On the Insidiousness of "We have 12 Years to Save the Planet." - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15004558
• capital cost of equivalent installed fossil-fuel or other dispatchable capacity, for times when the wind or sun are not available.
:lol: :lol:
#15004570
Drlee never tires of embarrassing himself

Solar and Wind Power Won't Work Without Natural Gas as a Back-Up, Says New Study

The researchers also point out that projections of falling renewable technologies costs fail to take into account the costs of constructing and maintaining fast reacting fossil fuel (chiefly natural gas) back-up power. From the study …

… the estimated indirect costs of renewables are at least an order of magnitude greater than those associated with dispatchable fossil-fuel technologies. For the latter, system costs are relatively modest, generally estimated below USD 3 per MWh (megawatt-hour) in OECD countries. For the formers, such costs are as high as USD 40 per MWh for onshore wind, USD 45 per MWh for offshore wind and USD 80 per MWh for solar. These high estimates are the direct results of the need for additional system reserves and back-up generation to ensure system reliability. Renewable energy system costs will also increase over-proportionally with the amount of variable electricity in the system, with far-fetching [reaching] implications for the energy markets and security of supply. Ignoring them can thus lead to a severe underestimation of the social and private costs of any energy transition.

In the Washington Post, one of the researchers, Elena Verdolini from the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, observes:

"If you have an electric car, you don't need a diesel car in your garage sitting there. But in the case of renewables, it's different, because if you have renewable electricity and that fails, then you need the fast acting gas sitting in your garage, so to speak."

Basically, the study makes the point that evironmental activists had better come to grips with the fact that natural gas is indeed a "bridge fuel" to any renewable energy technology future. In addition, they should recognize that deploying renewable energy technologies will cost a lot more than many of their rosy projections of falling wind and solar power technology prices suggest that it will.
#15004575
And in his usual shallow way Sivad seems to forget that, as more renewable energy comes online, that excess capacity in carbon fuels rises. In other words, there is no construction cost whatsoever as these facilities have already been built. Zero capital cost. None.

I know of nobody who believes they might be 100% renewable in the near future. But my house is. And many other houses are. And we "sell" our excess power to the local power company. There are many ways to get at this problem.

But here is the thing. You, as usual, have taken your contrarian viewpoint, developed on the most shallow of "research" and displaying just about the depth of understanding that will appeal to Trump voters.

Get a grip guy. People here are not as stupid as you obviously believe they are.
#15004577
Drlee wrote:And in his usual shallow way Sivad seems to forget that, as more renewable energy comes online, that excess capacity in carbon fuels rises. In other words, there is no construction cost whatsoever as these facilities have already been built. Zero capital cost. None.



We're talking about the developing world here, genius, there is no infrastructure in place so there are definitely capital costs. :knife:
#15004598
We're talking about the developing world here, genius, there is no infrastructure in place so there are definitely capital costs.


You just need to go deeper sport.

We don't care much about the developing world. They will come along nicely and benefit from improving technology. To stop global climate change we need to fix the top 10. China, the USA mainly. Of the top 10 only India qualifies (just barely) as the "developing world". And India has robust infrastructure.

But you stay shallow guy. The Trumpists will follow you anywhere. Try real science and you are in far over your head.
#15004601
Drlee wrote:You just need to go deeper sport.

We don't care much about the developing world. They will come along nicely and benefit from improving technology. To stop global climate change we need to fix the top 10. China, the USA mainly. Of the top 10 only India qualifies (just barely) as the "developing world". And India has robust infrastructure.

But you stay shallow guy. The Trumpists will follow you anywhere. Try real science and you are in far over your head.

The USA is already doing more than any other nation that I am aware of. It is time we let the others catch up, so we don't waste our money for nothing.
#15004606
Sivad wrote:Note that the cost of either unsubsidized wind or unsubsidized solar is greater than that of coal or nuclear, at both the cheap and the expensive ends of the spectrum. And that is without considering the extra costs:

• capital cost of equivalent installed fossil-fuel or other dispatchable capacity, for times when the wind or sun are not available.

• running cost of equivalent installed fossil-fuel or other dispatchable capacity, which must be kept online at very inefficient operation for times when the wind or sun are not available.

• transmission lines from the areas (generally well away from the population centers) which are suitable and large enough for wind or solar.

Starting out more expensive and adding in all of those additional costs, I’m sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.


I have no idea where you are getting this from.

None of this is supported by the link I cited.

Probably because the person whom you copied this from (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/10/ ... than-coal/) was not looking at EROIs over life cycles.

If they had, they would not be discussing cost, nor would they be bringing up factors that are already accounted for in the work I cited.
#15004613
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea where you are getting this from.

None of this is supported by the link I cited.

Are you sure you did not quote fake news?

THE FACTS: There is no scientific consensus, much less unanimity, that the planet only has 12 years to fix the problem.

A report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it’s not a last chance, hard deadline for action, as it has been interpreted in some quarters.

“Glad to clear this up,” James Skea, co-chairman of the report and professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London, told The Associated Press. The panel “did not say we have 12 years left to save the world.”

https://www.apnews.com/fe7c9d4a9f8f458c827677d31230f594
#15004673
I recall al gore and freinds crying the she end as near.
Yes he and buddys made milions on this fear mongering.
The eatrgmh experiences natural cycles and we have had a mini ice age 10000 year ago the earth has been a frozen ball and had tropical plants growing in the poles.

Do we humans have a influance on the climate yes . the solution to reducing our influance is not America spending 100 trillion . o no that will have very little affect . reducing the population is the answer . reduce the population by 5 billion or so it what it will take ots that simple.

When the forest suffers from overgrazing you thin out the game eating it all
#15004723
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that hydro-electric (a renewable) does far better than fossil fuels.

Also, are these life cycle assessments, or do they only look at part of the energy production?

The best fossil fuel is oil, but they only listed coal on the chart. I think we know why.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12
The Next UK PM everybody...

Did Boris Johnson give up campaigning and around […]

It's funny to me that many folks voted for Trum[…]

Now reading

We have a long history of abusing and exploiting […]