings!


----------



## eMacMan

Interesting read.

Boeing patents strange-looking plane that could fly for years - seattlepi.com



> .....
> This plane would be fundamentally different from the piloted solar plane currently hopping across the planet. Flying people around the world in planes powered by sunlight sounds cool, but there's a problem, as the Boeing application also points out:... if a Boeing 747 were equipped with perfectly efficient solar cells on its entire upper wing surface, it would receive at most approximately 600 kilowatts, or about 800 horsepower from the solar cells. This compares with approximately 100,000 horsepower required for the 747 to maintain cruising speed and altitude. Thus, solar power can provide only 0.8% of the needed power to a conventional 747, even if the solar cells are 100% efficient and the sun is directly above the airplane. *With typical very good cells, solar power can provide only 0.3% of the needed power to a 747.*
> The conclusion is that a very special airplane is needed--one that can fly on very low power while gathering lots of solar energy.​Consequently, it's unlikely you and I will be getting around via solar-powered planes, but clearly there are other uses for such vehicles...


----------



## FeXL

So, what's happening in the world of energy?

BP Energy Review 2016



> A first look at the newly published BP Energy Review of World Energy 2016, which looks at data for 2015.
> 
> * The real highlight is the sluggish growth in energy consumption, which has only increased by 0.9% year on year. This is not surprising given the slowdown in the Chinese economy.
> * Primary energy consumption has risen by 127 Mtoe, of which fossil fuels and renewables (excl hydro) have contributed 61 and 48 Mtoe respectively.
> * Coal consumption has fallen slightly by 72 Mtoe (2%), offset by increases of 80 (2%) and 54 Mtoe (2%) for oil and gas respectively.
> * *The share of renewables (excl hydro) in the total energy mix has increased barely increased, from 2.4% to 2.8%.*
> * As a result of this and the slight fall in the share of coal, emissions of CO2 have risen by only 0.1%, slightly less than the rate of energy consumption.
> 
> *Fossil fuels still account for the vast majority of the energy mix. Despite all the hype, renewables (excl hydro) still barely contribute at all.*


M'bold.

More:



> *It is worth noting that since 2005, hydro has added more than wind and solar put together, 232 Mtoe compared to 223 Mtoe.*


M'bold.

Curious, idn't it...


----------



## FeXL

Monster! Monster, I tell ya!!!

“Forget Godzilla, NYC Gets Monster-Sized ‘Virtual’ Solar Power Plant”



> 1.8 MW and 4 MWh of storage… Godzilla? Not even Ant-Man.
> 
> The Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration combined cycle natural gas-fired power plant generates over 150,000 MWh of electricity in a typical month.
> 
> 1.8 MW with a 25% capacity factor will generate 324 MWh per month.
> 
> How could any sane person call this “monster-sized.” One typical natural gas power plant generates 500 times as much electricity as a Monster-Sized an Ant-Man-Sized “Virtual” Solar Power Plant.


Yep.

Guess they gotta spin the narrative in some positive fashion.


----------



## FeXL

Is that all?

$90 Billion Per Year: Africa’s Demand for Going Green



> In my opinion this report simply adds to the evidence that renewables are utterly unaffordable, even if they were practical from an engineering perspective. Unlike India’s $2.5 trillion dollar estimate, IFS Towers at least offers an instalment plan. But it seems doubtful cash strapped Western governments will ever be able to raise the money required to fulfil the report’s ambitions – and this is just the estimated price tag for Africa going green. No doubt though Western governments will foot the bill for yet more jetset climate summits, in lieu of doing anything practical, so everyone can discuss the issues.


----------



## FeXL

Electricity from sewage?



> Sewage treatment plants have used biological processes to produce methane to produce power and reduce some of the energy used in the treatment of waste water. A Vancouver, BC high school student has just won an award for the concept of developing a microbial fuel cell to produce powered by E-coli bacteria in waste water to produce electricity.


Well, it sounds interesting enough as a proof of concept but I don't think there is enough energy to make this viable as a realistic alternative.

Unless we built the plants in our capital cities...


----------



## Macfury

Fuel cells are a great way to make sewage treatment plants self-reliant for electricity. This is already SOP at some sewage plants. It's not a way to generate power on a mass scale.



FeXL said:


> Electricity from sewage?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it sounds interesting enough as a proof of concept but I don't think there is enough energy to make this viable as a realistic alternative.
> 
> Unless we built the plants in our capital cities...


----------



## FeXL

Ontario energy policy about 'hugging the tree huggers,' writer says



> A former executive with the original developer of the Sarnia Solar farm throws stones at the renewable energy industry in his recently published memoirs
> 
> In 2007, Ron Truman, was director of project development for OptiSolar, a California-based company that began developing the large Sarnia solar farm now owned by Enbridge.
> 
> It was a job he took late in life after years of working as a speechwriter and communications consultant for the Ontario government and, prior to that, as a freelance writer and photographer for Canadian newspapers and magazines.
> 
> In his new book, Polar Bears and Other Scares, Adventures of a Freelance Writer, *Truman describes Ontario's approach to electricity as “a dismal tale of incompetent governance, misplaced priorities and pandering to greenies,”* according to a press release.


M'bold.

No argument.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Electricity from sewage?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it sounds interesting enough as a proof of concept but I don't think there is enough energy to make this viable as a realistic alternative.
> 
> Unless we built the plants in our capital cities...



I have to question the wisdom of releasing FrankenEcoli into our rivers and lakes!


----------



## FeXL

Maths is hard for warmists.

“World’s First 24/7 Solar Power Plant Powers 75,000 Homes” for 3 hours per day.



> While the production will almost certainly improve this summer, “SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes Project in Tonopah, Nevada [isn’t even] quietly providing clean, green solar energy to 75,000 homes in the Silver State even when the sun [is] shining”…
> 
> The average U.S. residential utility customer uses about 900 kWh per month.
> 
> 75,000 homes * 900 KWh/month = 67,500,000 kWh/month = 67,500 MWh/month
> 
> In its best month so far, Crescent Dunes generated 9,095 MWh… About 3 hours of electricity per day for 75,000 homes. This is the Venezuela version of 24/7 /SARC.


And all this for only $975,000,000!

Trying to end this on a high note:



> This power plant cost $975,000,000 to build ($8.9 million per MW, ten times the cost of a natural gas fired power plant). Taxpayers are on the hook for 76% of this cost through Federal loan guarantees. The 25-yr wholesale price guarantee of $135/MWh, about 30% higher than the average US retail price (all sectors). *This is the “good news.”*


M'bold...


----------



## FeXL

So, in an effort to cover the shortfall of electricity caused by the closure of various dependable sources (coal, nuclear, natural gas), the UK is now asking hospitals to fire up their backup generators & save electricity by turning down the A/C...

National Grid recruits NHS hospitals to help keep the lights on



> _There was a time hospitals were for healing people!_


Italics from the link.

Yep.

National Grid recruits NHS hospitals to help keep the lights on



> National Grid is recruiting cash-strapped NHS hospitals to fire up their emergency generators and turn down their air conditioning systems when power supplies are scarce.
> 
> The company, which is responsible for balancing UK supply and demand, wants to make more use of “demand side response” schemes, in which energy users are paid to temporarily reduce the amount of power they draw from the grid.


So, not only does the UK not have enough electricity from renewables to cover the shortfalls they created by fossil fuelled electricity closures, they are now going to use taxpayer money to pay hospitals (& others, eventually) to generate their own electricity from diesel powered backup generators. Not only will this wear out the generators prematurely but it will pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Stop me when this starts sounding ludicrous...


----------



## heavyall

FeXL said:


> Stop me when this starts sounding ludicrous...


That would require a time machine.


----------



## FeXL

heavyall said:


> That would require a time machine.


:lmao::clap:


----------



## CubaMark

Anyone else know of Canadian power utilities who are publishing this kind of data?

Today's Power - Nova Scotia Power


----------



## Macfury

Thank heaven for coal, or that province would grind to a halt!


----------



## FeXL

Tesla’s Incredible Shrinking Powerwall Warranty



> _On June 21st, Tesla Energy quietly eviscerated the limited warranty for its 6.4 kWh Powerwall “energy storage for a sustainable home.”_​


----------



## FeXL

What's this? What's _this_???

Draft leak suggests Germany backing out of coal power phase-out



> _A leaked environment ministry document suggests that Germany will not go ahead with a coal-fired power phase-out.
> 
> A similar draft document released earlier this year had proposed phase-out of coal-fired power production well before 2050. However *the latest paper sees the proposal dropped as well as the scrapping of several C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors.* _​


M'bold.

Merkel finally grabbing a clue?


----------



## FeXL

Wind Turbines In China Aren’t Working And It’s Becoming A HUGE Problem



> China shut down numerous wind turbines because much of the new electricity was wasted, causing serious damage to the country’s electrical grid.
> 
> China has poured more than $80 billion building new green energy in 2014 alone, while the U.S. spent a “mere” $34 billion. More than one-in-three wind turbines currently installed worldwide are in China. Even with this enormous number of turbines, China still produces less electricity from wind than America, indicating the country is so over-saturated with turbines that it is damaging the power grid, potentially leading to blackouts.


More:



> Beijing has ordered wind operators to stop expanding four times in the last five years, because unreliable wind power was damaging the country’s power grid and costing the government enormous amounts of money. *The best areas for wind turbines in China are far away from the coastal provinces where most of its population lives. Building the infrastructure to transmit wind energy over long distances is enormously expensive and could cost many times the price of generating the electricity.*


M'bold.

See, the problem here is that they ain't throwing enough money at the issue...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Green fallout from Brexit.

Newsbytes: Brexit: Green Industry Fears Break-Up Of Climate Consensus



> The financial uncertainty triggered by the UK’s vote to leave the EU has sent shudders through virtually every industry, but Europe’s renewable energy sector faces even greater insecurity.


Good.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly...

Pennsylvania Slashes Rooftop Solar Subsidies



> The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) just ended the solar subsidy called net metering, and the state legislature isn’t likely to overturn the decision.
> 
> *The state commission found twice that net metering solar subsidies are not in the public interest*, as they raise the price of electricity and transfer money from poor people without solar panels to rich people with them. The PUC is made up of both Republican and Democratic appointees and voted unanimously both times.


M'bold.

Ya think? :yikes:


----------



## Macfury

Kick that rotten melon to the curb!



FeXL said:


> Further on Green fallout from Brexit.
> 
> Newsbytes: Brexit: Green Industry Fears Break-Up Of Climate Consensus
> 
> 
> 
> Good.


----------



## CubaMark

The Antigonish Energy Co-operative just completed a group-buy of solar panels for just shy of $400,000. You may be interested to see their cost recovery tables:










SOLAR PV SYSTEM PAYBACK TABLES

The following tables are calculated at the current Bergengren Credit Union Eco-loan financed rate of 3.85%. Since the finance rates are subject to change, please follow this link to find the current interest rate for the Eco-loan and follow this link to go to the online loan payment calculator so you can ensure the most accurate calculation of your payments.​









Total finance costs for a 5 year term at 3.85% are $1,475. Energy production during the minimum 25 year life of the equipment is calculated at 154,250 kWh. This equates to a cost of 10.43 cents per kWh if the purchase is financed. If the system is purchased with cash, the cost of energy is 9.48 cents per kWh.​









Total finance costs for a 5 year term at 3.85% are $2167. Energy production during the minimum 25 year life of the equipment is calculated at 272,500 kWh. This equates to a cost of 8.68 cents per kWh if the purchase is financed. If the system is purchased with cash, the cost of energy is 7.88 cents per kWh.​









Total finance costs for a 5 year term at 3.85% are $2,567. Energy production during the minimum 25 year life of the equipment is calculated at 331,750 kWh. This equates to a cost of 8.44 cents per kWh if the purchase is financed. If the system is purchased with cash, the cost of energy is 7.67 cents per kWh.​









Total finance costs for a 5 year term at 3.85% are $4,826. Energy production during the minimum 25 year life of the equipment is calculated at 663,500 kWh. This equates to a cost of 7.93 cents per kWh if the purchase is financed. If the system is purchased with cash, the cost of energy is 7.21 cents per kWh.

*GIVING BACK*

As part of our larger mission, the Coop will levy a 2% surcharge on the final cost of each member’s system in order to raise funds for the direct relief of poverty in our community, which is due, in part, to the high cost of energy. The Coop’s members will ultimately decide the manner by which we distribute the money raised for this purpose.​


----------



## Macfury

This is where solar power belongs--on the individual level where people can make personal decisions about its efficacy for their situation.


----------



## CubaMark

*Nova Scotia' Power's Time-of-Day rates as of 15 July 2016:*










*The cost of solar PV comes in at half the summer daytime rate, and almost 1/3 of the winter daytime rate.
*
Also consider this from the Antigonish Energy Co-op:


The current average cost (taxes incl.) of producing electricity with PV solar technology is about 11¢/kWh. This price is fixed at the time of installation, and remains fixed for at least 25 years.*
The current cost (taxes incl.) of purchasing electricity from NSPI, for residential customers, is 15.7¢/kWh. This price is likely to increase at an average rate of 5%/year for the foreseeable future.**


----------



## Macfury

Sure it's cheaper to go off-grid when you don't pay for the transmission infrastructure. Not sure why you are posting that.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Not sure why you are posting that.


*Thread title:* _Alternative Energy Sources_


----------



## Macfury

I am asking what you are comparing. The cost of rooftop solar without grid connection, to the cost of utility electricity?



CubaMark said:


> *Thread title:* _Alternative Energy Sources_


----------



## FeXL

Eyewatering...

$14,000 per MWh – the price South Australia Pays for Renewables Madness



> The South Australian Government been forced to *beg fossil fuel operators to bring mothballed plants back online*, to contain wild swings in electricity spot price caused by unstable renewable production, prices which last month peaked at $14,000 / MWh – up from more normal prices of $100 / MWh which prevailed before political favouritism towards renewables messed up the market.


M'bold.

Textbook example of the variability of renewables & the issues they cause.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the variability of renewables.

Folly: All Of Europe’s Wind Power Capacity Only Could Steadily Provide Enough Electricity For Tiny Belgium!



> The first thing one notices is wind power’s extreme supply volatility. In February wind production peaked at 75 gigawatts – enough to power all of Germany (for a few hours). Relying only on wind power, most of Germany would have been completely dark since late March.
> 
> Every month wind power fell multiple times close to zero, meaning that it would not even be possible to even power little Luxembourg.
> 
> And even if the technology existed to store the energy for a couple of days, the best all the installed wind power capacity in Europe could hope to consistently provide is some 15 gigawatts – which would be enough to power something on the order of Belgium only.
> 
> If power could be stored for an entire week, it would only be possible to supply only about half of Germany – the rest of the continent, France, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, United Kingdom, Ireland, Scandinavia, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, all of eastern Europe and the Balkan countries would have to go without.
> 
> *This gives us an idea of how ridiculous the pursuit of 100% renewable energy supply really is.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

El Hierro is one of the Canary Islands.

Lengthy, thorough examination of one year of <snort> renewable power. Good read.

El Hierro completes a year of full operation



> At the end of June the Gorona del Viento (GdV) plant completed its first year of full operation, during which it supplied 34.6% of El Hierro’s electricity demand with renewable electricity at a cost probably exceeding €1.00/kWh and lowered the island’s CO2 emissions by approximately 12,000 tons at a cost of around €1,000/ton. This post summarizes these unexpectedly poor results, discusses the reasons for them and concludes that GdV, which was intended to show the world how fossil fuel generation can readily be replaced with intermittent renewables, can already be classified as a “failed project”. *GdV’s performance further suggests that replacing fossil fuels with intermittent renewables elsewhere in the world could be a lot more difficult than the proponents of renewable energy are prepared to admit.*


M'bold.

More:



> Yet one would never know that anything was wrong from recent press releases. On July 8 GdV will host its first conference, which will be attended by representatives from other countries anxious to replicate GdV’s “success”. Here is an excerpt from the release (my translation):
> 
> _Wind and solar are variable and fluctuating sources that by themselves are not capable of supplying constant energy, which results in generation limitations in vulnerable isolated systems, which in general do not cover more than 30% of demand*. GdV, which combines unstable wind generation with hydro generation, has been capable not only of making the maximum use of the available resource, substantially exceeding these generation limitations, but on numerous occasions has been the sole source of generation for the island.​_
> *I have no idea which systems these are or where the 30% number comes from.
> 
> The second sentence stands out. It would in fact be difficult to cram more misrepresentations into a single short sentence. GdV has not made maximum use of the available resource – generation from the 11.5MW wind farm is routinely curtailed at 7MW and much of the wind power that remains is wasted pumping water uphill. The 11.3MW hydro system has generated an insignificant amount of electricity. The renewables penetration achieved in GdV’s first year of operation does not “substantially exceed” 30%. *Renewables have been “the sole source of generation” for only 241 out of 8,880 operating hours, or less than 3% of the time. For 969 hours (11% of the time) renewables generated no energy at all. But of course we never get to read about that.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, in the face if China's difficulties with renewables, what do they do?

Greenpeace Shocked China Is Putting Another $150 Billion Into Coal Power



> China is building another $150 billion worth of coal power plants despite repeated promises to reduce coal use, according to a Wednesday statement by the environmental group Greenpeace.
> 
> Greenpeace claims China is “wastefully” building another 200 gigawatts of coal power over the next five years, effectively breaking the country’s pledges to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.


Related:

New Coal and Gas Plants For Africa & India


----------



## FeXL

One more?

Another Solyndra? Lawmakers Worry This Obama-Backed Solar Project Could Fail



> House lawmakers grilled a Interior Department official over the green energy projects on federal lands, in particular taking aim at the troubled Ivanpah solar energy plant.
> 
> *Georgia Republican Rep. Jody Hice even suggested Ivanpah, which has trouble living up to its contracts, could fail and potentially leave taxpayers on the hook for $1.6 billion in unpaid loan guarantees.*
> 
> “So we have Ivanpah, for example, one of those companies — $1.6 billion dollars, three times that of Solyndra in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy,” Hice said during a hearing Wednesday before questioning Mike Nedd, who oversees energy projects for the Bureau of Land Management.


M'bold.

Related:

German Power Giant RWE Risks Becoming “Largest Bankruptcy In German Business History”!



> Germany’s “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies) is threatening to cause widespread economic havoc.
> 
> Not only have almost every major solar manufacturing company in Germany gone bankrupt, leaving economic blight in its wake, now traditional power giants, which hire tens of thousands of skilled workers, are threatened by bankruptcy.
> 
> Today German flagship daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports here that the country’s largest power company, RWE, now faces bankruptcy in the wake of the post Fukushima Energiewende, where the German government forced the immediate shutdown of nuclear power plants in a panicked reaction to the Japanese disaster.
> 
> For RWE this meant an immediate shutdown of some 25% of its assets. The FAZ writes that since Fukushima, RWE has lost a whopping 70% of its value.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the high price of renewables & variability.

Wind power sucks money and electricity in South Australia



> On a good day South Australia has more than 40% renewable energy. On a bad day, it’s -2 or something. Wind towers suck in so many ways. They can even draw more power out than they bring in and best of all — their peak electron sucking power comes just when the state needs electricity the most.
> _Business blows up as turbines suck more power than they generate
> 
> The sapping of power by the turbines during calm weather on July 7 at the height of the *crisis, which has caused a price surge, shows just how unreliable and *intermittent wind power is for a state with a renewable *energy mix of more than 40 per cent.​_
> South Australia has more “renewable” wind power than anywhere else in Australia. They also have the highest electricity bills, the highest unemployment, the largest number of “failures to pay” and disconnections. Coincidence?


----------



## FeXL

And, let's look at fossil fuel "subsidies" again, shall we?

Fossil Fuel Subsidies – The Truth



> The very first page shows how they define “subsidies”:
> 
> _For the purposes of this report, exploration subsidies include: national subsidies (direct spending and tax expenditures), *investment by state-owned enterprise and public finance.*​_
> Note straight off that they include “investment”. I don’t know anybody, other than a demented Guardian reader, who would call “investment” a “subsidy”.
> 
> But let’s move on.
> 
> They claim that annual national subsidies in the UK total up to $1.2 billion on average. This is what they have counted:


M'bold.

Good read.


----------



## CubaMark

*Chernobyl could be reinvented as a solar farm*

*Ministers create presentation to show how idle land around nuclear disaster site can be used to produce renewable energy*









The contaminated nuclear wasteland around Chernobyl could be turned into one of the world’s largest solar farms, producing nearly a third of the electricity that the stricken plant generated at its height 30 years ago, according to the Ukrainian government.

In a presentation sent to major banks and seen by the Guardian, 6,000 hectares of “idle” land in Chernobyl’s 1,000 square km exclusion zone, which is considered too dangerous for people to live in or farm, could be turned to solar, biogas and heat and power generation.

Pressure has been mounting for years to allow industrial development, but no indication is given of where the solar panels would be located. “There has been a change in the perception of the exclusion zone in Ukraine. Thirty years after the Chernobyl tragedy [it] reveals opportunities for development. A special industrial area is to be created in compliance with all rules and regulations of radiation safety within the exclusion zone,” says the presentation.

Tens of thousands of people in Ukraine, Belarus and south Russia were evacuated immediately after the 1986 accident from a wide area around the nuclear plant and places where the radioactive plume descended. A few hundred people still live in 11 semi-deserted villages close to Chernobyl.​
(The Guardian UK)


----------



## Macfury

Man--only one-third of the power generated by a 1970s vintage nuke plant.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Man--only one-third of the power generated by a 1970s vintage nuke plant.


....with zero inputs after fabrication and installation, and zero dangerous waste as an output.

One-third on those terms looks pretty damn good to me....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ....with zero inputs after fabrication and installation, and zero dangerous waste as an output.
> 
> One-third on those terms looks pretty damn good to me....


It's not impressive for such a large site.


----------



## FeXL

So, what does the Australian Energy Market Operator have to say about bird shredders & solar panels?

AEMO: Replacing Coal with Renewables will Cause Blackouts



> The Australian Energy Market Operator, the government body responsible for ensuring the stability of Australia’s energy supply, has issued a stark warning that closure of coal plants will dramatically increase the risk of widespread blackouts – that building additional renewable capacity will not compensate for the loss of coal capacity.


Huh. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark.

Nevada starts to pull the plug on solar subsidies



> For years, Nevada taxpayers have spent millions subsidizing homeowners who install rooftop solar panels – but that’s about to end.
> 
> In a controversial decision, the state is phasing out that subsidy over the next 12 years, a move being met with protests, lawsuits and even a failed bid to put the issue before voters. Last week, Nevada's Supreme Court ruled that a referendum from solar activists challenging the decision would not be allowed on the November ballot.


More:



> Paul Thomsen, chairman of Nevada's Public Utility Commission, said the perk was unfair, because it meant homeowners who didn't have solar panels were subsidizing those who did.
> 
> "As the rooftop solar industry has gotten larger and larger, we've seen this subsidy grow," Thomsen said. "What started as a legislative policy to kickstart the industry, *now 18 years later, it's time for that industry to stand on its own two feet.*"


Sunuvagun. Slowly, surely...


----------



## FeXL

The USA — Fracking its way to jobs, wealth and lower emissions



> It’s everything the Green revolution was supposed to offer — jobs, energy independence, money money money, and massive reductions in CO2. Australians hear how bad fracking is but not much about the transformation of the US.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Whatever would they have reason to hide?

US windfarm company sues to block release of data about bird deaths



> A company that operates at least 13 wind-energy facilities across three states is suing in federal court to block the US government from releasing information to the Associated Press about how many birds are found dead at its facilities.
> 
> Pacificorp of Portland, Oregon, is seeking an injunction in US district court in Utah to prevent the Interior Department from releasing information it considers confidential. The Obama administration has said it planned to turn over the material to the Associated Press, which sought it from the Interior Department in March 2013 under the US Freedom of Information Act. The government concluded that the industry’s concerns were “insufficiently convincing” to keep the files secret.


----------



## FeXL

The Vast Gamble On Wind Power



> He rambles on about various improvements to wind power technology. But the bottom line, of course, is cost and intermittency.
> 
> Despite his claims about costs falling to £69/MWh, the reality is utterly different. At the most recent CfD auction, conducted last year, offshore wind farms were awarded contacts between £120.49 and £158.61/MWh (at current prices).
> 
> We await what the results will be from the next round. But it is worth pointing out that the Committee on Climate Change, in their calculations for the recent Fifth Carbon Budget, are assuming *the strike price for offshore wind power will still be as high as £94.69/MWh* for new capacity added in 2030. (Again, this is at current prices). *Their estimate for 2020 is £105.82.* (More on this later!)
> 
> *With market prices still below £50/MWH, this is a huge subsidy, which will have to be met by consumers.*


More:



> He then goes on to dismiss concerns about intermittency:
> 
> _Intermittency remains a curse but claims that anticyclones can halt the offshore wind industry for weeks at a time are a dinner party myth. "Calm conditions persisting for one day are extremely rare. When they do occur, they cover a small fraction of the UK, and there is no evidence to suggest that they persist for long periods of time," says Graham Sinden from Oxford University._​
> Regardless, sufficient back up capacity has to be set aside to cover for this, as even the CCC admit. *They estimate this will add £10/MWh to the headline price of wind power.*


M'bold.

How often dya s'pose that last number is included in the cost of renewables...


----------



## FeXL

NYT uncovers scam — $19K solar panels to save $9 a month on power



> A report from The New York Times indicates customers with solar panel maker Global Efficient Energy (GEE) claim they were scammed out of nearly $20,000 on promises of major energy savings.
> 
> The Texas-based solar panel installer has earned a lot of ill will, according to The NYT, as more than a smattering of GEE customers contacted the Better Business Bureau with complaints about the company.
> 
> Customer Chad Gregg of Texas said GEE told him solar Daily Caller New Foundationpanels, while initially expensive, would ultimately save enormous amounts of money on his energy bills. Those promises never materialized, apparently, as Gregg and his family only “saved about $9 a month.”


----------



## FeXL

Further on windfarm subsidies.

Hornsea Project Two Gets Go Ahead



> Hornsea will be capable of producing about 6TWh a year. It has already been awarded a Contract for Difference of £140/MWh, at 2012 prices. At current prices, this is worth £148.06, representing a subsidy of about £105/MWh against the present market price.
> 
> *At these prices, the annual subsidy would be £630 million, or £9450 million over the life of the 15-year contract.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Even more on renewable subsidies.

Renewable Strike Price Assumptions In Fifth Carbon Budget



> Of particular interest are the prices for wind and solar power. We are regularly told that technology is driving down costs so quickly that wind and solar will soon be cheaper than conventional sources, such as CCGT.
> 
> The CCC’s projections suggest otherwise!


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## CubaMark

*Net-zero egg barn with solar energy opens in Alberta*










The Brant Hutterite Colony in southern Alberta is trying to do something that has never been done before — it aims to produce roughly 13,000 eggs a day while creating no net greenhouse gas emissions.

The colony of 105 people recently cut the ribbon on Canada's first net-zero egg barn, which is designed to produce as much energy as it uses.

Solar panels on the roof and various high-tech equipment should drastically reduce the facility's carbon footprint and mark the latest attempt by agriculture groups to improve the industry's sustainability.

"This project really is a first of its kind in Canada in trialing new technologies that could potentially define the new normal for energy efficiency and reducing climate impacts for animal housing," said Nathan Pelletier, a University of British Columbia professor specializing in sustainability.

The Brant Colony initially dismissed the idea of adding solar panels and several energy efficient modifications to the new barn it was planning to build, after it was approached by the Egg Farmers of Alberta. 

"I don't think it was fair for us to bluntly say no, so we decided even if it doesn't work out we'll do it more so for the industry than for us," said Darrel Mandel with the colony.

The colony received a $250,000 provincial government grant to help offset some of the costs of the project, including the 100 solar panels. Data is gathered daily about all aspects of the operation.

"It looks very promising, I think we'll be very close to net zero with solar," said Mandel. "With the colder months coming we'll have more data available to maybe prove that it was a good cause."

* * *​
Agriculture groups across Canada are under pressure from retailers and consumers to improve their sustainability through added measures involving animal welfare, biosecurity, food safety and the environment.

*Uncertain results*

So far, the solar panels are operating as expected, offsetting the facility's energy needs. An energy-efficient refrigeration unit and other equipment are also performing well, although the heat recovery ventilation system that uses outgoing warm air to heat fresh incoming air is still a work in progress.

"This is agricultural research," said Jenna Griffin, who helped manage the project with the Egg Farmers of Alberta. "There's bumps and obstacles and barriers that you run into. You really have to be willing to be the one that goes through this for the greater good of the industry."​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

$150,000 from the government huh? Such a sacrifice on the part of the egg producers.


----------



## SINC

It figures.

Study Finds Biofuels Worse for Climate than Gasoline | Climate Central


----------



## FeXL

macfury said:


> $150,000 from the government huh? Such a sacrifice on the part of the egg producers.


$*2*50,000...


----------



## FeXL

How's Germany's emissions after all its renewable installations?

An update on the Energiewende



> Germany is still pursuing its goal of shutting down its nuclear plants but refuses to shut down its lignite plants. It is slashing renewable energy subsidies and replacing them with an auction/quota system. Public opposition is delaying the construction of the power lines that are needed to distribute Germany’s renewables generation efficiently. Renewables investment has fallen to levels insufficient to build enough new capacity to meet Germany’s 2020 emissions reduction target. *There is no evidence that renewables are having a detectable impact on Germany’s emissions, which have not decreased since 2009 despite a doubling of renewables penetration in the electricity sector.* It now seems certain that Germany will miss its 2020 emissions reduction target, quite possibly by a wide margin. In short, the Energiewende is starting to unravel.


M'bold.

What's this??!! How can that be???


----------



## CubaMark

*Costa Rica celebrates 113 days of 100-percent renewable energy (and counting)*










Costa Rica just ran its electricity grid for 113 days in a row entirely on renewable energy. Using a mix of wind, solar and its abundant supply of geothermal energy (a nice boon for anyone wanting to have dispatchable renewables!), this small nation is proving that fossil fuels are no longer necessary to keep the lights on.



> Costa Rica is able to take advantage of a multitude of renewable energy sources because of its unique climate and terrain. Most of the nation’s renewable energy comes from hydropower, due to its large river system and heavy tropical rainfalls. Solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy also play key roles.
> 
> The tropical nation aims to be free from fossil fuels in just five years. With hefty investments in geothermal energy projects and a forecast for more heavy rains in the coming years, that goal could be accomplished even sooner than originally planned.


That's just one snippet of news from Robert Llewellyn's Fully Charged news update, which also includes some cool information about gigantic, 180-meter (590-feet) high, 8MW wind turbines which are being positioned off the coast of France; Tesla Powerwalls being installed in Australia; and the fact that insurance companies are beginning to provide coverage for autonomous electric vehicles.​
(Treehugger via (Inhabitat)


----------



## Macfury

Works just fine if you have no industry to speak of and your people don't use very much electricity--abut one-tenth per capita as compared to Canada.



CubaMark said:


> *Costa Rica celebrates 113 days of 100-percent renewable energy (and counting)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Costa Rica just ran its electricity grid for 113 days in a row entirely on renewable energy. Using a mix of wind, solar and its abundant supply of geothermal energy (a nice boon for anyone wanting to have dispatchable renewables!), this small nation is proving that fossil fuels are no longer necessary to keep the lights on.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just one snippet of news from Robert Llewellyn's Fully Charged news update, which also includes some cool information about gigantic, 180-meter (590-feet) high, 8MW wind turbines which are being positioned off the coast of France; Tesla Powerwalls being installed in Australia; and the fact that insurance companies are beginning to provide coverage for autonomous electric vehicles.​
> (Treehugger via (Inhabitat)


----------



## FeXL

Bavaria Will be Short 4 Gigawatts of Electricity when Nuke Plants Shut



> After Germany’s nuclear phase-out in 2022 Bavaria will face a base load shortfall of up to 4 gigawatts, but existing gas pipelines in the North could offer an alternative to new electricity lines.
> 
> “In 2022, if not before, Bavaria will face difficulties with its electricity supply,” Mario Mehren, Chairman of the board of Wintershall, said at the German Energy Congress in Munich. “At this time, when the last German nuclear power plants in Bavaria are taken off the grid, there will be an electricity generation shortfall of up to 4 gigawatts. *Renewable energies cannot replace that, at least not at affordable and responsible prices.*”


M'bold.

When have renewables supporters every been concerned about "affordable & responsible"?


----------



## CubaMark

*Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol*

Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.

The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.

The tech involves a new combination of copper and carbon arranged into nanospikes on a silicon surface. The nanotechnology allows the reactions to be very precise, with very few contaminants.

* * *​
This process has several advantages when compared to other methods of converting CO2 into fuel. The reaction uses common materials like copper and carbon, and it converts the CO2 into ethanol, which is already widely used as a fuel.

Perhaps most importantly, it works at room temperature, which means that it can be started and stopped easily and with little energy cost.​
(Popular Mechanics)


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> *Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol*
> 
> Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.
> 
> The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.
> 
> The tech involves a new combination of copper and carbon arranged into nanospikes on a silicon surface. The nanotechnology allows the reactions to be very precise, with very few contaminants.
> 
> * * *​
> This process has several advantages when compared to other methods of converting CO2 into fuel. The reaction uses common materials like copper and carbon, and it converts the CO2 into ethanol, which is already widely used as a fuel.
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, it works at room temperature, which means that it can be started and stopped easily and with little energy cost.​
> (Popular Mechanics)


Naw, better to tax the living s h i t e outta us for carbon. Ask any politician.


----------



## Macfury

Sounds like it makes carbon a valuable commodity. Sounds good.


----------



## eMacMan

Hmmmm. The source is Popular Mechanics. I am still waiting for the flying cars they have been promising were just around the bend, ever since the 1950s.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Hmmmm. The source is Popular Mechanics. I am still waiting for the flying cars they have been promising were just around the bend, ever since the 1950s.


Flying cars would be the biggest horror story of the 21st century. There would be no trees left and house insurance would triple for damaged roofs.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Flying cars would be the biggest horror story of the 21st century. There would be no trees left and house insurance would triple for damaged roofs.


True. And think of the traffic jams!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CubaMark

*3-Mile-Deep Well in Iceland Will Harness Energy From Magma*








In an effort to harness alternative energy, one Icelandic company is looking deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The Iceland Deep Drilling Project (*IDDP*) is currently drilling a 3-mile-deep hole into Reykjanes, Iceland that will tap into the power of super-hot magma, New Scientist reports.








While deeper holes have been drilled into solid rock in the past, the IDDP rig will be the deepest well of its kind to penetrate a fluid system. The area they’re targeting is a landward portion of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge fault line. At those depths, ocean water that’s seeped beneath the seabed meets flowing magma, creating a “supercritical steam” that holds more energy than liquid or gas.

The project began on August 12 and is slated to wrap up by the end of 2016. Once completed, the hole is expected to be the hottest on Earth, reaching temperatures as high as about 1800°F.

Iceland is already ahead of the curve when it comes to geothermal energy: Its prime real estate along the Mid-Atlantic ridge allows for the operation of six geothermal power plants. This latest project could deliver the underground power to the country on a much larger scale. Albert Albertsson of HS Orka, an Icelandic geothermal energy company working on IDDP, told New Scientist that their hole will be capable of producing 50 megawatts. That’s enough to power 50,000 households compared to the 5000 that run on a conventional geothermal well.​
(Mental Floss)


----------



## Macfury

The project sounds great, but the household numbers on these projects always sound unimpressive. Would that mean that Toronto would require 60 projects like this just to satisfy residential needs? I researched the project in several places but couldn't find a cost associated with it--that critical figure is often left out of such articles.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The project sounds great, but the household numbers on these projects always sound unimpressive. Would that mean that Toronto would require 60 projects like this just to satisfy residential needs?


The Mental Floss article spun some figures, but the IDDP site doesn't appear (from a cursory look) to talk about end-user needs, etc. They're not anywhere near the stage yet to enter into that scenario.



Macfury said:


> I researched the project in several places but couldn't find a cost associated with it--that critical figure is often left out of such articles.


There are numbers provided in the third section on the "About" page of the IDDP site.

It's also worth noting that this is very much a long term research initiative, and commercial installation costs are just conjecture at this point. They're proving the technology.



> The IDDP was founded in the year 2000 by a consortium of three Icelandic energy companies: (Hitaveita Sudurnesja (HS) (since 2008: HS Orka hf), Landsvirkjun (LV) and Orkuveita Reykjavíkur (OR)), and Orkustofnun (OS), the National Energy Authority of Iceland.





> The main purpose of the IDDP project is to find out if it is economically feasible to extract energy and chemicals out of hydrothermal systems at supercritical conditions.





> The first step was to design the project in a feasibility report, extending from the geo-scientific background and site selection to drilling technology and fluid handling and evaluation. The main results of the feasibility study were the following: (i) It is possible to drill the IDDP well to 5 km, (ii) It is possible to deal with a 400-600°C hot fluid, (iii) it is not possible to predict the chemical composition of the fluid prior to drilling, (iv) Some 12 potential drill sites for IDDP wells were selected, (v) Estimated cost of a full scale IDDP well: U$ 14-16 millions, (vi) Estimated cost of 5 km deep production well: US$ 8-9 millions, (vii) Estimated cost of coring to 4 km depth in “wells of opportunity”: US $ 6 millions, (viii) Estimated cost of fluid handling and evaluation by using the “pipe”: US $ 5,5 millions. (ix) The IDDP wells should also be considered for fluid injection tests in order to gain experience in heat sweeping (enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)), (x) The knowledge gained by the IDDP experiment will be beneficial to the energy company holding the geothermal field, irrespective of the result to meet the IDDP primary goal of tapping supercritical fluid from a geothermal system.


----------



## Macfury

The extra detail is interesting. Thanks for that!

Of course, this very type of project was the subject of the 1960s sci-fi disaster film, _The Crack in the World_. Drilling down to the magma causes a massive earthquake and a 12,000 mile-ong fissure. I think a nuke stopped it from going any further.


----------



## CubaMark

*Tesla Unveils its New Line of Camouflaged Solar Panels*










Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to the stage at Universal Studios in LA this evening promising to make solar sexy. To that end, he unveiled a range of textured glass tiles with integrated solar cells that are nearly indistinguishable from conventional tiling, along with a sleek update to the company’s energy-storing Powerwall.

* * *​
From the street, it was virtually impossible to tell; the roofs retained a variety of traditional looks, from textured slate shingle to terra cotta tile.

Musk said the secret to the tiles’ appearance is a special coating that becomes more or less see-through depending on your viewing angle. He described it as a series of micro louvers that work like a privacy screen on a laptop, and said the company is working with 3M on the tech. The effect is dramatic in person. From shallow angles, the tiles appear nontransparent. But as your viewing angle approaches 90 degrees, the underlying solar cell becomes more and more visible. The result is a tile that permits the passage of sunlight from overhead, but still looks opaque to anyone at ground level.

* * *​
...the glass was tougher than materials like clay and slate. “It’s never going to wear out, it’s made of quartz, it has a quasi-infinite lifetime,” Musk said.

“We need to make solar panels as appealing as electric cars have become,” Musk said. He wants to make every roof solar, by making it irresistible. “It needs to be beautiful, affordable, and seamlessly integrated. If all of those things are true, why would you go any other direction?”

* * *​
Solar power is an elegant solution for sustainable energy generation. Once the panels are installed, they make electricity whenever the sun shines, with no moving parts, no noise, and, beyond the occasional cleaning, very little maintenance. The problem is, when the sun isn’t shining, like in the evenings when electricity demand peaks, they’re useless. Hence Tesla’s plan to integrate pretty panels with a battery. Generate and store by day, light up your house by night, and brag about it when you feel so inclined.​
(Wired)

*These are Tesla’s stunning new solar roof tiles for homes*










The solar roofing comes in four distinct styles that Tesla presented at the event, including “Textured Glass Tile,” “Slate Glass Tile,” “Tuscan Glass Tile, and “Smooth Glass Tile.” Each of these achieves a different aesthetic look, but all resembled fairly closely a current roofing material style.

* * *​
The current versions of the tiles actually have a two percent loss on efficiency, so 98 percent of what you’d normally get from a traditional solar panel,....

* * *​
...price: Tesla’s roof cost less than the full cost of a roof and electricity will be competitive or better than the cost of a traditional roof combined with the cost of electricity from the grid, Musk said. Tesla declined to provide specific pricing at the moment, since it will depend on a number of factor including installation specifics on a per home basis.

* * *​
The solar roof product should start to see installations by summer next year, and Tesla plans to start with one or two of its four tile options, then gradually expand the options over time. As they’re made from quartz glass, they should last way longer than an asphalt tile — at least two or three times the longevity, though Musk later said “they should last longer than the house”.​









(TechCrunch)


----------



## FeXL

No surprise.

We knew wind farms kill many bats, but science now says the death toll is even worse than estimated



> Wind farms have a long-documented history of killing hundreds of thousands of birds and bats each year. As it turns out, the bat toll may be higher than previously estimated.
> 
> In a study published Monday, researchers in the United Kingdom found that environmental impact assessments — the main tool used to predict the ecological effects of a new energy development — commonly failed to predict the number of bats that would have fatal collisions with wind turbines’ spinning blades.
> 
> Even in the few cases where researchers said early assessments accurately predicted the danger to bats, efforts to mitigate those risks often did not succeed.


But it's OK. It's just a _bat_, right?

Related:

Syncrude to pay $3M for duck deaths 

Curious how that works, idn't it...


----------



## CubaMark

*Nuclear Power Is Not "Green Energy": It Is a Fount of Atomic Waste*









Starting in 1971, I became a card-carrying member of the "nuclear priesthood." I began as a licensed nuclear reactor operator and progressed through the industry to become a senior vice president. I believed, with religious fervor, that by helping to build and operate atomic power reactors, I would be creating power that was "too cheap to meter."

* * *​
Does the nuclear industry's latest claim that it is the world's salvation from increasing levels of CO2 hold up under scrutiny? No. The evidence clearly shows that building new nuclear power plants will make global warming worse.

* * *​
Can new atomic power reactors really help cut CO2 by 2050? Unfortunately, what is past is prologue. The World Nuclear Association claims that 1,000 new nuclear power plants will be needed by 2050 to combat CO2 buildup and climate change. The MIT estimate also assumes 1,000 nuclear power plants must be in operation by 2050. Using the nuclear trade association's own calculations shows that these new power plants will offset only 3.9 gigatons of CO2 in 2050; 3.9 gigatons out of 64 gigatons is only 6.1 percent of the total CO2 released to the atmosphere in 2050, hardly enough for the salvation of the polar bears.

If those 1,000 nuclear power plants were cheap and could be built quickly, investing in atomic power reactors might still make sense. However, Lazard Financial Advisory and Asset Management, with no dog in the fight, has developed a rubric which estimates that the construction cost of those new power plants will be $8,200,000,000,000. Yes, that's $8.2 trillion to reduce CO2 by only 6 percent.

* * *​
Atmospheric CO2 releases are not going to go on vacation while waiting for those 1,000 plants to be built. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016, the average construction time for 46 nuclear plants that began operation between 2006 and 2016 was 10.4 years, not including engineering, licensing and site selection.

Contrast that with a two-year design and construction schedule for a typical industrial-scale solar power plant. Atmospheric CO2 levels will increase by almost 70 ppm during the 35 years it will take to construct those 1,000 new nuclear power plants, an increase that they will never eliminate -- if they ever operate.

* * *​
Building new nuclear power plants applies a 20th century technology to a 21st century problem. Moreover, building nuclear reactors in a trade-off for CO2 reduction creates a toxic legacy of atomic waste throughout the world. Proponents of nuclear power would have us believe that humankind is smart enough to store nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years, but at the same time, humankind is too ignorant to figure out how to store solar electricity overnight.​
(Truth-Out)


----------



## Macfury

Painful to listen to the guy who just quit smoking.


----------



## CubaMark

*Chernobyl's Gigantic Radiation Shield Is Now Being Moved Into Place*










A giant metal shield designed to contain radioactive waste at Chernobyl’s damaged nuclear reactor is being moved into place. 

Workers at the site of the world’s deadliest nuclear accident have started to move a shield, called the New Safe Confinement, that should prevent further radioactive material from leaking out of the damaged reactor over the next century. Ukraine’s environment minister, Ostap Semerak, described the start of the final construction phase as a historic step.

On *April 26, 1986*, the No. 4 reactor at the Chernobyl plant experienced a catastrophic meltdown, sending long plumes of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere. Over 30 workers were killed in the immediate aftermath, but an untold number of people suffered from various radiation-related health problems in the months and years that followed.

Soon after the accident, the damaged reactor building was enclosed in a large radiation shield made of concrete. Experts started to fear that the hastily built sarcophagus would eventually start to decay and collapse, possibly releasing more radioactive material. To address the problem, a new shield was designed to prevent further leakage, and to allow for the partial demolition of the old structure in the future.

The upgraded radiation shield is made of corrosion-resistant steel, and measures 843 feet (275 meters) wide and 354 feet (108) meters tall. *The sarcophagus comes at a cost of $1.6 billion ($1.5 billion euros)*, which is being funded primarily by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (ERBD).​(Gizmodo)​


----------



## CubaMark

*Little-Known US Nuclear Site Is "Chernobyl Waiting to Happen"*










An investigative piece by NBC News includes some damning quotes from nuclear experts about the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington state, including "the most toxic place in America" and "an underground Chernobyl waiting to happen." For the story, NBC sat down with 11 current and former workers at the site, which is currently undergoing a 50-year, $110 billion cleanup. They complained of dementia, nerve damage, pain so bad they "just pass out," memory loss, difficulty breathing, and more from exposure to dangerous vapors arising from leaking tanks containing 56 million gallons of chemical and nuclear waste. Employees say they are discouraged from requesting safety equipment, such as air tanks. "We're told daily that it's safe," one current worker says.

But two dozen studies have found otherwise, and a watchdog group says at least three deaths have been linked to time spent at Hanford. One Washington official calls it an "absolute scandal," and the state attorney general is suing the federal government, which owns the site. In a response to the NBC piece, the Department of Energy says the safety of Hanford workers is its highest priority, the Tri-City Herald reports. It denies vapors are present at dangerous levels where workers are and says it's looking into new safety measures.​
(Newser)


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> *Little-Known US Nuclear Site Is "Chernobyl Waiting to Happen"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An investigative piece by NBC News includes some damning quotes from nuclear experts about the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington state, including "the most toxic place in America" and "an underground Chernobyl waiting to happen." For the story, NBC sat down with 11 current and former workers at the site, which is currently undergoing a 50-year, $110 billion cleanup. They complained of dementia, nerve damage, pain so bad they "just pass out," memory loss, difficulty breathing, and more from exposure to dangerous vapors arising from leaking tanks containing 56 million gallons of chemical and nuclear waste. Employees say they are discouraged from requesting safety equipment, such as air tanks. "We're told daily that it's safe," one current worker says.
> 
> But two dozen studies have found otherwise, and a watchdog group says at least three deaths have been linked to time spent at Hanford. One Washington official calls it an "absolute scandal," and the state attorney general is suing the federal government, which owns the site. In a response to the NBC piece, the Department of Energy says the safety of Hanford workers is its highest priority, the Tri-City Herald reports. It denies vapors are present at dangerous levels where workers are and says it's looking into new safety measures.​
> (Newser)


XX) This is scary.


----------



## CubaMark

Dr.G. said:


> XX) This is scary.


Directly South (by quite a bit) of Kelowna, and E-N-E of Portland, Washington.

Google Map


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> Directly South (by quite a bit) of Kelowna, and E-N-E of Portland, Washington.
> 
> Google Map


Then the jet stream takes it over NS. XX)


----------



## CubaMark

*And for those who say don't worry about nuclear power, well...* _(emphasis added)_

*A Radioactive Berry-Picking Boom Outside Chernobyl*

November 30th, 2016

While many rural towns across Eastern Europe face economic struggle, the Ukrainian region of Polesia, 200 miles east of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site, has become something of a boomtown for *foragers seeking mushrooms and berries — nearly all of which are contaminated with radiation.*
…

The berry picking brings in money for locals as well. A picker can earn $20 to $30 a day, whereas a local schoolteacher earns $80 a month.

However, Brown also says there could be some hidden costs — *the berries end up in the hands of European customers who often do not know they are ingesting foods containing radioactive isotopes. In addition, Brown notes, the berries can be labeled organic, since radioactivity is not covered under common organic designations.*

And the locals who are harvesting the berries may be suffering the effects of accumulated radiation. There is evidence of higher rates of certain birth defects and diseases in some of the areas affected by the disaster.​
(CNBC Via Cryptogon)


----------



## CubaMark

*Wind Power Helps Nova Scotia Set Renewable Energy Record*










Nova Scotia Power (NSP), the Canadian province’s primary electricity provider, says wind power helped it achieve a new renewable energy record in 2015, with 26.6% of the electricity used by Nova Scotians coming from renewable resources last year.

NSP says its performance on renewable energy exceeded the legislated 2015 requirement of 25% renewable electricity, as well as positions the company well to meet the 40% renewable requirement that takes effect in 2020. As recently as 2007, only 9% of Nova Scotia’s electricity was renewable. Also by 2020, NSP will have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 25%.

“We have made remarkable progress in Nova Scotia,” states Sidebottom. “No other utility in Canada has made this rapid of a transition. In 2020, we will have a greater percentage of our electricity coming from renewables than Germany, which is often recognized as a world leader in renewable energy.​
(North American Wind Power)


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> *Wind Power Helps Nova Scotia Set Renewable Energy Record*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova Scotia Power (NSP), the Canadian province’s primary electricity provider, says wind power helped it achieve a new renewable energy record in 2015, with 26.6% of the electricity used by Nova Scotians coming from renewable resources last year.
> 
> NSP says its performance on renewable energy exceeded the legislated 2015 requirement of 25% renewable electricity, as well as positions the company well to meet the 40% renewable requirement that takes effect in 2020. As recently as 2007, only 9% of Nova Scotia’s electricity was renewable. Also by 2020, NSP will have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 25%.
> 
> “We have made remarkable progress in Nova Scotia,” states Sidebottom. “No other utility in Canada has made this rapid of a transition. In 2020, we will have a greater percentage of our electricity coming from renewables than Germany, which is often recognized as a world leader in renewable energy.​
> (North American Wind Power)


Yes, there are a few wind turbines outside of Lunenburg on the drive to Bridgewater, NS. They are amazing to see as you drive up close. HUGE as The Donald would say.


----------



## FeXL

Funny, no numbers listed anywhere as to actual cost to the taxpayer. Or how much the price of electricity has been affected by said implementation. Or how many bats & birds the shredders have killed. Or... Or... Or...



CubaMark said:


> Wind Power Helps Nova Scotia Set Renewable Energy Record


----------



## FeXL

There are hundreds in southern Alberta. Every one of them as amazingly butt ugly as the next...



Dr.G. said:


> Yes, there are a few wind turbines outside of Lunenburg on the drive to Bridgewater, NS. They are amazing to see as you drive up close. HUGE as The Donald would say.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Funny, no numbers listed anywhere as to actual cost to the taxpayer. Or how much the price of electricity has been affected by said implementation. Or how many bats & birds the shredders have killed. Or... Or... Or...


Just checked it out. Only Ontario has higher electric bills than NS. Manitoba has the lowest--and also among the fewest wind turbines.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Just checked it out. Only Ontario has higher electric bills than NS. Manitoba has the lowest--and also among the fewest wind turbines.


Unfortunately, the point of this lesson will go flying right over Prog heads...


----------



## Macfury

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...u-and-merkel-as-last-liberal-leaders-standing



> Meeting with Trudeau, Canadian premiers and indigenous leaders Friday, Biden said U.S. climate progress will nonetheless continue under Trump -- if only because it is now largely driven by market forces and by actions taken at the state level.
> 
> “Regardless of whether the next administration is as aggressive as we were, there’s no way to turn back,” he said. “This tide has begun to roll.”


Just watch market forces take the wheels off that wagon when Trump stops the gravy train.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Just watch market forces take the wheels off that wagon when Trump stops the gravy train.


Exactly. As has already been proven worldwide, once the subsidies stop, so does interest in Green energy.


----------



## FeXL

WTF? The windmills & solar panels didn't cover the shortage?

South Australia: blackout costs $367m, normal electricity twice the price, reserve shortfalls coming in January



> Comforting to know that hundreds of millions were saved because the SA blackout hit at 4pm:
> Today in SA: blackout cost $367m but could have been worse
> 
> _The results of a comprehensive survey of Business SA members of the impact of the September 28 blackout released today also found many did not have business interruption insurance and, of those who did, more than half were not covered for losses resulting from the outage.
> 
> The overall financial impact on South Australia was a loss of $367m but, in occurring late in the trading day, the effect of the blackout was lower than it would have been if it had happened first thing in the morning.
> 
> “Considering 70 per cent of respondents had power restored within 24 hours we are looking at a cost of close to $120,000 per minute for business in the state,” the report found._ –The Australian​
> Only 12% of businesses surveyed had backup generators.


----------



## FeXL

So the five Red Rachel wants to shut down in Alberta is going to accomplish what, in the grand scheme of CO2 emissions?

Pffffft...

(From 2012)

More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show



> World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Only 12% of businesses surveyed had backup generators.


They didn't need them before the "green energy" revolution.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> They didn't need them before the "green energy" revolution.


Exactly.

Just thinking about mine. Lent it to a buddy, it's at a job site near 2 hours from here, on the other side of a river that has to be walked across. Hope the power stays on...


----------



## FeXL

FeXL said:


> So the five Red Rachel wants to shut down in Alberta is going to accomplish what, in the grand scheme of CO2 emissions?
> 
> Pffffft...
> 
> (From 2012)
> 
> More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show


An update (from 2015) to the thousand new plants noted in the above article.

The Truth About China – 2,400 New Coal Plants Will Thwart Any Paris #COP21 Pledges


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anybody who has been paying attention.

Green energy costs a fortune and has never worked



> Call it “clean” energy, “green” energy or “alternate” energy. Whatever you call it, two things about it are certain: It has never succeeded anywhere on a grand scale and it costs a fortune either in higher taxes, lost jobs or skyrocketing energy bills.
> 
> Sadly, it usually costs all three. And the irony is, alternate energy has had little if any environmental benefit.
> 
> It is a dream – or maybe a fairy tale – of “progressive” politicians. A very bad dream that ends up costing taxpayers, homeowners, employees and businesses tens of billions just so “progressives” can feel good about their efforts to save the planet.


----------



## CubaMark

*Low-income families join solar revolution with help of California NGO*










"Our electric bill was going sky high and I really couldn't turn the air conditioning on," Dortch says.

Now, her monthly energy bill is about to drop by more than a quarter. She's getting solar panels installed on her bungalow, for free, under a state-funded program paid for by California's cap-and-trade revenues.

A pair of volunteers hauls a solar panel up to another group waiting on the roof. They belong to an NGO called Grid Alternatives, which recruits volunteers to help implement California's $162-million Single-family Affordable Solar Homes incentive program.

* * *​
That means lower electricity costs for participating households, which must be in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

* * *​
Stan Greshner, one of the organization's vice-presidents, says that, for years, low-income families have been indirectly paying for solar programs through ratepayer fees or taxes, but haven't been able to afford to take advantage of the long-term savings offered by solar.

"It's the right thing to do," Greshner says. "We need to make sure all communities, all families, are part of our nation's transition to a clean energy future and we must now focus on the low-income segment in order for that to be true."

* * *​
California will spend about $300 million until 2020 on low-income solar programs, and a few other states like Colorado and New York are investing in similar programs. As well, in August the federal government launched a "solar access for all" initiative to help bring clean power to some of the almost 50 million American households that earn less than $40,000 a year.

* * *​
...developing that untapped market could also help replace lost blue-collar jobs with green ones, according to Melanie Santiago-Mosier, a director with Vote Solar, a California-based NGO that works to expand solar access.

"We're not looking for handouts, but we are looking for things that will address specific barriers," Santiago-Mosier says.

"The solar industry employs almost 210,000 people across the country. That's more people than the coal industry. And so, by bringing solar into lower-income communities we can create pathways for members of those communities to participate in that solar economy.​
(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> An update (from 2015) to the thousand new plants noted in the above article.
> 
> The Truth About China – 2,400 New Coal Plants Will Thwart Any Paris #COP21 Pledges


*And yet....*

Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry (Wall Street Journal)

Solar Power: America Invented It… China Owns It… Opportunity Springs From It (Wall Street Daily)

China to Cut Solar, Wind Power Prices as Project Costs Fall (Bloomberg)

China leads the world in solar power installations (Computerworld)


----------



## Macfury

The Chinese adoption seems likely to be government buy-up to bolster the solar panel industry which has been hit hard. However, FeXL is right, the coal plants are being built and the panels will augment the growing power needs of the country.


----------



## CubaMark

For all of its many faults, the Chinese model has one advantage over a free-market democracy: The state has the power to enact sweeping infrastructure plans and energy policies, without opposition from competing political actors. This removes an essential check on government power, but it does allow the state to more quickly switch gears and go whole-hog in a new direction, as in the push to massively invest in solar power (and thereby employ economies of scale simply unattainable by most Western countries). And since China is also the top manufacturer of the technology, well, it's a winning strategy all around.

From the ComputerWorld article cited above:

_Last year, China installed 15.13GW of new solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity, reaching a cumulative solar capacity of 43.48GW, according to research firm GlobalData.

This year, China's cumulative capacity has already surpassed 50.3GW. The country's PV installed capacity has increased around 15-fold since 2011 when it had 3.30GW of installed solar capacity.

In the first quarter of 2016, China added a total of 7.14GW of solar capacity, of which 6.17GW accounted for solar PV power plants, and 970 megawatts (MW) for distributed PV installations, such as rooftop panels.

The massive increase in installations can be attributed to China's efforts to boost green energy and adjust the energy mix dominated by coal, according to Ankit Mathur, GlobalData's practice head for power._​


----------



## Macfury

I look at a story like this and just shake my head. California power is grossly expensive due to government mandates and green energy programs, which obviously hits low-income families hard. A poor family is given free solar panels to drop their monthly bill by 25%--probably higher than it would have been without those government mandates, and passes on the cost of the panel program to other consumers, further raising rates.

I'm happy for the family, but the solution is bandaid on a system designed for financial failure--engineered to please people who consider high energy costs a virtue.



CubaMark said:


> *Low-income families join solar revolution with help of California NGO*


----------



## Macfury

Is it a winning strategy to simply install more solar panels? Is the measurement for success the amount of peak electricity produced by the panels? What about the economic and opportunity costs of the panels compared to the cost of the electricity?

I also appreciate the opposition from competing political actors!



CubaMark said:


> For all of its many faults, the Chinese model has one advantage over a free-market democracy: The state has the power to enact sweeping infrastructure plans and energy policies, without opposition from competing political actors.


----------



## FeXL

This is what happens when the gov't interferes in a free market.

“Heating Empty Buildings”: Billion Pound British Biomass Subsidy Scandal



> _*Taxpayers face £1bn bill over green energy subsidy scandal*
> 
> A botched green energy scheme that has ignited a political crisis is on course to cost taxpayers more than £1 billion.
> 
> The Treasury faces the bill after a massive overspend on subsidies encouraging farmers and businesses in Northern Ireland to run eco-friendly power schemes. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) was supposed to cost £25 million in its first five years but the bill is likely to reach £1.15 billion over 20 years.
> 
> The Treasury can claw back £490 million from the block grant to Northern Ireland, leaving £660 million to be financed by taxpayers in England, Scotland and Wales. The scandal threatens the future of Northern Ireland’s first minister Arlene Foster, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). She was the minister responsible when the scheme was set up in 2012. It was intended to boost renewable energy, but critics say Mrs Foster and her officials did not cap costs.
> 
> *Businesses that signed up could receive £160 from the government for every £100 they spent on fuels*, such as wood pellets, burnt in biomass boilers. As people spotted the gains to be made, there was a surge in applications and costs spiralled.
> 
> Flaws in the scheme were exposed by a whistleblower who said businesses were buying biomass boilers solely to collect the subsidy. *The whistleblower alleged that one farmer expected to make £1 million over 20 years for using a biomass boiler to heat an empty shed, while heating a number of empty factories would net their owner £1.5 million.*_​


Links' bold.


----------



## FeXL

Figgers.

'Wet elephant' taxpayer-funded £18MILLION tidal energy scheme supposed to power 600 homes stops working after just three months



> The taxpayer-funded DeltaStream project in Pembrokeshire in Wales, was designed to use the flow of the ocean with a 39ft turbine installed on the seabed near Ramsey Island.
> 
> But the system developed a fault and stopped generating electricity just weeks after being turned on.
> 
> Its operator Tidal Energy Ltd has now gone into administration and is seeking a buyer.
> The £18million 'wet elephant' received £8million funding of EU money and £500,000 from the Welsh Government
> 
> The £18million 'wet elephant' received £8million funding of EU money and £500,000 from the Welsh Government.


I guess £18million just don't get ya what it used to...


----------



## Macfury

Meanwhile in the Bay of Fundy:



> Nova Scotia hailed North America's first successful grid-connected tidal turbine Tuesday with a ceremonial flipping of a switch at a substation outside Parrsboro.


But...



> The electricity being generated is some of the most expensive ever produced in Nova Scotia, *costing $530 per megawatt hour versus the current average of $60 per megawatt hour*.


Massive tidal turbine in Bay of Fundy generating electricity for 1st time - Nova Scotia - CBC News




FeXL said:


> Figgers.
> 
> 'Wet elephant' taxpayer-funded £18MILLION tidal energy scheme supposed to power 600 homes stops working after just three months
> 
> 
> 
> I guess £18million just don't get ya what it used to...


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Meanwhile in the Bay of Fundy:


Note that your risible comments regarding the turbine project neglect to mention:

_"The turbine generates two megawatts of electricity — enough to power 500 homes. The deployment is part of a large-scale demonstration project to test the technology in the powerful tides of the Bay of Fundy over the next several years."_​
It's research. This is not the end-product of a long commercial development effort. It's testing the equipment to see if it can withstand the rigours of the Bay of Fundy tidal environment. This research will feed into future design modifications and - eventually - commercialization.

I suppose I should forgive you, given that you're hamstrung by an anti-Science predisposition....


----------



## Macfury

Exactly what did I say about the demonstration project that you took issue with?



CubaMark said:


> Note that your risible comments regarding the turbine project neglect to mention:
> 
> _"The turbine generates two megawatts of electricity — enough to power 500 homes. The deployment is part of a large-scale demonstration project to test the technology in the powerful tides of the Bay of Fundy over the next several years."_​
> It's research. This is not the end-product of a long commercial development effort. It's testing the equipment to see if it can withstand the rigours of the Bay of Fundy tidal environment. This research will feed into future design modifications and - eventually - commercialization.
> 
> I suppose I should forgive you, given that you're hamstrung by an anti-Science predisposition....


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Exactly what did I say about the demonstration project that you took issue with?


The quote you provided referenced a cost of $530/mWh, which I believe was the point of your post. I simply point out that this is not an end-user commercial rate from a mature technology (or even a new commercialized technology) but rather a technology-in-development. It should not be evaluated on current commercial terms.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, I agree.

We haven't entered taxpayer funded government subsidies into the equation, yet. That'll easily bring them up to a break even point. A couple of billion from a good, old-fashioned carbon tax & they can even crow that alternative energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels...



CubaMark said:


> It should not be evaluated on current commercial terms.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> The quote you provided referenced a cost of $530/mWh, which I believe was the point of your post. I simply point out that this is not an end-user commercial rate from a mature technology (or even a new commercialized technology) but rather a technology-in-development. It should not be evaluated on current commercial terms.


I see. Pointing out the cost makes me "anti-science."


----------



## FeXL

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

Wind Turbines: Lots of Problems, No Free Energy



> _The Bureau of Land Management, a US government agency, declares on its website that “Wind energy is free…” In the next paragraph it proves this is nonsense by admitting that while costs have decreased, wind power still “requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.”_​
> If wind is free, so are coal and oil. They’re just sitting there in the ground, waiting for us to find them. Any energy source that requires multi-million-dollar, industrial-scale investment before it can be used by ordinary people isn’t free. Why do governments tell these kinds of lies?


----------



## ehMax

I'm actually surprised at how little disruption there is in efforts to switch mankind to completely different ways of collecting energy besides fossil fuels. 

It's a bell curve. We are just starting to really get into it, and the economies of scale will continue to kick in. Tesla just flicked the switch on their Gigafactory. Few people understand the implications of what Tesla is doing and how significant it is. 

All these hiccups are minor in comparison to doing nothing. It's absolutely necessary for governments to have economic incentives (both positive and negative) to move civilization in this direction. No amount of whining or ignoring of science will change this. 

The simple facts, just like the earth is round and not flat, are that: 1. We will run out of fossil fuels*2. We're releasing too much Carbon into our planet's atmosphere. 

All whining and complaining about some sectors losing jobs or a bit more tax on energy short term, and denying science is short-sighted and selfish.


----------



## ehMax

FeXL said:


> Surprise, surprise, surprise...
> 
> Wind Turbines: Lots of Problems, No Free Energy


You see, by free, it means that once you setup a solar panel, it collects the energy at almost no cost, both in dollars and carbon emissions. 

Coal on the other hand, always has to be mined, processed, and then burned releasing Carbon into our atmosphere. 

The solar industry is still scaling up, so yes... there are costs to set up, especially in comparison to an industry that has been around for quite some time. However, the economies of scale will continue to drive down costs.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> You see, by free, it means that once you setup a solar panel, it collects the energy at almost no cost, both in dollars and carbon emissions.
> 
> Coal on the other hand, always has to be mined, processed, and then burned releasing Carbon into our atmosphere.
> 
> The solar industry is still scaling up, so yes... there are costs to set up, especially in comparison to an industry that has been around for quite some time. However, the economies of scale will continue to drive down costs.


Collecting all energy is expensive--much more expensive for solar. The infrastructure for panels will also need constant maintenance and replacement, grid infrastructure, etc., so there will be ongoing costs. I can get "free" water from Lake Ontario, but it's just too expensive to bring it to the house and make it palatable.

By the time solar panels are truly affordable, some better technology will likely be kicking its ass.


----------



## FeXL

Why? The more gov't interferes in a free market society, the more society as whole suffers. Case(s) in point? The billions of taxpayer dollars recently pissed away on failed alternative energy companies in the US like Solyndra.

Henry Ford never received any subsidies, yet somehow managed to move society in a particular direction. He offered people a useful, affordable technology that was an improvement over the old one. No current alternative energy, save nuclear, does that. And, despite claims to the contrary, wind & solar are not exactly "new" technologies.



ehMax said:


> It's absolutely necessary for governments to have economic incentives (both positive and negative) to move civilization in this direction.


If you want to talk about the science of global warming, you are more than welcome & highly encouraged to head over to the GHG thread. They were originally created to stop the contamination of nearly every thread on these boards with warmist BS.

Until you present your case there with empirical evidence, all you have is an opinion.



ehMax said:


> No amount of whining or ignoring of science will change this.


The simple facts are thus: 1) Peak oil has been predicted just about as often as the end of the world by the doomsayers and with just as much accuracy. Free enterprise has been amazingly creative in squeezing the last hydrocarbons out of the planet. We ain't there yet. BP predicts ~50 years worth of reserves for both oil & gas and that's not including numbers from some of the newest technologies. Yes, we will run out at some point. Until then, we should be working on _viable_ alternatives, such as nuclear.

2) According to whose/what measure?



ehMax said:


> The simple facts, just like the earth is round and not flat, are that: 1. We will run out of fossil fuels*2. We're releasing too much Carbon into our planet's atmosphere.


Job aren't even part of the equation, in my view. 

As to a _bit_ more tax on energy, how much is too much? A large portion of the cost of all fossil fuel energy is already taxes. Another 5%? 20%? 50%? Where does it stop?



ehMax said:


> All whining and complaining about some sectors losing jobs or a bit more tax on energy short term, and denying science is short-sighted and selfish.


----------



## FeXL

Please, feel free to conduct some research on actual installed costs of wind & solar, not limited to but including backup power for when the sun ain't shining & the wind ain't blowing (gas or diesel powered generators for baseline power, batteries, etc.). It's been discussed at length on this thread. Then come talk to me about all the free energy we can get from the sun & the wind.



ehMax said:


> You see, by free, it means that once you setup a solar panel, it collects the energy at almost no cost, both in dollars and carbon emissions.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Why? The more gov't interferes in a free market society, the more society as whole suffers. Case(s) in point? The billions of taxpayer dollars recently pissed away on failed alternative energy companies in the US like Solyndra.
> 
> Henry Ford never received any subsidies, yet somehow managed to move society in a particular direction. He offered people a useful, affordable technology that was an improvement over the old one. No current alternative energy, save nuclear, does that. And, despite claims to the contrary, wind & solar are not exactly "new" technologies.


Yeah! 'cause *2017* is _SO_ like 1903!

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

No $h!t. In 1903, governments expected people to look after themselves. In 2017, pot-licking Progs expect gov't to look after them...



CubaMark said:


> Yeah! 'cause *2017* is _SO_ like 1903!


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> Collecting all energy is expensive--much more expensive for solar. The infrastructure for panels will also need constant maintenance and replacement, grid infrastructure, etc., so there will be ongoing costs. I can get "free" water from Lake Ontario, but it's just too expensive to bring it to the house and make it palatable.
> 
> By the time solar panels are truly affordable, some better technology will likely be kicking its ass.


Much more expensive for solar? Afraid *that is not so*. *Full Data*. 

The Dutch have been studying renewable energy a hell of a lot longer than anyone else and are masters at it. 



> The positive effect of solar energy as a sustainable energy source offsets the negative impact of the production of solar panels. This applies to energy consumption as well as greenhouse gas emissions during the production process, according to a comprehensive study by Atse Louwen and Wilfried van Sark from Utrecht University and colleagues from University of Groningen and Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. Their research results are published 6 December in the leading journal Nature Communications.
> 
> The mass production of solar panels in countries where environmental concerns are not always taken seriously, regularly sparks discussion on how sustainable solar panels actually are. 'In our study we carefully examined important sustainability aspects of the production and yield of solar panels over the last 40 years. This revealed that solar energy is currently both the cheapest and the cleanest alternative to fossil fuels', explains solar energy researcher Wilfried van Sark.
> 
> *ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND EFFICIENCY*
> Since the introduction of solar energy in the 1970s, the cost has fallen from roughly €75 to less than €1 per watt of installed capacity. This is partly due to the economies of scale achieved in the industry, as well as to innovations in technology and production. As a result, the consumption of energy and materials per solar panel has declined, while the yield per solar panel has increased.
> 
> *GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS*
> With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, solar panel production also yields a net benefit. PhD candidate Atse Louwen: 'Our research indicates that, despite the strong growth in the number of solar panels, greenhouse gas emissions during production are more than offset by the clean electricity these panels produce. We passed the break-even point at the end of 2014.'
> 
> *FOOTBALL FIELDS*
> A total of 300 gigawatts of installed photovoltaic capacity is now available worldwide. This amounts to an area of approximately 1,800 square kilometres (250,000 football fields) of solar panels. These panels are expected to deliver more than 370 terawatt-hours of electricity this year – roughly 1.5% of the total global electricity supply. Van Sark: 'That may not seem like much, but it already represents a reduction of around 170 megatonnes of greenhouse gasses. And the growth potential remains huge.'
> 
> *MORE BENEFITS TO COME*
> The net benefit between environmental gains and environmental costs will also continue to grow because solar panel production and technology are still constantly evolving, Atse Louwen says. 'For example, the silicon wafers, which is the base material used for solar panels, are becoming thinner and thinner, and the cutting process causes less and less material loss. The use of silver for applying the electrical contacts onto the wafers is decreasing sharply as well. Scientific research is also continuously providing new possibilities for more efficient conversion of sunlight into electricity, allowing each sunray to be better utilised.'


So many more studies and articles from credible stories with real data and statistics, but when dealing with people who deny climate change, I've learned that facts and data don't often sway ideology. 

The proof will be watching in watching the industry unfold and the continued reported numbers. There is a lot of great progress being made and awesome success stories that will just keep getting better.


----------



## ehMax

FeXL said:


> Please, feel free to conduct some research on actual installed costs of wind & solar, not limited to but including backup power for when the sun ain't shining & the wind ain't blowing (gas or diesel powered generators for baseline power, batteries, etc.). It's been discussed at length on this thread. Then come talk to me about all the free energy we can get from the sun & the wind.


Sure, in addition to the one I posted above, *here's another*. 



> Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
> 
> Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
> 
> More stories by Tom RandallApril 6, 2016, 5:00 AM EDT
> Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.
> 
> While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.
> 
> One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Government subsidies have helped wind and solar get a foothold in global power markets, but economies of scale are the true driver of falling prices: *The cost of solar power has fallen to 1/150th of its level in the 1970*s, while the total amount of installed solar has soared 115,000-fold.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: It’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. *What's more, the price of batteries to store solar power when the sun isn't shining is falling in a similarly stunning arc. *
> 
> Just since 2000, the amount of global electricity produced by solar power has doubled seven times over. Even wind power, which was already established, doubled four times over the same period. For the first time, the two forms of renewable energy are beginning to compete head-to-head on price and annual investment.


In pure dollars and cents, it makes sense without even factoring in the truth that although people like to put the head in the sand about the facts, we have to move away burning fossil fuel and adding too much CO2 into our atmosphere.


----------



## eMacMan

I can assure you the battery line is more or less a myth. Was shopping a few months ago, hoping to go off grid. The cost of the power inverter/charger and batteries for a single family residence came to about $30,000. 

In Alberta gouge fees exceed electricity cost, so one either goes off grid or stays conventional. Payback period for me would have been about double my remaining life expectancy.


----------



## FeXL

There is nothing in either article that compares actual operating costs to fossil fuels. They merely note that solar is the cheapest _alternative_ to fossil fuels. In actual dollars & cents, exactly what does that mean? 1% more? 20% more? 100% more?

Frankly, if solar panels had actually been found to produce cheaper electricity than fossil fuels I believe that would have been heralded all over those pages. It wasn't. And hasn't been anywhere else. The hue & cry from the Believers would have been enormous. Nuttin'.



ehMax said:


> Much more expensive for solar? Afraid that is not so.


You are allowed your opinion. You are not allowed your own facts. I have no, none, zero, ideology in this matter. Or for damn few other things in my life.

Go ahead. Meet me at the GHG thread.



ehMax said:


> ...when dealing with people who deny climate change, I've learned that facts and data don't often sway ideology.


Curious how all those awesome success stories fall by the wayside the second subsidies are pulled, idn't it... 



ehMax said:


> There is a lot of great progress being made and awesome success stories that will just keep getting better.


----------



## ehMax

FeXL said:


> Why? The more gov't interferes in a free market society, the more society as whole suffers. Case(s) in point? The billions of taxpayer dollars recently pissed away on failed alternative energy companies in the US like Solyndra.
> 
> Henry Ford never received any subsidies, yet somehow managed to move society in a particular direction. He offered people a useful, affordable technology that was an improvement over the old one. No current alternative energy, save nuclear, does that. And, despite claims to the contrary, wind & solar are not exactly "new" technologies.


The more gov't interferes in a free market society, the more society as a whole suffers? Ridiculous statement. 

By any measure of the economy in a pure $ sense, or when other factors are added to truly measure a human satisfaction index, economies where government "interferes" by controlling fiscal and monetary policy, to control inflation and steady huge swings in growth or decline... Those countries have much stronger economies and much higher human satisfaction indexes. 

Solyndra... they lost out to better technology for solar panels. Market working. Would investment be made in research without it? I'll see your Solyndra and raise you Tesla who repaid their government loan with interest... the only American car company to do so. Now employs 30,000 people and screaming with growth. 



> If you want to talk about the science of global warming, you are more than welcome & highly encouraged to head over to the GHG thread. They were originally created to stop the contamination of nearly every thread on these boards with warmist BS.
> 
> Until you present your case there with empirical evidence, all you have is an opinion.


It's like arguing with flat-earthers. All the evidence is there a 1000x over. I no longer engage in ideological debates or people who bring up stats from science denier blogs and politicians. 

We can keep building more and more complicated ways to squeeze out fossil fuels.. probably for centuries if we want. The only people who want to are people looking out for their own short-sited interests.


----------



## Macfury

EhMax, we've already dissected all of the falsehoods in this article when it first came out.

The truth is that solar and wind power have had very little economic success other than when heavily subsidized. Even when they work somewhat, the cost of keeping those technologies on the grid has been crippling.

You may be emotionally attached to these technologies, but they are not economically viable at this point. If you believe they are, don't just give us a speech--show us the numbers.



ehMax said:


> Sure, in addition to the one I posted above, *here's another*.
> 
> 
> 
> In pure dollars and cents, it makes sense without even factoring in the truth that although people like to put the head in the sand about the facts, we have to move away burning fossil fuel and adding too much CO2 into our atmosphere.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> It's like arguing with flat-earthers. All the evidence is there a 1000x over. I no longer engage in ideological debates or people who bring up stats from science denier blogs and politicians.


Great--bring on just one of the thousand and we can look at the numbers.


----------



## FeXL

So, what's the thrust here? That because people are investing in alternative energies, they are somehow more cost-efficient than fossil fuels?

Pardon me while I blow that argument out of the water. The reason so many are investing in alternative energy in some countries is purely because of the returns they are guaranteed by the proffered tax-payer supported gov't subsidies! 

Hell, look in your own backyard. Investors were guaranteed 80 cents/kwh for solar panel produced electricity, 11 to 18 times the market rate. Who the hell wouldn't invest? I would have, with guaranteed returns like that! The thing is, everybody & their dog who could scrape together a bit of cash did, to the point where they had to stop making the offer.

With the price of a barrel of oil in the toilet, it's not exactly a mystery why investors are looking at anything that generates a better return. That's no tacit endorsement of the technology, that's business.



> Such is the legacy of the provincial government’s 2009 decision to establish feed-in rates, ranging from 44.5 cents to 80.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for solar power, and 13.5 cents/kWh for wind power. These solar feed-in rates average 11 times the 5.6 cents/kWh paid for nuclear-generated power, and 18 times the 3.5 cents/kWh for hydro-generated power. The wind-power rates are more than twice as high as nuclear, and four times those of hydro.





ehMax said:


> Sure, in addition to the one I posted above.


Again, you've produced no facts to defend your statement about global warming or the alleged effects of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Therefore, I am dismissing it out of hand as merely your opinion.

Opine away...



ehMax said:


> In pure dollars and cents, it makes sense without even factoring in the truth that although people like to put the head in the sand about the facts, we have to move away burning fossil fuel and adding too much CO2 into our atmosphere.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Great--bring on just one of the thousand and we can look at the numbers.


Believers don't bring evidence. All they bring is narrative & BS...


----------



## FeXL

Imagine the world wide poverties that could have been lessened or even banished by all the trillions of dollars pi$$ed away on the non-existant problem of global warming. Water. Food. Disease. Education. Transportation. Human rights...



ehMax said:


> The more gov't interferes in a free market society, the more society as a whole suffers? Ridiculous statement.


Billions of dollars in tax-payer funded gov't subsidies pi$$ed away on failed technologies that couldn't make it in the marketplace on their own. And, Solyndra is only one in a long list which has been noted on this very thread. As I noted above: _Imagine the good all that cash could have done._

That's not the market working. That's gov't interference in the free market. The market would never have entertained them without the gov't subsidies. The gov't cannot pick winners & losers. That record is clear.

Would investment in research be made in an affordable, viable solution? You bet. Happens in the free market _every single day_.



ehMax said:


> Solyndra... they lost out to better technology for solar panels. Market working. Would investment be made in research without it?


Ah, yes, Tesla. The darling of the jet-set. How much has he received in gov't subsidies over the years (not loans)? How many hundreds of billions of dollars? And, how much is the purchase price of each vehicle subsidized for purchasers from various taxpayer supported gov't grants? And how much tax-payer funded money is given, by governments, to construct charging stations? 

How's those production bottlenecks? Have they been fixed? Their sales were down last quarter. Tesla is not out of the woods by a stretch.



ehMax said:


> I'll see your Solyndra and raise you Tesla who repaid their government loan with interest...


That's a cop-out. Pure and simple. If the facts are there, present them. 1000x times over, if necessary. However, if you do, in fact, have actual facts, only once is needed.



ehMax said:


> It's like arguing with flat-earthers. All the evidence is there a 1000x over. I no longer engage in ideological debates or people who bring up stats from science denier blogs and politicians.


Yes, we can. The free market is very good at that. They are able to come up with ways to extract more hydrocarbons in cheaper ways than the heavily subsidized alternative energy market. Interesting, idn't it.

I'm willing to bet that the free market will also be the ones that come up with a viable, affordable alternative to fossil fuels, as well. That's not short-sightedness.



ehMax said:


> We can keep building more and more complicated ways to squeeze out fossil fuels.. probably for centuries if we want. The only people who want to are people looking out for their own short-sited interests.


----------



## Macfury

Was having a discussion with a friend a while back and we could only account for one technology in which government invested heavily that paid significant dividends--steam assisted gravity drainage in the Alberta Oil Sands.


----------



## FeXL

Further to this, how's Venezuela doing? Especially, but not limited to, controlling that inflation thing?



ehMax said:


> By any measure of the economy in a pure $ sense, or when other factors are added to truly measure a human satisfaction index, economies where government "interferes" by controlling fiscal and monetary policy, to control inflation and steady huge swings in growth or decline... Those countries have much stronger economies and much higher human satisfaction indexes.


Obviously...



ehMax said:


> Ridiculous statement.


----------



## Macfury

No government has successfully controlled a "huge decline" or they would all be doing it.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Imagine the world wide poverties that could have been lessened or even banished by all the trillions of dollars pi$$ed away on the non-existant problem of global warming. Water. Food. Disease. Education. Transportation. Human rights...


Substitute "wars for oil" for "global warming" and I'll agree with you.


:-(


----------



## Macfury

How about both of them?



CubaMark said:


> Substitute "wars for oil" for "global warming" and I'll agree with you.
> 
> 
> :-(


----------



## ehMax

:lmao: 

First of all, please point to where I said Solar Panels are currently cheaper??? I'll give you as much time as you want, but you won't find it. (Insert Jeopardy music)

I made 2 points:

1. That solar panels are not "much more expensive for solar". 

2. That the economies of scale will continue to kick in. 

To that end, I gave a specific example of a large energy contract, in which the winning bid that won - based on costs from all different energy sectors, was solar energy. So many huge corporations.. that LOVE MONEY AND PROFITS FOR SHAREHOLDERS, going full-in on solar energy. *cough* Apple *cough* ... *cough* Target, Walmart, Google, Ikea, FedEx... many, many others...* 

I also showed an in-depth Dutch study from their top Universities (Masters at energy, use of resources and business), where costs of solar energy since the 1970s, had fallen from roughly €75 to less than €1 per watt of installed capacity. (Seriously, even the Dutch King has his Masters in the use of water... If you tour the country, it really is staggering to see how they live). 

There are numerous stats and reported data that showed the continuing reduced costs and that will continue to accelerate with additional research whether you'd like to believe that or not. I'm very thankful for people with scientific degrees at Canada and the US's very fine Universities who are researching this. Conservative are so fun to always think people are going to Universities for Liberal Arts degrees. :lmao:

I don't have an example of exact costs comparisons and I don't think it's currently cheaper. I said it's not much more expensive and the economies of scale and continued technology will drive costs down. 

Where I disagree with flat-earthers... I mean climate change deniers, is that if it needs to be done. I will just say, I accept science and I am not held to ideologies. Intelligent governments know this needs to be done and responsible ones are, despite the percentage of global Carbon emissions. There's no decision based on emotions. I simply accept science. So much of society is unfortunately, scientifically illeterate. I don't argue with science-deniers any more than I get into it with people who think the world is flat... And there are million in the US and Canada who still think the earth is flat. Go to any social media post from NASA, and you get about 40% of comments from people who think NASA is part of the Elite and/or Illuminati where everything is fake and made with CGI in Hollywood. You are in deep if you think all scientist are part of some conspiracy and I question... well, I don't want to get into insults. 

The rate of cost reduction due to economies of scale is absolutely there. 

I laugh at anyone attempting to discredit Tesla. Yes, they had subsidies (loans)... *And they paid them all back with interest.* The US government (tax-payers) *made money*. Without spending a penny on advertising, they can not keep up with orders. It's an amazing product that they are working towards mass production. I've put my money on their success, and we'll see what rewards I'll be reaping.

But like I said, few people understand the impact of the Gigafactory opening. The Tesla plant is also run by the previous manufacturing head of Toyota in Cambridge. It will be a world-class production facility. Too bad Toyota was so stingy in Canada and is moving production of their #1 mass-produced car to Mexico. Trump and conservatives should be PRAISING Telsa and using it as a shining example of American ingenuity, innovation and creating new economies. If Trump truly is not stupid, he will continue to support an American CEO who is at the forefront of an industry that WILL have to change. Most car companies are playing catch up... 

Yes there are subsidies on Electric Cars. Seriously, take an economics 101 course to understand how the economy works. Incentives are part of government economies. Even Stephen Harper, who I thought wasn't a bad conservative leader, supports government incentives (Both negative and positive). Canada is the #10 economy in the world, along with the United States at #1. It's because of our modern economics. China understands the math, but boy is it ****ty to in the "middle-class" of that economy. I think most people take for granted the wealth and prosperity we have in North America relative to many parts of the world. Still... so many people, both right and left, want to live beyond their means. 

The economies of scale will really play out in the next several years. We'll all see it unfold. No matter who is in power, the wheels are in motion.


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> Was having a discussion with a friend a while back and we could only account for one technology in which government invested heavily that paid significant dividends--steam assisted gravity drainage in the Alberta Oil Sands.


Solar will continue to improve and become more cost-effective. 

I can think of many technology related companies in the service sector that the government has invested in, that have brought huge economic benefits to the economy and attracted many tech companies. So many success stories, especially in my neck of the woods. *Great article. *


----------



## ehMax

FeXL said:


> Imagine the world wide poverties that could have been lessened or even banished by all the trillions of dollars pi$$ed away on the non-existant problem of global warming. Water. Food. Disease. Education. Transportation. Human rights...


I don't think any money has been pissed away. In fact, *money will be saved*. 

The irony of you bringing up Water. Food. Disease. Education. Transportation. Human rights... And not thinking climate change needs to be addressed. 

Oh, it is. And Solar energy IS getting cheaper all the time. *From my conservative close friends at the National Post*:



> *Here comes the sun: In less than a decade, solar power will likely be the cheapest option everywhere on Earth*
> 
> Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it’s likely to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere.
> 
> In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further.
> 
> Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. That’s help cut risk premiums on bank loans, and pushed manufacturing capacity to record levels. By 2025, solar may be cheaper than using coal on average globally.
> 
> “These are game-changing numbers, and it’s becoming normal in more and more markets,” said Adnan Amin, International Renewable Energy Agency ‘s director general, an Abu Dhabi-based intergovernmental group. “Every time you double capacity, you reduce the price by 20 percent.”
> 
> Better technology has been key in boosting the industry, from the use of diamond-wire saws that more efficiently cut wafers to better cells that provide more spark from the same amount of sun. It’s also driven by economies of scale and manufacturing experience since the solar boom started more than a decade ago, giving the industry an increasing edge in the competition with fossil fuels.
> 
> The average 1 megawatt-plus ground mounted solar system will cost US73 cents a watt by 2025 compared with US$1.14 now, a 36 percent drop, said Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis for New Energy Finance.
> 
> That’s in step with other forecasts.
> 
> GTM Research expects some parts of the U.S. Southwest approaching US$1 a watt today, and may drop as low as US75 cents in 2021, according to its analyst MJ Shiao. The U.S. Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Lab expects costs of about US$1.20 a watt now declining to US$1 by 2020. By 2030, current technology will squeeze out most potential savings, said Donald Chung, a senior project leader. The International Energy Agency expects utility-scale generation costs to fall by another 25 percent on average in the next five years. The International Renewable Energy Agency anticipates a further drop of 43 percent to 65 percent for solar costs by 2025. That would bring to 84 percent the cumulative decline since 2009.
> 
> *The solar supply chain is experiencing “a Wal-Mart effect” from higher volumes and lower margins, according to Sami Khoreibi, founder and chief executive officer of Enviromena Power Systems, an Abu Dhabi-based developer.*
> 
> In China, the biggest solar market, will see costs falling below coal by 2030, according to New Energy Finance. The country has surpassed Germany as the nation with the most installed solar capacity as the government seeks to increase use to cut carbon emissions and boost home consumption of clean energy. Yet curtailment remains a problem, particularly in sunnier parts of the country as congestion on the grid forces some solar plants to switch off.
> 
> Sunbelt countries are leading the way in cutting costs, though there’s more to it than just the weather. The use of auctions to award power-purchase contracts is forcing energy companies to compete with each other to lower costs.
> 
> An August auction in Chile yielded a contract for 2.91 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, a United Arab Emirates auction grabbed headlines with a bid of 2.42 cents a kilowatt-hour. Developers have been emboldened to submit lower bids by expectations that the cost of the technology will continue to fall.
> 
> “We’re seeing a new reality where solar is the lowest-cost source of energy, and I don’t see an end in sight in terms of the decline in costs,” said Enviromena’s Khoreibi.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> :lmao:
> 
> First of all, please point to where I said Solar Panels are currently cheaper??? I'll give you as much time as you want, but you won't find it. (Insert Jeopardy music)


The way you phrased it was:



> Much more expensive for solar? Afraid that is not so.


It's all in the reading. Perhaps you meant "still hoping to be competitive"?



ehMax said:


> To that end, I gave a specific example of a large energy contract, in which the winning bid that won - based on costs from all different energy sectors, was solar energy.


No. You gave us a report from a third party stating that was true, but provided no detail whatsoever. What were the prices of the bids. Who won the contracts? Who were the contracts with?



ehMax said:


> So many huge corporations.. that LOVE MONEY AND PROFITS FOR SHAREHOLDERS, going full-in on solar energy. *cough* Apple *cough* ... *cough* Target, Walmart, Google, Ikea, FedEx... many, many others...*


You understand the Feed In Tariff? Most of these companies are making money by supplying solar electricity to the grid at 10 to 20 times the going rate--and individual ratepayers are paying the price for it. They're making money alright...



ehMax said:


> I also showed an in-depth Dutch study from their top Universities (Masters at energy, use of resources and business), where costs of solar energy since the 1970s, had fallen from roughly €75 to less than €1 per watt of installed capacity. (Seriously, even the Dutch King has his Masters in the use of water... If you tour the country, it really is staggering to see how they live).


No you didn't show us a study. You told us the name of a study. How do you know it's accurate or fair?



ehMax said:


> I don't have an example of exact costs comparisons and I don't think it's currently cheaper. I said it's not much more expensive and the economies of scale and continued technology will drive costs down.


The price may be driven down but it is currently _much more_ expensive.



ehMax said:


> Where I disagree with flat-earthers... I mean climate change deniers, is that if it needs to be done. I will just say, I accept science and I am not held to ideologies. Intelligent governments know this needs to be done and responsible ones are, despite the percentage of global Carbon emissions. There's no decision based on emotions. I simply accept science. So much of society is unfortunately, scientifically illeterate. I don't argue with science-deniers any more than I get into it with people who think the world is flat... And there are million in the US and Canada who still think the earth is flat. Go to any social media post from NASA, and you get about 40% of comments from people who think NASA is part of the Elite and/or Illuminati where everything is fake and made with CGI in Hollywood. You are in deep if you think all scientist are part of some conspiracy and I question... well, I don't want to get into insults.


EhMax, you already insulting people who disagree with you--and who understand the science much better than you do. By all means, agree with whomever you want, but don't pretend that your side has a monopoly on truth, unless you can articulate and defend their positions.



ehMax said:


> I laugh at anyone attempting to discredit Tesla. Yes, they had subsidies (loans)... *And they paid them all back with interest.* The US government (tax-payers) *made money*. Without spending a penny on advertising, they can not keep up with orders. It's an amazing product that they are working towards mass production. I've put my money on their success, and we'll see what rewards I'll be reaping.


How much net money did the US taxpayers earn on Tesla? 




ehMax said:


> But like I said, few people understand the impact of the Gigafactory opening.


Here's one impact:

Things are getting tricky at Tesla's Gigafactory in Nevada - Business Insider



> Tesla's decision to build its massive lithium-ion battery-cell "Gigafactory" at a site near Reno, Nevada, was made in part because of generous incentives offered by the state government.
> 
> S*tate lawmakers promised Tesla a total of $1.25 billion in tax incentive*s over many years in exchange for anticipated economic growth.
> 
> But thus far, Nevada may not be getting quite what its projections promised.





ehMax said:


> Yes there are subsidies on Electric Cars. Seriously, take an economics 101 course to understand how the economy works. Incentives are part of government economies. Even Stephen Harper, who I thought wasn't a bad conservative leader, supports government incentives (Both negative and positive). Canada is the #10 economy in the world, along with the United States at #1. It's because of our modern economics.


Incentives inhibit economic growth by sidelining capital from more efficient channels. The size of the US and Canadian economies have not developed because of government--they have developed despite it.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> I can think of many technology related companies in the service sector that the government has invested in, that have brought huge economic benefits to the economy and attracted many tech companies. So many success stories, especially in my neck of the woods. *Great article. *


Even by chance, the government will pick some winners. What is the net gain versus cost of all of these investments when you pit winners against losers?


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> I don't think any money has been pissed away. In fact, *money will be saved*.
> 
> The irony of you bringing up Water. Food. Disease. Education. Transportation. Human rights... And not thinking climate change needs to be addressed.
> 
> Oh, it is. And Solar energy IS getting cheaper all the time. *From my conservative close friends at the National Post*:


How will it save money for us? By producing cheaper solar power in the Arabian dessert?

Climate change cannot be addressed by humans. But I have a question for you. If you believed that trace amounts of CO2 could rapidly shift global temperatures, what would you do if the earth began cooling--produce more CO2?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> How much net money did the US taxpayers earn on Tesla?


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcNrnCYt3V4[/ame]


----------



## FeXL

MF has done a fine job of addressing most of your post. I'll chime in here with a few observations of my own:

Then what's the point of using them? To save Ma Earth? Tip: She don't need no savin', save from Greenies...



ehMax said:


> First of all, please point to where I said Solar Panels are currently cheaper???


Without any context, your point 1 is moot. It is a subjective statement that means absolutely nothing on its own.

And yet, despite 40 years of Dutch involvement, not counting everyone else's contributions, this 75 year old technology still hasn't reached an economy of scale equivalent to fossil fuels. Not including untold billions of tax-payer funded government subsidies.

How long should we wait? How much more tax payers money should be squandered away on a non-viable product?



ehMax said:


> I made 2 points:
> 
> 1. That solar panels are not "much more expensive for solar".
> 
> 2. That the economies of scale will continue to kick in.


Yeah. Because the actual costs are subsidized!



ehMax said:


> To that end, I gave a specific example of a large energy contract, in which the winning bid that won - based on costs from all different energy sectors, was solar energy.


I was a science major in university. My lovely bride is a double math & phys-ed teacher. One of our children is taking engineering in university. All of us are conservatives. Matter of fact, of all my conservative friends with degrees, can't think of a single one with a degree in something that is _not_ a hard science. Wonder of wonders. 

You forget yourself: It's the Progs that take the liberal arts degrees...



ehMax said:


> Conservative are so fun to always think people are going to Universities for Liberal Arts degrees.


It isn't. It's nowhere close. I've seen the numbers. However, when that happens, call me. Don't forget to include the cost of backup power in your equation.



ehMax said:


> I don't have an example of exact costs comparisons and I don't think it's currently cheaper.


Last warning. I will keep a civil discourse as long as you do. Got no truck taking this to the gutter. We are not "flat-earthers", nor "climate change deniers". We can accurately be called "sceptics".



ehMax said:


> Where I disagree with flat-earthers... I mean climate change deniers, is that if it needs to be done.


Short of evidence to support your argument, all you have is an opinion. Period.



ehMax said:


> I will just say, I accept science and I am not held to ideologies.


Yeah, no kidding! The Russkies fixed the American election, too!



ehMax said:


> And there are million in the US and Canada who still think the earth is flat.


This isn't the place to discuss NASA's data. I have & will again in the GHG Thread. See me there.



ehMax said:


> Go to any social media post from NASA,


Not all scientists. Just those who jobs depend on maintaining the narrative.



ehMax said:


> You are in deep if you think all scientist are part of some conspiracy and I question...


Not far enough. Fossil fuels are still less expensive. People are not going to buy a "feel good" source of energy if it's more expensive than what they are currently using. I noted that on these boards years ago. Especially if push comes to shove & it's a matter of eating vs heating their house with renewables.



ehMax said:


> The rate of cost reduction due to economies of scale is absolutely there.


Tut, tut, tut... Big difference between subsidies & loans. I kept them separate for a reason. 

Yes, Tesla did indeed pay back the $465 million loan, plus the _low interest rate_ he was charged. Good.

However, he has received nearly $5 billion in subsidies which have not been paid back & are not required to be paid back. Free money. Give me $5 billion bucks & I'll show you a viable business, as well!

More:

Tesla Is No Success Story

There are also other moneys involved which I hesitate to term a subsidy and it's not a loan but certainly would not exist without gov't regulations (definitely _not_ free market).

Related:

Tesla and Its Subsidies 



ehMax said:


> Yes, they had subsidies (loans)...


You'll lose your butt if the subsidies ever stop. It's the only way Tesla has been able to last this long. That is all the financial advice I can give you.



ehMax said:


> I've put my money on their success, and we'll see what rewards I'll be reaping.


Seriously, that's not how the economy works. That's how the gov't works in trying to pick a winner.



ehMax said:


> Seriously, take an economics 101 course to understand how the economy works.


I have one word for you: Trump.



ehMax said:


> No matter who is in power, the wheels are in motion.


----------



## Macfury

With all of the shenanigans between SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity trading loans and debt between each other, it's a wonder Musk can keep the juggling act going. If one ball drops, the whole thing will collapse.


----------



## FeXL

Good. Priorities.

Sweden denies permit for $7.4B offshore wind farm because the project would interfere with its military



> Sweden denied permission for developers to build the Blekinge offshore wind project, saying it would interfere with the Nordic nation’s army.
> 
> The project was planned to have 500 to 700 turbines. This would have resulted an installed capacity of about 2.5 gigawatts and investment valued at 50 billion kronor (CAD$7.4 billion), according to an e-mail from majority owner Eolus Vind AB.


----------



## CubaMark

*Tesla quietly brings online its massive – biggest in the world – 80 MWh Powerpack station with Southern California Edison*










After announcing the project back in September, we have now learned that Tesla and Southern California Edison (SCE) have completed the massive 80 MWh energy storage station using Tesla’s new Powerpack 2 at the Mira Loma substation.

There are a few bigger projects in various phases of development, but it looks like this one is the biggest energy storage project in the world using lithium-ion batteries currently in operation.

While Tesla and SCE haven’t officially launched the new substation yet, sources familiar with the new Powerpack installation told Electrek that it was completed a few weeks back – late December – and brought online so that the electric utility can start using it to manage peak demand.

We are talking here about a massive project with 400 of Tesla’s new Powerpack 2, which are literally equal to more than 2 of Tesla’s first generation Powerpack – 210 kWh versus 100 kWh. The Mira Loma substation project is among the first to use the new battery pack for utility-scale projects.

Since launching ‘Tesla Energy’ in 2015, the company reportedly delivered 300 MWh of battery packs, both Powerpacks and Powerwalls, meaning that Mira Loma’s 80 MWh alone is likely to make the latest quarter’s Tesla’s best for energy storage product.

It’s also one of the first projects to use Tesla’s new inverter developed in-house. It lowers the cost, increases the efficiency and power density. 

With a capacity of 20 MW/80 MWh, the project can hold enough energy to power more than 2,500 households for a day, but that’s not really what Southern California Edison is using it for on its grid covering 15 million people.

Instead, the system will charge using electricity from the grid during off-peak hours, when demand is low, and then deliver electricity during peak hours to help maintain the reliability and lower SCE’s dependence on natural gas peaker plants.​
(Electrek)


----------



## Macfury

At what cost vs. gas peaker plants?


----------



## Beej

Not a Tesla booster, but the connection to computers and a well known graphics chip company is noteworthy.

Tesla Begins Roll Out Of Nvidia-Based Enhanced Autopilot - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha


----------



## Macfury

Aiiiiiiieeee! The Red Devil is among us once more!

Welcome back, Beej!


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> Aiiiiiiieeee! The Red Devil is among us once more!
> 
> Welcome back, Beej!


You mispelled reeeee.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnxqcb0mRcU[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

?


----------



## Beej

Agree to disagree reeeeee.


----------



## Macfury

Aerie?


----------



## CubaMark

*Meanwhile, back on topic...*

*CHINA IS NOW THE WORLD’S LARGEST SOLAR POWER PRODUCER*










Not only is it the world’s most populous country, it’s now also the world’s biggest producer of solar energy. On Saturday, the National Energy Administration (NEA) noted that the nation officially claimed the title after doubling its installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year. By the end of 2016, China’s capacity hit 77.42 gigawatts, and while this is great in terms of raw numbers, it’s a lot less impressive relative to the country’s massive population.

As it stands, solar energy represents only one percent of the country’s energy output. But this may soon change as China devotes more and more of its attention towards clean energy. The NEA says that China will seek to add more than 110 gigawatts within the next three years, which could help the nation up the proportion of its renewable energy use to 20 percent by 2030. Today, it stands at 11 percent.​
(DigitalTrends)


----------



## FeXL

There are so many holes in this proposal, I don't even know where to begin...

Latest in green tech – “hydrogen for sustainable air travel” – no, seriously



> Transport makes up around 20 percent of our energy use around the world–and that figure is set to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. With sustainable solutions in mind, a new study published by eminent physicist Jo Hermans in MRS Energy and Sustainability–A Review Journal (MRS E&S) looks at the energy efficiency of current modes of transport–from bicycles to buses, from air transport to cruise ships– and concludes that *liquid hydrogen seems to be a realistic option for what is probably the most problematic of transportation modes in terms of sustainability, future air travel.*


M'bold.

Just shaking my head...


----------



## Macfury

Oh the humanity!



FeXL said:


> There are so many holes in this proposal, I don't even know where to begin...
> 
> Latest in green tech – “hydrogen for sustainable air travel” – no, seriously
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Just shaking my head...


----------



## CubaMark

*Tesla kills the duck with big batteries*

One of the problems that comes from reliance on solar power is the “duck curve” where the solar panels produce more power than is needed during the day, and standby power is needed in the evening when demand is high and the sun goes down. The common solution has been to turn on natural gas “peaker” plants to produce power when the needed in those few hours. But in Southern California, a big natural gas leak turned into what Melissa called an epic ecological disaster, sending utilities searching for an alternative to gas.​









One of those alternatives that people dreamed about just a few years ago was giant batteries, and Elon Musk promised that he would make them in his new Nevada factory. What is really astonishing is that in just three months, Tesla has delivered a giant battery farm with 396 stacks of batteries that can provide enough electricity to power 15,000 houses for four hours, about how long it takes to shave the peaks, to kill the duck.
(TreeHugger)​


----------



## Macfury

There's not any info on price--but the battery farm will be spent in just 5,000 cycles.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> There's not any info on price--but the battery farm will be spent in just 5,000 cycles.


Generation One, yes. But that's the thing about science... _things change_. Just as computer processor speeds ramp up according to Moore's Law, so too are battery technologies improving in capacity and price. From the article:

MIT Technology Review's Jamie Condliffe is a bit of a skeptic, noting that lithium batteries are expensive and that they degrade.



> Tesla doesn’t say how many cycles that the batteries in its Powerpack systems, which make up the installation, can tolerate before they degrade and reach the end of their useful life. But like other lithium-ion batteries, it’s likely in the thousands—probably around 5,000, the same as its Powerwall units. That’s not bad in a domestic setting, but could be quickly devoured in a grid setting.


Others do not think this is too much of a problem, that battery prices will keep dropping, and that they will keep getting better.​


----------



## Macfury

I've got no problem with the concept. I just want Moore's law to work itself out in the private sector first.



CubaMark said:


> Generation One, yes. But that's the thing about science... _things change_. Just as computer processor speeds ramp up according to Moore's Law, so too are battery technologies improving in capacity and price. From the article:
> 
> MIT Technology Review's Jamie Condliffe is a bit of a skeptic, noting that lithium batteries are expensive and that they degrade.
> 
> 
> 
> Others do not think this is too much of a problem, that battery prices will keep dropping, and that they will keep getting better.​


----------



## FeXL

Show me the data that illustrates battery performance & cost are anywhere near a Moore's law rate of improvement.



CubaMark said:


> Just as computer processor speeds ramp up according to Moore's Law, so too are battery technologies improving in capacity and price.


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Show me the data that illustrates battery performance & cost are anywhere near a Moore's law rate of improvement.


The technology curves I'm familiar with are different than Moore's. In those curves, the basis for cost reductions is deployment, not time.The problem in the power sector being that, in some cases, an unlikely quantity is needed to meet the cost claims.

Haven't checked batteries for that.


----------



## Macfury

I invoke Moore's law on my savings account.


----------



## FeXL

Further to this garbage...

This "duck curve" of which they speak certainly is not an issue in northern latitudes in mid-winter...



CubaMark said:


> One of the problems that comes from reliance on solar power is the “duck curve” where the solar panels produce more power than is needed during the day...​


----------



## Macfury

One thing I find rather sad is that the solar panels are causing the "problem" of "the duck." Batteries were not needed before because power was reliable and produced on demand.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> One thing I find rather sad is that the solar panels are causing the "problem" of "the duck." Batteries were not needed before because power was reliable and produced on demand.


*Funny, I remember it differently....*

*California electricity crisis*

The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices.[6] The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis' standing.

Drought, delays in approval of new power plants,[6]:109 and market manipulation decreased supply.[citation needed] This caused an 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000.[7]:1 In addition, rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers.

California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[8][9] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[7]:2-3

The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890) and Governor Pete Wilson.[citation needed] Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[10](Wikipedia)​


----------



## Macfury

That certainly happened when progs prevented new power sources from coming online while artificially capping prices. But that was a fault of market intervention, not technology.



CubaMark said:


> *Funny, I remember it differently....*
> 
> *California electricity crisis*
> 
> The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices.[6] The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis' standing.
> 
> Drought, delays in approval of new power plants,[6]:109 and market manipulation decreased supply.[citation needed] This caused an 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000.[7]:1 In addition, rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers.
> 
> California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[8][9] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[7]:2-3
> 
> The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890) and Governor Pete Wilson.[citation needed] Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[10](Wikipedia)​


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

Recall the solar panel road that was being crowd-funded? The one that was s'pose to solve all (some? one? any?) of not only our electricity problems, but provide a stable road surface, slice your bread & mix a dry martini?

Yeah, not so much...

America’s First Solar Roadway Is A Total Disaster



> A prototype solar roadway in Idaho was supposed to represent a possible green energy future, but technical issues have exposed just how far off the technology is from prime time.


Too polite by half.

More:



> Screenshots taken by Twitter users from the roadway’s official webcam show smoke coming out of a nearby electric box...Roughly 25 out of 30 panels installed on it broke within a week after developers pumped $3.9 million into it over 6.5 years of development...the prototype of solar “road” can’t be driven on, hasn’t generated any electricity...Rain caused another four panels to fail...The prototype appears to be plagued by drainage issues, poor manufacturing controls and fundamental design flaws...


Further:



> If it had worked, the panels would have powered a single water fountain and the lights in a restroom, after more than $500,000 in installation costs provided by a grant from the state government. The U.S. Department of Transportation initially handed $750,000 in grants to fund the research into the scheme, then invested another pair of grants worth $850,000 into it. The plan, dubbed, “Solar FREAKIN’ Roadways” raised another $2.2 million dollars in crowd-funding, even though several scientists publicly debunked the idea.


Massive FREAKIN' Failure...

So, over 4 million bucks of Other People's Money and all they got to show for it is some broken glass. Obviously, all it needs is MOAR MONEY!!!

I gotta get in on this Green scheme BS. Hell, I could comfortably retire on 1/4 of that...


----------



## FeXL

Another one bites the dust.

Solar company Sungevity files for bankruptcy, agrees to sell assets



> Solar-power company Sungevity Inc. has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and agreed to sell its assets to an investment group, the company said Monday. Sungevity said the investors, led by Minnesota-based private equity firm Northern Pacific Group, would "acquire substantially all of the company's assets."


Wonder if they were on the receiving end of any of Barry's subsidy cash?


----------



## FeXL

Wait! I thought they had achieved parity years ago!!! 

Solar Could Be A Cheaper Power Source Than Coal Within A Decade



> The solar industry is operating more and more efficiently each year with solar prices down an average of 62 percent since 2009, and every part of the solar supply chain becoming more efficient and lowering costs. Economies of scale, increasing manufacturing expertise, and new technology like diamond wire cutting tools have all helped make solar’s progress the envy of the energy complex.


Ooooooo. Ahhhhhh. A 62% decrease in operating costs & still not close to coal.

And, just for the helluvit, how many billions of taxpayer dollars have been frittered away on a technology that won't be financially viable without at least another ten years of government subsidies? I'll bet it's into the trillions.

The jokes just write themselves...


----------



## FeXL

Uh-oh. Chickens coming home to roost...

Dark Days Ahead For UK’s Solar Industry



> *Solar power in Britain has been comfortably subsidized for years now*, allowing it grow substantially in a short amount of time. Last year, the subsidies stopped. Now, the government plans to enact further change with a new tax policy.


Nope. We don't get none of them there gubmint subsidies...



> 44,000 solar rooftop panels, previously exempt from business taxes, will now face a wall of expenses as the government finally takes its share of profits. *This does not bode well for the UK’s solar industry, which seems to be extremely sensitive to governmental policy changes – when subsidies were cut last year, the industry lost 12,000 jobs and growth fell 85 percent.*


Yeah, my bold.

Of course it did. In the real world, if there is no financial benefit, the technology fails. Pull the subsidies, nobody wants in.


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Recall the solar panel road that was being crowd-funded?


That one never made sense. The hype was based on saying the name over and over. Kickstarter has scienceless scams that people get behind. This concept, sadly, got government backing.

Now, inventing a new material for highways that was cheaper and more durable? That would be interesting. If there was bonus electricity, that would be a nice too.


----------



## Macfury

I examined this one quite closely and the claim was that the material also provided longevity. But it made no damned sense from my perspective. 



Beej said:


> That one never made sense. The hype was based on saying the name over and over. Kickstarter has scienceless scams that people get behind. This concept, sadly, got government backing.
> 
> Now, inventing a new material for highways that was cheaper and more durable? That would be interesting. If there was bonus electricity, that would be a nice too.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> I examined this one quite closely and the claim was that the material also provided longevity. But it made no damned sense from my perspective.


I'm not aware of them inventing a new form of glass. So whatever material they proposed can be tested...if the cost makes any sense. I'm not proposing that every material should be tested just because someone makes a claim.

Otherwise I propose testing something only I know how to make. beejacon


----------



## Macfury

The bacon highway?



Beej said:


> Otherwise I propose testing something only I know how to make. beejacon


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> The bacon highway?


:lmao:


----------



## CubaMark

*Prince Edward Island*

*Samsung, Summerside, launching solar energy storage project*

The City of Summerside has partnered with international tech giant Samsung to test a massive solar energy battery.

The pilot programs’ proponents are touting it as a first in Canada.

Samsung Renewable Energy Inc. and city made the announcement Thursday. The project will coincide with a solar energy project the city had previously announced for Credit Union Place (CUP) in an effort to shrink the facility’s massive electrical bill. The city pays more than $380,000 annually to power the facility and the battery and solar panels are expected to save the CUP a little more than $100,0000 annually.

Thursday’s announcement was the culmination of a lot of hard work by a string of people from P.E.I. to Korea, where Samsung is based, said Summerside Mayor Bill Martin.

** * **​
Phase one involves constructing a shipping container-sized battery and integrating it into CUP’s electric system. The battery will be fed power from 1,300 solar panels the city plans to build on a portion of the facility’s current parking lot. The battery will store excess energy and pump it into the building during peak use hours.

To accommodate the build, one of the outdoor beach volleyball courts will be moved. The city does not expect to lose any parking spaces as a result of the solar panels.

Phase 2, if it happens, will include the construction of a new solar/wind farm. This phase would bump the percentage of electricity the city gets from renewable sources from 46 per cent to 70 per cent.

Phase three would include investment in more electric pilot projects, such as infrastructure for electric vehicles and a smart grid system.

Martin said he expects Phase 1 to be completed sometime this fall.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is providing $1.5 million to the battery project, as is the city, for a total of $3 million in public funding.
(Journal-Pioneer)​


----------



## Macfury

So $3 million to save the city $100,000 annually? Am I reading this right?




CubaMark said:


> *Prince Edward Island*
> 
> *Samsung, Summerside, launching solar energy storage project*


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> So $3 million to save the city $100,000 annually? Am I reading this right?


It's some of that new math. You know, the kind that only makes sense to Progs...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> It's some of that new math. You know, the kind that only makes sense to Progs...


Let's see that's $3,000,000 to save $100,000 annually. But it gets better. Because it's borrowed money, the real number is no doubt closer to $6,000,000. That's a 60 year payback on a battery set-up that might at the outside last 20 years.

But let's not forget, Samsung is making the battery. How long before it catches fire?

Another clear illustration as to why the New Math should never have become part of the school curriculum. I can't even imagine how mathematically retarded the common core crop will be, when they become politicians.


----------



## SINC

Whoops!

Idaho's $4.3 Million Solar Project Generates Enough Energy to Run ONE Microwave Oven


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Whoops!
> 
> Idaho's $4.3 Million Solar Project Generates Enough Energy to Run ONE Microwave Oven


This could have been prevented by running a test portion covering at most 1% of the proposed project. Cost maybe $50,000. It shows the idea is a bust and nearly $4,000,000 tax dollars would have been saved.


----------



## Beej

SINC said:


> Whoops!
> 
> Idaho's $4.3 Million Solar Project Generates Enough Energy to Run ONE Microwave Oven


The PR hype around solar roadways was (is) an example of how not to do government funded technology development. The enthusiastic funding of this, like the Solyndra factory loan guarantee, has politically damaged public support for real research and development.

These are not examples of government-backed R&D. They are examples of "innovation" funding, a word that can be attached to almost any activity nowadays.


----------



## FeXL

But it's OK. It's Alternative Energy. Head down, ass up.

Oooooo. Ahhhhh...

(from last summer)

Ontario wind turbine developers killing endangered birds and bats, with impunity



> Bird Studies Canada quietly released a summary of bird and bat kills a few days ago. It doesn’t include last year’s toll on the avian population, but it gives you a good idea of where it’s headed – for a cliff. As you have probably noticed, this item hasn’t made the mainstream news in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## SINC

No surprise here.

Low-carbon market ‘yet to emerge’: Losses continue to mount for Canada’s clean-tech companies | Financial Post


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> No surprise here.


Hey, with a few more trillion $$ in tax-payer funded subsidies and additional carbon taxes, _et al._ on petroleum products, those over-priced, under-performing solar panels will soon be flying off the shelves!


----------



## FeXL

So, why is it news that solar panels having reached a stunning 26% efficiency when nearly every other form of electricity generation is significantly higher? And the theoretical _maximum_ of solar panels is only *29%* anyway?

Japanese company develops a solar cell with record-breaking 26%+ efficiency

A graph of various electricity generation efficiencies.

Solar panels? Third last...

MOAR MONEY!!!


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> So, why is it news that solar panels having reached a stunning 26% efficiency when nearly every other form of electricity generation is significantly higher? And the theoretical _maximum_ of solar panels is only *29%* anyway?
> 
> Japanese company develops a solar cell with record-breaking 26%+ efficiency
> 
> A graph of various electricity generation efficiencies.
> 
> Solar panels? Third last...
> 
> MOAR MONEY!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Jeebus, you have no idea, do you? I almost fell of my chair at the ridiculousness of that post.

You're comparing Apples to cockroaches. So what if solar panels are currently only pulling in low-to-mid 20 percent efficiency (of a theoretical maximum for _silicon-based_ panels of 29%)? *** 

That's not 22% efficiency when compared to fossil fuels. It's _sui generis_ efficiency, it cannot be compared. Nobody in their right mind would try to equate the two.

22% efficiency when turning a FREE, ABUNDANT source of energy into usable electricity is pretty damn good. 

How do you calculate the efficiency of fossil fuels? What's the efficiency rating when one factors in exploration, testing, extraction, transport and eventually the combustion process that converts that fossil fuel into usable energy?

That's the funniest, saddest, and yet most revealing post you've made in quite some time. Talking out of your ass is putting it mildly.

Thanks for the guffaw. I needed that today....

_______
* State-of-the-art *gallium arsenide*-based solar cells boasting *efficiencies as high as 46%* sit at the very top of the NREL list. But those cells are highly specialized photovoltaic research devices that come with steep price tags. (C&EN - Chemical and Engineering News)


----------



## FeXL

And even with all this "FREE, ABUNDANT" sunlight, solar panels still cannot be cost competitive with petroleum based fuels sans hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies. Don't have to dig it out of the ground, don't have to cut down any trees, don't have to split any atoms and it still cannot stand on it's own. It's FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!, indeed...



CubaMark said:


> 22% efficiency when turning a FREE, ABUNDANT source of energy into usable electricity is pretty damn good.


----------



## Macfury

Sunlight is free to heat up water. The conversion mechanism to electricity via solar panels is a sad, expensive joke.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Sunlight is free to heat up water. The conversion mechanism to electricity via solar panels is a sad, expensive joke.


It's a joke listening to him defend this crap, at any level.

It's curious that when I, a mere university dropout, a <spit> conservative, allegedly talking out of my ass, makes more sense than the hallowed Doctor out of his mouth...


----------



## Beej

CubaMark said:


> How do you calculate the efficiency of fossil fuels?


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

I find the concept over-used as a be all, end all argument, but it's there.Trust the quality of work at your own risk.

The more conventional equivalent for life cycle emissions analysis is "wells to wheels". The same thing can be done for solar. A frequent problem in both cases is researchers being highly biased when they choose to use the latest and most relevant numbers, versus just settling for something someone else used before.


----------



## CubaMark

Beej said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
> 
> I find the concept over-used as a be all, end all argument, but it's there.Trust the quality of work at your own risk.
> 
> The more conventional equivalent for life cycle emissions analysis is "wells to wheels". The same thing can be done for solar. A frequent problem in both cases is researchers being highly biased when they choose to use the latest and most relevant numbers, versus just settling for something someone else used before.


Thanks for that, Beej. It's interesting, and controversial. Also note that there is no discussion of any negatives, such as contamination, despoilment of the natural environment, impacts upon human health, costs associated with cleanup of spills, etc.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Thanks for that, Beej. It's interesting, and controversial. Also note that there is no discussion of any negatives, such as contamination, despoilment of the natural environment, impacts upon human health, costs associated with cleanup of spills, etc.


Solar energy spill:


----------



## FeXL

Your barb certainly didn't discuss any of those issues. Why point the finger at everybody else?

'Sides, if memory serves, most of those issues have been discussed on this very thread at one point or another, including hazardous waste (& the handling thereof, which ain't included in the costs, either BTW...) associated with the manufacture of solar panels, the economic & foodstuff issues created by ethanol mandates and the threat to bird & bat populations from windmills, among others.

And you _still_ completely skirt the taxpayer funded subsidy issue. 

In addition, you scream blue murder about Barry's bailouts to GM & Dodge (and well you should) but entirely support free money given to Musk & the whole alternative energy complex.

WTF?



CubaMark said:


> Also note that there is no discussion of any negatives, such as contamination, despoilment of the natural environment, impacts upon human health, costs associated with cleanup of spills, etc.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> And you _still_ completely skirt the taxpayer funded subsidy issue. .... WTF?


No WTF at all, for those paying attention. 

You and others here continue to be apologists for the billions in dollars of subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry each year, and minimize the horrendous environmental damage that is caused by extraction or consumption of same, all the while jumping up and down like excited children whenever someone points out that some elements used to manufacture solar panels are environmentally damaging (as if there is equivalence in potential damage, when it's not even in the ballpark).

You continue to dismiss the rapid advancements in the manufacture of solar cells with more efficient / less toxic raw materials and go on (and on, AND ON) about subsidies, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil fuel industry. 

Subsidies are being reduced / withdrawn in many areas where advancements in technologies have reached a point where non-subsidized solar is at par or cheaper than conventional fossil fuel electricity generation, but you continue to brush those aside.

You go on (and on AND ON) about the amount of concrete used to build the bases for wind power, while advocating nuclear (which also uses enormous amounts of concrete) and dismissing the centuries-long requirements of storing spent radioactive nuclear fuel and the potential environmental consequences.

On the matter of wind, I'm curious as to why the industry isn't moving toward newer turbine designs that minimize the effects on birds (never have I seen right-wingers so environmentally conscious in their preoccupation for wildlife until they seized upon it as a reason to criticize wind power!). That could be an opportunity for governments to be proactive with regulation (something else to **** off the Right).

At least MF and I agree on solar hot water as a viable area to take advantage of solar. Photovoltaic is, like it or not, the way we're heading. You can continue to bitch about it all you like, or you can put aside your crass sniping and get with the program- look for ways to make that transition more efficient, less environmentally hazardous, and with methods to facilitate its adoption that don't threaten the existing power grid.

Every time I read one of your rants, all I can hear is the screech of the old bastard who thought _whale oil lamps were good enough for his father, and they're good enough for him_! You seem to be cantankerous just for the sake of having something to do.

Look at the advancements in alternative energy systems in just the past few years! The implementation of grid-tied battery systems from Tesla, Mercedes and others to address inconsistencies in the generation of alternative power from wind and solar; new and innovative methods for storing energy for off-peak consumption; the creation of thin-film, transparent solar technologies that can coat entire skyscrapers in solar-generating systems. 

There are going to be bumps in the road, inconveniences, challenges. But the road is being built and we're all going to be travelling on it. You can continue to roll coal all you like, but you will end up with the same dinosaurs whose decomposed bones we hope to never need to burn again to move down it.

And subsidies for new technologies don't bother me one whit, when the net benefits of that expenditure are less reliance on foreign oil sources; less environmental contamination; and improved human health.


----------



## eMacMan

Look one of the real issues with the ACGW fairy tale, is that Big Hydro projects and Nuclear Power plants are suddenly being promoted as green alternatives. They weren't green in the 60s and 70s and they are not green now.

Nor are windmills when you factor in the assault on raptors and bats.


----------



## FeXL

OK, so this is going to be a long one. Here goes.

Big WTF for anybody who is actually paying attention, reading the facts instead of the BS and not just providing lip service.



CubaMark said:


> No WTF at all, for those paying attention.


Nobody on these boards has ever apologized for fossil fuel subsidies. Period.

What we have done, multiple times, is explain to you that much of what you claim to be "subsidies" is nothing more than tax write-offs available to anybody, even alternative energy developers.

Now, take the balance & divide it into a per unit basis, compare it to those subsidies given to alternative energy, _et voila!_ On a per unit basis, alternative energy receives far greater levels of subsidization than the petroleum industry.

Why is maths so hard for Progs?

Let me paint you a picture:

Let's say that alternative energy produces 10% of the planet's electricity and receives 40% of the available gov't subsidies. On the other hand let's say petroleum products generate the other 90% of the electricity but only receive 60% of the subsidies.

Who is getting more free money per unit of output? Who is getting subsidized more? Alternative Energy!!!

_Quell surprise_, seeing as alternative energy still only supplied 14.9% of the energy in the US in 2016 and a stunning 7% worldwide in 2014.



CubaMark said:


> You and others here continue to be apologists for the billions in dollars of subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry each year,...


Nobody on these boards has ever minimized petroleum extraction damage. And, while some countries have a dismal record (the US included) Canada's laws ensure proper cleanup. Anecdotal, but I talk to oilmen at all levels regularly. They say that some of the stuff that happens on US sites would never pass scrutiny up here.

If there are no good laws governing site cleanup or the laws are not being enforced, that's a gov't problem, not a petroleum extractor's problem. They play the hand given to them. Want them to clean up? Pass a law & enforce it.

Have you ever seen reclaimed well sites or reclaimed oil sands extraction mines? In many cases they look better than the originals because there's not a bunch of exposed bitumen for wildlife to get into, a la the La Brea "tar" pit.



CubaMark said:


> ...and minimize the horrendous environmental damage that is caused by extraction or consumption of same, all the while jumping up and down like excited children whenever someone points out that some elements used to manufacture solar panels are environmentally damaging...


I don't know WTF this even means...



CubaMark said:


> ...(as if there is equivalence in potential damage, when it's not even in the ballpark).


Yeah! We went from 22.3% to 22.6%! Woohoo!!! It only took 26 kajillion dollars & 35 years to accomplish!!! XX)



CubaMark said:


> You continue to dismiss the rapid advancements in the manufacture of solar cells with more efficient / less toxic raw materials...


Blah, blah, blah, blah. Read. Learn.



CubaMark said:


> ...and go on (and on, AND ON) about subsidies, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil fuel industry.


Pure, unmitigated bull$h!t. Why? 'Cause the cost of battery backup to provide a 24/7 source of electricity is not included into those numbers. In addition, as the linked article notes, to achieve true grid parity, the electricity generated must be capable of providing baseload at any time. Alternative _cannot_ do that. Period.

The only reason subsidies are getting pulled is that even some gov'ts are beginning to clew in that's it's nothing more than a money pit & they're pulling it for the next Social Justice issue.



CubaMark said:


> Subsidies reduced / withdrawn in many areas where advancements in technologies have reached a point where non-subsidized solar is at par or cheaper than conventional fossil fuel electricity generation, but you continue to brush those aside.


Again, step back & look at the big picture. What do the numbers say? Expected lifetime of a nuclear plant is somewhere around 80-100 years. Is the concrete structure reusable after that? Why not? Output of your average nuclear generating plant? The smallest in the US is 508 megawatts. Largest is 3937 MW

Expected lifetime of a windmill is 20 years. Reusable? Depends. The reason I say that is because there were 52(?) local turbines from the 80's just torn down recently. In sheer physical size, they are much smaller than the newer models and there is no way you can put one of the new behemoths on the old pad (=yet more concrete). Nameplate capacity? 0.95 MW-7.6 MW, with most being 2-3MW. Now, knowing full well that turbines do not produce electricity 100% of the time you can reduce output by a significant factor.

Now, the maths. Let's compare largest to largest. 3937 MW/7.6 MW=518. So, you'd need 518 of the largest wind turbines on that list operating at 100% capacity, 24/7 (which, incidentally, would shorten it's lifespan significantly) to equal the output of the largest nuclear generating plant in the US. At half capacity (a stretch at best) you'd need over 1000 wind turbines. 

Think there's 1000+ windmill bases worth of concrete in that nuclear plant? Doubt it. And, recall, that 50% is likely to be 30% or less. So, closer to 1500 wind turbines worth of concrete.

Now for the million dollar question: Where the hell are we going to put 1500 wind turbines, what's the cost going to be & what about the cost of the infrastructure to tie it all into the grid?

Ain't. Even. Close...

As to your comment about "dismissing" spent fuel, nobody here has ever done that, either. Best solution? Send 'er into the sun.



CubaMark said:


> You go on (and on AND ON) about the amount of concrete used to build the bases for wind power, while advocating nuclear (which also uses enormous amounts of concrete) and dismissing the centuries-long requirements of storing spent radioactive nuclear fuel and the potential environmental consequences.


You obviously know _no_ right-wingers then.

Where I grew up in southern Alberta, it's safe to say that the huge majority of people were right-wingers. Everybody who owned pasture land or plowed fields or had a spring or bordered a river or reservoir was a careful steward of that resource & the plant & animal life therein.

When you make your living off of that resource year after year, generation after generation, you have to manage it well or go broke.

In addition, thousands of acres of wetlands have been put aside in southern Alberta for the Ducks Unlimited project, rather than being drained. Hundreds of acres of land no longer gets plowed in an effort to preserve the habitat of Burrowing Owls. The local electrical distribution company, Fortis, is putting metal points on their power poles to deter raptors from landing on them & electrocuting themselves, among other solutions. Dozens of local farmers over the years have raised & released untold thousands of Ring Necked Pheasants. There is a place nearby called the Alberta Birds of Prey Centre where the owner rehabilitates raptors and, if possible, returns them to the wild. People will drive a couple hundred miles to bring an injured bird in to him. I own a small 48 acre patch of grassland along the Milk River & belong to the local riparian organization, myself.

These are just a few that come to mind.

You don't have a f'ing clue what you are talking about. The political right is far more informed, conscientious & active in managing natural resources than the left could ever hope to be. We live on that land & make our living off of it. The left lives in the city, consumes the narrative without question, assume they know everything & usually don't. Case in point...

Oh, I've already heard about your horse & the hat you wore. And, yes. Both of 'em...

Curious, when the spring winds come up & you see a large dust storm coming in from the west, it's the Native lands that are blowing & losing their topsoil. Sure, it's non-Native farmers who are working the land but the Natives ultimately have control over what gets seeded, what goes fallow & proper farming techniques. Guess they're just more interested in getting as much rent from the land as they can & to hell with Ma Nature...

In addition, why is it that when a group of very common ducks lands on a tailings pond in northern Alberta it's a tragedy and when a pile of endangered raptors is shown collected from a wind farm nobody from the left makes a sound?



CubaMark said:


> On the matter of wind, I'm curious as to why the industry isn't moving toward newer turbine designs that minimize the effects on birds (never have I seen right-wingers so environmentally conscious in their preoccupation for wildlife until they seized upon it as a reason to criticize wind power!). That could be an opportunity for governments to be proactive with regulation (something else to **** off the Right).


Hey, if it makes it on it's own, fine. I just don't like the goverment picking & choosing winners. Invariably, they fail.

BOHICA? Not likely...



CubaMark said:


> Photovoltaic is, like it or not, the way we're heading. You can continue to bitch about it all you like, or you can put aside your crass sniping and get with the program- look for ways to make that transition more efficient, less environmentally hazardous, and with methods to facilitate its adoption that don't threaten the existing power grid.


Every time I respond to yet another fact free post from you I'm reminded of the petulant, spoiled brat who cries, whines & stamps his feet every time he gets told, "No."

I'm no luddite. Even gots me A/C in the 'Burb. I welcome change that makes sense. Right now, & for the foreseeable future, AE makes little sense.

The thing that pisses me off more than anything is the empty hole gov'ts & other stupid people are throwing my money into.



CubaMark said:


> Every time I read one of your rants, all I can hear is the screech of the old bastard who thought _whale oil lamps were good enough for his father, and they're good enough for him_!


And yer ugly & yer momma dresses you funny. Now what?



CubaMark said:


> You seem to be cantankerous just for the sake of having something to do.


You can post all the links you want. Chances are I've already read them or about them. They change nothing. Pull the subsidies, rely on private investment, develop a winning product & send it to market.

Until you run across a success story like that, ain't even interested. There's not much incentive to get things accomplished when your job life depends on never-ending taxpayer dollars. Low and slow...



CubaMark said:


> Look at...


Yeah. And each of them requires another billion taxpayer dollars. Not interested.



CubaMark said:


> There are going to be bumps in the road, inconveniences, challenges. But the road is being built and we're all going to be travelling on it.


You make all these baseless accusations & broad sweeping statements that have absolutely no, zero, basis in reality & then wonder why I mock you? Where have I pushed coal? I've pointed out the cost effectiveness of coal & the ability to supply baseload power. That is all. Those are neutral statements, not endorsements. 



CubaMark said:


> You can continue to roll coal all you like,...


If our gov'ts were prescient enough to allow development & transportation of our own reserves, we wouldn't need to depend on foreign oil.



CubaMark said:


> ...the net benefits of that expenditure are less reliance on foreign oil sources;


Asked, answered. Alternative energy opens up a whole new can of environmental issues. Ain't no halos in the energy business.



CubaMark said:


> ...less environmental contamination;...


----------



## CubaMark

*Canada Aims For A Fleet Of Small Modular Nukes*










Led by Ontario, Canada is looking to fill their looming energy supply gap, and address climate change, by building a fleet of the new super-safe small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over the next 20 years.

Ontario’s electricity supply is quite low-carbon already, with about 60% nuclear and 20% hydropower, with gas about 10%. Canada overall is about 60% hydropower and 16% nuclear, with the rest spread out among coal, gas and wind. At 50 grams of CO2 per kWh, Canada is one of the cleanest grids in the world.

** * **​
In October 2016, Ontario Power Generation started a US$9.6 billion refurbishment project at its 3.5 GW Darlington nuclear plant to extend the lifespan by 30 years. Bruce Power has also begun a US$10 billion life-extension project for its 6.3 GW nuclear plant northwest of Toronto.

** * **​
Nicolle Butcher, Vice President of Strategy & Acquisitions at Ontario Power Generation, told the 2017 International SMR and Advanced Reactor Summit in Atlanta, Georgia last month, “Ontario Power Generation forecasts a significant gap in its power generation mix after 2030, and it intends to fill this gap with nuclear power.”

** * **​
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Advanced Reactor Concepts are jointly developing and licensing a sodium-cooled advanced small modular reactor (aSMR) based on their reactor technologies, and plan to enter the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Vendor Design Review process.

In January, NuScale Power out of Oregon announced their submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the first design certification application for any SMR in the United States. It is expected to be built in the early 2020s. ThorCon has a molten salt design that uses thorium as well as uranium.

But Canada’s own new SMR company, Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI), has a new small modular Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) design that is ideal for this future,....

(Read more at Forbes)​


----------



## FeXL

And?



CubaMark said:


> Canada Aims For A Fleet Of Small Modular Nukes


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> And?


Oh FFS, let's not start with this bull**** again. A guy can post an article that would seem to be of interest to those reading a particular thread without having to put some kind of comment. 

XX)


----------



## Beej

> building a fleet of the new super-safe small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over the next 20 years.


I'm skeptical given how economies of scale usually work in energy. Also, there are already smaller nuclear reactors (military) and the regulatory burden would be quite high at a small scale.

That said, seems like something that should get a slice of R&D funding.


----------



## FeXL

Quit being a douchebag. It _is_ interesting.

The political left is not known for their endorsement of nuclear, which is why I asked.

I'm asking for your opinion on it. Good? Bad? Indifferent? Something else?



CubaMark said:


> Oh FFS, let's not start with this bull**** again. A guy can post an article that would seem to be of interest to those reading a particular thread without having to put some kind of comment.
> 
> XX)


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Canada Aims For A Fleet Of Small Modular Nukes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Led by Ontario, Canada is looking to fill their looming energy supply gap, and address climate change, by building a fleet of the new super-safe small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over the next 20 years.
> 
> Ontario’s electricity supply is quite low-carbon already, with about 60% nuclear and 20% hydropower, with gas about 10%. Canada overall is about 60% hydropower and 16% nuclear, with the rest spread out among coal, gas and wind. At 50 grams of CO2 per kWh, Canada is one of the cleanest grids in the world.
> 
> ** * **​
> In October 2016, Ontario Power Generation started a US$9.6 billion refurbishment project at its 3.5 GW Darlington nuclear plant to extend the lifespan by 30 years. Bruce Power has also begun a US$10 billion life-extension project for its 6.3 GW nuclear plant northwest of Toronto.
> 
> ** * **​
> Nicolle Butcher, Vice President of Strategy & Acquisitions at Ontario Power Generation, told the 2017 International SMR and Advanced Reactor Summit in Atlanta, Georgia last month, “Ontario Power Generation forecasts a significant gap in its power generation mix after 2030, and it intends to fill this gap with nuclear power.”
> 
> ** * **​
> GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Advanced Reactor Concepts are jointly developing and licensing a sodium-cooled advanced small modular reactor (aSMR) based on their reactor technologies, and plan to enter the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Vendor Design Review process.
> 
> In January, NuScale Power out of Oregon announced their submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the first design certification application for any SMR in the United States. It is expected to be built in the early 2020s. ThorCon has a molten salt design that uses thorium as well as uranium.
> 
> But Canada’s own new SMR company, Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI), has a new small modular Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) design that is ideal for this future,....
> 
> (Read more at Forbes)​


I had to go to a different source as Forbes won't accept adblockers, and I won't unblock Forbes.

That said, I saw zero reference to the biggest issue with fission nuclear; the spent fuel. Until that issue is finally resolved I believe nuclear should be put on permanent hold. Carbon footprints be damned.

I would support developing Thorium based reactors but as near as I can tell the biggest difference here is the cooling method, not the fuel source. Also no mention of which Salt(s) would be used for cooling, or of the safe disposal of same.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> That said, I saw zero reference to the biggest issue with fission nuclear; the spent fuel. Until that issue is finally resolved I believe nuclear should be put on permanent hold. Carbon footprints be damned.


This is my #1 concern. My #2 concern is fiscal: these things (to date) have been horrendously expensive, take decades to bring online, operate for 20 years, then have to be decommissioned, the site remaining unusable for anything else for quite a long time. And then there's Chernobyl, which continues to be an environmental disaster.



eMacMan said:


> I would support developing Thorium based reactors but as near as I can tell the biggest difference here is the cooling method, not the fuel source. Also no mention of which Salt(s) would be used for cooling, or of the safe disposal of same.


The article does mention an emerging Thorium technology in the works in the USA, and also a sodium-cooled model. I'd quote it, but for whatever reason I can't get into the article at all from my office.


----------



## FeXL

Compared to what?

Look, I'm not one to endorse much gov't spending but if it has to be done then let's spend it on a viable, proven technology like nuclear. Not pie-in-the-sky nonviable, unproven experiments like wind & solar that have already received untold hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and are still not functionally nor fiscally realistic.

How many nuclear plants could we have constructed for that kind of money & had functional baseload?



CubaMark said:


> ...these things (to date) have been horrendously expensive...


Are we talking about the same thing? One link I provided in my response to you a half dozen posts back notes 40 year extensions on nuclear power plants already operating for 40 years. 



CubaMark said:


> ... operate for 20 years, then have to be decommissioned,


I'm as optimistic as anyone about Thorium reactors but they have been promised for decades. Until someone actually gets one operating full-time...



CubaMark said:


> The article does mention an emerging Thorium technology in the works in the USA, and also a sodium-cooled model.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> ....One link I provided in my response to you a half dozen posts back notes 40 year extensions on nuclear power plants already operating for 40 years.


From an admittedly quick search, it appears that most plant licenses are for a 40-year operating period (I don't know if that is from the moment of electricity generation or from the beginning of construction), with 20-year license extensions being granted due to necessity (meeting increasing demand). Note that license extensions are not an indication as to whether the plant is technically able to continue to operate during that period.

One environmental group in 2016 looked at the actual lifespans of several nuclear power plants, and the results might surprise you:


----------



## eMacMan

We should not fail to mention Fukishima. It makes Chernobyl pale in comparison. Sadly there is some evidence that the Israeli Stuxnet virus probably played a big role in preventing at least some of the reactors from safely shutting down.


----------



## FeXL

Fair enough.

However, the charts indicate that the system of checks & balances in the US is working. If there is a smaller issue, it gets repaired/replaced. If there is a larger issue, the plant gets shut down completely. Good, no?

Note that these nuclear plants are all very early designs, as well. How much have we learned since the 50's & 60's when these went into operation?

As far as Chernobyl is concerned, that was both design & operator error. There are safely designed nuclear reactors running the world over. As long as protocol is observed, there should be very few issues. 

As to Fukishima, in my opinion, it was a poor (<-understatement) location to be constructing a nuclear plant. Same reason it would be stupid to build on/near the San Andreas fault. I'm no nuclear scientist but I would not have built in an earthquake zone, period. I know, it was not the earthquakes but the tsunami that caused the issue but still...



CubaMark said:


> From an admittedly quick search, it appears that most plant licenses are for a 40-year operating period (I don't know if that is from the moment of electricity generation or from the beginning of construction), with 20-year license extensions being granted due to necessity (meeting increasing demand). Note that license extensions are not an indication as to whether the plant is technically able to continue to operate during that period.


----------



## FeXL

On renewables in Africa.

Solar ovens and sustained poverty for Africa



> *However, we must not look at wind and solar as anything more than short-term solutions to fix serious, immediate problems. They do not equal real economic development or really improved living standards. Our cities need abundant, reliable electricity, and for faraway villages wind and solar must be only temporary, to meet basic needs until they can be connected to transmission lines and a grid.*
> 
> Only in that way can we have modern homes, heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, offices, factories, schools, shops and hospitals – so that we can enjoy the same living standards people in industrialized countries do (and think is their right). We deserve the same rights and lives.
> 
> That is why I react strongly to people and organizations that think wind and solar electricity and solar ovens should be enough, or the end of our progress, and everyone should be happy that their lives have improved a little. I do not accept that. But I see it all the time.


M'bold.

Nails it.

More:



> At least a dozen companies are selling solar ovens and other solar technologies in Uganda. There’s Blazing Tube Solar from Hawaii and Home Energy Africa, which sells Dutch products. Green Energy Africa is registered in Kenya. It says its renewable energy systems “provide electricity without depleting the earth’s limited resources.” (Of course, those systems generate very limited electricity and require raw materials that are limited in quantity and must be dug out of the earth and turned into products using fossil fuels. But we’re not supposed to think about that.)


Further:



> It will have to come from nuclear power plants – or coal or natural gas generating plants. Africa has these resources in great abundance. But so far we are barely developing or using them, except maybe to export oil to wealthy nations. We should use them. Right now, most of our natural gas from oil fields is just burned and wasted right there. Why not build gas pipelines to power plants to generate electricity for millions? Why not build nuclear and coal plants, and hydroelectric projects like the Bujagali and Karuma Dams on the Nile River in Uganda? Mostly because powerful environmentalist groups oppose these projects. They care more about plants, animals and their own power, than about African people.


Excellent read.


----------



## CubaMark

*Dubai Shows Off Its First Solar Powered Gas Station*










It’s a bit of a paradox — a solar powered gas station. But if anything, it’s another sign of how the world is slowly but surely turning away from fossil fuels toward clean, renewable energy. Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Yet the UAE is also positioning itself for the transition away from fossil fuels that its leaders see coming. Among other things, the UAE sits on the edge of the Persian Gulf. Much of its land area will be threatened by rising sea levels if the melting of the world’s ice shelves continues unabated.

** * * *​
Solar farms are springing up everywhere to take advantage of the abundant sunshine that falls on that part of the world every day.

ENOC, which stands for Emirates National Oil Company, has now opened the first solar powered gas station in the country. Solar panels on the roof provide about 120 kW of electricity, which is 30% more than the station needs for its operational needs. The excess is fed back into local electrical grid.

The new ENOC station has other “green” features. It uses a system to collect the vapors released from its fuel tanks and solar lighting. It also recycles its waste water. Clean water is in short supply on the Arabian peninsular. All ENOC stations will soon have charging equipment for electric cars. Seven do at the present time.
(Gas2)​


----------



## Macfury

I've got news for Dubai--building solar powered gas stations is not going to maintain the level of wealth and power to which they've become accustomed. It's a story about a declining nation.

And spare me the crap about the rising seas!


----------



## Beej

CubaMark said:


> Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, the fourth largest oil producer in the world.


That does not sound right. I'm not going to claim "fake news", but it seems like a cut and paste without further thought. Fourth largest in OPEC?


----------



## Macfury

Beej said:


> That does not sound right. I'm not going to claim "fake news", but it seems like a cut and paste without further thought. Fourth largest in OPEC?


Eight in the world. Fourth in OPEC. 

Still what a sloppy bit of press, as though losing its export market for oil could be economically balanced by projects like solar panels on gas stations.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> Eight in the world. Fourth in OPEC.


Thanks. Source? There is reasonable confusion around oil production versus "liquids", but I'm not aware of them being an unusually large producer of non-crude oil liquids (the U.S. is).


----------



## Macfury

Beej said:


> Thanks. Source? There is reasonable confusion around oil production versus "liquids", but I'm not aware of them being an unusually large producer of non-crude oil liquids (the U.S. is).


The "Kids' Zone" of the CIA Factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2241rank.html


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> The "Kids' Zone" of the CIA Factbook:
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2241rank.html


The Russians!


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

The 'green' energy sector relies on your tax dollars



> The next time some politician, bureaucrat, academic or activist tries to tell you there is a market for alternative energy (wind, solar, biomass, etc.), remember that without massive taxpayer subsidies there would be almost no wind or solar power, or electricity plants run on burning woodchips.
> 
> There is limited profit in most “green” energy without massive infusions of public cash, either from taxpayers or utility customers.
> 
> That means there is very little true market for alternate energy. What there is, is a growing list of private companies that are only too happy to take “free” money as long as governments shell it out.


Further:



> A new report by Calgary economist Mark Milke for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that at the federal level nearly 80% of corporate welfare now goes to renewable energy companies. In
> 
> Alberta, it is nearly 70%. And in Ontario it is a staggering 96%.
> 
> Milke also looked at long-term contracts governments have signed with alternate energy companies and concludes that (sadly) “the most expensive corporate welfare bills have yet to hit Alberta and Ontario.”


There goes that damn narrative about subsidized alternative energy. Again...


----------



## FeXL

President Trump is the king of coal.



> Buried in an otherwise humdrum jobs report for March was the jaw-dropping pronouncement by the Labor Department that mining jobs in America were up by 11,000 in March. Since the low point in October 2016 and following years of painful layoffs in the mining industry, the mining sector has added 35,000 jobs.
> 
> What a turnaround. ‎It comes at a time when liberals have been saying that Donald Trump has been lying to the American people when he has said that he can bring coal jobs back. Well, so far he has brought them back.
> 
> There’s more good news for the coal industry. Earlier this month, Peabody Coal — America’s largest coal producer — moved out of bankruptcy, and its stock is actively trading again. Its market cap had sunk by almost 90 percent, during the Obama years. Arch Coal is also out of bankruptcy.


More:



> Renewable energy is at best one or two decades away from being a major energy source for the world, so until that happens, coal and natural gas will compete as low-priced and super-abundant, domestically produced energy sources for 21st century America. Nuclear power will hopefully continue to play an important role, too. *Meanwhile, for all the talk of the increase in wind and solar industries, they still account for less than 5 percent of our energy.* Almost 70 percent comes from natural gas and coal.


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

*Startup Says Molten Silicon Will Make Lithium-Ion Storage ‘Uneconomic.’ *










One of the companies bidding for a 100-megawatt storage plant in South Australia is standing by claims that its technology could beat lithium-ion.

Adelaide-based 1414 Degrees, named after silicon’s melting point (and formerly known as Latent Heat Storage), claims to have developed a molten silicon thermal energy storage system (TESS) that can store 500 kilowatt-hours of energy within a 70-centimeter cube. 

This is 36 times the capacity of a 14-kilowatt-hour Tesla Powerwall 2 lithium-ion battery, the company claims. 1414 Degrees says it could build a 10 megawatt-hour plant for around AUD $700,000 (USD $528,000), or a tenth of the price of a Tesla battery-based project.

Kevin Moriarty, executive chairman at 1414 Degrees, made headlines in Australia after saying his company’s technology could spell the end of lithium-ion batteries. “There’s no comparison,” he told the Australian Financial Review. “Except for a few specialized circumstances, it will make them totally uneconomic, frankly.”
(Read more at Green Tech Media)​


----------



## FeXL

Battery backup of renewables is ‘Uneconomic,' period...



CubaMark said:


> Startup Says Molten Silicon Will Make Lithium-Ion Storage ‘Uneconomic.’


----------



## CubaMark

*This was noted in December 2016 as a site that had the potential to become an incident.

Well.. guess what....* :yikes:

*Tunnel collapses at Hanford nuclear waste site in Washington state
*
Hundreds of workers at the Department of Energy’s Hanford nuclear site in Washington state had to “take cover” Tuesday morning after the collapse of 20-foot-long portion of a tunnel used to store contaminated radioactive materials.

The Energy Department said it activated its emergency operations protocol after reports of a “cave-in” at the 200 East Area in Hanford, a sprawling complex about 200 miles from Seattle where the government has been working to clean up radioactive materials left over from the country’s nuclear weapons program.

The agency said in a statement that the 20-foot section is part of a tunnel that is hundreds of feet long and is “used to store contaminated materials.” The tunnel is one of two that run into the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX. The section that collapsed was “in an area where the two tunnels join together,” the department said.

The PUREX facility, once used to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, has been idle for years but remains “highly contaminated,” the agency said.

Energy Department officials said there was “no indication of a release of contamination at this point” but that crews were still testing the area. Responders also were using a robot to take video and survey the damage. The department said that Energy Secretary Rick Perry had been briefed, adding that “everyone has been accounted for and there is no initial indication of any worker exposure or an airborne radiological release.”

But Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said there is still cause for concern. “It appears that this is a potentially serious event,” he said. “Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release.”
(Washington Post)​


----------



## Macfury

What do you expect when you interview someone from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" except that he is concerned...

Would have been better to invest some of the wasted money from all of these solar and wind projects in this facility.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Can't figger why Barry wouldn't have addressed this...


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> What do you expect when you interview someone from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" except that he is concerned...
> 
> Would have been better to invest some of the wasted money from all of these solar and wind projects in this facility.


I believe Hanford sucks about $10 Billion$ a year out of the taxpayers wallet. 

A lot more when you factor in deficit financing. May God (or is that Satan?) bless all the nukes born in the bowels of Hanford.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I believe Hanford sucks about $10 Billion$ a year out of the taxpayers wallet.
> 
> A lot more when you factor in deficit financing. May God (or is that Satan?) bless all the nukes born in the bowels of Hanford.


Of course, nukes should be private and the government should be enforcing standards instead--it can't police or regulate itself.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Of course, nukes should be private and the government should be enforcing standards instead--it can't police or regulate itself.


Precisely. First thing I thought when I read the article was, "Yet another failed gov't project..."


----------



## CubaMark

*I asked Musk about Canada availability this year... he responded "Will do our best. Hopefully, yes"*

*Tesla is opening Solar Roof orders today, starting with black smooth and textured tiles*

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced this morning that the company will open orders for the first solar roof tiles today...

* * *​
It will start with the Black glass smooth tiles and the textured glass tiles. Other styles will follow next year.

The news comes as the company confirmed last week that it plans to start the ” pilot manufacturing” of the first types of tiles during the current quarter (within two months) at their Fremont facility and move to volume production at Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo “shortly” thereafter.

Tesla will update the website this afternoon to release more information about pricing and installation.

The orders will be open for almost any country that Tesla has a presence in, but delivery and installation in 2017 are likely to be US only. Musk did say that the UK and Australia should get their first installations next year.

(Electrek)​


----------



## Macfury

The Buffalo gigafactory took $750 million in taxpayer funding and resulted in a lot of fraud and corruption charges leveled at government officials.

Cuomo’s SolarCity disaster could become a monument to corruption | New York Post


----------



## SINC

Tesla releases details of its solar roof tiles: cheaper than regular roof with ‘infinity warranty’ and 30 yrs of solar power

https://electrek.co/2017/05/10/tesla-solar-roof-tiles-price-warranty/


----------



## Macfury

It says the cost of roofing is $42.00 per sq. foot. before energy savings. My last roofing bill for asphalt was $6,000. A Tesla roof would cost me $62,000 up front.

I wouldn't get too excited about an "infinity warranty" with Tesla. 




SINC said:


> Tesla releases details of its solar roof tiles: cheaper than regular roof with ‘infinity warranty’ and 30 yrs of solar power
> 
> https://electrek.co/2017/05/10/tesla-solar-roof-tiles-price-warranty/


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> It says the cost of roofing is $42.00 per sq. foot. before energy savings. My last roofing bill for asphalt was $6,000. A Tesla roof would cost me $62,000 up front.


There are a a few different ways to make the calculation, from that article. The $21.85(USD)/sq.ft. figure is real, regardless of whether its amortized over the lifetime of the roof. It also depends on the mix of solar / "normal" shingles you decide to go with.



Macfury said:


> I wouldn't get too excited about an "infinity warranty" with Tesla.


Why? Have you travelled into the future and experienced problems with Tesla's warranty on a product that hasn't been installed anywhere yet? :lmao:

Also note from the article:
_Tesla says that it will manage the entire “Solar Roof experience—from the removal of your existing roof through design, permitting, installation, operations and maintenance of the new Solar Roof.” The company estimates that the installation should take roughly the same time to install as a tile roof installation, which is typically 5-7 days._​
I wonder how that plays into the equation....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> There are a a few different ways to make the calculation, from that article. The $21.85(USD)/sq.ft. figure is real, regardless of whether its amortized over the lifetime of the roof. It also depends on the mix of solar / "normal" shingles you decide to go with.


I believe that it's real. Unfortunately you need to pay the cost up front. Even accepting net US$21.85, we're still talking about C$31,000 for my roof after energy production. The $6,000 for my roof included installation. Best case scenario for Tesla at 1/3 solar tiles would be $11,000 after energy savings.

I would be better off installing a natural gas generator and running it when electricity prices run high. 



CubaMark said:


> Why? Have you travelled into the future and experienced problems with Tesla's warranty on a product that hasn't been installed anywhere yet? :lmao:


I don't accept that any 30-year warranty has any value. Any company that issues it isn't likely to be around in its current form, or a restructuring would eliminate its warranty obligations. Sears offered me a 30-year warranty on roofing, and they may not survive the decade.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It says the cost of roofing is $42.00 per sq. foot. before energy savings. My last roofing bill for asphalt was $6,000. A Tesla roof would cost me $62,000 up front.
> 
> I wouldn't get too excited about an "infinity warranty" with Tesla.


I would be looking at $25,000 just for the south facing portion of my roof about 1/3 of the total roof area. Not exactly cheaper than regular, as I could easily have the entire roof done for under $10,000.

I spend $600/year for electricity, so unless the Tesla would let me go off grid completely, my maximum savings would be $18,000 in the unlikely event I should last the entire 30 years. 

Even if it did allow me to go completely off grid. It would take over 20 years to pay for itself when you include the $600/gouge fees I now pay in addition to electricity. Of course that would be longer if there are other expenses besides the $42/square foot that need to be factored in. Like battery storage and inverters/chargers. That pair would come close to doubling the solar tile investment.

Of course that infinity warranty is basically for the life of the company, not the life of your home.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Of course that infinity warranty is basically for the life of the company, not the life of your home.


Bingo. 

This announcement is great news for rich people who will probably receive government incentives so that they can save money on electricity--supported by taxpayers who can never afford such a roof.

If rooftop solar was such a great deal, local utilities would be renting space on large roofs to feed the grid.


----------



## Macfury

Here's an analysis from Zerohedge:



> The bottom line is a cost of $57,500 for a roof that is 50% covered in solar tiles, or roughly $33/square foot, double the cost of slate, oh and which would also require the purchase of a Tesla $7,000 Powerwall battery. The kicker, however, is that the entire purchase would be uneconomical over the entire life if its wasn't for the $15,800 tax credit! Only with that "freebie" is the "net earned" over 30 years positive, and even so it comes to less than the actual tax credit received!


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Here's an analysis from Zerohedge:


Zerohedge is incorrect regarding the PowerWall. Tesla encourages the purchase as a way of helping to keep the house off-grid, but it is not a requirement, according to GreenTechMedia:

_If you price out your home, Tesla will encourage you to add a Powerwall. That'll add another $7,000 to the system.

"We recommend that every Solar Roof be installed with a Powerwall battery to enable you to use more of the solar power your roof produces and keep your home running during a grid outage. In states that do not have Net Energy Metering policies, we estimate and recommend a number of Powerwalls that will enable you to realize the full benefit of the energy your Solar Roof produces."_​


----------



## CubaMark

It should also be noted that the Tesla Roof is *not* the cheapest way to go PV solar, and should not be evaluated as such. A standard rooftop panel installation can generate more juice at a better cost/benefit ratio than this setup. What this does, though, is provide folks with the cash and willingness to spend it an option to have an _attractive / invisible_ alternative to rooftop PV panels. 

The comments in the GreenTechMedia report above raise a number of other questions, such as: vulnerability to lightning strikes; the Tesla roof "infinity" warranty's fine print regarding that kind of damage; factoring in 30-year payback on a house that folks may not stay in for more than 7 years, and how that gets factored into resale, etc. Lots of critical, valid questions.

But again: this ain't the cheapo option. It's the *pretty* option. It's also an innovation that could drive other technologies and alternatives, a Good Thing when we're talking alternative energy options.


----------



## Macfury

It's a net money-loser for the homeowner if you subtract the US$15,800 subsidy. But I agree that it looks fine.


----------



## SINC

I have been watching solar power closely for many years now, thinking that one day it would become reasonably enough priced that I could power my motor home with it when camping. While I use a small 18" x 4' panel to keep my starter battery charged, all other roof top options are so expensive that there is zero payback in the life of the rig itself. I continue to use gas to power my 4 kw generator when I need power and have no other option.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I have been watching solar power closely for many years now, thinking that one day it would become reasonably enough priced that I could power my motor home with it when camping. While I use a small 18" x 4' panel to keep my starter battery charged, all other roof top options are so expensive that there is zero payback in the life of the rig itself. I continue to use gas to power my 4 kw generator when I need power and have no other option.


I'd jump on solar, or geothermal, if I felt I could go anywhere near to being off-grid at a comparable price.


----------



## CubaMark

*Further on the Hanford Nuclear incident:*

CBS News reports that the collapsed tunnel stored contaminated particles and radioactive train cars. The area was 20 feet-by-20 feet and sits over a tunnel hundreds of feet long that was built during the Cold War.

A United States Department of Energy spokesman said Thursday that the large sinkhole responsible for the collapsed tunnel may have gone unnoticed for days. The tunnel is filled with radioactive waste that dates back to World War II.

Because the tunnel is not checked on a daily basis there is no telling how long it has been leaking, but officials say it could have been leaking for at least four days.

(BlastingNews)​


----------



## SINC

*Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy*



> We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear
> 
> Tantrum of the climate alarmists
> 
> The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.
> 
> You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.
> 
> Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#


----------



## CubaMark

Consumer Reports has revisited its numbers relating to the Tesla Solar Roof:

The Math on Tesla's Solar Roof Using Real Pricing - Consumer Reports


----------



## Macfury

Of the three scenarios, only the California scenario comes out ahead unless you count a massive federal subsidy against cost. 

Also, a $45,000 loan over 30 years at 5% interest results in interest charges of $41,000. You'd need to pay off the California loan much more quickly to make the Tesla tile pay off. A comparison for the California home with traditional solar would be instructive.


----------



## FeXL

No _sane_ person purchases anything based on a 30 year payback period.

_Period._

And with most commercial business looking for a 3-5 year cost recovery this is off by a factor of 6-10.

MOAR SUBSIDIES!!! :greedy::greedy::greedy:



CubaMark said:


> Consumer Reports has revisited its numbers relating to the Tesla Solar Roof:


----------



## FeXL

Finally, something Barry was right about.

#WINNING: USA fracks its way to a fuel surplus



> Back in 2011, as that season’s presidential pandering was getting revved up, the President Obama said we can’t drill our way out of energy problems.
> 
> _President Obama called for the elimination of billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks Friday, while stressing that the United States can’t drill its way out of high gas prices.
> 
> “We can’t just drill our way out of the problem,” Obama said during an energy policy speech in Indiana Friday._​
> I hate to admit it: Obama is right. We didn’t drill our way out, we fracked our way to a fuel surplus. There has been so much winning recently that OPEC is now complaining.


Inexpensive, reliable, clean natural gas...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting analysis.

What does it take to substitute 4 GtC using low-C electricity?



> In my recent post called Future Atmospheric CO2 Scenarios [1] I described the effect on atmospheric CO2 of reducing global carbon (C) emissions from 10 to 6 Gt (billion or 10^9 tonnes) per annum by 2050. In this post I examine what it will take to achieve this goal using wind turbines or nuclear power stations. *The simple answers are an additional 3,275,492 wind turbines or an additional 1948 nuclear power stations.* I also take a look at the implications of BAU for natural gas supplies.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Only a coupla hunnert million? Pshaw. Chump change...

Largest US Solar Panel Maker Files For Bankruptcy After Receiving $206 Million In Subsidies



> The company once hailed as Europe’s largest solar panel producer filed for bankruptcy Wednesday, blaming cheap Chinese panels for flooding the market.
> 
> “The ongoing price erosion and the development of the business” has left the company “over-indebted and thus obliged to file for insolvency proceedings,” SolarWorld, which is also the largest U.S. solar panel maker, said in a statement.


More:



> SolarWorld is only the latest bankrupt solar company to blame the Chinese. U.S.-based Suniva Inc. filed for bankruptcy in April, also citing stiff competition from Chinese solar panel makers.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Only a coupla hunnert million? Pshaw. Chump change...
> 
> Largest US Solar Panel Maker Files For Bankruptcy After Receiving $206 Million In Subsidies


Love these braying fools who keep wanting to see solar panel factories established in Canada because it represents some sort of ground level opportunity we might miss. let the Chinese government subsidize their manufacture, and when sell them to us. When they perfect the technology, we can steal it.


----------



## SINC

Yep, happens every time.

The people always lose with green scheme energy deals | Columnists | Opinion | Edmonton Sun


----------



## FeXL

While this particular article is more about SpaceX than Tesla, it applies just as well to the latter.

Elon Musk’s business model is a travesty.



> Elon Musk’s SpaceX has been in recent headlines with a recent launch of a spy satellite. In fact, SpaceX is better at well managed and scripted messaging than it is at actually launching cargo into space in a timely and successful fashion. Always the public relations maestro, Musk announced that he plans to reuse every major component of the rocket by 2018. One of the themes SpaceX has carefully crafted is that it represents the future of “free-market” space flight.
> 
> The problem with this public relations hype is that it bears little resemblance to reality. Whether it is SpaceX or Musk’s electric car company, Tesla, the business model is based on lining up billions in taxpayer-provided subsidies and obtaining exclusive regulatory benefits and exceptions. Then, they engage in slick marketing to convince everyone how free-market and innovative they are.


As I've noted before: Give me $5 billion free & clear & I'll show you a successful business, too...


----------



## CubaMark

_Fossil Fuels - they keep on costing us one way or another...._

*Alberta pledges $235-million loan to "orphan" oil wells clean up* - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury

How much money does a "polluter pay" loan cost? You're completely off your rocker on this one.



CubaMark said:


> _Fossil Fuels - they keep on costing us one way or another...._
> 
> *Alberta pledges $235-million loan to "orphan" oil wells clean up* - The Globe and Mail


----------



## CubaMark

_30 years after Chernobyl, the long, slow cleanup continues...._

*The Daring Laborers Who Sandblast Chernobyl’s Radioactive Metal*










THE EXPLOSION OF the Chernobyl nuclear power plant blanketed a vast swath of the western Soviet Union with radioactive fallout. Thirty years later, 1,600 square miles of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus remains a wasteland except for the hardiest wildlife, a small holdout of elderly citizens, and industrial workers, some who roam the countryside scavenging radioactive metal. They dismantle the abandoned equipment, railroads and buildings that still stand, sandblasting away any irradiated material and consuming lots of vodka.

“There’s this belief that vodka cleans everything,” says Pierpaolo Mittica, who spent two months following the scavengers for his photo series The Radioactive Gold of Chernobyl.

Chernobyl blew on April 26, 1986 in a disaster that forced 200,000 people from their homes. Entire towns stand vacant in an exclusionary zone that extends up to 60 miles from the plant. Prospectors started pillaging the region for valuables, and by some estimates, they’ve retrieved at least one million tons of metal. The Ukrainian government eventually granted licenses to recycling companies, which decontaminate the scrap and sell it throughout Europe.

Some reports claim grinding radioactive metal can lead to cancer, while others say the risk of radiation is are low.
*
* * **​
Although some of the workers shunned protective suits, Mittica wasn’t taking any chances. He donned a gas mask, and occasionally availed himself of the vodka. “Obviously to protect myself from radiation,” he says. Obviously.

(Wired)​


----------



## Beej

> 1,600 square miles of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus remains a wasteland except for the hardiest wildlife


That sounds very misleading. There are plenty of videos of people on tour within sight of the plant with plenty of greenery, and others going quite close while monitoring radiation readings. Maybe I can't map "1,600 square miles" very well with ground level video, but the line sounds more like an agenda presented as an innocuous scene setting statement.

This is one of those topics where the scrutiny of claims is quite low. Ideology drives the coverage. If it turns out the statement is accurate for, say, 100 square miles, or "hardiest wildlife" means all wildlife except a few specific animals, the source can simply say that any amount of impact is bad and they wanted to start a conversation.


----------



## FeXL

Burning ice. Brings to mind the cover of that old Styx album, Equinox.

China and Japan find way to extract ‘combustible ice’ from seafloor, harnessing a legendary frozen fossil fuel



> Commercial development of the globe’s huge reserves of a frozen fossil fuel known as “combustible ice” has moved closer to reality after Japan and China successfully extracted the material from the seafloor off their coastlines.
> 
> But experts said Friday that large-scale production remains many years away — and if not done properly could flood the atmosphere with climate-changing greenhouse gases.
> 
> Combustible ice is a frozen mixture of water and concentrated natural gas. Technically known as methane hydrate, it can be lit on fire in its frozen state and is believed to comprise one of the world’s most abundant fossil fuels.


OK, ain't buying the whole climate change garbage. Nonetheless, ultimately probably cheaper than renewables & certainly more dependable.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, there's that.

The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Ah yes, there's that.


Well found.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, let's talk subsidies again!

How Much Does the U.S. Government Subsidize Electricity Generating Technologies?

I'll go directly to the punchline:



> *On an energy basis, wind and solar receive orders of magnitude more support than their conventionally fueled brethren* (see chart below). Depending on the year, conventional technologies receive less than $2 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, wind received $57/MWh in 2010, falling to $15/MWh over our study period. Astonishingly, solar support stood at $876/MWh in 2010 but is expected to decline to $70/MWh by 2019.


Yeah, my emphasis.


----------



## Macfury

Here's a good one. California wants to replace gas plants with wind and solar _to save money_. 

California regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants - LA Times


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Here's a good one. California wants to replace gas plants with wind and solar _to save money_.


Can't think of a better place for it to happen.


----------



## FeXL

More Solar Jobs is a Curse, Not a Blessing

First off, how many workers in each field?



> Citing U.S. Department of Energy data, the New York Times recently reported that the solar industry employs far more Americans than wind or coal: 374,000 in solar versus 100,000 in wind and 160,000 in coal mining and coal-fired power generation. Only the natural gas sector employs more people: 398,000 workers in gas production, electricity generation, home heating and petrochemicals.


Awright. Now, how many workers per unit of electricity produced?



> Coal generated an incredible 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per worker; natural gas 3,812 MWH per worker; wind a measly 836 MWH for every employee; and solar an abysmal 98 MWH per worker.
> 
> In other words, *producing the same amount of electricity requires one coal worker, two natural gas workers – 12 wind industry employees or 79 solar workers.*


M'bold.

'Nuf said...


----------



## Macfury

This is why green power advocates should demand electric power generation using bicycles--employment out the wazoo!




FeXL said:


> More Solar Jobs is a Curse, Not a Blessing
> 
> First off, how many workers in each field?
> 
> 
> 
> Awright. Now, how many workers per unit of electricity produced?
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> 'Nuf said...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> This is why green power advocates should demand electric power generation using bicycles--employment out the wazoo!


Can you imagine all the union dues they could collect?


----------



## FeXL

Woohoo!

50% RE in the UK – the Ugly Facts



> National Grid has reported, that for the first time, over 50% of UK electricity came from renewable electricity (RE) on 7th June. Is this a cause for celebration or not? With biomass generators being subsidised to the tune of £43/MWh and offshore wind producers to the tune of £89/MWh (source Drax), this effectively doubles generation costs. I imagine that the RE generators will be breaking out the Champagne. While if you are a hard-pressed, energy poor pensioner, you are probably wishing you’d bought another blanket. The celebratory way the BBC has broken this news you’d think they were in the employ of the fat cat renewables generators and not the British public. This must change!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Woohoo!
> 
> 50% RE in the UK – the Ugly Facts


Counting biomass imported from North America as "renewable" is so dishonest. I think what's renewable is government slush funds designed to pay out these crooks.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Counting biomass imported from North America as "renewable" is so dishonest.


Can't disagree. For that matter, I find the whole RE concept covered by half truths & outright lies.


----------



## FeXL

So, the linked article on the Cowley windfarm inside is from last year. However, the statements are very revealing & the comments are germain.

Wind power fails in Canada – a 23 year life span not likely to be replaced



> _TransAlta Corp. said Tuesday the blades on 57 turbines at its Cowley Ridge facility near Pincher Creek have already been halted and the towers are to be toppled and recycled for scrap metal this spring. The company inherited the now-obsolete facility, built between 1993 and 1994, as part of its $1.6-billion hostile takeover of Calgary-based Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. in 2009.
> 
> “TransAlta is very interested in repowering this site. Unfortunately, right now, it’s not economically feasible,” Wayne Oliver, operations supervisor for TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod, said in an interview.
> 
> *“We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government. . . . Alberta is an open market and the wholesale price when it’s windy is quite low, so there’s just not the return on investment in today’s situation. So, if there is an incentive, we’d jump all over that.”*_​


M'bold.

No way they can make it financially interesting sans subsidies.

Where are the deniers, crying foul?


----------



## FeXL

An article on solar power misleading?

Shocka...

A highly misleading article on solar power



> Articles that predict a great future for solar energy are two a penny these days, but every so often one comes along that’s worth a post to itself. Such an article, recently aired by the _Motley Fool_, is the subject of this post. It effectively claims that a recent power purchase agreement between Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and NextEra Energy opens the door to powering the world with 24/7/365 baseload solar. And what does the purchase agreement cover? 100MW of PV and 120MWh of battery storage. Here we evaluate the _Motley Fool_’s claims. The conclusions are predictable.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

But they're so GREEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!

Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving



> Huge hopes have been tied to electric cars as the solution to automotive CO2 climate problem. But it turns out the the electric car batteries are eco-villains in the production process of creating them. Several tons of carbon dioxide has been emitted, even before the batteries leave the factory.
> 
> IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate litium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective. There are batteries designed for electric vehicles included in the study. The two authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare has done a meta-study that is reviewed and compiled existing studies.
> 
> The report shows that the battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory.


So, you don't actually hit the plus column until the battery is approaching the end of its life.

Figgers...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> So, the linked article on the Cowley windfarm inside is from last year. However, the statements are very revealing & the comments are germain.
> 
> Wind power fails in Canada – a 23 year life span not likely to be replaced
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> No way they can make it financially interesting sans subsidies.
> 
> Where are the deniers, crying foul?


Interestingly the Cowley ridge is a true ridge running north-south. Predominate winds in the area are either westerly or easterly. Either way the Cowley ridge serves up an almost perfect venturi effect. If Trans-Alta can't make wind generators pay there, it cannot be done.


----------



## CubaMark

*France to ban all new oil and gas exploration in renewable energy drive*










France is to stop granting licences for oil and gas exploration as part of a transition towards environmentally-friendly energy being driven by Emmanuel Macron’s government.

Nicolas Hulot, the “ecological transition” minister said a law would be passed in the autumn.

“There will be no new exploration licences for hydrocarbons,” he told BFMTV.

(The Independent)​


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

Environmentally friendly, alright.

More unicorn farts, perchance? Maybe he can borrow Juthdin's...



CubaMark said:


> ... as part of a transition towards environmentally-friendly energy...


----------



## CubaMark

*Increasing number of farms switching to solar power*










Farmers have always followed a natural progression when it comes to technology.

“(Farmers aren’t) using horses to plow their fields anymore. Solar’s just kind of another step that allows them to be competitive and control the cost that’s a business expense,” said Nathan Jones, solar energy advisor with miEnergy.

Jones was at Canada’s Farm Progress Show last week to give presentations about how farms can switch to solar power. MiEnergy, a Saskatoon-based company, has been in the renewable energy industry for 15 years, first with geothermal and then expanding four years ago into solar.

Since entering the solar business, miEnergy has seen business steadily increase — half of business now comes from farms, according to Jones.

Power bills for farms can be high since farmers are often operating both a business and living on site. Jones said with solar energy, there is a large upfront cost, but in the long run it pays off as the customer can control the cost of their power bill.

“You’re taking control of your power generation, which I think is empowering and allows a piece of mind knowing that (you’re) not going to be paying more every year for power,” he said.

This past year, SaskPower increased its rates by 8.5 per cent. With solar power, customers don’t have to worry about being affected by rate hikes, Jones said.
(Leader-Post)​


----------



## Macfury

Those numbers look really unencouraging, CM.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Wonder what kind of subsides they're getting? 



CubaMark said:


> Increasing number of farms switching to solar power


Actually, I know farmers in Saskatchewan who still plow with horses. And use kerosene lanterns to light their homes. And use wood to heat them.



CubaMark said:


> “(Farmers aren’t) using horses to plow their fields anymore.


Really? So what's the ROI on solar energy in Saskatchewan, where there is large amounts of snowfall to clean off your solar panels and 6 hours of sunlight (at most) in winter when you need power the most?



CubaMark said:


> Jones said with solar energy, there is a large upfront cost, but in the long run it pays off as the customer can control the cost of their power bill.


What's empowering is to tell these freaks peddling solar power to get off your land...



CubaMark said:


> “You’re taking control of your power generation, which I think is empowering and allows a piece of mind knowing that (you’re) not going to be paying more every year for power,” he said.


----------



## Macfury

A reporter asks person peddling solar panels how much interest they're getting from farmers and he answers: "50 per cent." 

5o per cent of what?


----------



## CubaMark

*Seeing the light: Mining companies look to solar power, wind for fresh revenue*

After a century of pulling lead and zinc from the Sullivan mine in southeast British Columbia, the energy company Teck recently shut down the operation and began years of restoration work. Some of the land outside the city of Kimberley became a meadow with grass and trees, but it remained tainted after decades of mining activity. 

There was no way it could be turned into a housing subdivision or some other development. 

The area would likely have sat empty for decades if not for an initiative by the city to take it over and build a solar field. The project has since caught the attention of the mining industry as an innovative method of re-purposing old mining sites and generating revenue, even if the land is contaminated. As long as there are plenty of sunny days — or, in the case of wind farms, strong winds — a company has an opportunity to recoup some of the expense of cleaning up a mine, which can cost tens of millions of dollars.

Walk around Kimberley's SunMine solar field and you wouldn't know you're hiking above an old mining site. Solar panels fill the landscape, like 96 sunflowers tracking the sun from dusk until dawn. The SunMine produces one megawatt of electricity, enough to power about 200 homes, but there is enough land to expand to 200 megawatts in the future, more than enough to power Kimberley, which has about 7,000 people, and surrounding communities.

Teck donated the land to the city along with $2 million towards the $5.3 million project. Initial costs were high, because of legal fees and other one-time costs, officials say.
(CBC)​


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Seeing the light: Mining companies look to solar power, wind for fresh revenue*
> After a century of pulling lead and zinc from the Sullivan mine in southeast British Columbia, the energy company Teck recently shut down the operation and began years of restoration work. Some of the land outside the city of Kimberley became a meadow with grass and trees, but it remained tainted after decades of mining activity.
> 
> There was no way it could be turned into a housing subdivision or some other development.
> 
> The area would likely have sat empty for decades if not for an initiative by the city to take it over and build a solar field. The project has since caught the attention of the mining industry as an innovative method of re-purposing old mining sites and generating revenue, even if the land is contaminated. As long as there are plenty of sunny days — or, in the case of wind farms, strong winds — a company has an opportunity to recoup some of the expense of cleaning up a mine, which can cost tens of millions of dollars.
> 
> Walk around Kimberley's SunMine solar field and you wouldn't know you're hiking above an old mining site. Solar panels fill the landscape, like 96 sunflowers tracking the sun from dusk until dawn. The SunMine produces one megawatt of electricity, enough to power about 200 homes, but there is enough land to expand to 200 megawatts in the future, more than enough to power Kimberley, which has about 7,000 people, and surrounding communities.
> 
> Teck donated the land to the city along with $2 million towards the $5.3 million project. Initial costs were high, because of legal fees and other one-time costs, officials say.
> (CBC)​


If that is the mine I think it is I am glad I got the opportunity to tour it before this latest "improvement". I believe nickel was the primary metal, with lead and zinc being bonus by-products.


----------



## Macfury

If I could fob off contaminated land on the city, I would also pay them to take it!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> If I could fob off contaminated land on the city, I would also pay them to take it!


BINGO!!!

Win/win.


----------



## FeXL

Solar Panels Generate 300 Times More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear Reactors



> Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants, according to a Thursday report from the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress (EP).


----------



## FeXL

Large blaze breaks out at brand new block of £1million flats in East London 'after solar panels catch fire'



> A large blaze broke at a brand new block of flats in East London this afternoon with witnesses claiming the building's solar panels appeared to have caught fire.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Solar Panels Generate 300 Times More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear Reactors





> ".... according to a Thursday report from the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress (EP)"


Is the toxic waste resulting from the manufacture and disposal of solar panels really more dangerous to human and animal life than an equal amount of radioactive waste which will eventually decay into harmless (less dangerous) elements in between 1,000 to 24,000 years (depending on the material in question)?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Large blaze breaks out at brand new block of £1million flats in East London 'after solar panels catch fire'


A building that is presently under construction catches fire. The fire appears to begin on or under the roof. On the roof there are solar panels. So ergo, SOLAR PANELS WILL KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE IN A RAGING INFERNO FOSSIL FUELS FOREVER GOD BLESS AMERI- I MEAN, BRITAIN GO MANCHESTER UNITED.

Seriously. It may well be that something happened with the installation of the panels and wiring, but until the London Fire Brigade updates its website with the actual cause following an investigation (sorry, I know how you conservative types hate evidence-based reasoning), its rather shameful of the anti-solar crowd to jump to conclusions like this.

Shameful, but par for the course.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Is the toxic waste resulting from the manufacture and disposal of solar panels really more dangerous to human and animal life than an equal amount of radioactive waste which will eventually decay into harmless (less dangerous) elements in between 1,000 to 24,000 years (depending on the material in question)?


Is it?


----------



## Macfury

Damn panels are killers! 



CubaMark said:


> A building that is presently under construction catches fire. The fire appears to begin on or under the roof. On the roof there are solar panels. So ergo, SOLAR PANELS WILL KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE IN A RAGING INFERNO FOSSIL FUELS FOREVER GOD BLESS AMERI- I MEAN, BRITAIN GO MANCHESTER UNITED.
> 
> Seriously. It may well be that something happened with the installation of the panels and wiring, but until the London Fire Brigade updates its website with the actual cause following an investigation (sorry, I know how you conservative types hate evidence-based reasoning), its rather shameful of the anti-solar crowd to jump to conclusions like this.
> 
> Shameful, but par for the course.


----------



## CubaMark

_So... what can hackers do to a nuclear power plant? Can they make 'em go "BOOM!"? I have no idea. Maybe they can cause a meltdown, I don't know... but I suspect it's a damn sight more serious than if a hacker got into the control systems for a solar installation... what's the worst that could happen? Power goes out_? 

*Hackers Are Targeting Nuclear Facilities, Homeland Security Dept. and F.B.I. Say*










Since May, hackers have been penetrating the computer networks of companies that operate nuclear power stations and other energy facilities, as well as manufacturing plants in the United States and other countries.

Among the companies targeted was the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which runs a nuclear power plant near Burlington, Kan., according to security consultants and an urgent joint report issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week.

The joint report was obtained by The New York Times and confirmed by security specialists who have been responding to the attacks. It carried an urgent amber warning, the second-highest rating for the sensitivity of the threat.

The report did not indicate whether the cyberattacks were an attempt at espionage — such as stealing industrial secrets — or part of a plan to cause destruction. There is no indication that hackers were able to jump from their victims’ computers into the control systems of the facilities, nor is it clear how many facilities were breached.

(NYT)​


----------



## Macfury

Yep. If an energy source produces very little power--like solar--there would be no point in taking it out.


----------



## FeXL

<snort> You do go on, don't you?

As far as the solar panels are concerned, it's merely one more thing about them to be aware of.



CubaMark said:


> So ergo, SOLAR PANELS WILL KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE IN A RAGING INFERNO FOSSIL FUELS FOREVER GOD BLESS AMERI- I MEAN, BRITAIN GO MANCHESTER UNITED.


I have a little quote for you below on evidence-based reasoning from an unrelated thread some time back on SDA:



> If you think limiting refugees based on what a tiny minority *might* do is bigoted, but banning firearms based on what a tiny minority *might* do is evidenced based policy making; you might be a Liberal.


Sums evidence-based reasoning up for me...



CubaMark said:


> (sorry, I know how you conservative types hate evidence-based reasoning),


----------



## FeXL

Ummm...

Pretty sure the statement made in the article was:



> Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants...


Which is only _slightly_ different than your question.



CubaMark said:


> Is the toxic waste resulting from the manufacture and disposal of solar panels really more dangerous...?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Ummm...
> 
> Pretty sure the statement made in the article was:
> 
> Which is only _slightly_ different than your question.


I think perhaps you're parsing it incorrectly.

_It's not:_

Solar panels create 300 times (more toxic) waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants...

_It's:_

Solar panels create 300 times more (toxic waste) per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants...

It's not an issue of quantity, it's an issue of toxicity, which is not in a direct relationship to volume or mass or whatever.


----------



## eMacMan

> I think perhaps you're parsing it incorrectly.
> 
> _It's not:_
> 
> Solar panels create 300 times (more toxic) waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants...
> 
> _It's:_
> 
> Solar panels create 300 times more (toxic waste) per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants...
> 
> It's not an issue of quantity, it's an issue of toxicity, which is not in a direct relationship to volume or mass or whatever.


That question is easily resolved by looking at the placement of the comma. Ooops author considered a comma irrelevant.


----------



## FeXL

If subsidies can't convince people to use it, you legislate its use.

California Requires Solar Panels on All Homes and Windmills on All Farms



> What has not been widely discussed in the press – and buried in the details of the bill – is that all new homes and all homes sold must have solar panels as their source of energy. All apartment buildings with more than four units must install solar panels by 2025, and all commercial and office buildings must do the same. As for farms, they must commit 25% of their acreage to windmills.


----------



## Macfury

California will soon drop off the coast under the weight of its own stupidity. When will the rest of Claifornia simply become sick of this idiocy and split the state in half?



FeXL said:


> If subsidies can't convince people to use it, you legislate its use.
> 
> California Requires Solar Panels on All Homes and Windmills on All Farms


----------



## FeXL

Renewables in Ontariowe taking a hit?

Siemens Canada: Tillsonburg plant that employs 300 may face bleak future amid ominous warning signs 



> Tillsonburg is teetering on the edge of losing 300 jobs at one of its largest employers.
> 
> The closing or temporary shutdown of Siemens Canada’s wind turbine blade plant in the Southwestern Ontario town would also raise questions about the fallout from Ontario’s controversial green energy policy.
> 
> Rumours of some kind of looming shutdown or closing at Siemens, one of four green energy plants lured to Ontario under a controversial multibillion-dollar provincial deal with Korean industrial giant Samsung, began a few weeks ago and intensified during the weekend.
> 
> A four-year Siemens employee said workers who called the plant’s sick line during the weekend were told there was no *production Monday and were to attend a morning meeting today at the town community centre.


----------



## SINC

And now this:

The sun is setting on solar power, the money’s gone and nobody’s asking any questions.

https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2...moneys-gone-and-nobodys-asking-any-questions/


----------



## FeXL

Further on the fallout from pulling solar's subsidies.

Report: Up To 100 Solar Power Companies Are On Verge Of Bankruptcy



> Up to 100 Japanese solar companies are on the verge of bankruptcy this year due to reductions in subsidies, according to Tuesday report by the corporate credit research company Teikoku Databank.
> 
> The report concludes that roughly 50 Japanese solar companies already went out of business during the first six months of 2017. This is more than double the number of companies that went under during the same period in 2016.


More:



> *Many of the bankruptcies are due to cuts in a major solar subsidy.* Japan launched a feed-in tariff to financially benefit solar power in 2012, but has progressively cut spending on it. The government has announced that it intends to entirely remove the feed-in tariff in the early 2020s.
> 
> Solar power companies in the U.S. are heavily supported by financial invectives from the government.


Further:



> *Solar power and wind power get 326 and 69 times more in subsidies than coal, oil, and natural gas, according to 2013 Department of Energy data collected by Forbes. Green energy in the U.S. received $13 billion in subsidies during 2013, compared to $3.4 billion in subsidies for conventional sources of energy and $1.7 billion in subsidies for nuclear, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.*


All emphasis mine.

So, not only greater subsidization _per unit of output_ but greater subsidies, _in total_.

There goes another renewables narrative...


----------



## SINC

First Battery-Free Cellphone Harvests Power from Ambient Radio Signals, Light



> A team of computer scientists and electrical engineers at the University of Washington has invented a cellphone that requires no batteries and harvests power from either ambient radio signals or light. The device is described in a paper published in the Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies.
> 
> The battery-free phone can sense speech, actuate the earphones, and switch between uplink and downlink communications, all in real time. It is powered by either ambient radio signals or light. Image credit: Mark Stone, University of Washington.
> 
> “We’ve built what we believe is the first functioning cellphone that consumes almost zero power,” said co-author Dr. Shyam Gollakota, from the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering at the University of Washington.
> 
> “To achieve the really, really low power consumption that you need to run a phone by harvesting energy from the environment, we had to fundamentally rethink how these devices are designed.”


First Battery-Free Cellphone Harvests Power from Ambient Radio Signals, Light | Computer Science, Physics, Technologies | Sci-News.com


----------



## Macfury

My uncle got in trouble overseas years ago by building a device that robbed a radio station by harvesting signals to create electricity. It created a big dent in coverage on the fringe.


----------



## FeXL

China coal-fired power plant issues green bonds



> A power producer in the city of Tianjin has issued "green bonds" worth 1 billion yuan ($150 million) to finance a 2,000-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant, a move slammed by an environmental group for diverting funds from cleaner projects.
> 
> Tianjin SDIC Jinneng Electric Power Co Ltd announced this week that it had registered the short-term "green bonds" on the interbank market and would complete the sale in the third quarter of this year. It said it was the first "green bond" of its kind to be launched by China's thermal power sector.
> 
> The bond sale will be used to pay back loans used to build two 1,000-MW ultra-supercritical coal-fired generation plants, the company said in a statement.


----------



## FeXL

‘Uncertain’ Future for Wind Amid Tax Credit Debate



> America’s booming wind energy sector faces questions over its long-term growth prospects as federal incentives are scaled back amid weak natural gas prices and modest electricity demand, according to the Department of Energy.


So, ya pull the subsidies & the market goes crash. So much for all that rhetoric about parity...

And, this, from the "D'uh Department":



> Meanwhile, Rick Perry, who heads up the energy department, has ordered a study into whether such tax credits that favor wind and solar are accelerating the closure of coal and nuclear plants.


Wonder if _his_ study will take 8 months to complete...


----------



## FeXL

And, a mere solar eclipse is going to cause major issues relating to solar power in a few days...

Solar eclipse 2017: how the solar power industry is prepping for a huge sunlight blip



> “Our solar plants are going to lose over half of their ability to generate electricity during the two to two and a half hours that the eclipse will be impacting our area,” says Steven Greenlee, spokesperson for the California Independent System Operator, or CAISO, one of the largest independent grid operators in the world.
> 
> During the eclipse, we can expect the moon to completely (and partially, in the areas beyond the totality) obscure the sun’s rays across the US, blocking the sunlight that powers the solar panels. Unlike on a cloudy day, this loss will cause a rapid decline and rebound of solar power that grid operators will have to skillfully manage.


And, I jes' luvs me this statement:



> Ultimately, the eclipse is a reminder of how important solar energy has become to our power generation, and that with preparation, this system can work even when its energy source — the sun — is blotted out.


Talk about completely missing the point. What the eclipse actually does is highlight how fragile solar power is in the first place...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> And, a mere solar eclipse is going to cause major issues relating to solar power in a few days....


Just how "major" are we talking? 

_The country now has about 45 gigawatts of solar capacity installed, ....

The solar eclipse will significantly diminish that capacity for a couple of hours on August 21, especially in California and North Carolina.

“Our solar plants are going to lose over half of their ability to generate electricity during the two to two and a half hours that the eclipse will be impacting our area,”

** * **​
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) says it doesn’t expect the eclipse to create reliability issues for the bulk power system. Still, the eclipse will test the reliability of solar generation on a national scale, and challenge the preparedness of operators like CAISO.

Ultimately, the eclipse is a reminder of how important solar energy has become to our power generation, and that with preparation, this system can work even when its energy source — the sun — is blotted out._​
Doesn't seem that major at all, really. 

And with more installations of energy storage (be they a Tesla grid-level battery system, gravity-based hydro, compressed gas, etc.) capabilities, these kinds of disruptions—an eclipse isn't exactly a common occurrence—should be no great challenge at all to the overall grid. 

But of course, that doesn't fit your "sky is falling!" scenario, so.. natter on, if you must....


----------



## FeXL

Awrite, I will.

While grid operators are scrambling to figger out how to balance the absence of solar power and while idiots like you and others are postulating that with even more batteries & even more taxpayer funded subsidies to prop up a technology that can't stand on it's own, coal, natural gas & nuclear power plants will be humming along, providing baseload _plus_ solar shortfalls.



CubaMark said:


> But of course, that doesn't fit your "sky is falling!" scenario, so.. natter on, if you must....


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Awrite, I will.
> 
> While grid operators are scrambling to figger out how to balance the absence of solar power and while idiots like you and others are postulating that with even more batteries & even more taxpayer funded subsidies to prop up a technology that can't stand on it's own, coal, natural gas & nuclear power plants will be humming along, providing baseload _plus_ solar shortfalls.


Yup.


----------



## CubaMark

From the article linked by FeXL, and cited by me:

_The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) says *it doesn’t expect the eclipse to create reliability issues for the bulk power system*. Still, the eclipse will test the reliability of solar generation on a national scale, and challenge the preparedness of operators like CAISO.

Ultimately, the eclipse is a reminder of how important solar energy has become to our power generation, and that with preparation, *this system can work even when its energy source — the sun — is blotted out.*_​
How does that translate into:

*...grid operators are scrambling to figger out how to balance the absence of solar power...*​
And while we're on the topic, I've presented my opinion and rebuttal clearly, factually and without insult. What I received for doing so is:

*...while idiots like you...*​
Civility, thy name is _not_ FeXL.

XX)


----------



## FeXL

Of course not. Nobody said anything about baseload reliability. That's why it's called the *bulk power system* and it's designed to work 24/7/365 without interruption, consistently, reliably & affordably. No interruptions when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing, no expensive battery backup systems and a damn sight fewer taxpayer funded subsidies.



CubaMark said:


> From the article linked by FeXL, and cited by me:
> 
> _*it doesn’t expect the eclipse to create reliability issues for the bulk power system*_​


Obviously solar energy can't work when the sun is blotted out. And, if you're referring to the the *bulk power system* working as a whole in the absence of renewables, it's because they produce the lion's share of electricity in the first place.

D'uh...



CubaMark said:


> _Ultimately, the eclipse is a reminder of how important solar energy has become to our power generation, and that with preparation, *this system can work even when its energy source — the sun — is blotted out.*_​


From this:



> *...this loss will cause a rapid decline and rebound of solar power that grid operators will have to skillfully manage.*





CubaMark said:


> How does that translate into:
> 
> *...grid operators are scrambling to figger out how to balance the absence of solar power...*​


What facts? That solar, in addition to all other forms of renewables, have to rely on carbon & nuclear based power when they fail? 

Yep, you sure nailed that one.



CubaMark said:


> And while we're on the topic, I've presented my opinion and rebuttal clearly, factually and without insult.


Can you think of a better descriptor for anyone who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, still futilely pounds the renewables drum?



CubaMark said:


> What I received for doing so is:
> 
> *...while idiots like you...*​


I've never pretended to be polite to you. That lack of politeness is well-grounded in your history regarding me. I give what I've received. Until there is a sea change on your end, expect it to continue.

You've made your bed...



CubaMark said:


> Civility, thy name is _not_ FeXL.


----------



## CubaMark

*Booming solar energy demand raising ecological concerns*

It is widely held by scientists that solar technology is key in building a clean, renewable energy infrastructure — but the environmental damage caused by mining the metals needed to produce solar panels creates an ecological conundrum.

Now a new report from Simon Fraser University says Canada, and B.C. in particular, need to focus on environmentally responsible mining while acquiring the metals instrumental to the production of solar panels.

"Canada is home to 14 of the 19 metals and minerals that go into making a solar panel," said Dan Woynillowicz, the policy director at Clean Energy Canada and co-author of the SFU report.

"When we looked across the country at both existing and exploration projects for some of these metals ... B.C. is the most active player today," 

* * *​
The SFU report details how 2016 was a record-breaking year in the amount of energy produced by solar power, with 73 gigawatts of new capacity coming online.

The report also outlines how the falling cost of solar panels has caused solar power to be the leading source of new energy worldwide. 

Woynillowicz says that as B.C.'s mining industry grows to meet this new demand, it needs to limit its fuel emissions, chemical use and damage to nearby water sources while harvesting the sought after materials.

* * *​
The report builds upon previous research conducted by Environment Canada that explored the environmental impact of all electricity producing industries. That research found even with the damage caused by mining, solar power is still the least impacting form of electricity generation.
(CBC)​


----------



## Macfury

They will sell the metals to China where there are few environmental laws.


----------



## FeXL

Just one more reason...

We Don't Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> Crews currently battling a 700 acre wildfire northeast of Evanston. The Cowboy Fire started early this afternoon after a windmill caught fire and then spread into the sagebrush and cedar trees with gusty winds.


Brilliant, & from the comments:



> Arguably the ONLY wild fire ever caused by global warming!


----------



## CubaMark

*A single Tesla Powerpack battery saved this Australian town over $1.5 million in grid connection costs*










Logan City in south-east Queensland installed a solar power system on their new water disinfection plant (pictured above), but they still need a grid connection for when the sun is not shining.

Instead, they installed a single Tesla Powerpack battery system to go off-grid, which they estimate saved them $1.9 million ($1.5 million USD).

Logan Mayor Luke Smith told ABC about the project:

_“There was a need to have this reservoir, there was a need for it to be powered for its chlorination treatment however it was in an area where it was completely off the grid. We were concerned until demand increases, water stored in the network may age and not stay at the highest possible quality.”_​
The system was so far from the grid that it would have cost them $1.9 million ($1.5 million USD) to get a connection.

In order to take the system off-grid, they installed a 95 kWh Tesla Powerpack with the company’s new commercial inverter...

** * **​
When it comes to Tesla’s Powerpack projects, all the attention is currently on the massive 100 MW/129 MWh project in South Australia that the company is inaugurating on Friday, but Tesla also started installing those smaller single Powerpack systems to show the modular flexibility of the energy storage solution.

It shows that they can build anything from a single 95 kWh Powerpack system to projects with hundreds of Powerpacks for capacities over 100 MWh.
(Electrek)​


----------



## Macfury

The perfect oddball application for the product.


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anybody paying attention.

Report: Renewable Energy Is Bigger ‘Scam’ than Bernie Madoff and Enron



> While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, writes Judith Sloan, a renowned Australian economist who has served on the Australian government’s Productivity Commission.
> 
> “With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.
> 
> In Australia, more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year are funneled to renewable energy handlers by virtue of the operation of the renewable energy target and the associated renewable energy certificates, Sloan observes.
> 
> At the same time, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency “shovels out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to subsidise renewable energy companies, many of which are overseas-owned,” she states, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was given $10 billion in equity by the Gillard Labor government “to lend or grant money to renewable energy companies.”
> 
> Despite this enormous taxpayer “investment,” so-called renewable energy has yet to pay any dividends or to suggest it will be economically viable for the foreseeable future.


More:



> According to Forbes, on a total dollar basis, wind and solar together get more from the federal government than all other energy sources combined, despite the fact that neither is anywhere close to self-supporting. Wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second.
> 
> Based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), however, solar energy “has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind,” writes energy expert and planetary geologist Dr. James Conca.
> 
> During the Obama years from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54 percent—from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion—despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23 percent during the same period, from $38 billion to $29 billion.
> 
> In absolute terms, between 2010 and 2013 solar energy alone saw a 500 percent increase in federal subsidies from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion.
> 
> In this same period, subsidies for fossil fuels decreased by 15 percent. from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and subsidies for nuclear energy fell by 12 percent, from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.


----------



## CubaMark

One of the better articles on the challenge of dealing with used solar panels. No sensationalism, no ideological rants, just the facts, ma'am:

*China's ageing solar panels are going to be a big environmental problem* | South China Morning Post


----------



## FeXL

Wait. I thought that solar, in addition to being free, was as pure as the driven snow. No toxins & lasted forever.

Now, suddenly, there are disposal issues? 

/sarc...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Wait. I thought that solar, in addition to being free, was as pure as the driven snow. No toxins & lasted forever.
> 
> Now, suddenly, there are disposal issues?
> 
> /sarc...


See? That's exactly what I mean. There are ways to talk about things, as adults, without being total assholes about it. Thanks for making my point.


----------



## FeXL

Right.

Which is exactly why you put "This should be interesting." on the back end of your post in the Canadian Poli thread, hypocrite.

That post could simply have been a request for clarification on the topic but you couldn't help putting the little dig in at the end. And you wonder why I get my shots in.

Heal yourself, CM. You're halo is down around yer arse somewhere...

(edit)

Why is it you paint yourself as the victim here when, in fact, you're the instigator?



CubaMark said:


> See? That's exactly what I mean. There are ways to talk about things, as adults, without being total assholes about it. Thanks for making my point.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, that Canadians were half as smart...

Africa’s Largest Wind Power Plant Rejected By Kenya



> Swedish firm, VR holding AB, which was set to construct Africa’s largest wind power plant in Malindi, southeastern Kenya at a staggering Kshs. 253 Billion ($2.4 B);making it the most expensive private funded project in east Africa; has since changed it’s plans.
> 
> According to Kenya’s Business Daily the firm is moving the project to Tanzania, which shares the coastline with Kenya citing frustration to their efforts by Kenyan authorities.


More:



> Kenyan officials are reported to have seen issues with the plants viability. *The officials argued that the power plant would leave the country with excess power thus forcing consumers to pay billions annually for under utilized electricity.* According to the official, it would defeat the purpose of clean cheap energy.


Good for them!


----------



## CubaMark

_60% of Puerto Rico still without power, three weeks after Hurricane Maria (which followed Hurricane Irma).

Tesla on the scene, getting the national Children's Hospital connected to a solar installation:_

*Tesla makes quick work of Puerto Rico hospital solar power relief project*










Tesla CEO Elon Musk noted on Twitter that Tesla’s solar team could indeed outfit Puerto Rico with power facilities that could be used to generate and store power reserves when the existing grid isn’t available, as it has been after the U.S. territory faced the devastation of hurricane Maria. Now, Tesla is showing that it’s making good on its promise of help, with significant progress being made on one solar generation/storage facility on the island.



> Hospital del Niño is first of many solar+storage projects going live.
> Grateful to support the recovery of Puerto Rico with @ricardorossello
> pic.twitter.com/JfAu11UBYg
> 
> — Tesla (@Tesla) October 24, 2017


The facility in question will provide power to Hospital del Niño, with a combination of solar cells and Tesla’s Powerpack commercial energy storage batteries. That should mean it can not only generate power from the sun’s rays in times of need, but also store up a reserve that can be used to provide power round the clock and throughout varying weather conditions, even when the sun isn’t shining.

** * **​
Tesla has also been shipping its home Powerwall battery storage units to the island for help restoring the grid, and Musk himself donated $250,000 of his personal money to support relief efforts.

(TechCrunch)​
_And of course, no natural disaster would be complete without somebody in a position of power taking advantage of it for their own gain:_

*Whitefish Energy, from Ryan Zinke's hometown, received a $300 Million contract to fix Puerto Rico's power grid.*

_A tiny, 2-year-old energy company from a small town in Montana won a $300 million contract to fix Puerto Rico’s hurricane-ravaged power grid, raising concerns about the decision-making behind the lucrative deal and the company’s ties to people connected to the Trump administration, as well as the company’s ability to fully meet Puerto Rico’s recovery needs.

Whitefish Energy, which at the time of the Hurricane Maria’s landfall had only two full-time employees, now has by far the largest contract of any company involved in Puerto Rico’s recovery, and, according to reporting from the Daily Beast, is primarily financed by a firm run by a major Trump donor who has connections to several members of his administration.

The contract has also raised eyebrows because the company is based in Whitefish, Montana, the hometown of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke (population: 7,436). Zinke’s office told the Washington Post that Zinke knows the company’s CEO because the town is a place where “everybody knows everybody” but that Zinke had no role in the deal. A member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, Luis Vega Ramos, told the Daily Beast that connections to Zinke and Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló were Whitefish’s “most important expertise and assets.” Vega Ramos accused Whitefish of being a “glorified middleman” that crafted a “cozy sweetheart deal” to make money off subcontracting._​


----------



## eMacMan

> A member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, Luis Vega Ramos, told the Daily Beast that connections to Zinke and Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló were Whitefish’s “most important expertise and assets.” Vega Ramos accused Whitefish of being a “glorified middleman” that crafted a “cozy sweetheart deal” to make money off subcontracting.


Hmm sounds like the Rebloodlican version of a Clinton Foundation Contract. Any word as to what the kickbacks were?


----------



## CubaMark

*Here's a nice roundup on the current state of energy storage technologies:*

*Here are humanity’s best ideas on how to store energy
*
Historically, the vast majority of the world’s power has been consumed as quickly as it is made, or it's wasted. But climate change has made governments interested in renewable energy, and renewable energy is variable—it can't be dispatched on demand. Or can it? As research into utility-sized batteries receives more attention, the economics of adding storage to a grid or wind farm are starting to make more sense.

But grid-tied energy storage is not new; it has just always been limited to whatever resources a local power producer had at the time. Much like electricity production itself, storage schemes differ regionally. Power companies will invest in batteries that make sense on a local level, whether it is pumped storage, compressed air, or lithium-ion cells.

Looking at the kinds of storage that already exist is instructive in helping us see where storage is going to go, too. Lots of the latest battery projects merely build on engineering that has been in service for decades. To better see our way forward, we collected a number of images and diagrams of the world’s biggest energy storage schemes.

(Read more at: ArsTechnica via BoingBoing)​


----------



## Macfury

Storage was never a problem before wind and solar.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Storage was never a problem before wind and solar.


*How I imagine MacFury, based upon his posts:*


----------



## Macfury

That's fascinating! Now how about explaining why energy storage has become such a priority? If I presented such an inane plan to real investors, they would point out that my product was far more expensive than what it was intended to replace and that it suffered from the inherent failure of lack of storage.


----------



## FeXL

Just another reason why not.

Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream



> The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage. Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement. In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.


He sums:



> An analysis of wind + solar data for the UK spanning the whole of 2016 shows that 26 GW of installed capacity may be reduced to 4.6 GW of firm uniform capacity using 1.8 TWh of storage. The cheapest, though wholly impractical option, is pumped hydro energy storage, which would add at least £48 billion in costs. The 60 usable large PHES sites that would be required for this low level of RE penetration do not exist in the UK.
> 
> Renewable energy storage is an impossible dream and will remain so until there is a *major* technology breakthrough.


That one skinny, little, tiny, entirely pertinent word bolded by yours truly.


----------



## FeXL

Will solar panels and Tesla Powerwalls meet your home’s energy needs?



> Tesla is now marketing its Powerwall2 storage battery for domestic applications, claiming among other things that it can make your home self-powered and blackout-proof. Here I review Tesla’s claims using an existing rooftop PV array in the Arizona desert as a real-life example. *Will a few Powerwalls allow the homeowner to go off-grid? Not a chance. Will they make the home blackout-proof? Maybe, maybe not. Will they save the homeowner money on his electricity bills? Not that I can see.*


M'bold.

Lastly:



> _One final question. How many Powerwalls would it take to allow the Bynum household to go completely off-grid? According to my calculations, approximately eighty._


Yeah, emphasis mine...


----------



## FeXL

Lengthy, detailed article of the solar power Charlie Foxtrot in Blind River, ON.

How solar-energy dreams became a nightmare for the small Ontario town of Blind River



> This is the remarkable story of Blind River, Ont., a small town that has been saddled with millions of dollars in debt because of solar-energy dreams that turned into a nightmare


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Lengthy, detailed article of the solar power Charlie Foxtrot in Blind River, ON.
> 
> How solar-energy dreams became a nightmare for the small Ontario town of Blind River


I have passed that along to my local council member/newspaper editor, as we have a local environmentalist trying to get the Pass to pursue a similar folly. 

Between mountains, natural clouds and the chem trail bombardments, we hardly have an ideal location.


----------



## FeXL

I dunno, I've topped both North & South summits of Turtle Mountain, plus Crowsnest Mountain, Andy Good Peak & Mt. Ptolemy in your neck of the woods... 



eMacMan said:


> Between mountains, natural clouds and the chem trail bombardments, we hardly have an ideal location.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Lengthy, detailed article of the solar power Charlie Foxtrot in Blind River, ON.
> 
> How solar-energy dreams became a nightmare for the small Ontario town of Blind River


"Blind" being the operative descriptor here. You're intent, I assume, was to lambast yet another failed solar power project. And yet... that whole deal stunk from high heaven to the *Feds under Harper *whose infrastructure funds were part of this deal, to the *conservative MP Rickford* whose hands were all over this and corporate opportunists looking to grab some of Harper's cash. The* Ontario Liberals* at the time (under McGuinty, I believe) also screwed the pooch with regulatory roadblocks and Ontario Power (pre-Hydro One) also taking a less-than-favourable stance on the project.

That project was a disaster from the get-go. But there's nothing in that story that calls into question the viability of a solar project... just the ineptness + opportunists at play in the scenario.


----------



## Macfury

The problems with solar cross all political lines. A damned shame we can't change the entire government, the financial system and physics to give solar the break it deserves!


----------



## FeXL

Your pathological need to prove that the left doesn't have a lockdown on stupidity is:
a) always amusing and
b) pointless.

Why? 'Cause this whole Green, Globull Warming, Alternative Energy BS is a product of the left's desire for control, period.



CubaMark said:


> Blah, blah, blah...


----------



## CubaMark

*Star Trek Foundation funds WARP solar water purification system in Puerto Rico*










Puerto Ricans in the coastal town of Loíza have looked to an MIT invention to get their water supply flowing again. Serving 600 Puerto Ricans, the solar plus water purification system produces 850 gallons of clean drinking water daily, with rooftop rain barrels as storage.

The solar panels used are a rollable thin-film product.


The equipment deployed is a modified version of the off-grid solar water purification system developed by the Roddenberry Foundation. The kit is called the WARP system (Water Aid and Renewable Power System). MIT Lincoln Laboratory worked with Infinitum Humanitarian, GeoInnovation and Energy Systems Group to refine it so it would be more suitable for deployment in the current Puerto Rico situation – replacing it’s tri-fuel generator with a solar powered one, and removing the need for batteries. The system was up and running within five days of the organization first visiting the site.

The device runs smoothly when the sun is out, producing 1500 watts of power and filling up a 600-gallon food-safe storage tank which provides clean water during night time. Each system costs, about $30,000 each for components, assembly, shipping, team travel, installation, certification, and ongoing maintenance.

The solar panels were described as – ‘copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) solar cells. CIGS mats are waterproof, thin, and extremely durable. CIGS mats also work well at sunrise and sunset, and offer a high-power output even when part of the mat is in shade.’

The solar panels were manufactured by Global Solar, an Arizona company. The solar panels look like they’re 11.4-12.7% efficiency. The 300W units weighs about 20 pounds.

The full version of the hardware has been deployed in Haiti, Nepal and the Phillipines.

The Roddenberry Foundation was founded in 2010 by Rod Roddenberry, son of none other than Gene Roddenberry, creator of the Star Trek franchise. The Roddenberry Foundation funds innovative solutions to critical global issues in science and technology, the environment, education and humanitarian advances.
(Electrek)​


----------



## FeXL

So, how's that movement down under to eradicate itself of the demon coal working out?

Y2Kyoto: Blunder Down Under



> Let's take a visit to clean, green Australia where they gave up coal...
> 
> _In Australia, peak summer is about to hit in a post-Hazelwood-electricity-grid. There's a suite of committee reports as summer ramps up. Everyday there's another Grid story in the press, and a major effort going on to avoid a meltdown. Minister Josh Frydenberg announced today that "we've done everything possible to prevent mass blackouts". Or as he calls it, a repeat of the South Australian Horror Show. Politicians are so afraid of another SA-style-system-black that they are throwing money: The "Snowy Hydro Battery" will be another $2 billion. Whatever. It's other people's money._​
> ... to move to diesel.
> 
> _Homes and businesses are so afraid of blackouts in Australia that some retailers are selling four times as many generators as normal. Mygenerator.com.au reports a 425% increase year on year. The strongest growth has been in South Australia, Victoria and western Sydney._​
> It's probably nothing.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> So, how's that movement down under to eradicate itself of the demon coal working out?


*South Australia's Tesla battery responds to coal-fired plant failure*










SOUTH Australia’s giant battery is already showing its worth, state Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says.

The world’s largest lithium-ion battery, built by tech billionaire Elon Musk, responded quickly last week when the coal-fired Loy Yang power plant tripped and went offline.

*The battery delivered 100 megawatts into the national electricity grid in 140 milliseconds.*

“That’s a record and the national operators were shocked at how quickly and efficiently the battery was able to deliver this type of energy into the market,” Mr Koutsantonis told 5AA radio on Wednesday.

The minister said that the battery’s quick response time showed its worth over other forms of power generation.

“Now *if we got a call to turn on our emergency generators it would take us 10 to 15 minutes to get them fired up and operating which is a record time compared to other generators,” *Mr Koutsantonis said.

(News.com.au)​


----------



## Macfury

I hear that the $200-million battery can safely supply the grid for about an hour...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I hear that the $200-million battery can safely supply the grid for about an hour...


Woohoo!!!


----------



## FeXL

So, for those of you enjoying this little spate of Globull Warming across the country (we're expecting lows of -36C New Year's Eve), this is what Albertistan's wind farms are currently producing:

Alberta power gen by source.

Yep. 25MW from an installed capacity of 1445MW. For those of you on the left who are mathematically challenged, that's 1.73% of capacity. And how many billions has that cost us? You should be proud.

Good thing coal & natural gas are there to cover the shortfall from renewables...

Oh, & while we're knocking basic Prog stupidity & profligacy, we may as well have a kick at the $5.6 million Liberal nod to Piggy (Soooouuuuiiiieeeee!!!):

New Year's Eve celebration on Parliament Hill cancelled due to cold 



> The federal government has cancelled its planned Canada 150 Closing Party on Parliament Hill, which was scheduled for New Year’s Eve, because of the extreme cold currently gripping much of the country.


-24 & the place shuts down? Buncha pussies. My lovely bride & I cleaned 36 cubic yards of garbage & crap from an unheated garage & yard of a rental house under a foot of snow yesterday & this morning, all the while it's been about -24.


----------



## Macfury

Laughing at this gabble:

UK enjoyed 'greenest year for electricity ever' in 2017 - BBC News

Artificially depressing coal use so that "green" energy generates more electricity-then counting the burning of wood pellets as "green" energy. What a mess!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Artificially depressing coal use so that "green" energy generates more electricity-then counting the burning of wood pellets as "green" energy. What a mess!


Prog logic at its finest...


----------



## FeXL

Wait. Thought wind power was already at parity with carbon based fuels? The Progs told me so...

America’s Wind Industry Squeals as Republicans Slash Massive Wind Power Subsidies



> In January, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that federal subsidies for wind energy will cost the federal treasury $23.7 billion between 2016 and 2020. Solar subsidies will cost $12.3 billion over that same time period.
> 
> *Not only is that a lot of money, it’s also far more generous, on an energy-equivalent basis, than what the federal government provides to the hydrocarbon and nuclear sectors.*
> 
> In May, the *nonpartisan* Congressional Research Service issued a report on energy-related tax rules. *It found that in 2016, solar and wind energy got more federal taxpayer cash ($6 billion) than the oil, coal and natural-gas sectors combined ($5.2 billion). Solar and wind got more cash despite the fact that coal, oil and gas produced 24 times as much energy last year as wind and solar.*
> 
> The story is even more appalling when it comes to nuclear energy. Again, according to the Congressional Research Service, *on an energy-equivalent basis, solar energy got 182 times as much in federal subsidies last year as the nuclear sector — and wind energy got 68 times more.*


Think he'll see that? Me, neither...

More:



> Another good thing about the looming tax changes: The House version of the bill scraps the federal credit for electric vehicles. *Current federal policy provides a subsidy of up to $7,500 to EV buyers. Who buys those cars? Rich people. A 2013 analysis found that Tesla buyers have an average household income of $293,000.*
> 
> For years, renewable-energy advocates have been telling us that wind and solar are getting cheaper. We’re hearing the same about electric vehicles. *But as those industries see their gravy train derailed, we’ll soon find out just how competitive they really are.*


M'bold.

They ain't...


----------



## FeXL

So, some time back there was a conversation about carbon-based fuel having to pick up the pieces from solar during the eclipse over the US.

Related:

We Don't Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> [Gaggle] translated from Basler;
> 
> *German utility company Tennet TSO spent almost a billion euros last year on emergency interventions to stabilize the grid*. That's what the company announced earlier this week. The costs were thus about half higher than in 2016 (660 million euros) and around forty percent higher than in 2015 (710 million). Tennet is responsible for the electricity supply in an area that extends from Schleswig-Holstein in the north to southern Bavaria and accounts for around forty percent of Germany's total area. In particular, Tennet is responsible for important north-south routes.
> 
> The reason for the increase in emergency interventions is the increasing number of solar and wind turbines in Germany. The share of renewable energy increased from 29 to 33 percent of the electricity supply last year. Wind and solar power are irregular and often unpredictable. This makes the network increasingly unstable.


Emphasis mine.

Funny, nobody ever mentions these additional costs when quoting "parity" for renewables...


----------



## CubaMark

*Solar power brings Chernobyl powerlines back to life with 1MW installed*










Ukraine’s repurposing of 1GW of electricity transmission infrastructure, located in the Chernobyl nuclear exclusion zone, has passed a milestone of installing its first solar power plant – a 1MW plant.

It is a special plant because it is located a mere 100 meters away from the world’s largest movable structure – the Chernobyl Sarcophagus – that will seal in nuclear radiation from the still radioactive nuclear material.


In the summer of 2016, Ukraine announced plans for the world’s largest solar power plant in the Chernobyl nuclear wasteland. This project was suggested to take advantage of the power infrastructure that was built to move the nuclear generated electricity into the country. Of course, after the 1986 meltdown – and the eventual total shutdown of the plant in 2000 – that equipment was abandoned along with 2,600km2 of land. The plant covers about 4 acres of lands – there are 247 acres in a single km2.

In 2017, Belarus built a 4.2MW solar power in its irradiated area, which borders the Ukrainian zone.

* * *​
The land can’t be used for agriculture, and it’s been suggested people cannot return for 24,000 years.

This solar power installation at Chernobyl is separate from another 1GW national program, but part of a larger effort by the country to break itself of an addiction to Russian energy. Up until the beginning of 2017, the country had installed 568MW of solar power as part of a €15 billion investment program for renewable energy. In 2017 another MW across 54 new projects was built.

(Full article at Electrek)​


----------



## Macfury

May as well as long as the taxpayers don't get soaked too badly,


----------



## CubaMark

*Tesla’s giant battery in Australia made around $1 million in just a few days*

Tesla’s 100MW/ 129MWh Powerpack project in South Australia, the largest in the world for now, has been demonstrating its capacity over the last few weeks since going into operation last month.

But now the system is showing its potential to be highly profitable by making an estimated $1 million AUD (~$800,000 USD) in just a few days.

The Powerpack system built by Tesla and operated by Neoen as part of their nearby wind farm is used on two different levels.

Neoen has access to about 30 MW/ 90 MWh of the capacity to trade on the wholesale market, while the government has access to the rest to stabilize the grid.

The battery demonstrated its capacity for the latter by reacting to a crashed coal plants in milliseconds last month.

But this month, it’s Neoen that is making full use of its Powerpack capacity thanks in part to the volatile Australian energy market and warm temperatures.

The Powerpack system is able to switch from charging to discharging in a fraction of a second, which allows Neoen to take advantage in the large swings in energy prices in the country – especially during high demand periods.

Last week, Tesla’s massive battery was paid up to $1000/MWh to charge itself and now it could have cleared up to $1 million in the last few days. 










What we are seeing here is the Powerpack system enabling Neoen to sell electricity at up to $14,000 AUD per MWh and charging itself at almost no cost during overproduction.

The grid service side of the battery system was also put to use last week when a coal generator failed out of its frequency and the Powerpacks helped out with a short burst of power to normalize the grid.

(Electrek)​


----------



## Macfury

That arrangement ain't going to last long!


----------



## SINC

An option to consider. 

Goodbye smokestacks: Startup invents zero-emission fossil fuel power | Science | AAAS


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> An option to consider.
> 
> Goodbye smokestacks: Startup invents zero-emission fossil fuel power | Science | AAAS


Just a sad shame to see so much capital wasted on worrying about CO2. Here's the paragraph that had me laughing:



> "...NET Power could help smooth the way for renewables to expand. The renewable portfolio standards in many countries and U.S. states require solar, wind, and other carbon-free sources to produce an increasing proportion of the electric power supply. But those sources are intermittent: The power comes only when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Nuclear and fossil fuel sources *provide "base load" power that fills the gaps when renewables aren't available*."


It's the reverse guys. They have to turn off the "base load" to make way for your unreliable and intermittent green power.


----------



## CubaMark

*A new type of solar cell is coming to market*

SOMETIMES it takes a while for the importance of a scientific discovery to become clear. When the first perovskite, a compound of calcium, titanium and oxygen, was discovered in the Ural mountains in 1839, and named after Count Lev Perovski, a Russian mineralogist, not much happened. 

** * **​
In 2012 Henry Snaith of the University of Oxford, in Britain, and his colleagues found a way to make perovskite solar cells with an efficiency (measured in terms of how well a cell converts light into electric current) of just over 10%. This was such a good conversion rate that Dr Snaith immediately switched the direction of Oxford Photovoltaics, a firm he had co-founded to develop new solar materials, into making perovskites—and perovskites alone. Progress has continued, and now that firm, and also Saule Technologies, a Polish concern founded in 2014 to do similar things, are close to bringing the first commercial perovskite solar cells to market.

Today 10% is quite a modest efficiency for a perovskite cell in the coddling conditions of a laboratory. For lab cells values above 22% are now routine.

** * **​
Because many chemical combinations result in a perovskite crystal structure, and each of them has different optical properties, choosing the chemistry of a cell also means choosing what part of the spectrum it absorbs, as Oxford Photovoltaics is doing already with its tandem silicon-perovskite cells. Dr Stranks thinks that in time silicon could be cut out of the loop by making tandem cells entirely out of layers of perovskites. This, he reckons, could push efficiency levels up to around 36%. And if that happens, it really might drive silicon solar cells into the shadows.

(The Economist)

And before you go off on your usual rant about the toxicity (something that you guys never seem to be concerned with in the fossil fuel industry): *Non-toxic alternative for next-generation solar cells*


----------



## FeXL

Who is going to pay for it?

Private investors? Go for it.

Taxpayers? KMHUA...



CubaMark said:


> Blah, blah, blah...


----------



## Macfury

Always interested in these developments, yet I have never seen the ones offering the most promise come to market.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Always interested in these developments, yet I have never seen the ones offering the most promise come to market.


Even the best of developments go wrong.


----------



## CubaMark

*New use for old mine shafts — power generators using gravity*










Edinburgh, UK-based energy startup Gravitricity has unveiled plans to transform disused mine shafts into hi-tech green energy generation facilities through a system that uses gravity and massive weights.

With coal mining becoming a thing-of-the-past, the world will be left with a lot of empty mine shafts. However, a group of entrepreneurs in the UK has come up with an idea that would breathe life back into coal mining communities.
The newly formed energy company, Gravitricity, has a patented technology to make old mine shafts generate energy using a giant weight system. Gravitricity has secured a £650,000 grant from Innovate UK, the government innovation agency to undertake the development of the sub-system design and deploying a 250kW concept demonstrator. The company aims to trial the first full-scale prototype in 2019 or 2020 at a disused mine in the UK.

*The idea behind stored energy*

As more and more electricity is generated from intermittent renewable energy sources, there is a growing need for technologies which can capture and store energy during periods of low demand and release it rapidly when required. Gravitricity looked at the problem and came up with an energy storage solution that uses the best characteristics of lithium batteries and pumped storage.

** * **​
Gravitricity's patented technology uses a simple principal - What goes up must come down, or in this case, raising and lowering a heavy weight to store energy. In practice, it has similar advantages to pumped storage for networks up to 33kV, but without the need for a nearby mountain with a lake or loch at the top. And that is the good part of the plan.

*Gravitricity's technology and how it works*

Gravitricity managing director Charlie Blair explained the system: "A cylindrical weight of up to 3000 tonnes is suspended in a deep shaft by a number of synthetic ropes each of which is engaged with a winch capable of lifting its share of the weight." It appears that electrical power is absorbed or generated by simply lowering and raising the weight.

The weight is guided by a system of tensioned guide wires (patents applied for) to prevent it from swinging and damaging the shaft. The winch system can be accurately controlled through the electrical drives to keep the weight stable in the hole.

(Digital Journal)​


----------



## FeXL

Electricity prices fell for forty years in Australia, then renewables came…



> Here’s is the last 65 years of Australian electricity prices — indexed and adjusted for inflation. During the coal boom, Australian electricity prices declined decade after decade. As renewables and national energy bureaucracies grew, so did the price of electricity. Must be a coincidence…
> 
> Today all the hard-won masterful efficiency gains of the fifties, sixties and seventies have effectively been reversed in full.


----------



## CubaMark

[ame]https://youtu.be/OEWDpXFbIc4[/ame]


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> https://youtu.be/OEWDpXFbIc4


Interesting that the project supplies power to only a whopping 26 homes.

Questions:

- How many of the total homes on the reserve are not included in the project? More than 26?

- Are the 26 homes included, primarily the chief's families?

- How much did the total project cost the reserve?

- Who paid the cost of the solar panels and the installation?

- What was the total cost?

- How much are residents paying for the power per kwh?

Just curious. The video appears to have left out a few relevant facts, don'tcha think?


----------



## FeXL

DC Finally Has Chance To Reform Job-Destroying, Market-Distorting Ethanol RIN Credits



> On Monday the Trump Administration will be meeting with several Senators to decide whether to reform the long-criticized Renewable Fuel Standard program, which has acted as an artificial regulatory support to ethanol since its extension in 2007.
> 
> Under the 2007 extension, refiners have been required to put a certain level of ethanol into their fuel. With the amounts varying each year, refiners can either comply directly with the ethanol requirement or purchase what are called “RIN” credits from refiners that added more ethanol than needed.
> 
> For years this program has been seen as an unnecessary and artificial government intervention in support of very narrow political interests at the expense of the overall market.


More:



> Even those who originally led the passage of the bill now see that its effects on the market have been very different from what was intended. Former Congressman and Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (D-CA) has recently called the creation of the ethanol program a “mistake.”
> 
> Democrats are now saying that the original gas-emission reduction intentions of the credit have in fact made climate change effects worse rather than better, making reform efforts a surprisingly bipartisan effort.


Huh. The Dems were wrong on this & now they admit it? That's gotta hurt. 

Too bad they didn't listen to those of us who called bull$h!t right from the start...


----------



## CubaMark

*No longer 'alternative', mainstream renewables are pushing prices down*
_While the government insists that renewables have made our grid unreliable, lights have stayed on and prices are dropping_

On the first day of autumn tens of thousands of Victorians received a welcome surprise from their power company — their electricity bills were going down. Prices were cut 5% because the retailer increased their investment in renewable energy.

This will likely come as a surprise to many. Since the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, decided that bashing renewables would play well for them — perhaps more so in the party room than in the electorate — hardly a day goes by without claims that renewables have made our grid unreliable and have pushed prices sky high.

As we emerge from a hot summer without even one second of generation-related blackouts, the dissonance is high.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has demonstrated their ability to keep the lights on, despite a spate of large coal and gas generator failures — 51 since December. This is the result of more conservative operating procedures, the new “mega battery” in South Australia and a “demand management” program where energy users are compensated for voluntarily reducing energy consumption for just a handful of peak hours.

A fleet of backup diesel power generators in South Australia and Victoria sat idle, and despite Frydenberg’s claims that they were burning “up to 80,000 litres of diesel an hour, just to keep the lights on”, outside of testing, they didn’t burn a drop. (Were they a waste? No, no more than your home insurance was every year your house didn’t burn down.)

No, renewables haven’t made our grid unreliable, and now we can see they’re bringing down prices.

** * *​*
The old guard can’t understand why prices for wind and solar have dropped so far, so fast. It’s not sleight of hand, just the cumulative effects of three factors:


The technology has improved in leaps and bounds. A 150m tall wind turbine built this year will generate energy for almost 3,000 average Victorian homes. A decade ago, a top-tier turbine would have generated well less than half as much.

Unlike coal plants, solar panels and wind turbines are products not projects. Repetition leads to cheaper manufacturing and more efficient supply chains. China now produces seven solar panels every second — providing countless opportunities to trim unit costs.
Last week I spoke with a solar farm installer who quietly boasted they had multiple crews installing 15 MW of solar a week. In the year to March 2008, Australia’s entire effort totalled just 7.9 MW.​

A decade ago, few banks understood renewables, and investments were seen as “alternative” and risky. Now that renewables are mainstream, the risk premium applied by banks for renewables is much lower than for coal projects. Capital intensive projects are extremely sensitive to the cost of finance.

(Full story at: The Guardian)​


----------



## Macfury

If prices are dropping, why are Australians seeing massive increases in their power bills?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> If prices are dropping, why are Australians seeing massive increases in their power bills?


Not even figuring in the cost of taxpayer-funded subsidies.

I know. He's far too important of a man & way too busy to address such minutiae...


----------



## FeXL

Wait...the Progs told me that alternative energy was better than parity & no longer needed taxpayer funded subsidies. 

Scottish wind-turbine maker collapses amid 'Westminster cuts' to renewables



> A WIND turbine maker has collapsed citing international competition – and Westminster support cuts to the renewables industry.
> 
> Gaia-Wind, which celebrated the roll-out of its 1000th device from Glasgow last April, has appointed a provisional liquidator.
> 
> The company moved its operations to Scotland from Denmark seven years ago and had clients in countries including Tonga, Australia and Italy.
> 
> Yesterday the provisional liquidator, Aberdeen's Meston Reid and Co, was looking for a buyer in a bid to save all or part of the business and secure 12 jobs.
> 
> A statement released by Michael Reid of Meston Reid and Co said cuts to renewables pushed through by Westminster in 2015, including the end of the main subsidies for onshore wind, had created problems for the company.


----------



## Macfury

A dozen jobs you say? I guess this is the "green job" wave we've been promised.



FeXL said:


> Wait...the Progs told me that alternative energy was better than parity & no longer needed taxpayer funded subsidies.
> 
> Scottish wind-turbine maker collapses amid 'Westminster cuts' to renewables


----------



## CubaMark

*MIT and newly formed company launch novel approach to fusion power*










Progress toward the long-sought dream of fusion power — potentially an inexhaustible and zero-carbon source of energy — could be about to take a dramatic leap forward.

Development of this carbon-free, combustion-free source of energy is now on a faster track toward realization, thanks to a collaboration between MIT and a new private company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. CFS will join with MIT to carry out rapid, staged research leading to a new generation of fusion experiments and power plants based on advances in high-temperature superconductors — work made possible by decades of federal government funding for basic research.

CFS is announcing today that it has attracted an investment of $50 million in support of this effort from the Italian energy company Eni. In addition, CFS continues to seek the support of additional investors. CFS will fund fusion research at MIT as part of this collaboration, with an ultimate goal of rapidly commercializing fusion energy and establishing a new industry.

“This is an important historical moment: Advances in superconducting magnets have put fusion energy potentially within reach, offering the prospect of a safe, carbon-free energy future,” says MIT President L. Rafael Reif. 

“As humanity confronts the rising risks of climate disruption, I am thrilled that MIT is joining with industrial allies, both longstanding and new, to run full-speed toward this transformative vision for our shared future on Earth.”

(MIT)​


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> If prices are dropping, why are Australians seeing massive increases in their power bills?


To which source are you referring?

There seems to be a fair amount of wiggle room in the Australian market, as per this page, with Australian power producers offering pretty significant (up to 28%) discounts to customers on their bills for "paying on time". 

Note that since 2013, Australia's government has been led by the *Liberal Party of Australia*, a major *centre-righ*t political party.

This Bloomberg article from October covers some of the reasons for prices that have risen.

But this article from two months later (December) notes that *in most areas, prices are dropping, and are forecast to do so for the next couple of years..*

Meanwhile, Tesla's huge battery plant (as noted earlier in this thread) has performed beyond expectations since its installation, evening out grid surges and gaps, while other battery manufacturers are entering the Australian market as well.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> A dozen jobs you say? I guess this is the "green job" wave we've been promised.


Wonder how many billions of taxpayer dollars those 12 jobs cost...


----------



## FeXL

If only I had a dollar for every news release I'd read in my lifetime claiming that "fusion power is just around the corner".

Frankly, CM, I'm surprised you even post this. Progs don't usually favour nuclear energy. Or is fusion yet another one of those hypocritical, inexplicable exceptions to the Prog rulebook?



CubaMark said:


> MIT and newly formed company launch novel approach to fusion power


----------



## FeXL

They're about as centre-right as you are...



CubaMark said:


> Note that since 2013, Australia's government has been led by the *Liberal Party of Australia*, a major *centre-righ*t political party.


----------



## Macfury

The reduction in wholesale prices is a short-term phenomenon. Prices spiked as the result of premature coal plant closures, then went down after a natural gas plant replaced the output. Essentially, renewables drove up the price, then natural gas drove it back down.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-dramatic-fall-in-energy-costs-after-gas-deal





CubaMark said:


> To which source are you referring?
> 
> There seems to be a fair amount of wiggle room in the Australian market, as per this page, with Australian power producers offering pretty significant (up to 28%) discounts to customers on their bills for "paying on time".
> 
> Note that since 2013, Australia's government has been led by the *Liberal Party of Australia*, a major *centre-righ*t political party.
> 
> This Bloomberg article from October covers some of the reasons for prices that have risen.
> 
> But this article from two months later (December) notes that *in most areas, prices are dropping, and are forecast to do so for the next couple of years..*
> 
> Meanwhile, Tesla's huge battery plant (as noted earlier in this thread) has performed beyond expectations since its installation, evening out grid surges and gaps, while other battery manufacturers are entering the Australian market as well.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> If only I had a dollar for every news release I'd read in my lifetime claiming that "fusion power is just around the corner".


Right... so we should never talk about it, ever, until it actually exists. Interesting philosophy.



FeXL said:


> Frankly, CM, I'm surprised you even post this. Progs don't usually favour nuclear energy. Or is fusion yet another one of those hypocritical, inexplicable exceptions to the Prog rulebook?


Shouldn't be a surprise - we've discussed fusion energy (and thorium reactors too) in the past. Why wouldn't I be interested in a potential power source that theoretically (since there are no functional, self-sustaining fusion reactors in operation) cannot go critical (pull the plug and the thing just stops) and produces far less & far less dangerous radioactive waste (decays in years, instead of tens of millennia)?

The sad thing is that a thread that originally was intended to be a discussion of cool new alternative energy sources has instead devolved into the usual Cro-magnon club-thumping against "Progs". It really is a waste of time to even attempt to engage with some people...


----------



## FeXL

Nope. I'm just sayin', SSDD.



CubaMark said:


> Right... so we should never talk about it, ever, until it actually exists. Interesting philosophy.


Hey, if the Progs actually brought an argument to the table that withstood scrutiny instead of factless, baseless, feel-good pap funded to 12 zeros by taxpayer dollars then the first blade of grass to brush against it wouldn't destroy the whole discussion...



CubaMark said:


> The sad thing is that a thread that originally was intended to be a discussion of cool new alternative energy sources has instead devolved into the usual Cro-magnon club-thumping against "Progs". It really is a waste of time to even attempt to engage with some people...


----------



## FeXL

Excellent read. Long, thorough. Excellent visuals aids.

Examining the Claim That Renewable Energy Will Soon Replace Fossil Fuels



> At virtually every public discussion of the issues surrounding global warming, there will inevitably be someone who will state, with absolute conviction, that the “solution” is already at hand because the global demand for fossil fuels is quickly declining, the costs of renewable energy are falling dramatically, and investment in renewables is increasing.
> 
> Let us briefly examine each of these contentions using the facts and authoritative assessments available to us.


In sum? Not. Even. Close. Not even all the way out to 2050 with the most favourable outlook.


----------



## FeXL

DOE: If it weren’t for coal-fired electricity plants, the Northeast would have blacked-out during recent bomb-cyclone



> Coal-fired power plants kept the lights on for millions of Americans during January’s bomb cyclone, according to an Energy Department report warning future plant retirements could imperil grid security.
> 
> Energy analysts at DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory found that coal power kept the lights on for millions of Americans during the bomb cyclone that pummeled the eastern U.S. from late December to early January.
> 
> NETL analysts found that coal plants made up most of the incremental power utilities relied on to keep electricity flowing during the cold snap. Nuclear and oil power plants played a big role, NETL found, but coal provided 55 percent of extra power across six grid operators.


Huh.

I know, I know: "ALL WE NEED IS MORE WINDMILLS!!!!! AN' SOLAR PANELS!!!!! AN' LET'S NOT FORGET TESLA!!!!!"


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> I know, I know: "ALL WE NEED IS MORE WINDMILLS!!!!! AN' SOLAR PANELS!!!!! AN' LET'S NOT FORGET TESLA!!!!!"


How much additional pollution resulted from firing up those dirty coal powerplants? 

The lights are on, but what are your kids downwind breathing just so you can watch _The Bachelor_?

Now, if the USA were pursuing a plan like Australia's, to incorporate large-scale grid-tied battery systems that cut into the grid microseconds after a brownout or all-out failure, then you'd be making sense. But no, if it has anything to do with anything that ain't the classic fossil fuel model, you automatically oppose it because _Idealogy_.

So predictable...


----------



## FeXL

Dirty, dirty, coal. :lmao:

Yeah, 'cause pollution is always the first thing I'm thinkin' when the power goes out mid-winter. Jeezuz... 

Ya know, in Mexico maybe a candle will keep the house warm in "winter". I dunno.

Up here, it's -20 out, blizzard blowing in from the NW, no electricity, I got the wood burning stove fired up, the last thing I'm worrying about is the amount of particulates coming out of the chimney & drifting across town.



CubaMark said:


> How much additional pollution resulted from firing up those dirty coal powerplants?


Never seen it. Only Progs watch _The Bachelor_...



CubaMark said:


> The lights are on, but what are your kids downwind breathing just so you can watch _The Bachelor_?


FTFY



> Now, if the USA were p[issing away taxpayer's money on an imaginary problem] like Australia...


I'm perfectly fine with nuclear & hydroelectric, too, Mr. If It Has Anything To Do With Carbon Based Fuels I'm Against It. Speaking of ideologs. Hypocrite...



CubaMark said:


> But no, if it has anything to do with anything that ain't the classic fossil fuel model, you automatically oppose it because _Idealogy_.


Yes. Yes, you are...



CubaMark said:


> So predictable...


----------



## FeXL

Mass Blade Fail Means Early ‘Retirement’ for Hundreds of Danish Wind Turbines



> Among the lies pedalled by the wind industry is that wind turbines run on the smell of an oily rag and last for more than 25 years.
> 
> The pitch is made to beguile the gullible (read, ‘planning authorities’, ‘politicians’, ‘bankers’ and ‘investors’) into believing that their operating costs can be covered out of petty cash – which fits with the other great line about there being nothing as ‘free’ as the wind.
> 
> Mechanical wear and tear, including bearing failure is one of the most common reasons for turbines to be put out of action; and is one of the key factors that accounts for the fact that the ‘economic’ life of wind turbines is 10-12 years, which runs contrary to wild claims about them lasting for “25-plus years” (see our post here and this paper).
> 
> *Top flight German turbine maker, Siemens booked a €223 million write down (ie loss) in 2014 due to the fact it had to replace bearings in a fleet of turbines that were less than 2 years old.*


More:



> And Siemens’ ‘luck’ has been no better in the US, where its – barely-out-of-nappies – turbines literally fell apart in the Californian desert:* 2 Year Old Siemens Turbines Falling Apart: Wind Farm Investors, Get Out While You Can*
> 
> Siemens aren’t having any better luck closer to home.
> 
> In Denmark, the Ørsted offshore wind farm at Anholt was completed in 2013. *Barely 5 years later and the turbines’ blades are so worn out that hundreds of them need to be dismantled, returned to dry land and repaired.*


All bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

Could build a few batteries powered by fossil fuels.

Seriously, CM--do you know what caused the Australian brownouts or are you just being intellectually dishonest here?



CubaMark said:


> How much additional pollution resulted from firing up those dirty coal powerplants?
> 
> The lights are on, but what are your kids downwind breathing just so you can watch _The Bachelor_?
> 
> Now, if the USA were pursuing a plan like Australia's, to incorporate large-scale grid-tied battery systems that cut into the grid microseconds after a brownout or all-out failure, then you'd be making sense. But no, if it has anything to do with anything that ain't the classic fossil fuel model, you automatically oppose it because _Idealogy_.
> 
> So predictable...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> ...or are you just being intellectually dishonest here?


Got my theories...


----------



## FeXL

Apparently Musk isn't the only subsidy farmer...

Solar farms receive more cash from green subsidies than selling the energy they produce



> Britain's biggest solar farms receive more cash from green subsidies than from selling the electricity they produce, figures reveal.
> 
> Energy producers were encouraged to start solar farms with generous handouts funded by a ‘green levy’ on taxpayers’ bills.
> 
> But many of them now make the majority of their cash from the subsidy – instead of the electricity they produce.


----------



## FeXL

And, from the department of "Things You'll never See CM Post"...

Black Plague: Wind Turbine Construction Turning Ontario’s Water Supply to Toxic Sludge



> *Just days after information on how deep pile driving methods could impact adjacent water wells* was discovered in a company blog, the Hydro One consulting firm pulled down the info from its website.
> 
> Brought to the public’s attention by Essex MPP Taras Natyshak, the blog on the EBS Geostructural website referenced the North Kent One wind turbine project in North Chatham and the recommendation to use a micro-piling method of construction for the turbine foundation instead of the deep piling method.
> 
> “The potential for driven pile installation to cause issues with nearby active water wells” was given as the first point as to why the company recommended to use the micro pile (drilled) method instead of the deep pile (hammer) method to anchor the foundation.
> 
> That sentence was removed from the company blog, causing members of Water Wells First and Natyshak to question why the only reference to potential impact to water wells was removed and who ordered it done.


Bold mine.

Wait! Thought that was s'pose ta be evil fracking?


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> And, from the department of "Things You'll never See CM Post"...
> 
> Black Plague: Wind Turbine Construction Turning Ontario’s Water Supply to Toxic Sludge
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> Wait! Thought that was s'pose ta be evil fracking?


FWIW any type of drilling close to water wells can be bad news. Does not matter if it is hammer or a more conventional mud and rotational drill. Seems to me drilling holes for pilings could cause the same amount of damage as simply driving in the pilings. It all depends on the geology of the water table. 

Hell when we had a water well. We'd see sand show up in the toilet bowl for a week after a neighbour 1/4 of a mile away drilled a well with a hammer rig. And that was drilling through solid granite!


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, wind and solar. The way of the future. 

Lawrence Solomon: Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chance | Financial Post


----------



## FeXL

The pressure and rush to go green: The technical integrity of Germany’s offshore wind parks gets cast into doubt after a wind turbine comes apart after just 8 years of operation. North Sea wind turbines may prove to be inadequately designed and thus unfit for safe operation.



> The report was broadcast on 26 April and shows a missing turbine generator unit housing. Due to unknown reasons, the 3.5-tonne housing unit protecting the generator came undone and plunged some 90 meters into the sea. As a consequence, Bremerhaven-based turbine manufacturer Adwen has suspended operation the 5-MW fleet in the German North Sea. Technical crews are not even allowed near them until further notice – that includes 120 other turbines at two other wind parks.


----------



## FeXL

Long read. Excellent article.

Yes, Solar And Wind Really Do Increase Electricity Prices -- And For Inherently Physical Reasons



> In my last column I discussed an apparent paradox: why, if solar panels and wind turbines are so cheap, do they appear to be making electricity so expensive?
> 
> One big reason seems to be their inherently unreliable nature, which requires expensive additions to the electrical grid in the form of natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries, or some other form of stand-by power.
> 
> Several readers kindly pointed out that I had failed to mention a huge cost of adding renewables: new transmission lines.
> 
> Transmission is much more expensive for solar and wind than other plants. This is true around the world — for physical reasons.
> 
> Think of it this way. It would take 18 of California’s Ivanpah solar farms to produce the same amount of electricity that comes from our Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
> 
> *And where just one set of transmission lines are required to bring power from Diablo Canyon, 18 separate transmission lineswould be required to bring power from solar farms like Ivanpha.*


M'bold.

Which is why you rarely see the cost of infrastructure included in _any_ alternative energy comparison with carbon-based, hydroelectric or nuclear fuels.


----------



## CubaMark

*Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%*

Tesla’s giant Powerpack battery in Australia has been in operation for about 6 months now and we are just starting to discover the magnitude of its impact on the local energy market.

A new report now shows that it reduced the cost of the grid service that it performs by 90% and it has already taken a majority share of the market.

_“In the first four months of operations of the Hornsdale Power Reserve (the official name of the Tesla big battery, owned and operated by Neoen), the frequency ancillary services prices went down by 90 per cent, so that’s 9-0 per cent. And the 100MW battery has achieved over 55 per cent of the FCAS revenues in South Australia. So it’s 2 per cent of the capacity in South Australia achieving 55 per cent of the revenues in South Australia.”_​
South Australia is reportedly the only state that has seen a decline in FCAS costs over the period. Some estimates put the savings at over $30 million in just a few months.

Tesla Energy’s regional manager of business development Lara Olsen was also at the conference and she explained that thermal plants are bidding on FCAS based on their fuel costs, which are volatile, while Tesla is charging its batteries from wind power at a stable and cheap price.

The success of the project in Australia has led to a lot more demand for Tesla’s stationary energy storage products.

(Reneweconomy via Electrek)​


----------



## Macfury

The reduction in prices is based on a price surged caused by... the closure of the Hazelwood coal power plant. So batteries partially reduce the price spike caused by renewables. Dishonest reporting like this does not forward the cause of renewables. 

For a look at the heroic efforts of the Tesla battery in meeting power demands, see chart below. The yellow line is the Tesla battery:


----------



## Macfury

No comment CM?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> No comment CM?


Wait for it. It's coming to a head. Just like the festering Flint water problem...


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> No comment CM?


Well, off-the-cuff, I'd say it's a fairly unattractive chart, with a big blob of brown and only a very slight dash of bright colour. Font-wise, we do tend to prioritize clarity over style, so no great departure in this example. Were I to use this in an educational context or publication, I would have to insist that it include a source reference so that one might explore the meaning behind the acronyms and the jottings that surround it.

In sum, without further information, it rates a "Meh" from me.

:lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Questions, questions, questions...

A question that gives pause: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?



> Between 2009 and 2017, the price of solar panels per watt declined by 75 percent while the price of wind turbines per watt declined by 50 percent.
> 
> And yet — during the same period — the price of electricity in places that deployed significant quantities of renewables increased dramatically.
> 
> Electricity prices increased by:
> 
> 51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;
> 24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;
> over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest.
> 
> What gives? If solar panels and wind turbines became so much cheaper, why did the price of electricity _rise_ instead of _decline_?


Italics from the link.

Comments excellent.


----------



## Macfury

The chart is part of the SCADA dataset produced by the Australian Energy Market Operator showing the contribution of the battery during the period mentioned. If that's opaque to you, then you probably have little understanding of that kooky link of yours.



CubaMark said:


> Well, off-the-cuff, I'd say it's a fairly unattractive chart, with a big blob of brown and only a very slight dash of bright colour. Font-wise, we do tend to prioritize clarity over style, so no great departure in this example. Were I to use this in an educational context or publication, I would have to insist that it include a source reference so that one might explore the meaning behind the acronyms and the jottings that surround it.
> 
> In sum, without further information, it rates a "Meh" from me.
> 
> :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Europe ‘Dangerously Close’ to Blackouts as Pivot to Alternative Fuels Fails



> Europe’s pivot away from traditional power sources without a proper contingency plan may be putting the continent at risk of a severe energy crisis, warns an energy executive.
> 
> A severe shortage in generation capacity is to be expected in several European countries, Tor Martin Anfinnsen, a senior vice president for marketing and trading at Statoil ASA, said during a Tuesday conference in Amsterdam.


Before you start screaming, "conflict of interest", yes, CM, he does have a vested interest in this. However, I invite you to find any error in the data.


----------



## Macfury

It's been about a week. Nothing to bring to the table?




CubaMark said:


> Well, off-the-cuff, I'd say it's a fairly unattractive chart, with a big blob of brown and only a very slight dash of bright colour. Font-wise, we do tend to prioritize clarity over style, so no great departure in this example. Were I to use this in an educational context or publication, I would have to insist that it include a source reference so that one might explore the meaning behind the acronyms and the jottings that surround it.
> 
> In sum, without further information, it rates a "Meh" from me.
> 
> :lmao:


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> It's been about a week. Nothing to bring to the table?


Sorry, were you waiting for me? I had asked for a link to the source, but you didn't provide one. 

Maybe I'll get around to it.. but in the meantime, the Hazelwood plant's Wikipedia page provides a few interesting tidbits... such as it being one of the most polluting pulverized coal-burning power plants in the world, incredibly inefficient, and unviable due to (at the time) low electricity prices, among other things. Its parent company apparently decided to close the plant also to focus on investment in renewals. But your laying the blame for its closure on "renewables" alone appears to be an entirely specious assertion.


----------



## Macfury

Prices skyrocketed following its closure.



CubaMark said:


> Sorry, were you waiting for me? I had asked for a link to the source, but you didn't provide one.
> 
> Maybe I'll get around to it.. but in the meantime, the Hazelwood plant's Wikipedia page provides a few interesting tidbits... such as it being one of the most polluting pulverized coal-burning power plants in the world, incredibly inefficient, and unviable due to (at the time) low electricity prices, among other things. Its parent company apparently decided to close the plant also to focus on investment in renewals. But your laying the blame for its closure on "renewables" alone appears to be an entirely specious assertion.


----------



## CubaMark

*A 100% renewable grid isn’t just feasible, it’s already happening
*









The ongoing debate around whether it’s feasible to have an electric grid running on 100 percent renewable power in the coming decades often misses a key point: many countries and regions are already at or close to 100 percent now.

According to data compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are seven countries already at, or very, near 100 percent renewable power: Iceland (100 percent), Paraguay (100), Costa Rica (99), Norway (98.5), Austria (80), Brazil (75), and Denmark (69.4).

The main renewables in these countries are hydropower, wind, geothermal, and solar.

A new international study, which debunks many myths about renewable energy, notes that many large population regions are “at or above 100%” including Germany’s Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Hostein regions, New Zealand’s South Island, and Denmark’s Samsø island. In Canada, both Quebec and British Columbia are at nearly 100 percent renewable power.

(ThinkProgress via RenewEconomy)​
*RELATED:*
Canada’s Renewable Power Landscape 2016 – Energy Market Analysis (B.C.)
Canada’s Renewable Power Landscape 2016 – Energy Market Analysis (Quebec)


----------



## Macfury

You won't find hydro power on many people's "renewable" list, nor "bio-energy." 

On your list, Iceland is mostly geothermal and a little hydro, while Uruguay is 100% hydro and Norway is 99% hydro. Costa Rica is 75% hydro. Austria is 60% hydro and 20% "bio-energy"--burning stuff. Brazil is 75% to 80% hydro and... more bio-fuels. These energy mixes are luck of the draw--either your country has the capacity or it doesn't.

Of the list, only Denmark has a significant wind power presence.

None of the countries listed has a grid composed primarily of wind and solar.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> You won't find hydro power on many people's "renewable" list, nor "bio-energy."


In fairness, I consider hydroelectric a renewable resource but it certainly doesn't qualify as "alternative" energy, wind & solar, which is precisely what we're talking about here. I jes' luvs how they tweak the terminology so they can include hydro & biofuels to make their pi$$ant argument look stronger than it is.

As far as the whole biofuels thing is concerned, I want to see any Greenie try to defend burning biomass as any better than burning coal, especially, _especially_ if said biomass is being transported across an ocean with ships using bunker fuel.

Go ahead, CM. Make a case for it. I double dog dare ya...


----------



## Macfury

I am a big supporter of hydroelectricity--but the windmill and solar panel crowd usually decries it. There should be no surprise that you can run a grid on hydro, so it's clear the article is attempting to pull a fast one.



FeXL said:


> In fairness, I consider hydroelectric a renewable resource but it certainly doesn't qualify as "alternative" energy, wind & solar, which is precisely what we're talking about here. I jes' luvs how they tweak the terminology so they can include hydro & biofuels to make their pi$$ant argument look stronger than it is.
> 
> As far as the whole biofuels thing is concerned, I want to see any Greenie try to defend burning biomass as any better than burning coal, especially, _especially_ if said biomass is being transported across an ocean with ships using bunker fuel.
> 
> Go ahead, CM. Make a case for it. I double dog dare ya...


----------



## FeXL

Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible?



> The people who are best described as members of a renewable energy cult are lately promoting the idea that we should run the country on 100% renewable energy, whatever that is. I say "whatever that is" because different branches of the cult have different definitions of renewable energy. It seems to be a matter of fashion and prejudice.


More:



> I ran a one-year simulation of a battery storage system large enough to maintain an average of 6,000 megawatts of output from the Texas wind system. It turned out that that the battery would have to be able to store 430 hours of average power output. A lithium ion battery big enough for that would cost about $500 billion, or about ten times what it cost to build the entire wind system. Such a battery would have to be replaced every ten years. On the other hand, six nuclear plants big enough to supply 6,000 megawatts continuously would cost about $36 billion. Natural gas-generating plants to supply 6,000 megawatts would cost $6 billion. The gas would cost about $1.16 billion per year.


Of course, cost has never been an issue for wind & solar supporters...


----------



## FeXL

Prolonged Wind Drought Crushes British Turbine Output



> _Britain’s gone nine days with almost no wind generation, and forecasts show the calm conditions persisting for another two weeks.
> 
> The wind drought has pushed up day-ahead power prices to the highest level for the time of year for at least a decade. Apart from a surge expected around June 14, wind levels are forecast to stay low for the next fortnight, according to The Weather Company._


I know, I know...BATTERIES!!!

(for >3 weeks supply of electricity, mind you...) 

Oh, wait: (sarc/)



> *No conceivable battery backup would bail a country out of a disaster like that.*


'Nuf said...


----------



## Macfury

You should only have electricity when Gaia wants to give it to you...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> You should only have electricity when Gaia wants to give it to you...


For the eco-loons? I agree entirely.


----------



## FeXL

Magical Wind Power: Illusions versus Reality



> The primary reason why wind energy has been a success has _nothing_ to do with wind energy! Instead, its success is 100% due to the fact that wind energy proponents are masterful lobbyists.  If one reads The Business of America Is Lobbying, it's apparent that the wind industry has used every trick in the book, and then written some of its own.


More:



> _For example_, it should be apparent that wind energy (i.e., the Wind+Gas package) is _not_ a CO2 zero-emitter. In fact, due to other technicalities (never acknowledged by wind lobbyists) some studies have concluded that gas (combined cycle) by itself produces less CO2 than the Wind+Gas package.
> 
> Let me restate that extraordinary finding: _gas can produce less CO2 than wind energy does!_


Shocka.


----------



## FeXL

The BP 2018 Statistical Review, electricity and CO2 emissions



> The just-issued 2018 BP Statistical Review contains a number of variables that were not available in previous reports, in particular electricity generation from oil, gas and coal since 1985. Combining these variables with BP’s nuclear, hydro and renewables generation numbers and with BP’s CO2 emissions data reveals the following:
> 
> *• The world has made no progress towards decarbonizing its electricity sector over the last 32 years. In 1985 it generated 35% of its electricity from low-carbon sources (hydro, nuclear, renewables). In 2017 it generated 34%. Mostly this is a result of rapid emissions growth in China.*​


Untold _trillions_ of dollars that could have been used to dig water wells, eradicate disease, eliminate poverty, feed the starving, educate the masses.

32 years. 1%. Stunning.

And, as more third world countries throw off their dictatorial socialist chains & develop energy independence, don't expect this number to drop any time soon, no matter how much money is thrown at it.


----------



## FeXL

I know, I know. Another salt fission reactor.

That said, it's an interesting read.

Quite long, especially if you read the comments for further information. Some excellent points being raised.

ThorCon Molten Salt Fission Power Plant



> Guest post by Robert Hargraves, co-founder of ThorCon. ThorCon are a leader in developing thorium fuelled molten salt reactor technology with full passive safety. I invited them to submit a guest post several weeks ago and they have duly obliged with their submission to the IAEA small modular reactor booklet.


----------



## FeXL

Yet one more cost that ain't figgered into the big picture anywhere.

Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has



> The life span of a wind turbine, power companies say, is between 20 and 25 years. But in Europe, with a much longer history of wind power generation, the life of a turbine appears to be somewhat less.
> 
> "We don't know with certainty the life spans of current turbines," said Lisa Linowes, executive director of WindAction Group, a nonprofit which studies landowner rights and the impact of the wind energy industry. Its funding, according to its website, comes from environmentalists, energy experts and public donations and not the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> Linowes said most of the wind turbines operating within the United States have been put in place within the past 10 years. In Texas, most have become operational since 2005.
> 
> "So we're coming in on 10 years of life and we're seeing blades need to be replaced, cells need to be replaced, so it's unlikely they're going to get 20 years out of these turbines," she said.
> 
> *Estimates put the tear-down cost of a single modern wind turbine, which can rise from 250 to 500 feet above the ground, at $200,000.*
> 
> With more than 50,000 wind turbines spinning in the United States, decommissioning costs are estimated at around $10 billion.


Yep. My bold...

Oh, and this little tidbit that gets skirted regularly, too:



> The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the total cost to taxpayers of the wind production tax credit between 2016 and 2020 will be $23.7 billion.


----------



## CubaMark

_A good news story from Nova Scotia:_

*Springhill company the pinnacle of (clean) power*

Rural communities across Zambia, Kenya and Zimbabwe know the name Surrette, as the provider of reliable and durable batteries for solar-energy systems.

One of North America’s leading lead-acid battery manufacturers, and Canada’s only remaining independent battery manufacturer, Nova Scotia-based Surrette Battery Company produces Rolls-branded premium deep cycle batteries that are used around the world.

* * *​
Having once focused on supplying the locomotive, industrial, marine and automotive industries, the Springhill-based manufacturer now sees 60 per cent of its revenues coming from batteries that store energy from renewable sources, like the sun. And that segment of its business continues to grow.

“We would definitely be a leader in solar batteries backup,” he said.

Shipping products to 36 countries, the company has more than 200,000 off-grid energy systems installed globally. Sales in Africa make up more than 15 per cent of the company’s revenues, said Surrette.

Working on rural electrical grid development in several African countries, the company’s batteries were recently used to provide backup storage for a solar power system that will run 18 medical clinics in Zambia. The new system will allow the clinics to decrease their reliance on diesel-powered generators.

The company’s range of renewable energy batteries are used in small residential off-grid or backup systems as well as larger-scale, commercial operations. In African countries, systems are often installed to reduce or eliminate the reliance on grid-connected power or to replace dirtier and costly power sources such as older diesel generators. In developing countries or remote areas of the world, renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, offers a cost-effective alternative to unstable or non-existent grid power.

* * *​
In 2004, the Surrette brothers put the push on exporting and finding new markets for their products. Before that, the company had focused on exporting its batteries to the United States. The U.S. remains the company’s largest export market, but the EU is its fastest growing market, said Surrette.

“Shipping from Halifax to the U.K. or Rotterdam is incredibly efficient,” he said.

Closely watching ongoing renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potential risks to his business, Surrette is also focusing on growing sales across Canada. Currently, less than one per cent of its products are sold in Atlantic Canada.

“We really think we can grow our presence in Canada,” he said.

(The Chronicle-Herald)​


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> _A good news story from Nova Scotia:_
> 
> *Springhill company the pinnacle of (clean) power*
> Rural communities across Zambia, Kenya and Zimbabwe know the name Surrette, as the provider of reliable and durable batteries for solar-energy systems.
> 
> One of North America’s leading lead-acid battery manufacturers, and Canada’s only remaining independent battery manufacturer, Nova Scotia-based Surrette Battery Company produces Rolls-branded premium deep cycle batteries that are used around the world.
> 
> * * *​
> Having once focused on supplying the locomotive, industrial, marine and automotive industries, the Springhill-based manufacturer now sees 60 per cent of its revenues coming from batteries that store energy from renewable sources, like the sun. And that segment of its business continues to grow.
> 
> “We would definitely be a leader in solar batteries backup,” he said.
> 
> Shipping products to 36 countries, the company has more than 200,000 off-grid energy systems installed globally. Sales in Africa make up more than 15 per cent of the company’s revenues, said Surrette.
> 
> Working on rural electrical grid development in several African countries, the company’s batteries were recently used to provide backup storage for a solar power system that will run 18 medical clinics in Zambia. The new system will allow the clinics to decrease their reliance on diesel-powered generators.
> 
> The company’s range of renewable energy batteries are used in small residential off-grid or backup systems as well as larger-scale, commercial operations. In African countries, systems are often installed to reduce or eliminate the reliance on grid-connected power or to replace dirtier and costly power sources such as older diesel generators. In developing countries or remote areas of the world, renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, offers a cost-effective alternative to unstable or non-existent grid power.
> 
> * * *​
> In 2004, the Surrette brothers put the push on exporting and finding new markets for their products. Before that, the company had focused on exporting its batteries to the United States. The U.S. remains the company’s largest export market, but the EU is its fastest growing market, said Surrette.
> 
> “Shipping from Halifax to the U.K. or Rotterdam is incredibly efficient,” he said.
> 
> Closely watching ongoing renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potential risks to his business, Surrette is also focusing on growing sales across Canada. Currently, less than one per cent of its products are sold in Atlantic Canada.
> 
> “We really think we can grow our presence in Canada,” he said.
> 
> (The Chronicle-Herald)​


Interesting that those batteries can be affordable in the third world, but cost over $10,000 just for the batteries to provide a 3 day back-up for a home in Canada. Add in a power inverter and a decent sized natural gas generator and the total was up over $30,000.


----------



## FeXL

And, a good news story from New York!

New York Spent $5 Million On Wind Turbines That Don’t Even Work



> The project was expensive, with the five windmills costing $4.8 million and another $500,000 for design expenditures. The authority believed that the turbines would pay for themselves, saving as much as $420,000 annually on energy bills.
> 
> However, the project did not go as planned. Of the five turbines that are dotted across the thruway from Eden, New York to the Pennsylvania state line, four aren’t even spinning.
> 
> “They are currently offline waiting for replacement parts and/or maintenance,” thruway authority spokeswoman Jennifer Givner said, according to Buffalo News. “We’re working with the manufacturer to get replacement parts.”
> 
> *Between October 2017 and January 2018, all the turbines except for one were taken offline.* The issue appears to stem from inoperable parts made from Vergnet, a French renewable energy company that declared itself insolvent a year ago.


Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Interesting that those batteries can be affordable in the third world, but cost over $10,000 just for the batteries to provide a 3 day back-up for a home in Canada. Add in a power inverter and a decent sized natural gas generator and the total was up over $30,000.


I don't believe they're affordable as much as essential. If you're being given a form of primitive, intermittent wind and sun energy, only a battery will save you.


----------



## FeXL

The state (State?) of oblivion is stunning.

Assembly Bill 100 and a 100% renewable California



> The California legislature just passed Assembly Bill 100 (AB100), which according to the inset calls for “100% clean energy by 2045”. The brief review presented in this post shows that AB100, which targets electricity, not energy, will cut California’s greenhouse gas emissions by only about 16% even in the unlikely event its target is met. Its main impact will be to add to the regulatory overload from which California’s electricity providers already suffer. *The fact that the bill was passed at all indicates that California legislators, as well as being unable to tell the difference between megawatts and megawatt-hours, are also unable to tell the difference between electricity and energy.*


M'bold.

Stay away from Gov Moonbeam. The brain rot is contagious...


----------



## FeXL

Reminder: Wind Power Blows—and Also Sucks



> It gets tiresome to note the limitations and lamosity of niche wind power, but who’d have thought that wind power might also make global warming worse. But that’s just what a new Harvard study reported recently the MIT Technology Review concludes.
> 
> _Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant warming
> 
> Wind power is booming in the United States. It’s expanded 35-fold since 2000 and now provides 8% of the nation’s electricity. The US Department of Energy expects wind turbine capacity to more than quadruple again by 2050.
> 
> But a new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems.
> 
> The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 ˚C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 ˚C._​
> Well that will harsh your green mellow.


Also noted is the battery issue with coal powered cars and, coal in China!


----------



## FeXL

Further on the futility of full bore wind power.

Why Wind Power Isn’t the Answer



> On October 8, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report warning that nations around the world must cut their greenhouse-gas emissions drastically to reduce the possibility of catastrophic climate change. The report emphasizes “fast deployment of renewables like solar and wind” and largely ignores the essential role nuclear energy must play in any decarbonization effort.
> 
> Four days earlier, to much less fanfare, *two Harvard researchers published a paper showing that trying to fuel our energy-intensive society solely with renewables would require cartoonish amounts of land. How cartoonish? Consider: meeting America’s current demand for electricity alone—not including gasoline or jet fuel, or the natural gas required for things like space heating and fertilizer production—would require covering a territory twice the size of California with wind turbines.*


Yeah, my bold.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, CM, ya convinced yet?

Another report reluctantly admits that 'green' energy is a disastrous flop

The subheadline reads:



> This report should be profoundly embarrassing to the government of Justin Trudeau


You can only get embarrassed if you have a conscience in the first place. The same brush applies to hypocrisy. I'm entirely convinced that your average Prog does not possess a conscience. How could you live with yourself if you did?



> Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. *The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.*


M'bold.

More like a mouse _fart_...

More:



> *This report should be profoundly embarrassing to the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, which has virtue-signalled itself to the front of a parade that is going nowhere*, although it can certainly claim genuine leadership in the more forceful route to transition: killing the fossil fuel industry by edict.


M'bold.

Further:



> Finally, and most significantly, the report confirms what should have been obvious from the start: the more “variable” wind and solar are introduced into any electricity system, the more they make it both more expensive and less reliable.


It ain't rocket surgery, people. It was obvious to many of us, right from the start. It was the Progs & politicians & MSM (but I repeat myself), many of whom are still in denial.


----------



## Macfury

> Finally, and most significantly, the report confirms what should have been obvious from the start: the more “variable” wind and solar are introduced into any electricity system, the more they make it both more expensive and less reliable.


This is the "battery problem"... that we do not have with reliable energy sources.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> This is the "battery problem"... that we do not have with reliable energy sources.


Oh, but batteries are cheap with free gov't subsidies!


----------



## FeXL

They Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> The fossil-defueling of the planet has been postponed indefinitely;
> 
> _ The Kobe project is one of more than 30 new power stations being planned or built by Japan that burn coal — the dirtiest and most polluting fossil fuel and one which is being phased out by some 30 governments around the world. [..]
> 
> Japanese government officials justify their reliance on coal by citing cost, security of supply concerns and the need for a diverse energy mix. Coal power plants are “necessary” because “the resource is cheap and more economical with scale,” Shogo Tanaka, director of the Energy Strategy Office at METI, told the Nikkei Asian Review._​
> *They’re acting as though they want the lights to stay on.*


Bold mine.

Fools...

Related:


----------



## FeXL

Exposed: A Key Element of the Wind Energy Fraud



> This is the point: the federal government produces figures on the “levelized cost of energy,” comparing coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and so on. Most people naively assume that the government’s numbers are authoritative. In fact, as usual when it comes to energy, the government’s thumb is firmly on the scale in favor of crony energy that funds politicians:
> 
> ...
> 
> When the federal government puts out their cost projections for energy, the numbers they produce are called the Levelized Cost of Energy, or LCOE. These numbers are supposed to act as a measuring stick that allows policymakers to determine which energy sources will best serve their needs, *but these numbers are wrong because they assume all power plants, whether they are wind, coal, natural gas, or nuclear will have a 30-year payback period.*
> 
> _This does two things. It artificially reduces the cost of wind power by allowing them to spread their costs over 30 years, when 20 would be much more appropriate, and it artificially inflates the cost of coal, natural gas, and nuclear by not calculating the cost over the entirety of their reasonable lifetimes._


Links' bold, italics mine.


----------



## CubaMark

South Australia's Tesla battery bank cost about A$100-million to build (following a grid crisis 21 months ago that Elon Musk bet he could fix - and did). Annual operating costs around A$5-million (estimated by critics of the plant).

Even so, it saved the government A$40-million in its first year of operation. That's pretty impressive ROI :clap:


South Australia's big battery slashes $40m from grid control costs in first year
True cost of SA’s big Tesla battery revealed


----------



## Macfury

It slashed the cost of grid energy that skyrocketed following the implementation of renewable energy sources.

And for all of the "savings" here are the costs of electricity to residents:

QLD: 27.6246c/kWh
VIC: 28.2461c/kWh
NSW: 33.1118c/kWh
*SA: 42.8816c/kWh*

Oh dear, looks like something's wrong with this picture.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> It slashed the cost of grid energy that skyrocketed following the implementation of renewable energy sources.


It slashed the cost of evening out the grid with a higher-efficiency on-demand system that previously was provided by natural gas plants. The Tesla battery installation is aiding the grid's reliability and responsiveness, providing better electricity supply to consumers.

The transition from dirty coal and petroleum-based power-generation to incorporate intermittent renewables is disrupting the existing model and is indeed creating price fluctuations. If anything the Tesla battery system should assist that transition. it's also saving the utility tens of millions of dollars, which - if the market is as magic as some folks in here believe it to be - should end up being passed on to consumers.

This article looks at the bigger picture, puts the issue of renewables and coal / gas transition in perspective, and offers far more informed opinion than you or I could make on the topic.


----------



## Macfury

The problem is the inputs--intermittent renewables. You would need neither the standby gas plants or the battery if you removed them from the equation. 

The result of this plan is the highest electricity costs in Australia for consumers by a hefty margin--and some modest savings to the utility for fixing their bad renewables problems with a battery standby instead of natural gas.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The problem is the inputs--intermittent renewables. You would need neither the standby gas plants or the battery if you removed them from the equation.


Nope. I know from earlier posts that the sight of a wind turbine or solar panel raises your blood pressure, but you need to move beyond that bias to accurately assess the situation. As the linked article notes:

_...upward price pressure certainly isn’t the sole domain of renewable technologies. The recent Grattan Institute report notes the *rising commodity costs for natural gas and black coal, adding further costs to consumers* as backup fossil fuel plants were needed more often. According to the institute, these cost drivers account for 40% of the increase in the value of electricity traded annually in the NEM between 2015 and 2017._​
I know it's impossible to argue with people who don't appreciate the views of those of us who prefer windmills to oil spills. But there is a broad desire in society to find a way toward alternative energy technologies. We know it's going to be a challenging transition, with costs and inconveniences, but some of us prefer solar panels to smokestacks.


----------



## Macfury

What raises my blood pressure is know-nothings parroting the economic nonsense they've been spoonfed about "renewable" energy. Make a good economic case and nobody will bother you.



> The recent Grattan Institute report notes the *rising commodity costs for natural gas and black coal, adding further costs to consumers* as backup fossil fuel plants were needed more often.


There is no need for extensive backup plants if you don't rely on intermittent "renewable"energy. 



> According to the institute, these cost drivers account for 40% of the increase in the value of electricity traded annually in the NEM between 2015 and 2017.


The same Grattan Institute report notes that _closure of coal plants_ raised the price by _the other 60%_--by far the largest part of the increase. All things being equal with coal and gas prices across jurisdictions, South Australia and its miracle battery experienced the worst price increases of any Australian market. 

You may prefer windmills, but your case for them is tissue-thin. There is no "broad" desire to see green energy raising prices by orders of magnitude. Look at the riots in France if you want to see the future of renewables.



CubaMark said:


> Nope. I know from earlier posts that the sight of a wind turbine or solar panel raises your blood pressure, but you need to move beyond that bias to accurately assess the situation. As the linked article notes:
> 
> I know it's impossible to argue with people who don't appreciate the views of those of us who prefer windmills to oil spills. But there is a broad desire in society to find a way toward alternative energy technologies. We know it's going to be a challenging transition, with costs and inconveniences, but some of us prefer solar panels to smokestacks.


----------



## FeXL

So, first we have the pedantic observation about the other side's bias:



CubaMark said:


> ...but you need to move beyond that bias to accurately assess the situation.


And then, in typical hypocritical Prog fashion, it's immediately followed up by a screaming example of what? YOUR OWN BIAS!!!

You could have chosen a dozen words to describe carbon based fuels, but instead you call them "oil spills" as opposed to your neutral "windmills". If you were anywhere near objective in your terminology (hah!) you would have noted something about all the concrete used to provide a base for your much vaunted bird and bat choppers. Or all the toxic chemicals used to manufacture solar panels.

Precisely where is _your_ unbiased assessment posted? 'Cause it sure as hell ain't on _these_ boards...

Now, getting back to your support of these battery packs as a wunnerful solution to a particular problem, once again (and, as MF has pointed out) you have difficulty distinguishing cause from effect.

These battery packs would not be needed in the second place if carbon based energy had not been shuttered in the first place.

That's the f'ing cause! Your "solution" is nothing more than an expensive bandaid for a problem created by uninformed Prog idiots!



CubaMark said:


> I know it's impossible to argue with people who don't appreciate the views of *those of us who prefer windmills to oil spills.*


----------



## Macfury

Good news for US unconventional oil and gas deposits. A fantastic alternative to expensive, intermittent wind and solar.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181206135643.htm



> Today, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the Wolfcamp Shale and overlying Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of Texas and New Mexico's Permian Basin province contain an estimated mean of 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.
> 
> "Christmas came a few weeks early this year," said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. "American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy. Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation."
> 
> "In the 1980's, during my time in the petroleum industry, the Permian and similar mature basins were not considered viable for producing large new recoverable resources. Today, thanks to advances in technology, the Permian Basin continues to impress in terms of resource potential. The results of this most recent assessment and that of the Wolfcamp Formation in the Midland Basin in 2016 are our largest continuous oil and gas assessments ever released," said Dr. Jim Reilly, USGS Director. "Knowing where these resources are located and how much exists is crucial to ensuring both our energy independence and energy dominance."
> 
> Although the USGS has previously assessed conventional oil and gas resources in the Permian Basin province, this is the first assessment of continuous resources in the Wolfcamp shale and Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of the Permian. Oil and gas companies are currently producing oil here using both traditional vertical well technology and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
> 
> The Wolfcamp shale in the Midland Basin portion of the Permian Basin province was assessed separately in 2016, and at that time it was the largest assessment of continuous oil conducted by the USGS. The Delaware Basin assessment of the Wolfcamp Shale and Bone Spring Formation is more than two times larger than that of the Midland Basin. The Permian Basin province includes a series of basins and other geologic formations in West Texas and southern New Mexico. It is one of the most productive areas for oil and gas in the entire United States.
> 
> "The results we've released today demonstrate the impact that improved technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling have had on increasing the estimates of undiscovered, technically recoverable continuous (i.e., unconventional) resources," said Walter Guidroz, Program Coordinator of the USGS Energy Resources Program.


----------



## FeXL

So, CM, once again, why is it we never see you post articles like this?

Solar Panel Waste: A Disposal Problem



> The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:
> 
> - The problem of solar panel disposal will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment because it is a huge amount of waste which is not easy to recycle. 1
> 
> - *Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km). *2
> .
> 
> - Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months by rain water. 1
> 
> - In countries like China, India, and Ghana, people living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth-defect causing) when inhaled. 2


Bold mine...

Let's head to the punch line:



> Conclusion- *Solar photovoltaic energy is not as environmentally conscious a choice as many [Progs] think it is.* Besides being an intermittent source of energy and more expensive than traditional technologies, it has serious waste disposal issues that few countries are tackling. The hazardous materials used in their construction are not easy to recycle and can contaminate drinking water.4


Bold mine, too.

Go ahead, CM. Rationalize it away...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, CM, once again, why is it we never see you post articles like this?


Because forward thinkers such as himself are embracing the future of toxic renewables.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Because forward thinkers such as himself are embracing the future of toxic renewables.


Ah. Well, it sounds like there's not gonna being any shortage of 'em, judging by the number of idiots who are still supporting wind & solar...


----------



## FeXL

Environmental Sissies Celebrate: Yay! Shipping Giant Maersk Says It Will End Its Use of Fossil Fuels by... Um... 2050



> See this limp sap squeeing about it.
> 
> Here's the article, but I'm sure you can already predict the future: Maersk collects up Coupons for Free Hugs from enviromental sissies for 30 years, then, in 2048, writes its first press release stating that "Man, this vow to stop fueling our ships with, you know, fuel, we might have gotten a bit ahead of ourselves with that," then in 2049 writes another press release stating "Where the **** are the fusion reactors? We were told we would have fusion reactors by now. It's those pointy-headed limp-dicked scientists' fault, not ours!"
> 
> Then, in 2050, they write: "We intend to be fossil fuel free by the year 2090."
> 
> And the sissies start squeeing again.


Sounds about right...


----------



## Macfury

It's like all of those companies ordering Tesla transport trucks that aren't being delivered. Every time the enviro-wackos applaud, they order another half-dozen of them.


----------



## FeXL

Trump Just Achieved What Every President Since Nixon Had Promised: Energy Independence 



> Last week, the U.S. exported more oil than we imported, for the first time in 70-plus years. And it happened not because of decades of federal "energy policies," but despite them.
> 
> Since Richard Nixon was in the White House, presidents have pushed national energy plans that, they said, would reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. These plans all had one thing in common — they all assumed that increased domestic oil production couldn't solve the problem.
> 
> Instead, from Nixon on down, Republican and Democratic presidents declared that *the only way to achieve energy independence was through some combination of strict conservation measures and "alternative" forms of energy.*


M'bold.

BZZZZZZT!!!


----------



## FeXL

So, coupla interesting articles at the link. First talks further on the folly of adding even more bird choppers to Europe's grid. Second comes from the comments & speaks to how hydroelectric power ins't quite as green as is commonly viewed. That article is from '05 & includes an interesting quote from TIPCC.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> 4 Charts Expose Abominable Inadequacy Of Europe’s Wind Energy …”Power Collapses Within Minutes”





> Vernunftkraft _writes that with wind energy in Europe, “power generation collapses within minutes.”
> 
> Yet wind proponents and lobbyists like to counter by telling us that the problem will be manageable by simply adding more capacity, some storage and using a smart grid.
> 
> ...
> 
> *But as the following chart shows, Germany has in fact doubled its installed capacity over the past 8 years, but this has done nothing regarding grid stability, and has only made things worse*:
> 
> ...
> 
> Note that the peaks are far greater and that the instability has become far more extreme. Yet, this is not stopping green energy activists and lobbyists from calling for doubling, tripling or even quadrupling the country’s installed wind capacity._​


M'bold.

Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed



> Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries’ climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.
> 
> The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “*Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case*,” he says.
> 
> *Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.* Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil’s National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. “But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about.”


Bold mine.

I've been a supporter of hydro power in the past. Time to examine to data & re-evaluate my position.


----------



## FeXL

StatCan just exposed how worthless ‘green’ industries are to Canada’s economy



> The vocal and well-financed green lobby regularly lectures Canadians that there is no contradiction between a strict environmental agenda and economic growth. In fact, green advocates trumpet that the two are positively related, since clean energy is supposed to be the foundation of our economy in the future. *So Statistics Canada’s release this week of the first estimates of its Environmental and Clean Technology Accounts will make for sober reading for low-carbon lobbyists and their supporters.*
> 
> StatCan’s green-economy accounts include everything from hydro and nuclear power to services such as waste management to manufacturing clean-energy goods such as wind turbines. StatCan does not yet document the subsidies supporting these various activities. *Environmental and clean-technology industries accounted for a puny 3.1 per cent of Canada’s GDP in 2017.* More importantly, StatCan noted that this ratio has remained relatively stable since 2007 when the data began. The green economy’s share of GDP stagnated for 10 of the biggest years for pro-green policies and hefty government support, and against historically slow growth in the rest of the economy. If the green economy cannot flourish in these circumstances, it is doubtful it ever will.
> 
> *The green economy is even less important for jobs, contributing only 1.6 per cent of total employment.* If clean-tech and green-tech are the jobs of tomorrow, as their boosters tirelessly claim, then our job prospects are bleak indeed. This reflects that green energy, like all energy sources, uses more capital than labour.


Well, hell! The problem is we just haven't poured nearly enough taxpayer dollars into this hole in the ground!!!


----------



## FeXL

There goes another Prog narrative...

Under current policies, residential batteries increase emissions in most cases



> Another year, another reason to take the promises of residential home batteries with a grain of salt.
> 
> This month, a group of researchers from the University of California San Diego (UCSD) published a paper in Environmental Science and Technology reporting that there are very few cases in which operating a residential home battery reduces overall emissions—assuming that households are economically rational and trying to minimize costs.
> 
> Of course, if the battery is only discharged during periods of peak emissions and only charged when fossil fuel use is low, then a household might reduce emissions. But across 16 representative regions, operating a battery this way ended up being costly.


More:



> "There may be good reasons to decentralize the grid through ubiquitous installation of small RES [Residential Energy Storage], but cost-effective emissions control is not one of them at the moment," the researchers write.


Damn the cost, man! We're saving the planet here!!!

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

The Poles get it.

Polish government: wind turbines will be scrapped within 17 years



> All wind farms operating today in Poland will be scrapped by 2035, with no new turbines built to replace them, stipulates draft “Energy Policy of Poland until 2040” presented by Ministry of Energy on Friday. This is a political decision, the Minister explained.
> 
> On Wednesday the government contracted with investors the construction of several hundred new wind turbines (with a capacity of approximately 1 GW). The average prices offered by investors, at which they committed to sell electricity, barely reached 197 PLN/MWh. This is less than the current market price (250 PLN/MWh) and much less that the total production cost in new coal-fired power plants (350 PLN/MWh).
> 
> However, on Friday Ministry of Energy presented the draft Energy Policy of Poland, which reads that all existing wind turbines will be scrapped by 2035, with the ones just contracted by the government a few years later. No new wind farms will be built to replace them.


And, just what are the poles replacing their unreliable wind farms with?

Poland expects first nuclear power plant to start in 2033

:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> The Poles get it.


FeXL, some forward-thinking communists want giant batteries and wind, even if they can't afford the power it generates. Why can't you get with the program?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> FeXL, some forward-thinking communists want giant batteries and wind, even if they can't afford the power it generates. Why can't you get with the program?


Guess I'm jes' smarter than yer average "forward-thinking" commie... :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> The Poles get it.
> 
> Polish government: wind turbines will be scrapped within 17 years
> 
> 
> 
> And, just what are the poles replacing their unreliable wind farms with?
> 
> Poland expects first nuclear power plant to start in 2033
> 
> :clap::clap::clap:


Would that they do the same thing around here. We've got 6 or 700 of those bird shredders and now we are being hit with a surcharge to build high tension lines to BC to export all that wind power. 

If BC wants it they should pay for the transmission lines!


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Would that they do the same thing around here. We've got 6 or 700 of those bird shredders and now we are being hit with a surcharge to build high tension lines to BC to export all that wind power.
> 
> If BC wants it they should pay for the transmission lines!


Put another way--if the price of exported electricity does not justify building the infrastructure to carry it, then it should not be exported.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> If BC wants it they should pay for the transmission lines!


'Cause it's not bloody likely they're gonna profit share with ya once the lines are up.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Put another way--if the price of exported electricity does not justify building the infrastructure to carry it, then it should not be exported.


Nails it.


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk solar subsidies s'more.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors


----------



## FeXL

Methinks Polis has been partaking of that legal weed a little too much...

Critics: Polis’ 100% Renewable Energy Pledge Based on ‘Magical Thinking,’ Will Cost Millions of Jobs



> Colorado’s Gov. Jared Polis pledged to transition his state to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040 – a move that follows a 2017 bill he introduced in Congress. The 100 by ‘50 Act proposed a "complete transition off of fossil fuels for the United States."


I want a planeload of politicians to be the first to fly in that new solar powered aircraft. :lmao:

Take another hit from the bong, Jared!


----------



## FeXL

This could be interesting.

World's Oldest Nobel Prize Winner Says His New Device Will Give Clean, Cheap Energy



> Ashkin's new invention uses geometry to capture and funnel light. Essentially, it relies on reflective concentrator tubes that intensify solar reflections, which could make existing solar panels more efficient or perhaps even replace them altogether with something cheaper and simpler.
> 
> The tubes are "dirt cheap," Ashkin says – they cost just pennies to create – which is why he thinks they "will save the world."


See, CM?

No gov't subsidies. No hands held out looking for a dole. No tax-payer based welfare. Just good, old fashioned curiosity & the desire to make the world a better place.


----------



## FeXL

Australia’s Obsession With Hopelessly Intermittent Wind & Solar Wrecking Entire Power Grid



> Australians once enjoyed affordable power, reliably delivered: the chaotic delivery of wind and solar changed all that. *Australian power prices have rocketed out-of-control: its wind and solar power capital, South Australia pays the highest electricity prices, in the world.*
> 
> Mass power cuts (aka load shedding and demand management) and mass blackouts are the new normal. And yet, the lunatics responsible are hell-bent on doubling down to deliver the final and fatal blow to Australia’s Eastern Grid (geographically, the largest interconnected power grid on the planet).
> 
> As Jo Nova explains, electricity generation and delivery is a finely balanced thing; and the sudden massive surges and collapses that are part and parcel of wind and solar generation are taking their toll, with much worse to come.


Bold mine.

h/t SDA, from whence comes this prescient comment:



> Renewables cannot and never _will_ be able to produce BASELOAD power.


----------



## Macfury

But that big battery....!!


----------



## SINC

Well, well, well.

*Bill Gates, defying the Climate Barons, tells the ugly truth about renewables*

https://business.financialpost.com/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1550844623


----------



## SINC

Double post.


----------



## FeXL

Is natural gas going to be a thing of the past in B.C. homes? CTF worries about language in budget



> Some language in the B.C. budget has a spending watchdog worried about what road the province is on, when it comes to natural gas.
> 
> Kris Sims with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says while the province is pushing exporting LNG — something her organization supports — they’re also talking about it like a dirty word if it’s in your furnace.
> 
> She’s worried this means homeowners will pay the price.
> 
> “In order to make up for the perceived sins of that carbon footprint, I have a feeling they’re going to start putting the squeeze on us — on British Columbians — to not use this boon, to not use this natural gas because they are trying to make up for the fact that we are exporting it.”


----------



## SINC

Yep, safe and quiet. Not.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Yep, safe and quiet. Not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Nice CGI. Why are you posting this?


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Why are you posting $h!t that _isn't real_, either?



CubaMark said:


> Why are you posting this?


----------



## Macfury

That must have happened at Puget Sound Energy's Wild Horse Wind and Solar facility, located in Central Washington.


----------



## FeXL

Green New Deal? Biggest US City To Go ‘100 Percent Renewable’ Lost Millions On Solar, Wind Contracts



> As Congress debates the Green New Deal resolution to transition the U.S. economy to “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions, a Texas town struggles under the growing financial burden of going green.
> 
> Georgetown has spent $30 million since it began its transition to 100 percent renewable energy in 2016, and, now, city officials are lashing out at local reporters and a conservative think tank for scrutinizing the cost to taxpayers.
> 
> “The entire 100 percent renewable claim is misleading,” Bill Peacock, vice president of research conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), told The Daily Caller News Foundation.


More:



> Peacock said the city’s “dogged, almost blind pursuit of renewables” has cost residents $30 million, maybe more, in additional electricity costs because of how it structured its contracts.


----------



## FeXL

Damn those fission reactors! Damn them!!!

Richland nuclear plant kept under order to heat the frigid Northwest



> For most of the month of February the Northwest’s only nuclear power plant has been under a “no touch” order to help keep the heat on across the region.
> 
> The Bonneville Power Administration, which markets the electricity produced at the nuclear plant near Richland, asked for the restriction during an unusually cold February across the state that increased the demand for electricity.
> 
> The policy limits any maintenance activity that would either require a reduction in power or would pose a risk to sustaining 100 percent production, said Mike Paoli, spokesman for Energy Northwest.


More:



> *The cold snap comes as water flows that spin dam turbines are low and wind generation is not at peak production.
> 
> Energy Northwest’s Nine Canyon Wind Project near Kennewick only turned out 20 percent of its potential during February, Paoli said.*


Bold mine.

Hells Bells! The solution is simple! Only 20% of capacity? All we need is...ummm...<"Four!">...4! more wind projects of equal size, a passel of dem dere battery backup systems & we can eliminate that pesky nuclear reactor entirely!


----------



## Macfury

Big batteries are the opiate of the green masses.


----------



## FeXL

Schocka! :yikes:

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet



> It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.


Ah, the wide-eyed innocence of the young...

And this little gem, from 2013:

Forget Eagle Deaths, Wind Turbines Kill Humans



> Does any energy source kill a significant number of people? In a post from last year, we discussed human fatalities by energy source (How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?), and how coal is the biggest killer in U.S. energy at 15,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced, while nuclear is the least at zero. Wind energy kills a mere 100 people or so per trillion kWhrs, the majority from falls during maintenance activities (Toldedo Blade).


If it saves just one life!!!


----------



## FeXL

Good!

California’s San Bernardino County slams the brakes on big solar projects



> California’s largest county has banned the construction of large solar and wind farms on more than 1 million acres of private land, bending to the will of residents who say they don’t want renewable energy projects industrializing their rural desert communities northeast of Los Angeles.


----------



## CubaMark

*Pilot project uses Tesla batteries to enhance grid in East Hants*










ELMSDALE, N.S. — The weather is bitter cold, and the wind is howling.
Just down the road, the power is out. Forecasts warn that snowfall amounts of 20-30 centimetres are on the way.


But inside, the lights are on, the fridge is cold and the kids are continuing to play Fortnite on their PlayStation.

The microwave clock doesn’t even need to be reset.

A power outage is usually something Nova Scotia Power staff and executives don’t like to see at any time of the year, but Jill Searle, senior program manager with the utility, was rubbing her hands together with excitement to see how her latest pet project would turn out.

And it passed with flying colours.

“There’s not many people at Nova Scotia Power who would admit to hoping the power goes out, but with our little project team, we were kind of hoping to have an outage on this circuit so we could test it,” Searle said. “Unfortunately for customers, fortunately for us, that did happen.”

A powerful winter storm on Jan. 4, 2018 provided the outage she was waiting for, an extended one of approximately five hours, right around suppertime.

“Anecdotally, feedback from our customers said they cooked their supper, watched TV, went to bed around 11 that night and still had over 85 per cent left in their batteries,” she said. “The transfer from the power outage to the Powerwall is seamless — there’s no blip.”

* * *

“We wanted to see if we could use batteries, not just in customers’ homes, but also to see if they could provide reliability with wind integration for a whole distribution circuit.”

The whole circuit at the substation encompasses 1,000 customers, with 200 supported by the Tesla batteries.

“The price of energy storage is still challenging, which is another reason why we’re approaching this as a pilot project,” she said. “We weren’t ready to invest on a large scale at this point.”

Searle said the price of large-scale battery storage is “coming down all the time,” and the economics of this sort of project is definitely a major component of the pilot.

“How big should a battery be? How much is it going to cost for the value you’re getting out of it? We’re definitely looking at all of that as part of our analysis,” she said.

There are still aspects that are being tested, like how they’re holding up through a Nova Scotia winter, for example.

The pilot is scheduled to run until the end of 2019.

* * *

Anyone can purchase and hire a certified electrician to install one or more of the Tesla Powerwalls themselves.

“The battery backup, other than providing reliability in the event of an outage, can do things like, if you have solar panels on your home, they can charge the batteries and offset the use of the grid,” she said. “If you have time-of-use rates, you can charge the batteries during off-peak time and deploy them at peak time, which helps to price arbitrage your rates.”

There are currently over 600 megawatts of power generated by wind turbines in the province, accounting for approximately 19 per cent of Nova Scotia’s electricity.

“This project, for us and for me personally, has been fantastic,” she said.

“We’ve had a lot of industry interest in this because a lot of jurisdictions are talking about storage as a utility asset, but not many are actually doing it,” she continued.

“We’re one of the few who are. We are leading edge on some of this work, which is really exciting.”

* * *

said there are other ways utilities can store energy that could also be looked at in the future.

“Sharing and storing electrical power will be essential when bringing on things like more wind energy,” he said. “Bringing on more turbines is good, but you’ll eventually get to a point when you have surplus wind power on the grid, and other times when it’s not windy and there is no power available.”

Potential solutions to that include beefing up the transmission lines to other jurisdictions to trade power when needed, allowing the province to buy power when needed or sell it when there’s a surplus.

Another solution is storing the energy locally, either through batteries or other methods like pumped hydro storage.

“What will probably turn out to be best is an all-of-the-above approach,” he said. “We have a better connection with Newfoundland through the Maritime Link subsea cable, which opens up trading wind and hydropower with them. And we could also bring more batteries online as well.”


(Saltwire / Truro Daily)​


----------



## Macfury

An expensive solution to accommodate the shortfalls of the intermittent energy revolution. A Powerwall costs $10,000 U.S. per home. A natural gas backup generator costs about $5,000 and provides unlimited power. I know which one I would choose.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> An expensive solution to accommodate the shortfalls of the intermittent energy revolution. A Powerwall costs $10,000 U.S. per home. A natural gas backup generator costs about $5,000 and provides unlimited power. I know which one I would choose.


So, just for $h!ts & giggles, I dialed up Nova Scotia's current energy use. Wind is currently generating an astounding (wait for it...) *5%* of Nova Scotia's electricity!!! If I fart, I can probably push that needle a bit more...

And, _and_, scroll down & behold the massive 30 day chart!!! How many days did wind produce anything near the installed capacity of 567MW? A dozen? Maybe? How many days did wind produce nearly nothing? About the same? And, just eyeballing, what d'ya s'pose is the average output for the last 30 days? 200MW? Maybe? For a grand total of around 35% efficiency? _Maybe_?

Whereas "Solid Fuel", secret code for the demon "coal", is currently supplying 66% of the province's electricity.

It's no bloody wonder they need to spend 5 figures on goofy battery backup systems with reliability like that... :yikes:


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, just for $h!ts & giggles, I dialed up Nova Scotia's current energy use. Wind is currently generating an astounding (wait for it...) *5%* of Nova Scotia's electricity!!! If I fart, I can probably push that needle a bit more...


Yep, the article is just wrong about wind. 11% hydro and 1% (fake renewable) biomass.

It cracks me up that these nutty, expensive batteries are only needed to prop up the failing intermittent energy revolution. A solution for which there was previously no problem.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> It cracks me up that these nutty, expensive batteries are only needed to prop up the failing intermittent energy revolution. A solution for which there was previously no problem.


You cynic!!! What about Gaia?! :-(


----------



## FeXL

Showing Up To Riot



> No Comments
> 
> Tom Shepstone, Natural Gas Now;
> 
> When the DAPL pipeline opponents were burning bridges, destroying property, vandalizing equipment, leaving tons of garbage and costing North Dakota millions, I wrote a post titled “DAPL Vandals and the Trendy Elitists Who Coddle Them.” I pointed out the rioters and vandals had monetary support through a group called Rising Tide North America, which was funded by the Max and Anna Levinson Foundation (guilt-ridden, virtue-signaling heirs of an oil company) and the Tides Foundation. One of the biggest funders of the latter, in turn, has been Warren Buffett’s kid, through the NoVo Foundation. The Buffetts, of course, own trains and DAPL is competition when it comes to shipping oil by rail.
> 
> 
> *Now, there is the prospect of similar protests in South Dakota as pipeline opponents rise to fight other essential infrastructure needed to move Bakken and Canadian oil to market. The Badlands state isn’t called that for nothing, though. Governor Kristi Noem has propose two bills that are now before her State Senate that would potentially go after these funders, enablers and “riot boosters.”*​
> Finally.


Bold mine.

Good. You go, Kristi. Learn from the mistakes of others.

Nip this BS in the bud.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, not so much.

Green, Carbon-Neutral, Eco-Friendly? My Ass!



> They waste fuel, kill birds, destroy America's grand vistas, take up huge amounts of land (who wants a solar panel array in their backyards?), and decrease our access to the marvels of a free-market economy and Western technology.


Curious that supporters of renewables (<cough>The Bigot<cough>) never post articles/images like this nor mention it in cost breakdowns, no?


----------



## FeXL

Nova Scotia wind turbine catches fire



> A towering wind turbine went up in flames Friday at a wind farm located at the edge of a southern Nova Scotia community.
> 
> The West Pubnico fire department responded just after 5 p.m. to monitor the rotating blades and make sure flaming debris did not start additional fires on the ground. Fire department chief Gordon Amiro said the fire burned itself out after about an hour, once all flammable materials had burned up. Amiro lives a few kilometres away from the wind farm and said he arrived about five minutes after the call.
> 
> The tower, which he estimated at over 90 metres tall, was "all aflame.""It was something we'd never seen, for sure. And we couldn't get near it," he said.
> 
> Firefighters were unable to get close enough to put the fire out directly because of the turbine's height and movement of the blades — and it couldn't be turned off with the gearbox on fire.
> 
> "It was too dangerous to get close to it," Amiro said. "Because of the length of the blades and the blades were turning, you didn't know where they were going to go when they fell."


More:



> *The turbines are surprisingly susceptible to fires, given the flammable materials on the body and fuel in the nacelle, or the main gearbox — and once fires catch, they most often destroy the turbine, given the challenges of fighting them from the ground.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk Barry's legacy s'more.

Remember Solyndra? Loss of taxpayer millions now seems forgotten, expert says



> It's been exactly ten years since the Solyndra solar power company accepted a loan of half a billion taxpayer dollars that would never be repaid. Now one industry expert says he's not sure any lessons have been learned in the years since.
> 
> On March 20, 2009, then-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced Solyndra would be the recipient of a $535 million loan from his department under the Obama administration's revamped loan guarantee program. Solyndra used the money, along with hundreds-of-millions more from private investors, to build a new facility where it would be mass-producing its easy-to-install cylindrical solar "panels." *The whole thing lasted about two years.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Imagine a power source so dependable, so steady, so reliable, that expensive, taxpayer funded bandaid backup solutions aren't required...

Battery Foolishness in Florida



> Florida Power and Light (FPL), is proposing that the world’s largest battery that will be connected to a small solar plant. The battery will be capable of storing 900 megawatt hours of electricity. It will cost about $400 million. The solar plant in question has an average output of about 15 megawatts. The battery will be able to store 60 hours’ worth of the solar output. If it is cloudy for more than 60 hours the battery will likely run flat. There are over 100 cloudy days per year in nearby Tampa Florida, so one suspects that is cloudy for more than 60 hours, or 3 days in the row, from time to time.
> 
> *The electricity exiting from a typical utility scale solar plant, without subsidies, costs about $70 per megawatt hour. Adding the battery to the system will jack up the price to more than $300 per megawatt hour...*


Bold mine...


----------



## Macfury

B-b-b-b-b-b-u-t... Gaia—CubaMark's earthmommy!!


----------



## FeXL

Interesting.

Inexpensive ‘First-of-its-Kind’ Device Can Generate Electricity From Snowfall



> Researchers have developed a first-of-its-kind device that can generate electricity from falling snow.
> 
> The inexpensive device, which was developed by UCLA scientists, is small, thin, and flexible like a sheet of plastic.
> 
> “The device can work in remote areas because it provides its own power and does not need batteries,” said senior author Richard Kaner. “It’s a very clever device – a weather station that can tell you how much snow is falling, the direction the snow is falling, and the direction and speed of the wind.”
> 
> The researchers call it a snow-based triboelectric nanogenerator, or snow TENG. A triboelectric nanogenerator, which generates charge through static electricity, produces energy from the exchange of electrons.


I don't see this particular technology as being very scalable, but for a smaller, low draw application, interesting nonetheless.


----------



## CubaMark

It seems some of you are unable to properly account for the ongoing destruction wrought by the fossil fuel industry... you dismiss the enormous cost of extraction, processing and transportation all the while wringing your hands over, among other things, the tiny fraction of birds killed by wind turbines.

Then there's something like this - a 14-year-long oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that has yet to be contained and the company involved is just shrugging their shoulders, saying there's nothing more that can be done...

The 2004 Taylor oil spill is an ongoing spill located in the Gulf of Mexico, around 11 miles (18 km) off the coast of the U.S. state of Louisiana, which resulted from the destruction of a Taylor Energy oil platform during Hurricane Ivan. It was first brought to public attention when the contamination at the site was noticed in 2010 by those monitoring the nearby Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A later report by the Associated Press in 2015 challenged the estimates of the extent of the leak given by the company and the U.S. Coast Guard, which were then revised to be around 20 times greater than initially reported.

Upper estimates of the spill have been calculated to be as much as 1,400,000 US gallons (5,300,000 l; 1,200,000 imp gal) of oil lost over the life of the disaster, affecting an area as large as 8 square miles (21 km2). As of 2018 it was estimated that 300 to 700 barrels of oil per day are being spilled, making it one of the worst modern oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico by volume. The reserves are likely sufficient for the spill to continue for up to 100 years if not contained.

Taylor Energy has spent as much as $435 million or more decommissioning the site. They contend that nothing further can be done to contain the spill, and that current observations of oil plumes in the area are the result of contaminated sediments, and not an active spill. This has been contradicted by the reports of non-profit groups, the press, and the government.

(Wikipedia)​


----------



## Macfury

No, I account for it in its entirety and still see no reason to live under the iffy primitive world of windmill and sun power.


----------



## FeXL

Only a certified Progressive idiot would discount the benefits that fossil fuels have given mankind all the while while p!$$ing & moaning about the minuscule negatives.

Oh, wait...



CubaMark said:


> It seems some of you are unable to properly account for the ongoing destruction wrought by the fossil fuel industry...


----------



## FeXL

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors



> Miracle in Puerto Rico;
> 
> It looks like something out a brochure advertising what renewable energy could offer a remote, storm-ravaged island.
> 
> Electrical lines still hang perilously from poles across the street, but inside the mint-green, one-story Ciudad Dorada senior center, fans blow cool air and refrigerators stocked with insulin and other medicines run cold even as the noon sun broils in a cloudless Caribbean sky. On its roof are a set of Tesla photovoltaic solar panels, attached via cable to a pair of Tesla batteries hitched to the wall beneath.
> 
> And yet, a diesel generator growls on full blast behind the center.
> 
> Workers from Tesla, billionaire Elon Musk’s electric car and solar energy giant, arrived on Vieques just weeks after hurricanes Irma and María crippled the aging electrical grid and severed the transmission cable that connected this island to the Puerto Rico mainland seven miles west. The company selected the senior center as one of 11 sites on the darkened island that it would equip with power-producing panels and batteries.
> 
> Constructing the system was simple. But when workers attached the panels and batteries to the old electrical wiring in the former schoolhouse, the batteries blew out.
> 
> “It doesn’t work,” a nurse at the senior center said in Spanish during a HuffPost visit in late February. “It never has.”​
> Via @MarkBSpiegel — _“In other words, Musk was about as useful to Puerto Rico as he was to the kids trapped in the cave… With Fraud-Boy, it’s all about grabbing fraudulent headlines.”_


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors


Or, you know, an honest person would go to the source of the article —CityLab— and read the actual facts about the situation. Tesla, and other companies, went in and set up solar systems in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane. Tesla alone had 11-thousand micro-sites underway. _It took the Cheetoh-in-Chief *18 months* to connect Puerto Rico to the mainland power grid again!_

You've focused on *one* failed project, and the specific reasons for that reason aren't discussed. It's just more of the Tesla-bashing we've all come to expect of you.

A relevant part of the article (to which you did not link):

_Tesla had planned to lay the groundwork for an island-wide microgrid, existing regulations created an obstacle. On the territorial level, the state-owned Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority enjoyed a monopoly on power generation and distribution. Years of neglect and billions in debt left the power grid that PREPA oversaw fragile and unprepared to integrate new technologies. On the national level, the Federal Emergency Management Agency largely limits its funding aid for post-hurricane repairs to projects that restored existing infrastructure―which made novel improvements, such as solar power microgrids, difficult to finance with public money._​
Disaster relief is an incredibly complex operation. Tesla responded quickly, and did enormous good in some locations. As the original article notes, the fragility of the domestic grid and the success of Tesla (and others) solar projects have sparked public interest in the technology. 

But please, do go on with your incessant raging against that infinite free power source up in the sky. Shake your fist at those socialist photons! Defend the rights of grifters everywhere to pollute the environment and roll coal 'cause it's their God-given Right as (wannabe, apparently,) Americans!

_Sheesh._


----------



## Macfury

So you're saying that state ownership of the electric grid was the problem? Agreed!


----------



## FeXL

<Whoooosh>



CubaMark said:


> blah, blah-blah, blah-blah-blah


You _do_ go on, don't you?



CubaMark said:


> blah-blah, blah-blah-blah, blah, blah-blah-blah, blah-blah, blah


----------



## Macfury

I wish CM would stop posting that picture of himself yelling at the cloud.


----------



## FeXL

Further to this bull$h!t.

Your record of _honesty_ on these boards falls something short of making you an expert, Bigot. An _honest_ person wouldn't foment lies about Prog BS like Clock Girl & Catlicker Boyz.

The iron...

And, _and_, because it's patently obvious to anybody who is _not_ a Prog, the point of the article I linked to is summed up rather nicely in the final quote: Musk is nothing more than a headline grubbing Prog dirtbag. If he was truly interested in helping out, the senior center would have been rewired & his system completely functional. He isn't & it's not.

In typical Prog fashion Musk figgers that by merely throwing money at a problem it will go away. No need to actually get your hands dirty...



CubaMark said:


> Or, you know, an honest person...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I wish CM would stop posting that picture of himself yelling at the cloud.


<snort> Is that what it was? I didn't bother clicking on the link...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> <snort> Is that what it was? I didn't bother clicking on the link...


It's a kind of icon for Earth Mommy worshipers like CM.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> In typical Prog fashion Musk figgers that by merely throwing money at a problem it will go away. No need to actually get your hands dirty...


Oh man, you said it! It's not like Musk is a Bill Gates, someone renowned for his wanderings through America's heartland, personally cleaning up Word viruses that had infected countless homes... A true hero!

:lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

I don't have much positive to say about Gates, but you're comparing the two? Gates earned his money the old-fashioned way: he didn't subsidy farm. 

And, _and_, his philanthropy work, as misguided as much of it is, puts him head, shoulders & skinny, freckled ass above Musk.



CubaMark said:


> blah-blah, blah-blah-blah, blah, blah-blah-blah, blah-blah, blah, blah


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> I don't have much positive to say about Gates, but you're comparing the two? Gates earned his money the old-fashioned way: he didn't subsidy farm.
> 
> And, _and_, his philanthropy work, as misguided as much of it is, puts him head, shoulders & skinny, freckled ass above Musk.


Yup. One of them runs a business. Musk runs a Ponzi scheme disguised as an automobile company.


----------



## SINC

Cue the music to "Another One Bites The Dust"!

*After 5 years, Medicine Hat powers down $12M solar thermal power plant*



> Low price of natural gas made solar power a too-pricey proposition.
> 
> These curved steel panels were part of a $12-million solar thermal power plant in Medicine Hat, Alta., that opened in 2014. This week, the city announced it was shutting down the facility. (City of Medicine Hat)
> 
> A concentrated solar thermal (CST) plant seemed like a good idea at one time — circa 2009 — but this week, the city of Medicine Hat pointed its solar panels down, shuttering the facility after five years of operation.
> 
> Collin Gallant, a reporter at the Medicine Hat News, said Wednesday in an interview with the Calgary Eyeopener that the plant wasn't a bad idea gone wrong, but rather a victim of persistently low natural gas prices.
> 
> "Back when this was thought up as an energy savings program, natural gas was about seven times more expensive than it is today," Gallant said.
> 
> The plant cost approximately $12 million, with half of that coming from the City of Medicine Hat, and $3 million from both the province and federal government.


More at the link.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...-medicine-hat-1.5137428?__vfz=medium=sharebar


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> After 5 years, Medicine Hat powers down $12M solar thermal power plant


Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Medicine Hat owns its natural gas wells. The city is sitting on top of a massive pool of natural gas. They used to have some of the cheapest utility rates in the country because they've completely cut out the middle man.

And they figgered that solar could compete financially?

'Nuff said...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Med Hat solar powered TGF.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors



> 12 Comments
> 
> NOBODY COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS.
> 
> The southern Alberta city of Medicine Hat is pulling the plug on a $13-million concentrated solar power facility after operating it for about five years.
> 
> The project’s goal was to test whether the technology was a feasible way to employ the sun’s heat to replace some of the natural gas used to make steam at the city-owned power plant, said Coun. Phil Turnbull, chairman of the city’s utility committee.
> 
> The answer, unfortunately, was no, as the project’s small and unreliable contribution to the community’s power needs didn’t justify the cost of maintaining its rows of mirrors and pipes through snowy winters and dusty summer days, he said.
> 
> “I think people sometimes look at what we did and say, ’What a waste of money.’ But it wouldn’t have been a waste if it had been successful in taking it to the next step,” Turnbull said Thursday.​
> It was a waste of money, Phil.


First comment nails it:



> the money quote: “The project was to add about one megawatt of power to the 250-MW capacity main power plant, but it often didn’t even supply that much, he said.”
> 
> they spent more than $13 million to attempt to reduce the use of natural gas by 0.4% for less than 1/3 of a day on average.
> 
> for reference, Medicine Hat typically enjoys 2544 hours of sun a year.


As an aside, Med Hat is one of the sunniest cities in Canada. If solar can't make it there...

Also in the comments is a reminder about Red Rachel's $100 million solar power contract.


----------



## CubaMark

$23-Billion just for one of the (how many needed?) Deep Geological Repository (DGR) sites to store nuclear waste in Ontario.

Tell me again how current-technology nuclear is cost-effective and addresses greenhouse gas emissions concerns?

Who pays for these nuclear waste disposal sites? Taxpayers any way you slice it.

And y'all are upset over a couple of friggin' windmills... yeah....

*Canada’s nuclear waste to be buried in deep underground repository*


----------



## Macfury

I don't care about CO2 and how it offends your Earth Mommy, CM.



CubaMark said:


> $23-Billion just for one of the (how many needed?) Deep Geological Repository (DGR) sites to store nuclear waste in Ontario.
> 
> Tell me again how current-technology nuclear is cost-effective and addresses greenhouse gas emissions concerns?
> 
> Who pays for these nuclear waste disposal sites? Taxpayers any way you slice it.
> 
> And y'all are upset over a couple of friggin' windmills... yeah....
> 
> *Canada’s nuclear waste to be buried in deep underground repository*


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Since when has the spending of taxpayer dollars on anything ever been an issue for a Prog? You haven't suddenly got religion, have you? :yikes:



CubaMark said:


> Blah, blah-blah, blah-blah-blah...


----------



## FeXL

Hydrogen station explodes, Toyota halts sales of fuel cell cars, is this the end?



> A hydrogen refueling station exploded in Norway on Monday and the company operating the station has suspended operation at its other locations following the explosion.
> 
> Now, Toyota and Hyundai are both halting sales of fuel cell vehicles in the country.
> 
> Does this spell the end of fuel cell hydrogen vehicles as a “zero-emission” alternative?
> 
> The Uno-X hydrogen station in Sandvika in Bærum exploded on Monday and resulted in two injuries in a nearby non-fuel cell vehicle.
> 
> According to the police, the explosion was strong enough that it activated the airbags in the vehicle without any impact.
> 
> The cause of the explosion is currently unknown and the rest of the refueling network is being shut down.


It'll be interesting to find out the cause.


----------



## FeXL

PG&E's bankruptcy: Renewable energy costs at 800% of market rates



> PG&E's bankruptcy court revealed that the company may dump its state-mandated renewable energy source contracts that cost up to 800 percent more than market rates.
> 
> California mandated a zero carbon emissions future by passing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. With PG&E residential electric rates rising by 71 percent to subsidizing renewables, Northern Californians' electricity costs 19.30 cents per kilowatt-hour, or about double the 10.66 cents in Oregon and 9.46 cents in Washington.
> 
> Pacific Gas & Electric filed for "Chapter 22" in January, as California's largest utility was forced for the second time in 15 years into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to the state's social justice legal and regulatory system.


More:



> But the U.S. Bankruptcy Court proceedings revealed that *the company has $34.7 billion of overpriced renewable energy contracts costing up to $197 per megawatt-hour that could be replaced with new contracts priced at between $25–30 per megawatt-hour.*


Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

Money only becomes an emergency when it's being returned to the taxpayer, FeXL.


----------



## FeXL

Reducing GHG emissions is abstract, reducing comfort levels is not, and don’t even think about the latter



> *Thirty years ago, 81 percent of the world’s energy mix was from fossil fuels. Last year, after over $4 trillion in renewable energy investment, fossil fuels make up…drum roll please… 81 percent of the world’s energy mix.*


Bold mine.

Stunning.

Four trillion dollars. A four with 12 zeroes. $4,000,000,000,000.00 How many water wells could have been dug in Africa with that? How many forms of cancer cured? How many other debilitating diseases, ie., Alzheimer's, Multiple sclerosis, Muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's, etc., etc., etc., could a cure have been found for? Or, at the very least, progress made to that end? How many safe injection sites constructed?

More:



> And that’s where we are now. A few decades of ever-spiraling climate warnings, trillions spent, massive renewable energy development, and we are moving further away from climate targets. It should be stunningly clear that the movement to isolate/strangle/destroy the fossil fuel industry is not working; all the war is doing is reshaping it – production is moving from regions where comfortable activists can attack it to regions of the world where people welcome it.


----------



## FeXL

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> At Forbes;
> 
> Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.
> 
> Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) “significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward,” the economists write.
> 
> The study, which has yet to go through peer-review, was done by Michael Greenstone, Richard McDowell, and Ishan Nath. It compared states with and without an RPS. It did so using what the economists say is “the most comprehensive state-level dataset ever compiled” which covered 1990 to 2015.
> 
> The cost to consumers has been staggeringly high: “All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,” they write.​


But...PARITY!!!


----------



## CubaMark

*Here's something solar power installations can't do....*

[ame]https://youtu.be/El7MZtHjtlw[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

Yup, not enough energy.



CubaMark said:


> *Here's something solar power installations can't do....*


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Yup, not enough energy.


I'm not going to bother clicking on the link but I'm guessing he ain't talking about supplying baseline electricity... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

California May Go Dark This Summer, and Most Aren't Ready



> A plan by California’s biggest utility to cut power on high-wind days during the onrushing wildfire season could plunge millions of residents into darkness. And most people aren’t ready.
> 
> The plan by PG&E Corp. comes after the bankrupt utility said a transmission line that snapped in windy weather probably started last year’s Camp Fire, the deadliest in state history. While the plan may end one problem, it creates another as Californians seek ways to deal with what some fear could be days and days of blackouts.


----------



## CubaMark

*For those who (suddenly discovered) have a great concern for the deaths of birds from wind turbines, have hope! A next-generation turbine is at hand:*










A Spanish company called Vortex Bladeless is proposing a radical new way to generate wind energy that will once again upend what you see outside your car window.

Their idea is the Vortex, a bladeless wind turbine that looks like a giant rolled joint shooting into the sky. The Vortex has the same goals as conventional wind turbines: To turn breezes into kinetic energy that can be used as electricity. But it goes about it in an entirely different way.

Instead of capturing energy via the circular motion of a propeller, the Vortex takes advantage of what’s known as vorticity, an aerodynamic effect that produces a pattern of spinning vortices. 

[...]

In its current prototype, the elongated cone is made from a composite of fiberglass and carbon fiber, which allows the mast to vibrate as much as possible (an increase in mass reduces natural frequency). At the base of the cone are two rings of repelling magnets, which act as a sort of nonelectrical motor. When the cone oscillates one way, the repelling magnets pull it in the other direction, like a slight nudge to boost the mast’s movement regardless of wind speed. This kinetic energy is then converted into electricity via an alternator that multiplies the frequency of the mast's oscillation to improve the energy-gathering efficiency.

Its makers boast the fact that there are no gears, bolts, or mechanically moving parts, which they say makes the Vortex cheaper to manufacture and maintain. The founders claim their Vortex Mini, which stands at around 41 feet tall, can capture up to 40 percent of the wind’s power during ideal conditions (this is when the wind is blowing at around 26 miles per hour). Based on field testing, the Mini ultimately captures 30 percent less than conventional wind turbines, but that shortcoming is compensated by the fact that you can put double the Vortex turbines into the same space as a propeller turbine.

The Vortex team says there are some clear advantages to their model: It’s less expensive to manufacture, totally silent, and safer for birds since there are no blades to fly into. Vortex Bladeless says its turbine would cost around 51 percent less than a traditional turbine, whose major costs come from the blades and support system. Plus, Suriol says, it's pretty cool-looking. “It looks like asparagus,” he says. “It’s much more natural."

(Wired: THE FUTURE OF WIND TURBINES? NO BLADES)​


----------



## Macfury

https://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/71155-alternative-energy-sources-120.html#post1963442


----------



## CubaMark

Hah! I knew I'd seen that story before! Taking their time coming to the market, eh?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Hah! I knew I'd seen that story before! Taking their time coming to the market, eh?


What was notable to me is that you edited their release at exactly the same point! 

I read through the update material and they are going to release a tiny consumer funnel next year.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> What was notable to me is that you edited their release at exactly the same point!


 Extraneous info is extraneous info.... 



Macfury said:


> I read through the update material and they are going to release a tiny consumer funnel next year.


I wonder how it would scale down... would a tiny funnel put out enough juice for a useful micro project? Hmmmm.


----------



## Beej

CubaMark said:


> I wonder how it would scale down... would a tiny funnel put out enough juice for a useful micro project? Hmmmm.


I don't think it covers enough area to capture enough energy to be useful. A conversation piece for the summer evening BBQ as it lights up a small LED.


----------



## SINC

Beej said:


> I don't think it covers enough area to capture enough energy to be useful. A conversation piece for the summer evening BBQ as it lights up a small LED.


Yep as usual, dream along.


----------



## SINC

Hmmm, is Canada next?

14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES

https://americanelephant.wordpress....cV97OpqBf6UY4LCoIgWsIrc-ryrTU8oMqNvcX5Dv3xXN0


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> 14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES


Should be some good money in scrap for a coupla entrepreneurs... 

What are they gonna do? Charge you with theft when yer cleaning up their junk for them?


----------



## FeXL

From the land of Fruit Loops & Whackos.

O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas

Berkeley bans natural gas.

Comments hilarious...


----------



## FeXL

It's almost as if some of us knew this was going to happen...

First solar road fails to live up to expectations



> After less than three years in operation, the high-profile 1-kilometer trial stretch of the world's first photovoltaic road in northern France has failed to meet expectations.
> 
> Instead of delivering the promised 790kWh per day, the first year's actual daily power output was only half that amount, with a total of 149,459 kWh during that year. Only 37,900kWh were generated since the beginning of this year.


Related:

Are Solar Roadways An Engineering Failure?



> It turns out the solar roadways are a complete engineering failure, or rather an engineering disaster


Solar Roadways: An Engineering FAILURE



> The roads are expensive and produce far less electricity than what could be produced if the money was used on a solar farm- or by simply placing them by the side of the road. However, it is not the only flaw in turning roads into giant solar panels.


Solar Road Is ‘Total And Epic’ Failure, 83% Of Its Panels Break In A Week



> Roughly 25 out of 30 panels installed in a prototype solar road in Idaho broke within a week, after the project received $3.9 million in funding and 6.5 years of development.
> 
> Despite massive internet hype, the prototype of the solar “road” can’t be driven on, hasn’t generate any electricity and 75 percent of the panels were broken before they were even installed. Of the panels installed to make a “solar footpath,” 18 of the 30 were dead on arrival due to a manufacturing failure. A short rain shower caused another four panels to fail, and only five panels appear to be presently functional. The prototype appears to be plagued by drainage issues, poor manufacturing controls and fundamental design flaws.
> 
> *Every single promise made about the prototype seems to have fallen flat and the project appears to be a “total and epic failure,” according to an electrical engineer.*


Bold mine...


----------



## CubaMark

*Christopher Majka*

How do the oil companies afford to spend $201 million annually lobbying against climate change? Vast subsidies from governments, that's how!

In the US, Oil Change International calculates that $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives goes to the fossil fuel industries, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare. Of that total, 80 percent goes to oil and gas (i.e., $16.4 billion) 20 percent to coal. In Canada $3.3 billion in government subsidies goes annually to the oil and gas industries. In the EU it is $13.4 billion.

Thus, the $201 million anti-climate change lobbying expense is only 0.6% of the annual direct subsidies that these companies receive every year from governments in North America and Europe alone.​
*Oil And Gas Giants Spend Millions Lobbying To Block Climate Change Policies*


----------



## Macfury

Money well spent to block the nutty notions of eco-ninnies. I love the notion that blocking the nonsensical policies of government is somehow seen as negative.


----------



## CubaMark

Setting aside your position on climate change, no comment on the matter of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? Or do you still believe those subsidies don't exist?


----------



## Macfury

You've put out those nonsense figures before. I don't include writing off business expenses as subsidies. Nor do I include some leftist stating that "You could put a special extra tax on oil, but since the government won't, I'm calling that a subsidy."

I also support writing off expenses for windmill energy companies.



CubaMark said:


> Setting aside your position on climate change, no comment on the matter of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? Or do you still believe those subsidies don't exist?


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

That dead horse has long since been beaten into hamburger. To recap:

1) On a $/unit of energy basis, renewables receive far greater subsidies than carbon based energy. 
2) Nobody on these boards has ever denied that carbon based energy receives subsidies. 
3) And, as MF has noted numerous times, writing off business expenses for carbon based or renewable energy is in no way, shape or form a subsidy.

Why do you struggle with these basic concepts? If you can't comprehend these simple, basic facts, then how the hell do you expect to deal with more complex topics like, f'rinstance, Globull Warming?

And, _and_, how much money do renewable energy companies spend each year lobbying _for_ climate change?



CubaMark said:


> Or do you still believe those subsidies don't exist?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> nd, _and_, how much money do renewable energy companies spend each year lobbying _for_ climate change?


Wonder if he's good with the lobbying by foreign entities against Alberta oil pipelines?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Wonder if he's good with the lobbying by foreign entities against Alberta oil pipelines?


'Course he is! The question has oft been asked & repeatedly met with silence. Eeeeeeeeevil oil, doncha know?


----------



## FeXL

It's curious how the renewable energy nuts <coughCMcough> never report on any of this fallout. As noted elsewhere, probably not on _The Tyee_, _Mother Jones_ or MotherCorpse I guess...

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans

And, _and_, the multi-ton, global-warming-creating concrete footings are merely left in the ground, monuments to the stupidity of it all.


----------



## SINC

And so it begins.

Ontario minister, wind companies charged under Environmental Protection Act

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...Djqe_TlA-JHLW3FftXdFQvL64re1XSJ9LQi0so0JijzuQ


----------



## FeXL

I want to preface this post by noting that I have no, zero, use for this idiot & his "documentaries". Interestingly, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often.

That said, the headline is incorrect: There have been cracks in this farce from day 1 visible to anyone paying attention.

FINALLY! Cracks in the façade of the mighty environmental industry machine, originating from a critical place – the inside



> Filmmaker Michael Moore, described as a left-wing political activist and critic of capitalism (he expresses disdain for the phrase “political activist” though), decided to look into the world of alternative energy. His overarching question was: if alternative energy is so great and so easy, why aren’t things getting better on the climate change front?
> 
> To his immense credit, no matter what one thinks of his other political stances, Moore did not shy away from the reality that he found, that, as the producer put it “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us…… but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money …”


----------



## FeXL

Curious how the Progs haven't noted this...

After seven roof fires, Walmart sues Tesla over solar panel flaws



> Walmart filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Tesla on Tuesday. The retail giant says Tesla's "negligent installation and maintenance" of solar panels caused fires on the roofs of as many as seven Walmart stores since 2012.


More:



> Walmart says that Tesla's own inspections revealed "a total of 157 action items requiring repairs or replacement of system components, 48 of which Tesla itself characterized as reflecting conditions that rendered the sites unsafe or potentially unsafe." Walmart's own follow-up inspections turned up even more problems, the retailer charges.
> 
> Walmart's investigation "revealed that Tesla had engaged in widespread, systemic negligence and had failed to abide by prudent industry practices in installing, operating, and maintaining its solar systems," Walmart claims.
> 
> Walmart further says Tesla has been stiffing it on the costs of dealing with the defective solar panels.


----------



## Macfury

We must note their intent, not the outcome.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> We must note their intent, not the outcome.


Silly me...


----------



## SINC

*Solar panels: Thousands of customers complain*



> Thousands of people who bought solar panels have complained to a financial watchdog that they are not bringing them the returns they were promised.
> 
> Many people took out loans to pay for panels on the promise they would save thousands of pounds in electricity costs and make money generating power.
> 
> They say they have not had the expected savings, and the Financial Services Ombudsman has had 2,000 complaints.
> 
> Barclays Bank has put aside £38m to deal with potential claims.


More at the link:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark


----------



## FeXL

I have zero compassion for idiots who rush out to buy a pig in a poke.


----------



## FeXL

"With your hearts"? This chick went to Trudles' School of Political Misnomers...

Marianne Williamson On Nuclear Energy: Don’t Use ‘Hard Data,’ Think ‘With Your Hearts’



> Democrat presidential candidate Marianne Williamson came out against using nuclear energy, which experts say should be used to combat climate change, on Thursday during a climate change town hall on MSNBC, urging students to not use "hard data" when thinking about nuclear energy.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> *Solar panels: Thousands of customers complain*
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark



Actually looked into this. In Alberta about all you can do is cancel the actual cost of electricity. Buy back goes no higher. Given the gouge fees you will still pay at least half of what you do now.


Overall a very bad deal.


----------



## FeXL

Let's just consider that headline a rhetorical question. It's not like they don't do it already (climate change, gun control, among others)...

“Fossil fuels subsidies” as described in the media for the most part don’t exist – are governments really willing to build policy on a fictitious concept?



> Pay attention everyone, this is important: people proposing to govern our mighty country are proposing to pay for part of it by reducing “traffic congestion costs imposed by one driver on other vehicle occupants” or by squeezing money out of someone for “travel delays” that are “monetized using evidence about the relationship between wages and how people value travel time.” Believe it or not, that is one imbecility being flouted in the media as a “fossil fuel subsidy”.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Let's just consider that headline a rhetorical question. It's not like they don't do it already (climate change, gun control, among others)...
> 
> “Fossil fuels subsidies” as described in the media for the most part don’t exist – are governments really willing to build policy on a fictitious concept?


CubaMark turned tail and ran away from the topic the last time he has his ass handed to him on that one. Another great victory for socialism!


----------



## FeXL

Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Trump admin announces compromise on ethanol after lack of government-mandated demand hurts industry



> After a drop in government mandates led to a lag in market demand for corn and corn-based car fuel, the Trump administration announced a deal Friday to prop the industry back up.
> 
> An EPA news release sent out Friday stated that the administration has worked out an arrangement regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard — also called the ethanol mandate — meant to help support plant-based fuel production.
> 
> EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler called the announced arrangement “the latest in a series of steps we have taken to expand domestic energy production and improve the RFS program that will result in sustained biofuel production to help American farmers.”


----------



## Macfury

Where's CM, praising this use of government power to create a renewable mandate?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Where's CM, praising this use of government power to create a renewable mandate?


I'm sure The Bigot will be along shortly, pi$$ing & moaning about the paltry sum of taxpayer-based funding.

"WTF? Only $27 quadrillion?!"


----------



## FeXL

Green Dream to End Fossil Fuels Also Means Going without Plastics



> Have you ever seen the 1967 movie, “The Graduate,” where actor Dustin Hoffman, in the role of a young graduate, gets sage advice as to what field he should get into? "Plastics," young man, is the future was the recommendation. But where do plastics originate? Plastics are characterized as polymers. Polymers are long-chained monomers. Some examples of monomers are ethylene and propylene. When these monomers are polymerized they become polyethylene and polypropylene. From where do these monomers originate? They are products from oil and gas production.
> 
> The current crop of Democratic Party presidential wannabees have drunk the Green New Deal (GND) Kool-Aid. Stop fracking! Stop oil and gas production on federal lands! Ban offshore oil and gas production! Most of these “rocket scientists” come from states that import their refined products for transportation fuels and heating oil. They do not want any of those stinking oil refineries in their backyards but please continue to import the gasoline and diesel from refineries in the Virgin Islands or from Venezuelan-owned refineries. So where do we get plastics if oil and gas production ceases? Technology exists to convert coal into hydrocarbons but it is energy-intensive and very expensive. By the way, that technology was developed to further Hitler’s Nazi putsch to conquer the world. So do we return to a world of “Before Plastics”?


----------



## FeXL

Shocka...

North Carolina Energy Company Finds Solar Power Actually Increases Pollution



> Duke’s problem shows what happens when basic science collides with operational reality. Solar energy is intermittent. Until a reasonable storage technology is available, natural gas plants must operate when solar is brought on and off the grid. Put simply, the gas plant is generating power when the sun isn’t shining. Duke’s applications reportedly show that, due to the see-saw effect of deploying solar, emissions of the pollutant nitrogen oxide have increased, even though the level is lower than emissions from purely coal-based energy.


----------



## FeXL

Who made your job – a government, or an entrepreneur? We ignore the difference at our peril



> Artificial industries are being created by panicked policy, such as in Saskatchewan. The overwhelming desire to go green led the provincial utility to put in place a program that heavily-incented home solar installations, up to a certain cap. The lucrative terms led to a mini-boom, which is *coming to an end* as the utility hit the cap, and realized that further growth of the scheme could cost it $54 million per year. So the utility reworked the credit, cutting it in half. Outraged solar entrepreneurs filled the news with howls of outrage as their businesses face decimation, but the sad reality is the whole situation is yet another example of government policy distorting the landscape. Solar power may be competitive cost wise for a few hours a day, but from a systems perspective, adding more solar power (without as-yet-unavailable battery technology) simply means that utilities need to finance two systems.


Links' bold.


----------



## FeXL

Project Titan is a shameful example of criminal negligence on the part of $TSLA. People should go to jail.



> Some homeowners with Tesla solar panels said they had been left frustrated as they wait for the company to fixed damaged panels on their roof.
> On August 1, the roof of Briana Greer's home in Colorado caught fire as she waited for Tesla to send a crew to look at her panels. The company has yet to investigate the situation, she said.
> Greer said that Tesla didn't properly maintain the panels. Homeowners in states from Maryland to Arizona with Tesla solar panels have also found dealing with Tesla to be frustrating, and they've been forced to pay regular fees as their systems have been shut off.
> Current and former Tesla employees said that this is all related to "Project Titan," a secret program Tesla launched in the summer of 2018 to quietly change out faulty wiring on solar roofs across the country.
> Business Insider sent Tesla an extensive list of claims made by customers and current and former solar employees for this story. Tesla did not reply to repeated requests for comment via phone calls, emails, or text messages.


----------



## FeXL

I post this more for than the quoted comments than anything.

Global Warming



> Steve from Rockwood says:
> October 21, 2019 at 9:48 am
> 
> So here I am, stuck in this beautiful village of Havre Saint-Pierre on the Gaspe Peninsula in North Eastern Quebec flying a helicopter survey (the seafood is amazing). It’s a town full of Hydro Quebec employees and a few tourists. What most people probably don’t realize is that hydro electricity requires an incredible amount of fossil fuel.
> 
> Hydro Quebec employees are flown from their tiny villages all over Quebec to the remote hydro dams on Dash-8 aircraft.
> 
> The parking lots at the airports are jammed full of Ford trucks and Ford SUVs with their cute little red safety flags bobbing in the wind and the Hydro Quebec stickers on the driver’s door.
> 
> The roads to these remote dams cost about $500-$600 million each to build (using heavy equipment drawing on diesel power). They are paved highways available only to Quebec Hydro employees and their contractors. They are plowed in the winter using fossil fueled plows – not electric vehicles.
> 
> The hydro lines are initially attached to the poles using helicopters. Once attached they are inspected using helicopters. In the winter the helicopters use a wooden pole attached to a long-line to break the ice off the lines. As one pilot mentioned “you have to be careful because once the ice falls away the lines bounce up quite a bit”. Helicopter pilots have a knack for understating the obvious.
> 
> The nearest mobilization center is Sept Iles. There are 4 helicopter companies there, with the smallest operator owning at least 4 helicopters. Most of the work is for Hydro Quebec. Inspection, construction, monitoring. None of this work uses electricity. It is all fossil fuel.
> 
> So you can’t have clean hydro power without fossil fuel. Where have you heard that one before? Probably never. But we all know it takes a lot of fossil fuel to make a drum of oil. Which gets shipped to Hydro Quebec.
> 
> old white guy says:
> October 21, 2019 at 10:11 am
> 
> Steve we can’t have any power without fossil fuels. Can’t make a wind turbine, can’t make a solar panel, can’t make anything that generates power without fossil fuels. The very naïve and or stupid among us seem to think it is possible but they are wrong.


Yeppers.


----------



## FeXL

We Don’t Need No Giant Leaky Mirrors



> Subsidy Fraud Boy has you covered.
> 
> Nobody wants a leaky roof. The consequences from water damage can be really expensive.
> 
> So Tesla needs to convince homeowners that its Solarglass roof, which hasn’t shown outside of a laboratory that it can withstand the test of time, is just as reliable as a regular roof. This at a time when Tesla is facing lawsuits from customers whose conventional rooftop solar arrays have caught fire.​


----------



## FeXL

Shocka...

Germany's Giant Windmills Are Wildly Unpopular



> Despite their surging popularity in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, the Greens did badly in last Sunday’s election in the German state of Thuringia, and the nationalists from the Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) did very well. An important reason is that the Greens support wind energy and the AfD militates against wind turbines. *The giant windmills have grown so unpopular in neighboring communities that their construction in Germany has all but ground to a halt.*


Bold mine.

Perhaps there is some hope.


----------



## FeXL

If Only They Had Solar Panels



> Trucks lining up for grain dryer LP at Garden City, Minnesota.
> 
> Load em up! #harvest19 #gardencitymn #dryergas19 pic.twitter.com/llwpFnUDtD
> 
> — Bill Freitag (@bill_freitag) November 5, 2019​
> There’s more on this thread.
> 
> Propane shortage in Upper Midwest is getting worse. Heard from sources today that it's becoming "life threatening" as schools/hospitals could soon be out. Our sources say the Governors could make a declaration to help ease regulatory issues and allow product to be shipped north
> 
> — Tyne Morgan (@Tyne_Ag) November 5, 2019​


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> If Only They Had Solar Panels


Q: What do you call a massive solar energy spill when grain needs to be dried?

A: Who cares when you're starving?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Q: What do you call a massive solar energy spill when grain needs to be dried?
> 
> A: Who cares when you're starving?


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas



> Hear my prayer.


First comment:



> Brilliant. Replace Natural gas piped into homes and businesses with electricity generated by natural gas. That ought to save them.​


----------



## FeXL

Germany Pulls Plug On Wind Energy… Wind Industry In “Severe Crisis”…Wind Giant Enercon To Lay Off 3000



> German online weekly FOCUS here reports how cuts by wind energy giant Enercon will lead to 3000 layoffs. According to Enercon chief executive Hans-Dieter Kettwig, “politicians have pulled the plug on wind energy.”
> 
> *Subsidies cut*
> 
> Once lavished with huge incentives, the German wind industry is being hit hard after the government recently ended the huge subsidies that were once aimed at expanding the installation of wind energy capacity. Power grid operators had been struggling to keep the grid stable due to erratic feed-in and the subsidized feed-in of wind energy caused German electricity prices to become among the most expensive worldwide.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## FeXL

What? Wind & solar not supplying enough energy?

Quelle surprise.

And, as Kate notes, this is good practice for the greenies...

Let The Eastern Bastards Freeze In The Dark



> Don’t think of it as “shortfall”.
> 
> With the CN strike about to enter day three, the president of the Canadian Propane Association (CPA) says the province of Quebec is about to enter into a crisis situation, with Ontario not far behind.
> 
> Quebec heavily relies on the the railroad to bring its supply of propane — 83 per cent is transported via the rail line. In Canada, overall, 63 per cent of propane moves on the tracks, with the remainder transported by truck.
> 
> According to Nathalie St-Pierre, president and CEO of the CPA, by the end of the day on Wednesday, 80 per cent of Quebec’s propane reserve will be used up. […]
> 
> The supply shortfall is being caused by numerous factors — demand spikes from cold weather, farmers needing to dry grain, and a rail strike that has yet to be resolved.
> 
> St-Pierre can’t recall the last time an accumulation of factors have caused such a shortfall of the product.​
> Think of it as _practice_.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> What? Wind & solar not supplying enough energy?


Not when the right-wingers, in fits of pique and insanity, spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars _tearing down ready-to-be-switched-on_ wind power systems.

The stupid. It's unbearable to watch.


----------



## Macfury

I'm grateful Ford has the courage to tear down those money pits. I'll bet it's unbearable for eco-loonies to behold--but they cheer when any reliable fossil fuel back-up plant is torn down! This will lower overall electricity costs and reduce dependence on the reliable power that's required to back up these weather-dependent systems.

As an Ontario energy customer, this is not only bearable... it's renewed my hope in the province's energy prospects.



CubaMark said:


> Not when the right-wingers, in fits of pique and insanity, spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars _tearing down ready-to-be-switched-on_ wind power systems.
> 
> It's unbearable to watch.


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

You Progs religiously & fervently believe in the efficacy of wind & solar power, despite all scientific & economic evidence to the contrary, and the right are the insane ones?

Find a mirror...



CubaMark said:


> ...insanity....


----------



## FeXL

Shocka...

Blanchet’s Alberta-bashing based on ignorance



> “International Hydropower Association data show that Hydro-Quebec electricity is just about as dirty as hydropower gets. Why? When Hydro-Quebec dams rivers on Northern Quebec’s relatively flat terrain, it floods vast areas of forests and wetlands under shallow water.
> 
> “The amount of power Hydro-Quebec produces per acre flooded is among the lowest of any hydropower in the world. The trees, bogs and soils Hydro-Quebec floods have been storing carbon since the last Ice Age. When flooded, this stored carbon decomposes, releasing CO2 and methane. To make things worse, drowned trees are gone forever and cannot grow back to remove CO2 in the future.”
> 
> While Hydro-Quebec boasts about its emissions free electricity generation, it acknowledges that:
> 
> “*GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions generated by creating reservoirs used to produce electricity are not considered when calculating emissions or Hydro-Quebec’s carbon footprint.* As indicated in the National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in Canada, Environment Canada considers such emissions to be related to a land-use change.”


Bold mine.

Of course not.

And:



> British Columbia’s virtue-signalling politicians do the same thing in trashing Alberta’s oil and its need for pipelines to get it to global markets.
> 
> This while Vancouver is North America’s largest exporter of coal — the dirtiest fossil fuel — and B.C. is building a huge plant to liquefy natural gas (another fossil fuel) for sale to global markets, which includes a 670-km pipeline.


----------



## FeXL

Tesla solar panels have become a nightmare for some homeowners, especially for one Colorado woman whose roof went up in flames



> Some homeowners with Tesla solar panels said they had been left frustrated as they wait for the company to fixed damaged panels on their roof.
> On August 1, the roof of Briana Greer's home in Colorado caught fire as she waited for Tesla to send a crew to look at her panels. The company has yet to investigate the situation, she said.
> Greer said that Tesla didn't properly maintain the panels. Homeowners in states from Maryland to Arizona with Tesla solar panels have also found dealing with Tesla to be frustrating, and they've been forced to pay regular fees as their systems have been shut off.
> Current and former Tesla employees said that this is all related to "Project Titan," a secret program Tesla launched in the summer of 2018 to quietly change out faulty wiring on solar roofs across the country.
> Business Insider sent Tesla an extensive list of claims made by customers and current and former solar employees for this story. Tesla did not reply to repeated requests for comment via phone calls, emails, or text messages.


----------



## FeXL

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> That's 1 turbine for 119 people
> 
> that means china would require roughly:
> 
> 1,386,000,000 total population / 119 people = 11,647,058 turbines
> 
> 🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/5SKZfw2Jrp
> 
> — NEO (@ammarxghori) November 29, 2019​


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans


Wahhhh! You hate the planet!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Wahhhh! You hate the planet!


If the planet managed to throw an ice age party in the midst of a period of 7000 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration ~400 million years ago, then it'll survive the current 400+ (and anything else peoplekind can throw at it) just fine.

What I find intolerable are the bull$h!t artists spreading this garbage...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> If the planet managed to throw an ice age party in the midst of a period of 7000 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration ~400 million years ago, then it'll survive the current 400+ (and anything else peoplekind can throw at it) just fine.
> 
> What I find intolerable are the bull$h!t artists spreading this garbage...


The lives of Progressives are so empty that they imagine threats from every direction to make themselves feel important. As one threat is "defused" another takes its place. Life is intolerable an meaningless without it.


----------



## CubaMark

*The false promise of nuclear power in an age of climate change*










Advocates declare it clean, efficient, economical, and safe. In actuality it is none of these. It is expensive and poses grave dangers to our physical and psychological well-being. According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour. 

Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind. The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable energy costs are now “at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation”—that is, fossil fuels—and much lower than nuclear.

In theory these high costs and long construction times could be brought down. But we have had more than a half-century to test that theory and it appears have been solidly refuted. Unlike nearly all other technologies, the cost of nuclear power has risen over time. Even its supporters recognize that it has never been cost-competitive in a free-market environment, and its critics point out that the nuclear industry has followed a “negative learning curve.” 

Both the Nuclear Energy Agency and International Energy Agency have concluded that although nuclear power is a “proven low-carbon source of base-load electricity,” the industry will have to address serious concerns about cost, safety, and waste disposal

(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)​


----------



## Macfury

Brought to you by the anti-nuke kooks who keep flogging the "Doomsday Clock."


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Pure, unmitigated bull$h!t...

If alternative energy is that inexpensive to produce, then why does private investment fall to near zero every time tax-payer supported gov't subsidies are pulled?

Be specific.



CubaMark said:


> Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind. *The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable energy costs are now “at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation”—that is, fossil fuels*—and much lower than nuclear.


----------



## FeXL

Notice how quickly the CN issues were resolved? Curious, that...

She don’t lie, she don’t lie, she don’t lie…propane*



> Maybe when the average citizen that, in normal circumstances, neither knows nor cares at all about propane is faced with the consequences of living without it, maybe then will said citizen be able to see through the fog of fear and disinformation and realize that hey, propane comes in pretty handy when winter rolls around. Read on…


----------



## FeXL

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy



> The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.
> 
> You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.
> 
> Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.


BUT IT'S NOW CHEAPER THAN CARBON BASED ENERGY!! WAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> BUT IT'S NOW CHEAPER THAN CARBON BASED ENERGY!! WAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!


When I produce no power, I sell it for half the price of fossil fuel energy!


----------



## FeXL

No Green Deed Goes Unpunished



> (Stupid Headline) P.E.I. man wants to know why he pays HST on electricity he generates himself
> 
> Currie is part of P.E.I.’s net metering program, which allows individual homeowners to generate their own electricity, sending any excess into the grid in exchange for credits *so they don’t have to pay when they draw electricity back out of the grid* — for example, at night when solar power can’t be generated. […]
> 
> He said he spent an extra $46,000, without government assistance, to build a net-zero home. In fact, he paid HST on the solar panels and the labour to have them installed.
> 
> He did it, said Currie, partly to save on his monthly bills, but also to reduce his family’s carbon footprint.​
> So, not net zero then.


Links' bold.


----------



## CubaMark

_Funny how the pro-nuclear fission crowd continue to ignore the long-term and uncontrolled mess that is the disposal of radioactive waste..._

*Uranium-contaminated site collapses into Detroit River*

A Detroit property contaminated with uranium and other dangerous chemicals partially collapsed into the Detroit River on Nov. 26, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has confirmed.

Located next to Historic Fort Wayne and leased by Detroit Bulk Storage, the site known as the Detroit Dock allegedly collapsed under the weight of large aggregate piles that were stored at the site during Thanksgiving weekend. 

The property has been listed by the U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency as a contaminated site due to its use of uranium and other dangerous chemicals during manufacturing dating to the 1940s, according to the Windsor Star, which first reported the incident. 

Located at 5851 West Jefferson, the property formerly was a Revere Copper and Brass site. Revere Copper was subcontracted in the 1940s to build the world’s first atomic bomb and continued to make uranium rods in the 1950s.

* * *

According to a 2011 evaluation study by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the property, at that time there was a “potential ... for significant residual radiation.”

The news is especially concerning because the Detroit drinking water intake lines are nearby downriver.

Due to the timing of the collapse, the spill went unnoticed to many responsible state and federal environmental regulatory agencies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials were not aware of the collapse until contacted by the Windsor Star on Wednesday.​









(Detroit Free Press)​


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

What is the primary cause of this collapse? Whose responsibility is it?

Hint: It sure as hell ain't private enterprise. You want to point a finger? Point it at the Feds...



CubaMark said:


> Funny how the pro-nuclear fission crowd continue to ignore the long-term and uncontrolled mess that is the disposal of radioactive waste...


----------



## FeXL

Night before last we had fog which extended long after the sun came up, leaving everything covered in hoar frost.

We Don’t Need No Giant Frosted Mirrors



> I wonder how much electricity this frost covered quarter section of solar panels is generating in the fog? pic.twitter.com/CnBLQw97jx
> 
> — AlbertaGirl (@AlbertaGrl) December 6, 2019​


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> What is the primary cause of this collapse? Whose responsibility is it?
> 
> Hint: It sure as hell ain't private enterprise. You want to point a finger? Point it at the Feds...


Doesn't read 'em, just copies and pastes.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Doesn't read 'em, just copies and pastes.


I don't know. There are times when I believe that: "HA! An article that sounds like it puts atomic fuel in a bad light! Copy/paste." Other times I can't help but think he just doesn't (refuses to?) understand the issue...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> What is the primary cause of this collapse? Whose responsibility is it?
> 
> Hint: It sure as hell ain't private enterprise. You want to point a finger? Point it at the Feds...


The article indicates the site is leased to _a private company_ called Detroit Bulk Storage.


----------



## Beej

CubaMark said:


> According to a 2011 evaluation study by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the property, at that time there was a “potential ... for significant residual radiation.”


It's worth looking up the source report for this quote.


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Yeah. And?

Who _owns_ the site? No regularly scheduled inspections to ensure safe practices are being followed? A notice in 2011 (under Jug Ears!) by OSH that there was potential for issues? Where was the EPA? Chasing down Globull Warming? _Still_ on the Feds.

In addition, and in response to your initial observation (from _your_ linked article):



> Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy said in a statement Thursday: "EGLE is aware that the site was previously used to process uranium and *there is no evidence to suggest that there is a current radiological risk. EGLE has no reason to believe PCBs or other contaminants from the site are a hazard to the public or the environment.*


Bold mine.

Once again: Merely scanning the headlines for something that puts nuclear energy in a bad light?



CubaMark said:


> The article indicates the site is leased to a private company Detroit Bulk Storage


----------



## Macfury

You understand, of course, that the site was leased to them with the knowledge that it was previously contaminated. The sites are regularly monitored by government entities and the 2011 study conducted by NIOSH concluded that:



> The documents reviewed did not indicate the existence of a current, unrecognized occupational or public health threat.


Thus killing your entire narrative. You really seem to glom onto a lot of sloppy journalism because it fits your prejudices like a glove.



CubaMark said:


> The article indicates the site is leased to _a private company_ called Detroit Bulk Storage.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Thus killing your entire narrative. You really seem to glom onto a lot of sloppy journalism because it fits your prejudices like a glove.


No, actually, it doesn't. Nuclear power contains an inherent threat in the radioactive waste it produces.

That there was an alarm raised over the potential for radioactive contaminants that may have entered the waterway (and then the city's drinking water supply) is part and parcel of the threat mitigation required of an exceptionally dangerous and costly method of producing electricity.

The site has been inspected and declared safe, as has the water supply. 

But that there was potential for a public health disaster is the point. Renewables pose no such threat.


----------



## Beej

CubaMark said:


> But that there was potential for a public health disaster is the point.


What evidence do you have that there was potential for a public health disaster?


----------



## FeXL

Beej said:


> What evidence do you have that there was potential for a public health disaster?


You silly. Because it wasn't Gaia-saving renewables! Isn't that reason enough?

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> You silly. Because it wasn't Gaia-saving renewables! Isn't that reason enough?


My standards are a bit higher. 

The reporter's f**k up is so bad I'm considering writing the paper to complain. It looks like a deliberately falsified claim in order to panic the public and get clicks. At best, the reporter made a major mistake in the most critical part of the article.


----------



## Beej

If anybody wants to read the government reports, here are the ones I found for the news quote in question:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/residcont.html

There's more at the Department of Energy if anyone is interested. The potential for significant residual radiation risk ended in 1984, and in 1989 for beryllium. It would be fair to question whether the federal standards and testing practices are adequate, but it is false to claim (emphasis added):



> According to a 2011 evaluation study by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the property,* at that time *there was a “potential ... for significant residual radiation.”


The Windsor Star did a better job earlier, but also screwed up the 2011 quote (plus theirs is slightly different), which they referenced from an older Wall Street Journal article. Either news media is talking about a different facility, making major mistakes related to public safety reporting, or they just like how much more credible the threat looks when an alphabet agency can be referenced.

Fun game: find "significant residual radiation" in the documents. I couldn't. Close, but it's in quotes, so it shouldn't just be close.


----------



## CubaMark

Beej said:


> What evidence do you have that there was potential for a public health disaster?


From the article:

_According to a 2011 evaluation study by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the property, at that time there was a “potential ... for significant residual radiation.”

The news is especially concerning because the Detroit drinking water intake lines are nearby downriver._​


----------



## Macfury

So a reporter says that the incident presents great danger to Detroit drinking water.



CubaMark said:


> From the article:
> 
> _According to a 2011 evaluation study by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the property, at that time there was a “potential ... for significant residual radiation.”
> 
> The news is especially concerning because the Detroit drinking water intake lines are nearby downriver._​


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> So a reporter says that the incident presents great danger to Detroit drinking water.


But was he the _layout editor_...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> But was he the _layout editor_...


Beej pointed out that the quote used in the article was wrong, so poor, sad, tired ol' CM returns to the same article, using the same quote to back his failing claim.


----------



## FeXL

Muskrat Falls fiasco a case study in risks and follies that lurk within green energy



> The year 2020 will contain at least one totally predictable event: The beginning of the national financial unravelling of Muskrat Falls, one of the greatest energy follies in the history of the country.
> 
> The publicly announced cost figure for Newfoundland and Labrador’s Muskrat Falls green hydropower mega boondoggle is now $12.7 billion, double the original project estimate of $6.2 billion. The good news is that Nalcor, the provincial Crown corporation behind the project, says it is on track to begin delivering power — four years behind schedule — through the 1,100-kilometre power line from northern Labrador to Newfoundland in early 2020. The bad news is that there is no real market for the electricity, which means that Newfoundland taxpayers and electricity consumers are staring into a $12.7-billion financial crisis.


The cost doesn't matter. It's GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN energy!!!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Muskrat Falls fiasco a case study in risks and follies that lurk within green energy
> 
> 
> 
> The cost doesn't matter. It's GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN energy!!!


Maybe Maine will take the power off their hands and not charge too much for taking it.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Maybe Maine will take the power off their hands and not charge too much for taking it.


_Very_ noble...


----------



## FeXL

Clean B.C. is quietly using coal and gas power from out of province. Here’s why



> *British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car.*
> 
> That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.
> 
> “We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.”
> 
> Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C.


Bold mine.

Apparently a lot of British Columbians are ignorant idiots...


----------



## FeXL

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors



> Tesla Is Hiding Its “Solar Test House” With Even More Tents To Prevent “Prying Eyes”
> 
> Meanwhile, *it has now been more than three years since October 2016, when Musk first “revealed” the tiles* in an event that many skeptics say was purely for show and to move Tesla’s bailout merger of SolarCity along. A solar panel expert recently debunked Tesla’s 2016 presentation in a podcast and explained why he used it as the basis for forming his skeptical opinion on the company.
> 
> Musk has yet to disclose how many people have paid $100 to pre-order the Solarglass Roof, despite touting the company’s pre-order numbers for its Cybertruck. *Is it possible that both products still don’t exist, we wonder?*​
> Related: _Tesla, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Glencore did not immediately respond for comment._


Links' bold.

Not only possible, but extremely likely...


----------



## FeXL

Green Energy Firm That Says It’s Saved Local Governments Billions Leaves Trail Of Questions



> More than 1,000 local school systems have hired Cenergistic, a green company that says it will reduce their power bill in exchange for a large cut of the savings.
> The company says it has saved local governments and schools $5.5 billion, but local officials have repeatedly questioned its numbers, saying it refuses to explain how they’re calculated.
> Cenergistic is linked to Enron, has quietly put school officials on its payroll to help it get contracts, and is known for quickly ramming through large contracts with no competition.
> Fairfax County, Virginia’s former schools auditor said that when a whistleblower brought her evidence that implicated Cenergistic as well as top school officials, both the whistleblower and the auditor were fired by those same officials.


----------



## FeXL

And taxpayers are on the hook for loan guarantees.

A $1 Billion Solar Plant Was Obsolete Before It Ever Went Online



> In 2011 the $1 billion project was to be the biggest solar plant of its kind, and it looked like the future of renewable power. Citigroup Inc. and other financiers invested $140 million with its developer, SolarReserve Inc. Steven Chu, the U.S. Department of Energy secretary at the time, offered the company government loan guarantees, and Harry Reid, then the Senate majority leader and senior senator from Nevada, cleared the way for the company to build on public land.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> And taxpayers are on the hook for loan guarantees.
> 
> A $1 Billion Solar Plant Was Obsolete Before It Ever Went Online


The article tries to spin this case as a positive!


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs when the left eats its own.

Progressive Eco-Group Admits It: Renewable Energy is a Hoax that Benefits its Greenie Elmer Gantries like Al Gore



> Independent physicist John Droz, Jr. alerted me to the website of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), an international environmental organization that calls for the total destruction of what it refers to as the “global industrial economy,” a.k.a. capitalism. Given the group’s hard-left credentials, its call for dismantling capitalism throughout the world is not surprising.
> 
> What is surprising is that in an unusual show of progressive candor, Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledges what skeptical scientists have been saying for more than two decades: that renewable energy is a government-backed hoax that enriches big corporations -- and green energy investors like Al Gore -- at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.


More:



> The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materials that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels. And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian communities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.
> 
> From beginning to end, so called “renewable energy” and other “green technologies” lead to the destruction of the planet.​


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read, especially further down when he quotes from the hemp battery article on charging times & capacity.

DIY Supercapacitor Using Kitchen Materials



> Robert Murray-Smith makes lots of different batteries so if you are interested in batteries, exploring his videos is enlightening.
> 
> In this one, he makes a supercapacitor. It is hard to follow the audio as the sound is low, but hang in there. It starts with “chalk talk” then moves to the lab. He starts with using a zeolite as a super electrolyte, (clay paste) then moves to seaweed (think sushi nori from the Asian grocer), then ends with a home made emulsion of sugar, salt, water in oil with a drop of emulsifying agent. Dish soap in this case. But I can’t help thinking that sounds a lot like cake frosting…. mostly fat with some salty sugar water emulsified into it. Vanilla anyone? Or a bit of egg yolk as emulsifier.


----------



## FeXL

Progs won't allow this.

Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?



> Billionaires and leading researchers in the United States are developing next-generation nuclear reactors that are small, reputedly safe and suitable to modern power grids. They could be part of the climate change solution.


More:



> The core of the reactor will be almost entirely filled with nuclear waste, which is a great way of disposing of it. Furthermore, the reactor should be able to operate for 60 years without refueling. Indeed, the spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants in the United States alone would be sufficient to cover the entire world's energy needs for centuries to come.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Progs won't allow this.
> 
> Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?
> 
> More:


Given the reality of the huge quantities of spent fuel rods, if this can be proven safe in real world testing, then it is definitely worth pursuing. To date there is no safe way to store or destroy them. OTOH given that CAGWA is an outright scam, pursuing this for reasons of climate political correctness is absolutely obscene. Nor am I thrilled at further lining Bill Gates' vaults, not even with depleted uranium.

I would strongly suggest rigorous testing be done on production models and that these tests be located near government buildings in Washington DC and Ottawa ON, and of course Wall Street in NYC. That way should they fail catastrophically at least no one and no thing of value will have been damaged or destroyed.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: An Interesting Thing Happened In Alberta Over This Very Cold Week



> Lance Neilson (Facebook);
> 
> Starting with the NDP, and continuing under the UCP, coal fired power generation is being converted to natural gas. The coal mining operation next to the power plants are down to skeleton crews. Battle River power generation station is who I am going to talk about specifically.
> 
> Battle River and Sheerness are on the same natural gas pipeline. When something happens to the supply of natural gas both power generation stations go down. For example a compressor on the line going down in the -47 weather takes out both power plants. During last week Battle River received a call from the pipeline operator saying that they had to curtail the amount of natural gas in the pipeline. It is -47. The coal mining equipment has not been running. The coal handling facility at the power plant is all froze down. The electric dragline for uncovering coal cannot be started. Remember last week when level 1 and 2 emergencies were issued for the power grid? This is why. We have now made our power grid far more vulnerable to faults. Whereas coal fired, from coal mined next door at each plant, takes away that risk.
> 
> Wind and solar were non existent when we needed them most. We needed coal and it has been shuttered to the point were we couldn’t get it running quickly or at full capacity. This was only one week of a cold snap. We have made our lives far more vulnerable.
> 
> […]
> 
> Addition #2: last week the cost of electricity was $900-$1000/mwh. The cost to the Alberta consumer was around $35. The spread of around $950/mwh was paid for from Tax dollars. I’m guessing here, but I think last week cost us over a half a billion dollars. That was added to the deficit. We have the capacity to produce the power, and up to 2016 we did. Our hands are tied with the large emitters carbon tax, so we can’t ramp up production when needed. Alberta pays. Montana benefits and makes a fortune off us.​
> All as the obscenity that is the massive wind farm at Pincher Creek continues to grow. This is how conservative governments fail, Mr. Kenney.


Comments very salient.


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Y2Kyoto: An Interesting Thing Happened In Alberta Over This Very Cold Week


For those interested in data, a link to 2006-17 emergency event data. About 60 such events in 12 years.

https://www.aeso.ca/market/market-a...orical-energy-emergency-alert-eea-event-data/


----------



## Macfury

Beej said:


> For those interested in data, a link to 2006-17 emergency event data. About 60 such events in 12 years.
> 
> https://www.aeso.ca/market/market-a...orical-energy-emergency-alert-eea-event-data/


So essentially, overlapping coal?


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> So essentially, overlapping coal?


Yes, but I agree with the principle that diversity can be a strength when it comes to power generation. beejacon

Power grids can be run reliably with only gas, or coal, or hydro, but you can't just switch from coal to natural gas without affecting reliability, unless there's a lot of redundancy in the gas grid. With that redundancy you could probably beat coal reliability with just gas.


----------



## Macfury

Beej said:


> Yes, but I agree with the principle that diversity can be a strength when it comes to power generation. beejacon
> 
> Power grids can be run reliably with only gas, or coal, or hydro, but you can't just switch from coal to natural gas without affecting reliability, unless there's a lot of redundancy in the gas grid. With that redundancy you could probably beat coal reliability with just gas.


The calculation would essentially involve the length of time people and businesses are without power using just natural gas, against a billion dollar back-up gas plant.


----------



## Beej

Macfury said:


> The calculation would essentially involve the length of time people and businesses are without power using just natural gas, against a billion dollar back-up gas plant.


Or back-up pipeline/gas storage in this case, assuming the original facebook poster got their facts correct on the power plant outages.

If you like technical rabbit holes, you could look for the following terms to learn how these things are measured/estimated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_lost_load
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ri/Pages/ReliabilityIndicators.aspx

Engineers and economists in an unholy alliance. It's an exciting field of research!


----------



## FeXL

Beej said:


> Power grids can be run reliably with only gas, or coal, or hydro...


Heretic!!!


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Heretic!!!


I am a heretic, but in this case I should clarify: I didn't mean that list to be exhaustive, just the three most common "sole source" options for North Americans. For example, France and Ontario have some nuclear plants that can ramp their output up and down, so that's a sole source option, I think. Oil and refined products also work well. Except for nuclear, the options store energy before it's transformed into electricity (e.g. an oil tank).

Most of the other options have trouble scaling up, or require batteries, or both.


----------



## FeXL

Priceless: Scots Forced to Pay Wind Farms £650,000,000 To NOT Generate Power



> There is only one reason that we’re still talking about wind power, at all: endless subsidies.
> 
> One of which takes the form of “constraint payments”, by which taxpayers and/or power consumers are forced to literally pay wind power outfits to not produce electricity. [Note to Ed: getting paid for doing nothing is good work if you can get it!]
> 
> In Scotland, which has been overrun by these things in the last decade, power consumers are (unwittingly) being slugged for tens of £millions each year.


----------



## FeXL

If 14,000,000 tress had been levelled for oil wells, the Progs would be having paroxyisms...

More than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development, 2000–2019



> Thus , excluding wind farms on privately owned woodlands, we end up with figures
> 
> *6994 hectares were felled
> 13.9 million trees were felled.*
> 
> I suggest another FOI request be made for windfarms on peat bogs, especially in the Flow Country.
> 
> Now this is just Scotland.
> 
> It would be interesting to get the figures for England and [Wales] on how many trees have felled, hectares of farmland lost, and hectares of moorland and peatbog affected.
> 
> This raises some serious questions with the encouragement from all quarters at present to plant millions of trees, whether from Green Groups, the Government or even Scottish golf Course owners like a certain Mr Trump.
> 
> There is something very concerning about this and it is scarcely very green!


Links' bold.

BTW, 6996 hectares is over 17,000 acres. 27 sections of land...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> If 14,000,000 tress had been levelled for oil wells, the Progs would be having paroxyisms...
> 
> More than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development, 2000–2019
> 
> 
> 
> Links' bold.
> 
> BTW, 6996 hectares is over 17,000 acres. 27 sections of land...



Expect far more than that for 5G roll out. Turns out trees block the signals!


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> Expect far more than that for 5G roll out. Turns out trees block the signals!


Ya won't hear a peep from the Watermelons...


----------



## FeXL

Further on pi$$ing away billions of taxpayer $$$.

Another Federally-Backed Solar Energy Project Just Went Belly-Up



> Looks like another federally backed solar energy plant has gone bust. Bloomberg News reports, “A $1 Billion Solar Plant Was Obsolete Before It Ever Went Online.”
> 
> ...
> 
> It all reminds me of another giant taxpayer‐​funded failure of the Obama administration’s green‐​energy enthusiasm, Solyndra. Visiting the Solyndra solar‐​panel factory in Fremont, California, in May 2010, President Obama declared, “The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.” But despite $535 million in federal loan guarantees, Solyndra declared bankruptcy 16 months later.


----------



## FeXL

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> *Germany, the poster child for renewable energy, sourcing close to half of its electricity from renewable sources, plans to close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. Its coal-fired plants, meanwhile, will be operating until 2038.* According to a study from the U.S. non-profit National Bureau of Economic Research, Germany is paying dearly for this nuclear phase-out–with human lives.​
> The deaths attributed to “pollution from coal power generation” are also agenda-driven statistical extrapolation bull****.


Bold mine.

Explain the logic behind that... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Politicized, ignorant energy analysis infiltrates some surprising media channels – unchecked it will wipe us all out before climate change has a chance



> Where the author, Ms. Fischer, goes right off the rails is in attacking the capacity market payments that reward potential rather than actual use. That is, *she thinks paying fossil fuel electricity providers anything at all to operate in standby mode is a subsidy.* She has the point spectacularly backwards, like a child mistakes a credit card as a fountain of all material goods. Those capacity market payments are the only thing that makes renewable energy feasible at all. With no incentive payments to operate on standby, there is no power when needed. Ask Australia, who found that out the hard way that an overreliance on renewables can lead to a mass power outage that “brought Sydney traffic to its knees” and did not amuse people at all.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Solyndra's a piker...

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors



> Via WUWT – Crescent Dunes, the world largest concentrated solar power plant featuring 10 hours of molten salt thermal energy storage, just went bust.
> 
> The Department of Energy called the vast and expensive solar project a “success story” and “milestone for the country’s energy future.”
> 
> But you can’t trust what the government says. *Crescent Dunes is a flop and taxpayers are set to lose $737 million on it*, according to a new Bloomberg report. That is even more than the $535 million taxpayers lost on the corruption‐​soaked Solyndra solar project.
> 
> With 10,000 mirrors arrayed in the Nevada desert, Crescent Dunes does look cool. But with the much lower costs of solar photovoltaic and natural gas projects, the government’s gamble on this alternative technology was folly. Politicians never apologize for their mistakes, and the main politician responsible for this one, former Senator Harry Reid, has retired and won’t face any tough questions about wasting our money.​


Bold mine.

Nice!!!

How many billions of lost taxpayer $$$ on pie-in-the-sky alternative energy fiascos does that make now?

Imagine how many _refugees_ that money could have looked after, Bigot.

First comment:



> Yep; the truth will always be simple.
> 
> There is more energy available from a handful of U-235, than from a square mile of solar.
> There is more energy available from a truckload of coal, than a square mile of windmills.
> There is more energy available from Hoover Dam, than from the solar or wind energy from the entire area of any state.
> 
> Cheap. Reliable. Plentiful. All three, you are golden. Any one of those under attack, take up arms to protect it.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Solyndra's a piker...
> 
> We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors


What will 75,000 homes do, now that they have no power for three hours per day on an intermittent basis? :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> What will 75,000 homes do, now that they have no power for three hours per day on an intermittent basis? :lmao:


Batteries! Batteries, I'm tellin' ya!!!


----------



## FeXL

Curious this didn't show up on The Bigot's bird chopper feed:

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans

From the comments:



> AC
> February 6, 2020 at 3:27 pm
> 
> *The unspoken irony is that they are using fossil fuel powered heavy equipment to bury those blades just as they did to dig, pour,transport and erect these things.*
> These people are truly phucked.
> Reply
> 
> Y. Knott
> February 6, 2020 at 3:58 pm
> 
> The other irony that you can find in the original article is that a number of the blades you see here are from Warren Buffet’s windmills.
> 
> That he’s scrapping-out so as to put-up bigger ones.
> 
> They’re ten years old.
> 
> Didn’t the wind-turbine SWJerks promise us these were good for twenty-five years? What’s doubly funny ( – if any of this is – ) is that these things don’t produce enough electricity in twenty-five years to pay for their replacement. So cutting them up after ten years? I mean, Warren Buffett is doing this, and he’s pretty shrewd around a dollar bill – the subsidies he’s getting to cut them up after producing two-fifths of their projected electricity, and therefore not even two-fifths of their projected replacement cost, must be eye-watering!
> 
> And all we get to do is pay.​


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

*~v Becauth ith's 2015!!!*

Hey, Climate Bimbetta: You can shove yer solar project where the sun don't shine...

Teck Tell



> Travers Solar project in Alberta will be largest solar farm in 🇨🇦.
> 
> It will generate enough energy to power more than 100,000 homes, create 500 jobs during construction, create revenue stream for landowners & provide substantial annual municipal taxes. #economy #environment https://t.co/D3mdNKkSGC
> 
> — Catherine McKenna (@cathmckenna) February 9, 2020​
> Uh huh.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hey, Climate Bimbetta: You can shove yer solar project where the sun don't shine...
> 
> Teck Tell


Seems like it's all private money, so no complaints from me until I hear otherwise.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Seems like it's all private money, so no complaints from me until I hear otherwise.


This, for a starter:

So, you want an all-renewable power grid? Think twice



> An electrical grid has a massive task: to balance a continuous and near perfect synchronicity between power supplies and load on the grid. Neither is static, particularly in a world moving to wind and solar. It used to be that demand was variable and supply was constant (or controllable), but when both variables can fluctuate wildly there can be chaos. And in the world of electricity, chaos means “you get none”.
> 
> Two examples bring the point home clearly. I’ve mentioned these before briefly in recent posts; here are the more robust stories.
> 
> The UK suffered a widespread power outage on August 9 of last year. Though the power outage was only 90 minutes long, chaos erupted for more than seven hours – trains ground to a halt with no lights, air conditioning, or bathroom facilities, and passengers were stranded on them for many hours past the power outage itself. Traffic lights went on holiday, causing massive traffic jams and much of the country was paralyzed for the better part of a day. Thousands of irate citizens demanded answers, and the grid regulator stepped in to apologize profusely and, in a fit of political correctness, made sure to point out that neither a cyberattack nor unreliable wind power was to blame. As is often the case with guilty parties, the subconscious dragging of wind power into the equation was an indicator that it was indeed a factor. But it is political suicide to say so, and the regulator danced around the topic in typically British understated fashion.


More:



> Loosely translated, the UK electrical system has lost resiliency, or the ability to deal with sudden drop-outs in power supply such as from a lightning strike or industrial incident, because renewables can’t be counted on to fill the gap.


Further:



> Next time you hear some energy missionary talk about how we can go to an all renewable power system “because it’s so cheap now”, send them links to the UK and Australian reports, and if possible shut their power off for the rest of the day. Sometimes people have to live it to learn it.


The more of this crap we introduce into our power grid (taxpayer funded, subsidized or not), the weaker it becomes.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> This, for a starter:
> 
> So, you want an all-renewable power grid? Think twice
> 
> The more of this crap we introduce into our power grid (taxpayer funded, subsidized or not), the weaker it becomes.


i'm still OK with them selling into the grid when power is wanted.


----------



## FeXL

But the wind is free! FREE, I tells ya!!!

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans



> Manhattan Institute;
> 
> When electricity comes from wind or solar machines, every unit of energy produced, or mile traveled, requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. That physical reality is literally visible: A wind or solar farm stretching to the horizon can be replaced by a handful of gas-fired turbines, each no bigger than a tractor-trailer.
> 
> *Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals.* Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.​


Bold mine.

FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!:love2::love2::love2:

And, don't worry about all those rare-earth minerals. There's tons of third-world kids just itchin' fer a job!!! :clap:


----------



## FeXL

You’re crazy if you support hydrocarbons, and you’re crazier if you don’t – welcome to the world’s largest nest of Catch-22s



> Opponents of hydrocarbons live with yet another personal Catch-22 daily; they, to a man/woman/child/LGBTQ+/- cannot live without them, yet they demand that we quit producing hydrocarbons. That is, in plain language, they demand that we quit providing the fuel that keeps them alive. They choose short-term annihilation of the population to prevent a theoretical annihilation if the worst-case scenario of climate change does occur. But wait, some roll their eyes and say they don’t demand an immediate transition, they know it will take time. But then those same people joyfully retweet how fast the “divest fossil fuel investments” movement is becoming, or celebrate life-threatening lawsuits against petroleum companies, and they celebrate when teenagers take to the streets to demand immediate action, and they watch silently without protest as the world is urged to “panic” by their new messiah. They support by silent default immediate action and panic, and cheer its success, while at the same time declare that a transition needs time.


Frankly, I think Alberta should turn off the out of province taps for one month. Say, in January.

Let's see if that would change Gang Green's tune...


----------



## FeXL

From “more solar” to “stop with the solar” in 5 short years – how climate activism’s inner political demon is destroying environmental progress



> Trojan-horse anarchists and political activists have hijacked the environmental movement, and are using it as a tool to achieve their goals of…whatever it is that folks that want to overthrow capitalism want. It’s hard to comprehend what they want; markets have been resoundingly proven to work best. Even the likes of Elizabeth Warren say so, and she’s a far cry from a poster child for capitalism.
> 
> Now, we have the problem where eco-anarchists have taken control of economic development agendas, including a relentless focus on solar/wind installations here there and everywhere, long before the power grid is ready for them. We know where this is heading; the formidable economists of the former Soviet Union showed us in spectacularly descending fashion what poorly designed government policy can do to an economic system. And that’s if we’re lucky. At least we’d have a government in control.


----------



## FeXL

Curious that this never comes up in the pro-alternative energy narrative...

The Collapse of Intellectual Standards in Science



> *Each year approximately $25 billion dollars is wasted paying for so-called renewable energy, overwhelmingly wind and solar. This is the excess cost of the renewable energy versus what it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity in existing fossil fuel plants.* Because many states have accelerating legal quotas for renewable energy, called renewable portfolio laws, the money wasted each year will approximately double in the next 10-years to $50 billion each year. If the states fail to come to their senses and continue to pursue these laws, another doubling by 2040 to $100 billion per year is likely. In the state of Nevada, for example, the increasing cost of electricity will likely be equivalent to a 4% state income tax by 2030.
> 
> The renewable energy industry has powerful sources of support for its program to make money by fooling the public. There are many effective lies, repeated over and over. Long term contracts for wind or solar electricity at $25 or $30 per megawatt hour are touted as proving that renewable electricity is replacing “more expensive” fossil fuel electricity. *A close examination of the cost of renewable electricity, either wind or solar, shows that the real cost of this electricity is not $25 per megawatt hour, but around $80 per megawatt hour. The difference is the federal and state subsidies.* A good chunk of those federal subsidies are set to go away by 2022.


Bold mine.

But, but, but...PARITY!!!


----------



## FeXL

I don't agree with the opening statement. That said...

Andrew Cuomo’s bid to ram industrial wind, solar plants down locals’ throats



> The governor’s proposal will prohibit any town from requiring developers to obtain any approvals or meet any locally imposed conditions for development, operation and eventual decommissioning. Conceivably, with the blessing of the state, a wind developer could build a 650-foot tall wind turbine next to an elementary school and, at the end of that turbine’s life, simply walk away and force the locals to clean up the mess.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> I don't agree with the opening statement. That said...
> 
> Andrew Cuomo’s bid to ram industrial wind, solar plants down locals’ throats


This could even be a bigger deal. Many solar promoters build these things with borrowed money, and to say the least are haphazard about repaying the actual loan. Leaving the landowner host stuck with a lien on their property until the loan is paid off.


----------



## FeXL

From, of all people...

New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables



> Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.
> 
> But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments.
> 
> *“Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”*


Bold mine.

Well, at least he's honest about his ignorance. Perhaps there's hope for The Bigot...

Related:

Michael Moore Admits He Had No Idea Where the Juice to Power Electric Cars Came From



> Michael Moore is out with a new film the media will hype but most Americans will never see. This speaks well of the latter and poorly of the former.
> 
> In a Reuters story promoting Moore's latest, he admits:
> 
> Moore said that he, like many people, thought electric cars were a good idea, “but I didn’t really think about where is the electricity coming from?”​
> That's awesome. Moore has been going around for decades promoting politicians and policies that would basically wreck the economy. He wanted a coronavirus-level economic tsunami before we'd ever heard of Wuhan and its bats.
> 
> But he had no idea what he was talking about.


----------



## FeXL

Related to my post above.

Curious, that. He's their hero until he produces a documentary that's finally got empirical evidence in it & blows their narrative clean out of the water.

Left-Wing Activists Are Trying to Cancel Michael Moore



> Left-wing activists have turned on documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, furious that the anti-renewables documentary Planet of the Humans which he executive produced has betrayed their cause and giving an easy win to their enemy President Donald Trump.
> 
> *One of the film’s distributors — Films For Action — has withdrawn its support and demanded a retraction and apology from Moore, in response to an open letter from the left-wing documentary maker Josh Fox.*


Bold mine.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

So they haven't even been paying rent on the land they're operating on? In effect, yet one more subsidy?

Trump administration slaps solar, wind operators with massive retroactive rent bills



> The Trump administration has ended a two-year rent holiday for solar and wind projects operating on federal lands, handing them whopping retroactive bills at a time the industry is struggling with the fallout of the coronavirus outbreak, according to company officials.
> 
> The move represents a multi-million-dollar hit to an industry that has already seen installation projects cancelled or delayed by the global health crisis, which has cut investment and dimmed the demand outlook for power.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Related to my post above.
> 
> Curious, that. He's their hero until he produces a documentary that's finally got empirical evidence in it & blows their narrative clean out of the water.


Moore is being roasted precisely because the 'empirical evidence' in this documentary is at least a decade out of date. The filmmakers - not Moore - had a film with a similar title already in the can several years ago, and with Moore's backing shot more material to fill out a feature-length film.

If you think this film is an accurate accounting of contemporary renewable energy technologies, well... your ideological blinders are operating as usual....


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Quoth the guy with..wait for it...ideological blinders on!!!

Haven't watched the film. I'm just celebrating the Prog's response to it. It's gotta be good considering their (your) reaction. :clap::clap::clap:

BTW, nothing has changed re: alternative energy in the last decade. It's still over-priced, over-subsidized, still not available when you need it (and consequently requires expensive storage systems to run 24/7/365), still requires rare earth minerals mined by children and is still nowhere near green. I could go on but I'll keep the list relatively short.



CubaMark said:


> If you think this film is an accurate accounting of contemporary renewable energy technologies, well... your ideological blinders are operating as usual....


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> Quoth the guy with..wait for it...ideological blinders on!!!
> 
> Haven't watched the film. I'm just celebrating the Prog's response to it. It's gotta be good considering their (your) reaction. :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> BTW, nothing has changed re: alternative energy in the last decade. It's still over-priced, over-subsidized, still not available when you need it (and consequently requires expensive storage systems to run 24/7/365), still requires rare earth minerals mined by children and is still nowhere near green. I could go on but I'll keep the list relatively short.


Good old CM was a big, big fan until Moore disagreed with the tenets of his Gaia worship:



CubaMark said:


> I managed to wade through the crowds and see "Fahrenheit 9/11" tonight... the show is sold out days in advance, so a friend was kind enough to pick up a ticket for me on the weekend.
> 
> It's very good. Not as hard-hitting or in-your-face as "Columbine." A little more subtle (for Moore, that is) and it definitely does leave the audience in a very foul mood.
> 
> There were tears, cheers and jeers throughout.
> 
> No surprises for me, however, since I'm pretty much plugged into the issues Moore covers. Still, very effective to see it on the big screen, and it will be a huge shock to those Americans who decide to see it, particularly if they're not terribly political.
> 
> Interestingly, sitting beside me were a senior couple who spent most of the movie cursing Bush whenever he appeared on screen. Should've asked 'em if they were Yanks on vacation, or just enlightened Canucks!
> 
> One nice aspect of the film - an excellent choice of music for the various bits. Hilarious, in fact.
> 
> It is a must-see film, regardless of your placement on the political spectrum.
> 
> M.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Good old CM was a big, big fan until Moore disagreed with the tenets of his Gaia worship:


Curious, that.

I also find his fallback position hilarious: "Wull, the data is 10 years old! It's much better nooooow..."


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Curious, that.
> 
> I also find his fallback position hilarious: "Wull, the data is 10 years old! It's much better nooooow..."


CM was lovin' it 10 years ago when the data was as bad as he now admits. He moves his goal posts so often, they're mounted on the back of a pickup truck.


----------



## FeXL

Gemini Solar: A Billion-Dollar Vegas Boondoggle



> On May 11, the Interior Department approved Gemini Solar, the largest solar power project in U.S. history. It is to be built by Arevia Power, a California-based energy group, with backing from Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Nevada’s energy utility NV Energy, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, which will be the customer for the project’s electricity. Gemini Solar will sit on 7,100 acres of public land, the size of 5,369 football fields, in the Mohave Desert, about 30 miles northeast of Las Vegas.


More:



> Studies in Europe show that the cost of renewable energy such as solar raises electricity costs for consumer so much that, for every job created in the renewables industry, two to three are lost in the rest of the economy. So much for DOI’s Casey Hammond’s statement that, “This action is about getting Americans back to work, strengthening communities and promoting investment in American energy.”


Further:



> The government tells us that a massive 380-megawatt lithium ion battery backup will be included to replace the power the solar plant is not able to generate at night. These batteries supposedly generate no greenhouse gases. *Yet, even the left-leaning Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) pointed out that “Mining and processing the minerals, plus the battery manufacturing process, involve substantial emissions of carbon.”*


Bold mine.

When you've lost MotherCorpse...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Gemini Solar: A Billion-Dollar Vegas Boondoggle


Put unemployed progs on stationary bicycles with generators and have them pedal until they can power their own homes. Will create a lot of green jobs.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Put unemployed progs on stationary bicycles with generators and have them pedal until they can power their own homes. Will create a lot of green jobs.


Yep. Figger if they pedal all day, they'll have enough electricity so they won't have to take a crap in the dark.


----------



## FeXL

Green Electricity Delusions



> Green electricity is quite useless. The latest trend in green electricity is wind or solar with battery backup. *This green electricity costs about nine times more than the fossil fuel electricity it displaces.* The true cost is hidden from the public by hidden subsidies and fake accounting.


Bold mine.

Wait! Wha...???

But I've been assured by the best Prog sociologist out there that parity had been achieved!

Shocka...

More:



> Natural-gas plants have a fuel cost of about $15 per megawatt hour. Wind or solar with battery backup costs about $130 per megawatt hour. For grid stability reasons new wind and solar plants are being equipped with battery storage, greatly increasing the cost. Without the battery backup wind or solar electricity costs around $75 per megawatt hour. *To be clear, the electricity supplied by wind or solar at $75 to $130 per megawatt hour (not counting subsidies) could be generated in existing fossil fuel plants for $15 per megawatt hour.*


Bold mine.

Further:



> Why the various states and the federal government continue to pursue, mandate, and subsidize green electricity *is a mystery best explained by psychiatrists* and students of propaganda.


Bold mine.

No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Finally! Alternative energy I can get behind.

Alberta studies nuclear power again — this time, it's small modular reactors



> On Friday, Premier Jason Kenney signalled the province will sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to join three other provinces to support the development of small modular reactors.
> 
> Known as SMRs, these reactors would cost less to build than larger-scale plants. They could eventually be used to power remote communities, as well as provide steam for oilsands developments, instead of burning natural gas, according to the province.
> 
> “They are small and can be mass-produced, which means that we can dramatically bring down the cost with mass production,” said John Gorman, CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association.


Caution: Link to the Grope & Flail.

Alberta to join other provinces in exploring small nuclear technology



> The Alberta government says it plans to join three other provinces in exploring small-scale nuclear technology.
> 
> New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Ontario signed a memorandum of understanding in December regarding development of small modular reactors.
> 
> Alberta says in a news release that it will also enter into the agreement to help diversify its energy sector.


Alberta to explore small-scale nuclear tech



> “*Our government is exploring all opportunities that could help diversify our economy* and create jobs for Albertans,” says Jason Kenney in a release. “We are building on our track record of responsible and innovative energy production by exploring the potential for small modular reactors, which have the potential to generate reliable and affordable energy, while also strengthening our traditional resource sectors and reducing emissions. We are excited to collaborate with our provincial partners to stay ahead of the game in the development of this promising technology.”


Bold mine.

Wait for the hue & cry from the left. They want us to diversify our economy, yet nuclear _ist verboten_...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Finally! Alternative energy I can get behind.
> 
> Alberta studies nuclear power again — this time, it's small modular reactors
> 
> Caution: Link to the Grope & Flail.
> 
> Alberta to join other provinces in exploring small nuclear technology
> 
> Alberta to explore small-scale nuclear tech
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> Wait for the hue & cry from the left. They want us to diversify our economy, yet nuclear _ist verboten_...


I can recall more than 50 years ago doc Rowland telling a Physics 101 class that the problem of nuclear waste would be easily resolved. Has not happened yet.

However if we are talking Thorium reactors using something other than Flouride salts as a cooling medium, I could really get behind this.


----------



## FeXL

California’s Blackouts Display The Results Of Kamala Harris’s Favored Energy Policy



> It’s hot out West and California’s electricity grid is under tremendous strain. The state’s first intentional rolling blackouts since its 2001 energy crisis hit on Friday. Tuesday’s forecast electricity demand is likely to exceed the record reached in 2006. Also, if it weren’t for substantial imports of electricity from coal- and gas-fired power plants in other Western states, it would be far worse.
> 
> California’s energy travails come at an embarrassing time for the Democratic national presidential ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and California Sen. Kamala Harris.


----------



## FeXL

MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Trump Base: White Guys Without College Degrees, Enough Cash to Buy a Boat



> Not unlike disgraced ex-FBI official Peter Strzok, who said he could "smell the Trump support" at a Southern Virginia Walmart, MSNBC's Chris Hayes let his left-wing Ivy League arrogance show by describing the Trump political base as "white men without a four-year degree" and just enough extra income "to buy a boat."


Let's jump right to the punchline:



> *Hayes apparently is not familiar with the history of the Democrat Party, slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK, Jim Crow and segregation.*


Yeah, bold mine...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Gang Green

California’s Electric Grid Is Near Collapse



> Michael Shellenberger, best-selling author of “Apocalypse Never,” Tweeted: “California’s bet on renewables, & its shunning of natural gas & nuclear, is directly responsible for the state’s blackouts and high electricity prices,” and warned about the Biden-Harris plan.
> 
> California’s bet on renewables, & its shunning of natural gas & nuclear, is directly responsible for the state’s blackouts and high electricity prices.
> 
> The Biden-Harris plan is even more aggressive. “There is no [US] state right now [as] ambitious”https://t.co/skblJYHcyU
> 
> — Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) August 18, 2020​
> Watts provided a chart showing California’s growing power outages between 2008 and 2017:


Hell, nothing a coupla trillion p!$$sed away on battery banks can't fix!

From the comments:



> ...
> Besides, blackouts result in a lot of folks and businesses running generators as backup power and they pollute more than a large NG plant.
> 
> And-It’s been well known for a while that the increasing demand from charging EVs would put significant stress the CA Grid.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on Gang Green
> 
> California’s Electric Grid Is Near Collapse
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, nothing a coupla trillion p!$$sed away on battery banks can't fix!
> 
> From the comments:


CM's green paradise is already here on Earth!


----------



## FeXL

Progs'll hate it...

A nuclear battery that never needs charging?



> A California company, NDB (which stands for nuclear diamond battery), is developing a nuclear battery using waste products from nuclear power plants that will never need charging and will be able to replace almost any ordinary battery, from those used in computers and smart phones to AA and AAA batteries.
> 
> ...
> 
> The company says it has already built a proof-of-concept, and will begin building commercial prototypes as soon as it can reopen (they were shuttered by the Wuhan flu panic).


----------



## FeXL

Caution, Progs: Empirical data & math enclosed. Your head will explode. You've been warned.

Not news to anyone paying attention:

There’s no such thing as clean energy



> *All good environmentalists detest renewables and are appalled at the money wasted on the industrial renewables corporations.*
> 
> All the rest are unwitting marketing agents who provide free advertising for banks and multinational conglomerate profits. In the process they hurt the poor and scorch the Earth.
> 
> In short: The world spent $3.6 trillion dollars over eight years, mostly trying to change the weather. Only a pitiful 5% of this was spent trying to adapt to the inevitable bad weather which is coming one way or another. Both solar and wind power are perversely useless at reducing CO2, which is their only reason for existing in large otherwise efficient grids. Wind farms raise the temperature of the local area around them which causes more CO2 to be released from the soil. Solar and wind farms waste 100 times the wilderness land area compared to fossil fuels, and need ten times as many minerals mined from the earth. Biomass razes forests, but protects underground coal deposits.
> 
> The role of large wind and solar power in national grids is to produce redundant surges of electricity at random or low-need times. They are surplus infrastructure designed in a religious quest to generate nicer weather. They always make electricity more expensive because the minor fuel savings are vastly overrun by the extra costs of misusing and abusing perfectly good infrastructure, which has to be there to provide baseload and backup, and yet is forced to run on and off, sitting around consuming capital, investments, labor and maintenance. It is simply impossible to imagine a situation where unreliable generators have some productive purpose on major grids other than to generate profits for shareholders or their mostly Chinese manufacturers.
> 
> _Despite the extortionate, futile mountain-of-money paid to wind and solar parasites, they produced a pitiful 3% of all the energy needed on Earth, while fossil fuels produced 85%._
> 
> Everyone who loves renewables should be asking themselves how much they hate the poor.


Links' bold, my italics.


----------



## CubaMark

_Some promising new battery technologies..._

*Why Vanadium Flow Batteries May Be The Future Of Utility-Scale Energy Storage*

Vanadium is an element that can commonly exist in four different oxidation states. That just means that it can exist as an ion with different charges. For example, a vanadium ion that is missing three electrons would have a charge of V3+. If you add an electron to it, it converts to a V2+ ion. This transfer of electrons back and forth is what makes VFBs charge and discharge, as the vanadium ions in the battery swing from V2+ to V5+.

This differs from lithium-ion batteries in that every time lithium charges and discharges it is plating and deplating lithium metal on the cathode. Although this reaction is almost completely reversible, it will lead to degradation after a few thousand cycles and performance will decrease.

A VFB consists of two tanks of electrolyte dissolved in water and separated by a proton exchange membrane. Both electrolytes are vanadium-based. As the batteries are charged and discharged, vanadium ions are simply moved between oxidation states. According to Matt, this can be done tens of thousands of times over a time period measured in decades, with no degradation in the ability of the vanadium solutions to hold charge.

They estimate that every 10-20 years, the membrane that the ionic species crosses over will require a replacement. Again, this is unlike a lithium-ion battery where the entire battery would need to be replaced. They compared this to maintenance on a car. Matt indicated they have products in the field that have done more than 30 years of charging and discharging cycling. 

Li-ion batteries do have an advantage in energy density, which is why VFBs are being targeted for stationary applications. However, compared to Li-ion batteries for grid scale storage, there is no fire risk with VFBs. Li-ion batteries need to be spaced farther apart or have sufficient fire suppression. Thus, VFBs can be packed tighter than lithium, so the footprint for grid-scale operation is comparable. 

Regarding the cost, Invinity reports that they sell their batteries at a price in the same ballpark as Li-ion per MWh for the industrial market. The benefit of Invinity’s VFB comes in the levelized cost over time because of the decades of service a single device can deliver. VFBs can charge and discharge multiple full cycles daily for 20 years. Even though you may get thousands of cycles with a Li-ion battery, for a utility or commercial storage application where daily cycling is needed that may not be enough to give Li-ion the advantage. 

Invinity’s core technology – the “cell stack” at the core of the VFB - is developed and manufactured in Vancouver, Canada.

(...)

I asked about the supply of vanadium. I learned that vanadium is the 13th most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust. It is more abundant than copper. Further, the supply of vanadium in the battery can be recycled practically endlessly as the vanadium ions are moved between oxidation states, and not destroyed or degraded. In addition to the vanadium electrolyte being infinitely reusable, the balance of Invinity’s VFB is made almost entirely of common materials, like steel and household plastics, that can be easily recycled.

There are large vanadium reserves in the U.S. At present, 90% of the supply goes into steel manufacture. So, steel-producing regions like China are currently the largest producers of vanadium. 

(Forbes)​


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> _Some promising new battery technologies..._
> 
> *Why Vanadium Flow Batteries May Be The Future Of Utility-Scale Energy Storage*
> Vanadium is an element that can commonly exist in four different oxidation states. That just means that it can exist as an ion with different charges. For example, a vanadium ion that is missing three electrons would have a charge of V3+. If you add an electron to it, it converts to a V2+ ion. This transfer of electrons back and forth is what makes VFBs charge and discharge, as the vanadium ions in the battery swing from V2+ to V5+.
> 
> This differs from lithium-ion batteries in that every time lithium charges and discharges it is plating and deplating lithium metal on the cathode. Although this reaction is almost completely reversible, it will lead to degradation after a few thousand cycles and performance will decrease.
> 
> A VFB consists of two tanks of electrolyte dissolved in water and separated by a proton exchange membrane. Both electrolytes are vanadium-based. As the batteries are charged and discharged, vanadium ions are simply moved between oxidation states. According to Matt, this can be done tens of thousands of times over a time period measured in decades, with no degradation in the ability of the vanadium solutions to hold charge.
> 
> They estimate that every 10-20 years, the membrane that the ionic species crosses over will require a replacement. Again, this is unlike a lithium-ion battery where the entire battery would need to be replaced. They compared this to maintenance on a car. Matt indicated they have products in the field that have done more than 30 years of charging and discharging cycling.
> 
> Li-ion batteries do have an advantage in energy density, which is why VFBs are being targeted for stationary applications. However, compared to Li-ion batteries for grid scale storage, there is no fire risk with VFBs. Li-ion batteries need to be spaced farther apart or have sufficient fire suppression. Thus, VFBs can be packed tighter than lithium, so the footprint for grid-scale operation is comparable.
> 
> Regarding the cost, Invinity reports that they sell their batteries at a price in the same ballpark as Li-ion per MWh for the industrial market. The benefit of Invinity’s VFB comes in the levelized cost over time because of the decades of service a single device can deliver. VFBs can charge and discharge multiple full cycles daily for 20 years. Even though you may get thousands of cycles with a Li-ion battery, for a utility or commercial storage application where daily cycling is needed that may not be enough to give Li-ion the advantage.
> 
> Invinity’s core technology – the “cell stack” at the core of the VFB - is developed and manufactured in Vancouver, Canada.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I asked about the supply of vanadium. I learned that vanadium is the 13th most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust. It is more abundant than copper. Further, the supply of vanadium in the battery can be recycled practically endlessly as the vanadium ions are moved between oxidation states, and not destroyed or degraded. In addition to the vanadium electrolyte being infinitely reusable, the balance of Invinity’s VFB is made almost entirely of common materials, like steel and household plastics, that can be easily recycled.
> 
> There are large vanadium reserves in the U.S. At present, 90% of the supply goes into steel manufacture. So, steel-producing regions like China are currently the largest producers of vanadium.
> 
> (Forbes)​


Ah so the choice is relatively clean oil and gas or massive Vanadium strip mines. Beyond that this further increases the cost of wind and solar as you have now added a storage element.


Still for taking a home off the grid, were the battery cost 1/4 of Li, it would be very attractive as it would remove the fire hazard and hopefully allow the batteries to be stored indoors.


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Which is all well & fine until you factor in that renewables cost _nine times the fossil fuels they displace_.

Based on that observation, I don't care what newfangled battery technology they come up with. Unlike expensive renewables, fossil & nuclear fuels don't require expensive battery storage to keep the planet running.



CubaMark said:


> _Some promising new battery technologies..._


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> Which is all well & fine until you factor in that renewables cost _nine times the fossil fuels they displace_.
> 
> Based on that observation, I don't care what newfangled battery technology they come up with. Unlike expensive renewables, fossil & nuclear fuels don't require expensive battery storage to keep the planet running.


Solving that "storage problem" that has not existed for 150 years.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Solving that "storage problem" that has not existed for 150 years.


In fairness, Mom's family (as well as most rural Alberta residents of the time) relied on wind chargers & a lead acid battery system to provide basic electricity in the 20's, 30's & 40's, before rural electrification came along. We still have a set of 32 volt DC Christmas tree lights from the period tucked away somewhere.

Interestingly, many of the same issues with those early systems remain extant today, ie., no wind, no electricity, no matter how much battery backup...


----------



## CubaMark

_Have you given any consideration to the possibility that you've all become cranky old men, stuck in the past, unable to embrace any change for the better? That your prejudices are blinding you to progress? _

*Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?*

New U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data predict solar and wind energy will dominate America’s new generation in 2020, making up 76% of new generation and adding 42 gigawatts (GW) of zero emission capacity, while coal and natural gas will dominate 2020 retirements with 85% of plant closures.

EIA reports U.S. electricity generation from renewable energy exceeded coal for the first time in April 2019, and forecasts coal generation will decline 13% in 2020. EIA also projects natural gas generation will only grow 1.3% in 2020 – the slowest rate since 2017 – while non-hydropower renewable energy generation will grow 15% in 2020 – the fastest rate in four years.

(...)

Lazard’s most recent Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis shows U.S. renewable energy prices continued falling fast in 2019, with wind and solar hitting new lows, after renewables fell below the cost of coal in 2018. LCOE measures the total cost of building and operating a facility over its lifetime, and shows renewables beating fossil fuels by ever-larger margins –* even without subsidies *– with that trend forecast to continue for decades to come.

Over the last decade, wind energy prices have fallen 70% and solar photovoltaics have fallen 89% on average, according to Lazard's 2019 report. Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they're less than half the cost of nuclear. The latest numbers again confirm that building new clean energy generation is cheaper than running existing coal plants.

(Forbes)​


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

Have you given any consideration to the fact that you are complete & utter Prog, changing merely for the sake of change, jumping on the bandwagon of the next fashionable trend without examining actual facts? That your ideology blinds you to empirical evidence?



CubaMark said:


> _Have you given any consideration to the possibility that you've all become cranky old men, stuck in the past, unable to embrace any change for the better? That your prejudices are blinding you to progress? _


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _Have you given any consideration to the possibility that you've all become cranky old men, stuck in the past, unable to embrace any change for the better? That your prejudices are blinding you to progress? _


_

Two simple questions. California embraces this "progress". Why do they pay crazy prices for energy if the cost of renewables is so competitive? Why are they always running out of power if renewables are so reliable?_


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Two simple questions. California embraces this "progress". Why do they pay crazy prices for energy if the cost of renewables is so competitive? Why are they always running out of power if renewables are so reliable?



There you go again. Asking someone to present an official politically correct narrative in such a way that it actually makes sense. Probability of that happening is of course almost zero.

Of course if it did make any sense whatsoever, it would not be politically correct and CM and Freddie would have no choice but to declare it to be a conspiracy theory.


----------



## CubaMark

*Fusion Reactor Sets Record By Running for 20 Seconds*

Most of the methods we currently use to produce power come with substantial drawbacks such as pollution or limited availability. Reliable fusion power could theoretically change all that. By harnessing the power of the sun, we could safely produce more power than ever before. The problem, however, is that fusion power generation doesn’t work yet. 

A team from South Korea just made a major advancement — the Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (KSTAR) device recently ran for 20 seconds. That might not sound impressive, but it doubles the previous record. 










The sun and other stars produce energy through nuclear fusion — the process of sticking together two hydrogen atoms (and later heavier atoms) yields enormous energy, and the byproducts are entirely safe, unlike the leftovers from nuclear fission and combustion. However, fusion only takes place at extremely high temperatures and pressures. It’s not a self-sustaining chain reaction like fission. 

KSTAR is one of the most advanced Tokamak-style reactors in the world. These devices use powerful magnetic fields to shape super-heated plasma into a torus (ring) shape. Currently, our ability to sustain artificial fusion reactions in this way is extremely limited. The best experimental reactors like KSTAR can only keep super-heated plasma active for a few seconds. The number of seconds is finally increasing, though. 

(ExtremeTech)​


----------



## Macfury

In other news, Texas is considering seeking relief from astronomical green electricity bills and widespread outages by embracing plentiful "alternative" fossil fuels available within state borders.


----------



## KC4

Macfury said:


> In other news, Texas is considering seeking relief from astronomical green electricity bills and widespread outages by embracing plentiful "alternative" fossil fuels available within state borders.


Within State borders? Hell, even closer to home, they are tearing down their own property borders/fences to burn for heat in their fireplaces.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> In other news, Texas is considering seeking relief from astronomical green electricity bills and widespread outages by embracing plentiful "alternative" fossil fuels available within state borders.


By astromomical he means $9/KWH. I use about 1/20th of the amount of electricity that Al Gore Guzzles. My 20KWH/day would cost $180/day.


----------



## groovetube

And there it is. The gaslight, of the nincompoops. It’s like we have our very own Lenny and squiggy!

Phoning it in still I see.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> By astromomical he means $9/KWH. I use about 1/20th of the amount of electricity that Al Gore Guzzles. My 20KWH/day would cost $180/day.


I think even the most hardened green aciviist isn't aware of how much "green energy" is costing in Texas. Some of the bills are close to $3,000 for one month.


----------



## Macfury

KC4 said:


> Within State borders? Hell, even closer to home, they are tearing down their own property borders/fences to burn for heat in their fireplaces.


In the UK, overblown green energy policies are seeing seniors buying piles of books at secondhand stores — because it's cheaper to burn books as fuel than to pay energy bills.


----------



## groovetube

Pretty sure many Texans aren't thinking about green energy being the problem right now.


----------



## eMacMan

My cousin is more concerned about freezing to death but is well aware of the frozen windmills and the snow covered solar panels. I do hope some greenie weenie was charging his Tesla via a Smart Meter when those peak rates kicked in. They'd be out about $900, probably even signal their virtue by framing the bill. Talk about big time savings over a good old gas guzzler.


----------



## groovetube

You guys really aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box are you.


----------



## groovetube

Curious that no one mentioned the skyrocketing gas prices in Texas.

didn’t fit the “greenie pile” on I guess.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> By astromomical he means $9/KWH. I use about 1/20th of the amount of electricity that Al Gore Guzzles. My 20KWH/day would cost $180/day.


Better to stay on fixed-rate bills than gamble the spot markets. You never know when green energy failures will drive the wholesale market out of kilter.


----------



## groovetube

Who do you think reads that drivel you post? Why bother?


----------



## groovetube

Why wind turbines in New York keep working in bitter cold weather unlike the ones in Texas


New York's biggest wind power operator explains how it's done.




www.syracuse.com





I can see why the deniers lose their sh!!t when the facts come out. So, wind problems accounted for a third of the outages, yet could have been prevented had they had measures to deal with cold weather and ice, because magically, the ones in NY state seem to work in very cold weather, a lot!

But then there's the 2/3rds of the outages, being from fossil fuel. Which also skyrocketed in price, hence fools yammering about green energy prices, go figure.

go ahead, yammer away. But this is hilarious.


----------



## Macfury

New York State has some of the most expensive electricity in the country all year round. They have nothing to brag about. And of course the cost of ramping up a natural gas plant rises when you're dealing with the expected failure of intermittent windmill power. It's a feature of the "green energy" revolution, not experienced by states that prioritize a reliable and consistent power supply — not the ones backed by _Mother Earth News_.


----------



## groovetube

More nonsensical crap. Do you even try anymore? 

No wonder this place has become a ****hole. I remember when and your pals bragged when groovetube was gone this place would be great!

Your constant crapping with just nonsense to troll is really tiring man. It’s one thing to disagree on some things but man, this stuff is just useless. Sorry.

It’s been, well not that fun.


----------



## Macfury

Sorry it's no fun for you groove. Here are two options:

1) leave and start the Mac community of your dreams. You know, the one where all the "good people" will want to go.
2) put me on ignore, so you don't have to listen to my "troll crapping ****hole nonsense" that nobody pays attention to anyway.


----------



## groovetube

Of course the best option, which would never occur to you, is for you to just simply stop being such a dick. Who spends 15 years of their life on a defunct Mac forum obsessively trolling people when you don't like their posts here every single day clearing the place out? 

I guess you do! 

Good job man. Really. Good stuff.


----------



## Macfury

You're a very angry fellow.


----------



## groovetube

Oh man. The 'you're angry' thing. How many times how you trotted out that old chestnut? 

Its just tired man. The whole forum goading thing, it went the way of usenet and dialup man. Why bother with that anymore?

I don't think even you believe half of what you respond with.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube, I advise you put my account on ignore as talking about me seems to dominate most of your activty here. That's not healthy for you or for the forum.


----------



## groovetube

If you can’t stand the heat then why crank up the tempurature? 

If you’re gonna troll and goad with crap, it might get thrown back in your face!


----------



## Macfury

I haven't objected to a single one of your posts. They don't bother me at all.



groovetube said:


> If you can’t stand the heat then why crank up the tempurature?
> 
> If you’re gonna troll and goad with crap, it might get thrown back in your face!


----------



## groovetube

Oh macfury. You really just don’t know how to turn that off do you? It’d be so much better if you did.


----------



## Macfury

Have a nice day, groovetube. I think there's a game on tonight.


----------



## groovetube

There you go. Enjoy the game!


----------



## CubaMark

The oil & gas industry is dirty, from the hole in the ground to the hole of the tailpipe.

I had no idea just how unregulated the industry was down in Texas. No excerpts -this deserves to be read straight through:









The Texas freeze set off a methane bomb


We may never know the full extent of pollution in the Permian Basin.




www.motherjones.com


----------



## Macfury

_Mother Jones_ is da bomb!


----------



## Macfury

About those "high-paying" jobs in renewables:









U.S. Jobs In Nuclear And Oil Sectors Pay More Than Renewables | OilPrice.com
 

Jobs in the nuclear power generation and oil and gas in the United States pay more than jobs in renewables




oilprice.com


----------



## Macfury

When there's a huge solar energy spill, it's just called a near-unstoppable lithium battery conflagration.


















Large battery fire in Moorabool


A 13 tonne lithium battery in a shipping container is fully involved with crews wearing breathing apparatus working to contain the fire and stop it spreading to nearby batteries. A FRV HAZMAT appliance is on scene conducting atmospheric monitoring with a Scientific Officer in support. FRV’s...




www.frv.vic.gov.au


----------



## Macfury

Europe caught in the fallout of its own crazy lurch to green energy policies and reliance on Russia for natural gas instead of developing its own abundant resources. Bet they wish they had a little coal to see them through the winter. Of course, Germany also sacked a bunch of the nuclear reactors that used to power 25% of the grid:









Column: Europe's rising energy prices will force factory closures: Kemp


Europe's increasingly expensive gas and electricity prices are sending a strong signal to manufacturers to consider temporary plant closures and to home and office owners to turn down thermostats to conserve fuel this winter.




www.reuters.com


----------



## Macfury

Oh dear!


----------



## groovetube

This article makes no mention of green energy. It merely discusses the rising costs of fossil fuel.

So once again, your troll attempt fails. You’re really battin a zero lately!


----------



## Macfury

Germany is now experiencing electrical blackouts amid skyrocketing prices as renewables fail to keep pace. Only 18 months separate that rosy projection from reality.


----------



## groovetube

That just means they should have invested far more into renewables. With the cost of fossil fuels skyrocketing and becoming hard to get, investing there would have only made the problem far worse.


----------



## Macfury

Germany is an interesting case, because it's one of the poster children for green energy. But you can't generate "renewable" wind and solar energy when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Essentially Germany has reverted to a high tech iteration of a medieval farm, waiting for the weather to deliver favourabe outcomes.









German Emissions From Electricity Rose 25% In First Half Of 2021 Due To The Lack Of Wind Power, Not Willpower


German emissions increased in the first half of 2021 by one-quarter, showing limits of weather-dependent renewables, and the perils of letting guilt drive energy policy.




www.forbes.com





From the article:

_Germany’s rising emissions and electricity costs illustrate in dramatic fashion that modern nations cannot rely on weather-dependent energy sources to power their high energy economies. For environmental advocates of low-energy living, the pre-modern character of renewables has long been a feature, not a bug._

. . .

_Earlier this year, Germany’s federal government auditors found that the country would need to spend over $600 billion between 2020 to 2025 to maintain grid reliability. 

. . . 

To avoid that danger, Germany will need to import energy from other nations with operating nuclear plants including France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Analysts say the closure of nuclear plants is directly responsible for higher electricity prices. Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe and wind-heavy Denmark has the second most expensive. In the first half of 2020, German electricity prices were 43 percent higher than the European average. 

Germany’s renewables experiment is effectively over. By 2025 it will have spent $580 billion to make its electricity nearly twice as expensive and ten times more carbon-intensive than France’s._


----------



## groovetube

Macfury, you need to read the entire article. I don't think it says at all what you are inferring, or, more likely in this case, trolling for. This is a country Im from and have travelled multiple times very extensively top to bottom. You're going to have to put a whole lot more effort into your windups if you're going to go down this road. You'll need to stop hunting for headlines you feel support your anti-green energy stance and perhaps be part of a decent conversation, but your track record of the last decade, no one is holding their breath. I don't see many members here wishing to join the conversation with your constant nonsense. Grow up.

Sorry.


----------



## pm-r

groovetube said:


> I don't see many members here wishing to join the conversation with your constant nonsense. Grow up.


I don't bother with most of these type forums but maybe you might want to consider putting a lid on some of your own posted comments and get off your member bassing tirades and maybe some of the forums could become a bit more civil.

I seem to recall you mentioning that was the reason you left in the first place, but your comments seem to be echoing what do you seemed to be abhorring in the first place.

Just saying... Much less people bashing would be much appreciated and maybe contribute to a constructive discussion.

Now back to the other forums that I normally read... 😏

- Patrick
=======


----------



## groovetube

Patrick, I appreciate your words, but let’s be real. If it isn’t me, it’s another. If it isn’t them, it’s another member that ends up frustrated by the troll’s antics and then gets blamed for being uncivil. It’s a pattern that no matter what I, or other members may try, will never be solved, because the owners don’t seem aware of this apparently.

were you bothered by posts that began with ‘hey bigot!’? Or any of their constant name calling? It seems when the rest of us respond in kind our posts are reported And the source of the problem, never addressed.

My suggestion is, rather than following me around and reporting or complaining about my posts in forums you don’t normally read, maybe don’t? And mind your own business?


----------



## groovetube

And my post, in response to macfury, addresses the fact that he constantly posts the same premise over and over again, merely because he knows it gets under others skin. The article he posted said none of what he alleged, and I merely pointed it out. It doesn’t further decent conversation, it only serves to frustrate others until one of us speaks out. Then someone who doesn’t get it reports it.

And on it goes.

I think what you’ll find, over the past decade (most of which I wasn’t here) the same trolls arealways involved in whatever dust up.


----------



## MacDoc

MF would prefer to piss upstream of the drinking water to save a few dollars instead of dealing with the actual cost of using fossil fuels. Nothing new there.
I concur with GT on calling him out at every turn in no uncertain terms ....he's been a constant plague and a troll.

Germany not continuing nuclear was regretable but understandible. Solar and wind are far and away the lowest cost form of electrical energy even without subsidy and hopefully soon subsidies on fossil fuels will be removed.

*



Fossil fuel subsidies amount to hundreds of billions of dollars ...

Click to expand...

*


> https://theconversation.com › fossil-fuel-subsidies-amou...





> 11 Feb 2021 — Despite an agreement at the G20 in 2009 to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, the US, China and Russia alone spent US$909 billion (£656 billion) on them in 2017,


Norway can be the battery for all of Europe with pumpable hydro and the growing high voltage connections as it just did with the UK.








Why Norway as a Green Battery for Europe Is Still to Happen, and Probably Will Not


From a climate perspective, the green battery idea is tremendously attractive. Norway has some of Europe’s greatest renewable energy resources, and domestic consumption of electricity is derived almost solely from renewables. Utilizing Norwegian hydropower and...




link.springer.com





and is doing with Germany





NordLink interconnector links German windpower with Norwegian hydro capacity







www.cleanenergywire.org





and Sahara solar can power all of Europe and is in progress








Ouarzazate Solar Power Station - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org













Several undersea power cables about to connect Europe with Africa


Greece and Egypt are in talks about the possibility to lay a 2 GW submarine interconnector on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea.




balkangreenenergynews.com







> Algeria is looking at the possibility to connect with both Italy (via Sardinia) and Spain. Spain intends to install a submarine cable to Morocco, *on top of the two existing ones,* with a combined capacity of 1.4 GW. The African country is developing a similar bilateral project with Portugal, too.
> 
> Italy and Tunisia are preparing to set up a 600 MW link under the Strait of Sicily. The EU gave TUNITA, also known as Elmed Mediterranean, the status of a project of community interest or PCI, just like the EuroAsia Interconnector.


ALL power grids are in need of upgrades ...the North American one is direly overdue. Decentralized power production will flip the national grids to the status of battery backups.

Small nuclear will add to that green power.








404







www.nuscalepower.com


----------



## Macfury

All subsidies should be removed--on all energy. However, the German people will believe you when they see the cost of electricity going down as a result of bringing "low cost" wind and solar online. As is, they're suffering under the brunt of the green dreams of others.

Germany currently has the highest household electricity costs in the world:









Electricity prices worldwide 2022 | Statista


Denmark and Germany had some of the highest electricity prices worldwide, as of March 2022.




www.statista.com





_Germany has the highest electricity prices worldwide. In December 2020, German households were charged around 0.37 U.S. dollars per kilowatt hour plus value added tax. By comparison, in neighboring Poland, residents paid about half as much, while households in the United States were charged even less. _



MacDoc said:


> Germany not continuing nuclear was regretable but understandible. Solar and wind are far and away the lowest cost form of electrical energy even without subsidy and hopefully soon subsidies on fossil fuels will be removed.


----------



## groovetube

I’m afraid my family says different macfury. But all in all, a somewhat mediocre effort.

Im more than happy to be more civil, but it’s a two way street. I’m pretty sure I speak for a number of members that would like to see an end to having a member zero in on whatever will wind others up, and appear as though they’re being civil. There is literally a decade and a half of interactions with many many members, many of whom simply gave up and have better things to do that scrap here, but you will always find the same couple members involved in those scraps. You likely won’t find I, or other members scrapping with each other, even if we disagree.

which is key thing. Anyway, I think I e said enough for now on that.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> MF would prefer to piss upstream of the drinking water to save a few dollars instead of dealing with the actual cost of using fossil fuels. Nothing new there.
> I concur with GT on calling him out at every turn in no uncertain terms ....he's been a constant plague and a troll.
> 
> Germany not continuing nuclear was regretable but understandible. Solar and wind are far and away the lowest cost form of electrical energy even without subsidy and hopefully soon subsidies on fossil fuels will be removed.
> 
> https://theconversation.com/fossil-...rs-a-year-heres-how-to-get-rid-of-them-153740
> 
> Norway can be the battery for all of Europe with pumpable hydro and the growing high voltage connections as it just did with the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Norway as a Green Battery for Europe Is Still to Happen, and Probably Will Not
> 
> 
> From a climate perspective, the green battery idea is tremendously attractive. Norway has some of Europe’s greatest renewable energy resources, and domestic consumption of electricity is derived almost solely from renewables. Utilizing Norwegian hydropower and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link.springer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and is doing with Germany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NordLink interconnector links German windpower with Norwegian hydro capacity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cleanenergywire.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Sahara solar can power all of Europe and is in progress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ouarzazate Solar Power Station - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several undersea power cables about to connect Europe with Africa
> 
> 
> Greece and Egypt are in talks about the possibility to lay a 2 GW submarine interconnector on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> balkangreenenergynews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL power grids are in need of upgrades ...the North American one is direly overdue. Decentralized power production will flip the national grids to the status of battery backups.
> 
> Small nuclear will add to that green power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 404
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nuscalepower.com


You’ll always hear the call to end all subsidies. However, if one were to put fossil fuels on an even footing with renewables, I figure we should pull all subsidies from fossil fuels, and we have about a 100 years of subsidies to renewables to catch up  

Im on the fence about getting rid of nuclear energy. Reactors certainly have their horrible issues but renewables should be given time to develop. Fossil fuels had a 100 years or more, in the beginning there was no where near the demand there is today, and to expect renewables to jump in in 2021 to pick up this level of demand without some subsidies and time to develop, is quite simply a ludicrous idea. With climate change being the threat that is, I don’t think we really have the choice any longer.

One thing that truly stands out if one takes the time to drive from the south end of Germany to the very north and back and cross cross as I have, is the incredible amount of solar panels. Fields of them, all over buildings, everywhere. The opinion of most of the German people I know is quite different than the ones being expressed here through googled articles to support a particular premise. Very different.


----------



## MacDoc

Nuclear has been the safest form of baseload - even more than hydro by far.
The headache is it, it's too expensive to build mostly due to nimbys even tho those in nuclear towns overhelmingly support new nuclear expansion.

The industry worlwide has been hampered by lack of cookie cutter reactors to reduce costs and greater environmental cost burden even tho a coal tip releases far more radioactivity and heavy metals than a nuclear plant.


> *Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste - Scientific ...*
> https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › coal-ash-...
> 
> 13 Dec 2007 — At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that ...


What is termed "high level nuclear waste" is a serious misnomer as 90% of the energy is retained in the rods and could power the planet for 400 years without mining any more urainium by using breeder reactors which extract that power and reduce the resulting waste by 95% and shorten the half life enormously.

The total physical size of that high level "waste" from the entire nuclear industry since inception would cover a football field 3m deep ....that's it. ( would make a hell of a bang if you did that )

The new small nuclear are isotope based with limited lifespan but can be transported easily.




__





Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association


There is revival of interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. This interest in small nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.




www.world-nuclear.org





Some of the new nuclear tech is sci-fi level








US startup unveils battery made from nuclear waste that could last up to 28,000 years - Energy Live News


The nano-diamond battery's power comes from radioactive isotopes used in nuclear reactors




www.energylivenews.com


----------



## Macfury

We can agree on this, MacDoc.



MacDoc said:


> Nuclear has been the safest form of baseload - even more than hydro by far.
> The headache is it, it's too expensive to build mostly due to nimbys even tho those in nuclear towns overhelmingly support new nuclear expansion.
> 
> The industry worlwide has been hampered by lack of cookie cutter reactors to reduce costs and greater environmental cost burden even tho a coal tip releases far more radioactivity and heavy metals than a nuclear plant.


----------



## MacDoc

Australia could eliminate coal for power generation in decade by using solar and that's the opinion of the National Power regulator ..not some greenie.





__





Australia sets new renewables records in 2020 | Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources


Australia strengthened its position as a renewable energy powerhouse in 2020.




www.minister.industry.gov.au


----------



## Macfury

It's possible. That Gorgon gas plant would certainly help. My main concern is that these plans don't proceed "at all costs." Coal replaced wood, and oil replaced coal not because of subsidies but because it was cheaper and more efficient to do so. Forcing technology that isn't ready for prime time doesn't help anyone — and government is notoriously bad at picking a winner (Solyndra). If fossil fuels are truly more costly, people will be happy to switch to other technologies, simply to save money.



MacDoc said:


> Australia could eliminate coal for power generation in decade by using solar and that's the opinion of the National Power regulator ..not some greenie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia sets new renewables records in 2020 | Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
> 
> 
> Australia strengthened its position as a renewable energy powerhouse in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.minister.industry.gov.au


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Australia could eliminate coal for power generation in decade by using solar and that's the opinion of the National Power regulator ..not some greenie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia sets new renewables records in 2020 | Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
> 
> 
> Australia strengthened its position as a renewable energy powerhouse in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.minister.industry.gov.au


That’s great. Much like what I described seeing first hand throughout all of Germany, so many solar panels. We here in Canada haven’t been smart enough to do this yet. Much of the problem I have with a lot of anti-renewable stuff I see posted is this idea that somehow if we aren’t 100% renewable and we have to use gas fired or other less green sources that renewables is somehow a failure. Far from it. And waiting until it’s just right for prime time simply is t going to work either. As I pointed out earlier, fossil fuels had 100 years of development time and massive subsidies, not to mention plenty of dodgy schemes to kill competing electric powered vehicles, so sitting around waiting for renewable technology to magically present itself as a ready for prime time solution, is dead in the water.


----------



## MacDoc

*One turn* of the turbine powers one UK house for a day 








Life at sea by world's largest offshore wind farm


Fancy a job with great sea views? Meet the engineers who maintain 174 turbines in the North Sea.



www.bbc.com





•••

Ontario is already 100% green..the gas turbines are never turned on. So is Quebec and BC afaik.
East coast is problematic.


----------



## Macfury

You're being rather generous if you think that everyone considers nuclear and hydroelectricity as "green." They don't, even though I disagree.

However, if that's the case, we've been "green" for decades. Coal only made up 10 per cent of energy production in 2003. Today, gas and biomass makes up 4% (not zero). Wind and solar are still pikers at 7% and 2% respectively. We could eliminate them with just a little more nuke.



MacDoc said:


> Ontario is already 100% green..the gas turbines are never turned on.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> *One turn* of the turbine powers one UK house for a day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life at sea by world's largest offshore wind farm
> 
> 
> Fancy a job with great sea views? Meet the engineers who maintain 174 turbines in the North Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> •••
> 
> Ontario is already 100% green..the gas turbines are never turned on. So is Quebec and BC afaik.
> East coast is problematic.


Interesting video. I’ve read about offshore wind farms before. The only way we will develop better renewable energy methods is by investing in them. The progress made in just the last 20 years is undeniable, and it will only accelerate from here. And hydroelectric isn’t green energy? Who knew? Does it kill birds too?


----------



## Macfury

Was checking on these projects. Hornsea 1 and 2 are extremely heavily subsidized energy projects, with a 15-year minimum price guarantee of GBP162.47/MWh. Even as UK electricity prices skyrocket, they've reached only GBP126/MWh. Here are subsidies of the UK's six windfarms in 2020 alone. While the engineering may be impressive, looks like these windfarms are not sustainable from an economic point of view.












MacDoc said:


> *One turn* of the turbine powers one UK house for a day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life at sea by world's largest offshore wind farm
> 
> 
> Fancy a job with great sea views? Meet the engineers who maintain 174 turbines in the North Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


----------



## groovetube

I think we’re going to need a far greater detailed economic report other than simple math in Apple calculator before these major projects can be declared unsustainable.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, we werr talking about what is considered "green energy". Europe still counts "biomass" as green:









How the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive risks destroying Europe’s forests


If the Europe Union doesn’t want an explosion in the amount of wood being harvested for “renewable heat”, it’s essential that the bugs in the Renewable Energy Directive are fixed, write Samuel Thomas, Dominic Scott and Dr Jan Rosenow.




www.euractiv.com





_In meeting their 2020 renewable energy targets, EU Member States have overseen large increases in renewable power. But this has been accompanied by a less welcome development: a near doubling in the amount of energy derived from solid biomass, which is currently classified as zero carbon._


----------



## MacDoc

Biomass is green the way carbon offsets are. Not perfect but it helps. Far more so than coal.
You whinge about subsidized wind and not a peep about the much more heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry.
"Economic sense" is a carbon neutral industrial civilization that is not inflicting further damage to the oceans and atmosphere. No easy path to get there.
FF has had a free ride polluting for decades....who do you think should bear the cost of cleaning up Alberta's wells?



> *between $40 billion and $70 billion*
> 
> Using data from the Alberta Energy Regulator released under Freedom of Information legislation, the report estimates the overall cleanup cost for the province's 300,000 unreclaimed wells at somewhere *between $40 billion and $70 billion* — a figure that doesn't include infrastructure such as pipelines or pumping stations ...


----------



## Macfury

Biomass is not green. This is simply greenwashing. Much of it is imported from North America.

I also believe that no private business should be subsidized by government (although, really the people being driven into energy poverty are subsidizing the big corps).

The companies that created the wells should clean them up. Unfortunately, when government gets in bed WITH business, instead of simply acting as a regulator, you get conflicts of interest like abandoned wells.



MacDoc said:


> Biomass is green the way carbon offsets are. Not perfect but it helps. Far more so than coal.
> You whinge about subsidized wind and not a peep about the much more heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry.
> "Economic sense" is a carbon neutral industrial civilization that is not inflicting further damage to the oceans and atmosphere. No easy path to get there.
> FF has had a free ride polluting for decades....who do you think should bear the cost of cleaning up Alberta's wells?


----------



## Macfury

China and India say they need more fossil fuels now! Why are they not demanding more windmills if wind power is cheaper?









Power crisis deepens in Asia and Europe: What it means to shipping


As some Chinese factories go dark, more delays for container imports but bullish sign for coal, LNG and oil shipping.




www.freightwaves.com


----------



## Macfury

Rolls Royce is now into the small, modular nuclear reactor business. This sort of technology will pretty much bring intermittent windmill and sun power to an end in much of the world. 









Rolls-Royce announces funding secured for Small Modular Reactors


Rolls-Royce announces funding secured for Small Modular Reactors




www.rolls-royce.com


----------



## groovetube

I think we’ll need far more than a declaration from an anonymous source like that. That’s quite the statement. I don’t see any reason to think it’s in any way true.

I think most who support renewable energy have always considered different forms of cleaner energy useful and part of a good mix of energy. I don’t think anyone ever thought that only wind and solar would provide ALL of our energy.


----------



## Macfury

With sufficient nuclear capability, intermittent wind and solar will be redundant and the storage problems they present will not be worth overcoming. I'm sure you don't see that yet, but you will.



groovetube said:


> I think we’ll need far more than a declaration from an anonymous source like that. That’s quite the statement. I don’t see any reason to think it’s in any way true.
> 
> I think most who support renewable energy have always considered different forms of cleaner energy useful and part of a good mix of energy. I don’t think anyone ever thought that only wind and solar would provide ALL of our energy.


----------



## groovetube

So your proof is, and I quote: " I'm sure you don't see that yet, but you will."

Sounds pretty compelling to me!!!


----------



## Macfury

I'm not trying to prove anything to you!


----------



## groovetube

I think that much has been made clear!


----------



## Macfury

Japan is in!









Japan’s Carbon Goal Is Based on Restarting 30 Nuclear Reactors - BNN Bloomberg







www.bnnbloomberg.ca





France is in!









France vows to build new nuclear reactors to meet climate goals


France already has 56 operational reactors and derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy.




www.euronews.com


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This sort of technology will pretty much bring intermittent windmill and sun power to an end in much of the world.


While many countries in the world are moving away from nuclear, finding a couple countries who are building some nuclear does little to support your claim that it will “end wind/solar for much of the world.” In fact, it does nothing.

nice try though!


----------



## Macfury

Gaia worshipers will always believe in the wind beneath their wings!


----------



## groovetube

it always goes there with you doesn't it.

Too bad.


----------



## CubaMark

The challenge to effect use of renewable energies continues to lie in storage...

"South Australia produced nearly twice as much wind and solar as it could use at times on Sunday, forcing renewable plant operators to massively curtail their output. The total amount of curtailed at one point nearly equalled total demand."









South Australia curtailed nearly as much wind and solar on Sunday as it used


South Australia produced nearly twice as much wind and solar as it could use, with curtailment records around the main grid.




reneweconomy.com.au


----------



## Macfury

That is a "challenge" introduced entirely be renewables.

Take a look at how long we would need to store intermittent energy in Canada for it to be useful. It's not a day, or a couple of days — it's weeks.



CubaMark said:


> The challenge to effect use of renewable energies continues to lie in storage...


----------



## groovetube

Read the full article macfury. Your statement is incorrect.


----------



## Macfury

This may be too technical for you.



groovetube said:


> Read the full article macfury. Your statement is incorrect.


----------



## groovetube

Ah. Back to trolling again.

once again, waste of time.


----------



## Macfury

Tell me which aspect of the article I misread — in exact technical terms — then you won't be wasting my time. 

Simply telling me that my statement is "incorrect" doesn't indicate you read the article.



groovetube said:


> Ah. Back to trolling again.
> 
> once again, waste of time.


----------



## groovetube

You just don’t quit do you? Do you ever wonder why everyone gets frustrated with you?

the article was about wind/solar power generation that was scaled back because it was more than what the grid was demanding. The article went on to say the same happens with gas/coal generators. (Even more so!) so no, it is not a ‘challenge’ introduced by wind/solar. That statement is wrong, if you read the full article.

So it is you that needs to explain your statement that renewables is what introduced this problem. And why you bothered to bring up intermittent power when that wasn’t what the article was discussing.


----------



## Macfury

One does not need to "store" gas (or coal) generated power, because there is always adequate gas, coal, (or nuclear) to continue producing electricity. The power is already "stored." Likewise, in hydro power, the potential energy is already stored behind enclosures. 

Solar and wind are unique in their lack of ability to provide electricity when needed. it is a renewables problem.




groovetube said:


> the article was about wind/solar power generation that was scaled back because it was more than what the grid was demanding. The article went on to say the same happens with gas/coal generators. (Even more so!) so no, it is not a ‘challenge’ introduced by wind/solar. That statement is wrong, if you read the full article.
> 
> So it is you that needs to explain your statement that renewables is what introduced this problem. And why you bothered to bring up intermittent power when that wasn’t what the article was discussing.


----------



## groovetube

Just. Stop it. This is getting far beyond childish.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube, you don't need to weigh in on every comment I make to another person. It would make life easier for everyone. That's all I ask of you.


----------



## Vader101

Again, I removed multiple posts as all they where doing was to cause an argument. You would think that something as simple as this thread topic would not cause so much arguments, but I am wrong. Please don’t cause this thread to end up like the COVID discussion thread. This is my last warning


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> groovetube, you don't need to weigh in on every comment I make to another person. It would make life easier for everyone. That's all I ask of you.


I'm part of the discussion here, so I will weigh in with my opinion if I wish, as can anyone. Having childish rules of who can speak to whom is ridiculous.

All that is being asked is that you stop browbeating people over and over again after we have already debated the topic enough and have come to a disagreement. If we disagree, just move on, nothing good will come of repeating it over and over again. No one is going to change their minds so all that will happen, is, well, this. So the solution macfury, just let it go if we all disagree.

Simple. 

I'm going to step away until the repeating and browbeating stops.


----------



## pm-r

Vader101 said:


> This is my last warning


Unfortunately, it seems there are some members here that find it impossible to heed any moderator's or admin's warnings and insist on adding their childish comments.

I'm not sure how I ended up in this thread as I am sure I had cancelled any association with it. So I guess I will need to double check my settings. I don't need this sort of discussion crap wasting my time and would appreciate seeing something a bit more mature with all comments in all forums here. 

It seems certain members here have a thorn in their side they just cannot remove. Oh well... See ya... 


- Patrick 
=======


----------



## Freddie_Biff

pm-r said:


> Unfortunately, it seems there are some members here that find it impossible to heed any moderator's or admin's warnings and insist on adding their childish comments.
> 
> I'm not sure how I ended up in this thread as I am sure I had cancelled any association with it. So I guess I will need to double check my settings. I don't need this sort of discussion crap wasting my time and would appreciate seeing something a bit more mature with all comments in all forums here.
> 
> It seems certain members here have a thorn in their side they just cannot remove. Oh well... See ya...
> 
> 
> - Patrick
> =======


Try avoiding the provocative phrasing, Patrick. It only adds to the uncivility. “Childish,” “crap” “thorn in their side” do not exactly engender civil discussion. 

As for the topic at hand, I think we need to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels for the good of ourselves and the planet. If we don’t , there won’t be much of a planet left for us to live on, let alone all the other species.


----------



## Macfury

There were higher levels of CO2 at the greatest period of biodiversity in the earth's storied history.



Freddie_Biff said:


> As for the topic at hand, I think we need to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels for the good of ourselves and the planet. If we don’t , there won’t be much of a planet left for us to live on, let alone all the other species.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> There were higher levels of CO2 at the greatest period of biodiversity in the earth's storied history.


The contrarian speaks. And when do you think that was? And why?


----------



## Macfury

Increased CO2 promotes the growth of forest and jungle habitats. Not coincidentally, it also results in far greater yield in agricultural crops.



Freddie_Biff said:


> The contrarian speaks. And when do you think that was? And why?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Increased CO2 promotes the growth of forest and jungle habitats. Not coincidentally, it also results in far greater yield in agricultural crops.


You didn’t actually answer the question.


----------



## groovetube

Freddie_Biff said:


> You didn’t actually answer the question.


I’ve heard some interesting theories before, but never that increased use of fossil fuels leads to increased forests and higher agricultural growth.

I’d like to see some credible peer reviewed science on that.

I have read about how increased planting of trees can help with removing some of the CO2 we produce but certainly not all. I’ve always thought that a combination of drastic reductions in fossil fuel use, drastic tree planting, stopping the clear cutting of the rainforests (often referred to as the ‘lungs of the earth’) along renewable energy is the way to go. I don’t think we need to get rid of fossil fuel use entirely.


----------



## Macfury

Do you mean, you want me to identify the geological eras in which that happened? Happy to provide, if you're interested.



Freddie_Biff said:


> You didn’t actually answer the question.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> There were higher levels of CO2 at the greatest period of biodiversity in the earth's storied history.


I believe this was your statement. I asked you to clarify. You did not.


----------



## Macfury

The Carboniferous era had CO2 levels of 800 ppm. The Cretaceous (age of the dinosaurs) were much higher at 1700 ppm. Both were abundantly rich in diverse plant and animal life.


----------



## Vader101

The topic of the thread is alternative energy sources. Not co2 levels. Please stay on topic.


----------



## groovetube

Vader101 said:


> The topic of the thread is alternative energy sources. Not co2 levels. Please stay on topic.


thanks. It seems the topic is veering back into a fight about CO2 and the validity of the world's scientists climate change studies. There isn't really any scientific studies that show using more fossil fuels creates more forest growth, and I think most of us learned about photosynthesis and the role CO2 plays in this in grade 9 I think. 

In terms of the actual topic, is there anyone here that has alternative energy, or is considering one? I don't here but have considered a number of them, the greenest I got was using green energy power (bullfrog I think) for the studio I leased downtown for a number of years.


----------



## Macfury

If you think of it in Grade 9 terms, you would miss out on studies such as this one:









Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening - Nature Reviews Earth & Environment


Vegetation on Earth is increasing, potentially leading to a larger terrestrial carbon sink. In this Review, we discuss the occurrence of this global greening phenomenon, its drivers and how it might impact carbon cycling and land-atmosphere heat and water fluxes.




www.nature.com







groovetube said:


> thanks. It seems the topic is veering back into a fight about CO2 and the validity of the world's scientists climate change studies. There isn't really any scientific studies that show using more fossil fuels creates more forest growth, and I think most of us learned about photosynthesis and the role CO2 plays in this in grade 9 I think.


----------



## groovetube

I read the key points macfury, (since it's a paid article...) and this article does not help your statements at all. Now, can we please get back to the topic.


----------



## Macfury

Let's start with this. Why do you want to use alternative energy sources to begin with? What is their allure?



groovetube said:


> I read the key points macfury, (since it's a paid article...) and this article does not help your statements at all. Now, can we please get back to the topic.


----------



## groovetube

I’ll re-ask the question I asked before we veered off topic, just wondered if there was anyone here that have renewable energy anything and what your experience with it is/was.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> Let's start with this. Why do you want to use alternative energy sources to begin with? What is their allure?


Simple. Why not?


----------



## Macfury

For an individual homeowner: questionable overseas manufacturing practices, expensive, poor (or no) payback period, aesthtically displeasing, added maintenance costs, questionable disposal impact.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Simple. Why not?


----------



## groovetube

One might get the idea that macfury really detests alternative energy! Why are you here then macfury?

I’ll make my own decisions when it comes to alternative energy options. I’d like to hear from others who have first hand experience from it rather than googled info. I’ve gotten some positive reviews from some in my neighborhood using solar panels.


----------



## Macfury

I am here to discuss the pros and cons of alternative energy solutions as FeXL, who started the thread, envisioned.


----------



## groovetube

Well, from your last post, you only gave a long list of cons. I didn’t see any pros in there.


----------



## Macfury

I answered Freddie's question: "Why not?"



groovetube said:


> Well, from your last post, you only gave a long list of cons. I didn’t see any pros in there.


----------



## groovetube

Toronto could move into the future with electric fire trucks


Toronto could get a bit greener if a proposal for a new electric fire truck gets a green (or flashing red?) light. The Toronto Fire Department is l...




www.blogto.com





Electric fire trucks coming to Toronto!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> I am here to discuss the pros and cons of alternative energy solutions as FeXL, who started the thread, envisioned.


Ah yes, the great thread starter. Perhaps you could ask him if he’s planning to return to any of the threads he’s started, or if he has abandoned them.


----------



## Macfury

OK!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Ah yes, the great thread starter. Perhaps you could ask him if he’s planning to return to any of the threads he’s started, or if he has abandoned them.


----------



## Macfury

Electric to get you there--diesel to actually fight fires!



groovetube said:


> Toronto could move into the future with electric fire trucks
> 
> 
> Toronto could get a bit greener if a proposal for a new electric fire truck gets a green (or flashing red?) light. The Toronto Fire Department is l...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.blogto.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric fire trucks coming to Toronto!


----------



## groovetube

We get it that you hate electric vehicles, you’ve made it abundantly clear. There’s no need to continually wreck the thread for others who wish to chat about it. The article states that the diesel is there as backup in case there is pumping required beyond 4 hours. So you are incorrect, but I suspect you knew that.


----------



## Macfury

I don't hate electric vehicles at all. I was happy to see that they would be hybrid diesel electric. I would hope that any electric fire response vehicles in Toronto would be outfitted with diesel, because the lives of firefighters and citizens depend on trucks that are at least as capable as the ones they replace.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

One thing I understand about electric vehicles is that what to do with used batteries presents a problem. They can’t be recycled as I understand it so where to store them and how to dispose of them is an issue.


----------



## MacDoc

They certainly can recycled and in many cases repurposed or flat out reconditioned.



> already several months before the very first LEAF came to market in December 2010 – Nissan partnered with Sumitomo Corp. to set up 4R Energy Corp. Its purpose: develop the technology and infrastructure to refabricate, recycle, resell and reuse the batteries in Nissan EVs – not for their scrap value, but to power other things.





> When an old EV battery reaches the 4R factory, it is first graded. Sometimes, the battery components are as good as new; they get an "A" grade and can be reused in new high-performance battery units for a new EV. With a "B" grade, the batteries are powerful enough for industrial machinery like forklifts and large stationary energy storage. Deployed in a home or commercial facility, for example, they can capture surplus electricity generated during the daytime by solar panels and then power the building during the night. Even the components of a battery that gets a "C" grade can still be put to use – for example in units that supply backup power when the electric grid fails, say at grocery stores that must have their refrigerators and lights running even during a power outage. The engineers at 4R Energy estimate the recovered batteries have a life span of about 10 to 15 years, dramatically extending the usefulness of EV batteries and reducing their overall carbon footprint.











Nissan gives EV batteries a second life


Over their lifetime, electric vehicles have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than traditional cars – but for true sustainability, we must give their batteries a second life.




global.nissanstories.com





They consist of many small cells and it's only when a lot fail that it is a problem. Most manufacturers offer 8 years or more of battery warranty to hold 80% charge.
Even as raw materials the batteries are valuable and will not be disposed of in landfill etc.
Early Leaf owners with failing batteries can actually get a better than new









Nissan Leaf owner upgrades EV battery for under $A3,500


Early model Nissan Leaf gets battery upgrade for fraction of price it would cost if done by Nissan.




thedriven.io













Nissan Leaf battery packs are ending up in robots helping to build electric cars


Nissan is now using old Leaf battery packs in some of the robots that are helping to build the Leaf electric cars in the first place. This is kind of cool! For those who want electric cars to be a solution to reduce emissions from the transportation sector, the end-of-life of a battery pack is […]




electrek.co





Tesla is moving to LPF which has a longer cycle life as well.








Future material demand for automotive lithium-based batteries - Communications Materials


Lithium-ion-based batteries are a key enabler for the global shift towards electric vehicles. Here, considering developments in battery chemistry and number of electric vehicles, analysis reveals the increasing amounts of lithium, cobalt and nickel that could be needed.




www.nature.com


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Thanks for the info, MacDoc!


----------



## groovetube

I think having a diesel backup on the fire trucks is a responsible thing to do given the application. I have always advocated that using electric for the majority of energy needs is a good thing but fossil fuels will still play an important role for some time come. Particularly because we have irresponsible governments in some cases digging their heels.

But I did read this and found an interesting report about Berlin’s experience with electric fire trucks:



> Moore said Berlin recently completed 440 runs with its Rosenbauer RT, using electric power 99.81 per cent of the time. In four months, the truck used just eight litres of diesel.
> 
> “It’s unbelievable,” Moore said. “It exceeds my expectation.”


99.8% electric! Not much diesel happening there! It’ll be interesting to hear the experiences that Canadian cities that are ordering them will have.








Vancouver expects to be first city in Canada with electric firetruck







vancouversun.com


----------



## groovetube

Firstly, no one has proposed 'depopulation', just stop it. And secondly, you are making something up by claiming we aren't aware that alternative energy solutions don't have some CO2 release in the production of materials, or other environmental problems. Of course we are. No solution is 100% perfectly green without any emissions whatsoever. Strawman argument. These sorts of ridiculous claims only serve to ruin what should be relatively civil threads, and insults just make it worse.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

eMacMan said:


> I really hate pointing out the blindingly obvious, but CO2 is an integral part of the equation. The Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming fearmongers claim; That rising global temps are caused by manmade CO2 and will melt polar icecaps thereby drowning major cities. Their preferred solution is depopulation, while their proposed solution is alternative energy sources, hence the very existence of the thread.
> 
> Generally these alternatives are pimped without regard to either the CO2 released during production, nor the environmental damage a particular solution may cause. Examples; Nuclear energy is highly touted, yet there is still no solution for the existing waste or the waste the new plants will produce. Environmentalists have long recognized the environmental damage caused by major hydro projects, but magically that is no longer a concern. The issues with solar and wind have been covered here at great length but are of zero concern to the Goreshippers....
> 
> IOW CO2 is 100% relevant to the discussion.


Yep, you keep baiting the mods here, eMacMan. We’ll see how that turns out for you. 

In the meantime, what do ya’ll think will be our next big energy source? Electric? Solar? Something we haven’t even anticipated yet?


----------



## Vader101

I wanted to remind everyone about the forum rules. If you have a problem with the way we moderate this forum, please message us and we will review what we have done. You can not post arguments against the moderator team on the forum.

I thank you for your understanding with this matter


----------



## FUXL

Macfury said:


> I am here to discuss the pros and cons of alternative energy solutions as FeXL, who started the thread, envisioned.


Poor misguided FeXL. Banned and moved on. 

In the words of Kansas "the dream never dies, just the dreamer".


----------



## Macfury

I don't believe you are correct. FeXL's account is not banned.



FUXL said:


> FeXL. Banned and moved on.


----------



## FUXL

Macfury said:


> I don't believe you are correct. FeXL's account is not banned.


As I said banned and moved on.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

So anyhoo, let’s try not to get this thread shut down like the others. LOL


----------



## MacDoc

If you want a very informative read ....I learned a lot ...really enjoying the audio book.











> One of Barack Obama’s Favorite Books of 2020
> 
> “If I could get policymakers, and citizens, everywhere to read just one book this year, it would be Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future.” -Ezra Klein


----------



## Dr.G.

Freddie_Biff said:


> So anyhoo, let’s try not to get this thread shut down like the others. LOL


Keep it alive by windpower.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Keep it alive by windpower.


----------



## MacDoc

micro - nuclear









A New Generation of Nuclear Reactors Could Hold the Key to a Green Future


Can a stable, safe, known source of energy rise to the occasion, or will nuclear be cast aside as too expensive, too risky and too late?




time.com


----------



## Macfury

Yep. This look good to me.


----------



## groovetube

‘Spirit of Innovation’ stakes claim to be the world’s fastest all-electric vehicle


‘Spirit of Innovation’ stakes claim to be the world’s fastest all-electric vehicle




www.rolls-royce.com





How cool is this?


----------



## MacDoc

About time Ontario moved forward to expand baseload - tho I think tapping Quebec Hydro might have been cheaper








GE Hitachi chosen to build new nuclear reactor at Darlington


Ontario Power Generation has chosen the company to construct a small modular reactor at the Darlington generating station in Clarington.




www.thestar.com


----------

