Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
sendler2112
100 kW
Just wondering if you bother viewing any of the information I am posting here?cricketo said:
It can be a mistake to generalize past civilization behavior to future civilizations. There are fundamental changes (access to information, access to energy, lifespan) that have fundamentally changed the shape and trajectories of civilizations - and will continue to do so.sendler2112 said:
That's not to say that there are no lessons from the past worth learning. But I find it is pretty much always wrong to say "we never found a solution to X in the past, therefore we never will."
sendler2112
100 kW
The most essential and time dense first bit of information that anyone that wants to discuss new energy and the future needs to understand is the Hagens lecture.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
sendler2112
100 kW
All I can do is to post important information . If people refuse to access it there is nothing I can do about that. Just have to keep trying.
Hillhater
100 TW
No. ! Its continuous assesmentcricketo said:
All your comments and input reflect your understanding of the subjects.
Hillhater
100 TW
The latest ? , best, Cheapest ,..take your pickcricketo said:.. what's the latest with long-term energy storage ? Hydrogen batteries ? Compressed air ? I want to build something instead of talking about it
But for long term storage of large amounts of energy, Uranium takes some beating.!
But growing trees and storing wood for timber combustion is certainly much easier !! :wink:
Chalo
100 TW
Hillhater said:
Fixed that for you.
Hillhater
100 TW
Actually, whilst STORING energy in the form of uranium ore, it is prety benign.
.....its only when you frok with it to release the energy that you have to wear foil undies !
.....its only when you frok with it to release the energy that you have to wear foil undies !
Hillhater said:
Is it still storage considering we can't replenish it once used ?
In other news...
Which proves what you guys were saying all along - we can't possibly keep up with ridiculous waste of energy humans are used to by going to renewables...
sendler2112
100 kW
Your assertion is that the US government is favoring coal to keep solar and wind out of the market. But this is interesting. USA federal subsidies for electrical production by source. This is from 2007 but I will try to find something newer. But shows that the USA was very early on trying to pay the way for wind and solar to take off. Solar and wind each recieved 15 times as much incentive as nuclear and 55 times as much as coal.
.
"For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour."
.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/energy-subsidies-study/
.
.
.
.
Here are subsidy charts from 2010 to 2016. Again, solar has been highly favored above all other production methods. My state also offers home solar a big incentive of 30% rebate in addition to the 25% federal tax refund and also forces the utility to buy your excess at the "meter runs backwards" rate for up to 125% of your usage. Which is a big loss for the electric utility provider to have to buy my intermittent electricity at $0.10/ kWH when the average wholesale price is $0.04 for a reliable, guaranteed supply. The USA has done a great job of pushing solar and wind over coal.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#5a1c5d98128c
.
.
.
.
.
"For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour."
.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/energy-subsidies-study/
.
.
.
.
Here are subsidy charts from 2010 to 2016. Again, solar has been highly favored above all other production methods. My state also offers home solar a big incentive of 30% rebate in addition to the 25% federal tax refund and also forces the utility to buy your excess at the "meter runs backwards" rate for up to 125% of your usage. Which is a big loss for the electric utility provider to have to buy my intermittent electricity at $0.10/ kWH when the average wholesale price is $0.04 for a reliable, guaranteed supply. The USA has done a great job of pushing solar and wind over coal.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#5a1c5d98128c
.
.
.
.
sendler2112 said:
So if I give you a dollar, and next day I give you another dollar... OMG!, I just doubled the amount of money I gave you!
It is a common tactic of manipulative debate to resort to relative numbers when favorable, and to absolute numbers otherwise. However, in full faith one is expected to provide both relative and absolute numbers, to establish the magnitude for the comparison.
That is if the playing field was even. In this case though, you're comparing massive industries that have been around for 100+ years, have been subsidized for almost a hundred years, and have caused enormous amount of pollution with well established negative side-effects to a relatively new, relatively small industry that is meant to cleanup the mess others have created. The question then becomes why those old industries are getting any subsidies at all, instead of being massively taxed.
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/coal-a-long-history-of-subsidies/
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies
sendler2112
100 kW
The payback from investment comes from actual production. Which for solar in the USA has been incentivised 50x that of coal. Which totally blows the myth that solar is somehow being arbitrarily held back in favor of coal. These are just the incentives at the federal level. NY State offers a futher matching amount for solar.
sendler2112 said:
I could perhaps agree that the wording may not be all that great, but the barrier to enter is very high, and without active support it is nearly impossible for solar to take off.
As for payback, again... if you don't pay for taking out your trash ever, you can save a lot of money in your lifetime. Your children, or whoever else is going to take over your property will have to pay quite a bit to clean that up. That's the model that coal has operated for a century now. When you talk about solar being incentivized a lot more than coal, please also count all historic incentives and indirect subsidies, not just the latest figures.
Hillhater
100 TW
As is Climate Alarmism/AGW also big money.billvon said:
Rememer, the whole Climate game is not about pollution, emmissions , or renewable energy sources,..
Its all about money, redistribution of wealth and breaking the current economic system ..
As repeated stated by the UN.!
I always get a chuckle out of that image. That the rich fatcat grad students at CU Boulder and NCAR are laughing all the way to the bank and lighting their cigars with $100 bills while the poor, penniless Exxon executives just try to make enough to feed their families.Hillhater said:
Heck, I bet there are some FOX viewers who actually believe something like that.
Similar threads
