Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 112   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 50139 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #340 on: August 02, 2019, 10:44:11 am »

Not really localized (there are maxima and minima until equilibrium is achieved, and there is a night/day cycle), when you realize that the temperature differences are constantly being redistributed around the world. It is also clear that the land mass warms up faster than the immense body of water, and that water, therefore, has a dampening effect on coastal temperatures.

Since most of the landmass is located in the northern hemisphere, this will contribute more to raising the world average, and the southern hemisphere lowers the world average. The global average is increasing, less fast in the southern hemisphere, faster in the northern hemisphere.

Part of the redistribution of heat is done by the air, and part by the ocean currents. For example, in my part of the European continent, by the warm North Atlantic Gulf Stream going from the equator to the northeast in the direction of the Arctic Circle (which also causes more moderate European temperatures in winter). But the multi-decadal trend is almost 2C higher in my country, over a period of only about 70 years. The extremes are becoming more extreme.

Cheers,
Bart

I'm not sure the scientists in the article agree with your assessment.  Even if you took their 1 in 50-150 continental and 1 in 20 in Britain's odds, that only means that this happens every 20 to 50 or 150 years, a perturbation in the course of climate history.  It just mean wait another few years and you'll see it again, climate change or no climate change.  It's one of those things that just happens.   

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #341 on: August 02, 2019, 10:47:10 am »

I'm not sure the scientists in the article agree with your assessment.  Even if you took their 1 in 50-150 continental and 1 in 20 in Britain's odds, that only means that this happens every 20 to 50 or 150 years, a perturbation in the course of climate history.  It just mean wait another few years and you'll see it again, climate change or no climate change.  It's one of those things that just happens.


Yeah, just one of those things that happen. Like getting killed by a bus. Because you were too busy to look where you were going.

Rob

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16936
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #342 on: August 02, 2019, 11:51:12 am »

Quote
... why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.

"Predictions are hard... especially about the future."

 ;D ;D ;D

Who would have thought that artificially constructed models should not be confused with reality!? Remember that the summer Arctic polar cap should have been melted already and Maldives underwater by now, according to "models."

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8831
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #343 on: August 02, 2019, 12:05:26 pm »

Quote
    ... why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.

Is there?

Quote
Remember that the summer Arctic polar cap should have been melted already and Maldives underwater by now, according to "models."

You should not confuse politicians or bloggers with scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41TCWEl-x_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQqTFGxrmg

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14558
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #344 on: August 06, 2019, 09:28:00 am »

Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready  to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.

I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328.

Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #345 on: August 06, 2019, 10:10:40 am »

Be nice to Bart.  He's my friend.  :)

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #346 on: August 06, 2019, 10:18:01 am »

Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready  to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.

I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328.

Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.

And let's not forget, all that for farms that only produce power 10% to, at most, 30% of the time. 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 10:21:11 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14558
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #347 on: August 06, 2019, 10:19:46 am »

Be nice to Bart.  He's my friend.  :)

Bart's a good guy, just deluded.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #348 on: August 06, 2019, 11:04:38 am »

Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready  to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.

I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328.

Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.



[/size]
And let's not forget, all that for farms that only produce power 10% to, at most, 30% of the time. 
[/size]
It's part of the reason Germany has not reduced it's CO2 production even though 40% of it's electricity production comes from renewables.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8831
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #349 on: August 06, 2019, 12:34:47 pm »

Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready  to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.

I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328.

Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.

Assuming you even tried digging, that's a shame. It is also hard to judge (without getting a subscription) if the opinion piece only focuses on the resources required to build, maintain, and decommission traditional wind-driven power generators. Does it compare that cost to that of running traditional utilities plants?

It would have shown you that while the production of a regular windturbine does consume resources (and provides a lot of jobs), the net result over the lifespan of such a device is positive, and that's not only if you look at the cost/benefit ratio. If you then look at the amount of carbon (and other) emissions that was avoided by running it (producing clean energy) instead of burning fossil fuel, the balance tips even more in favor of wind energy.

Also, there are different types of windmill designs (VAWT), more easy to maintain, and more efficient at lower wind-speeds (and thus usable in urbanized environments), and can be packed much closer together to create wind parks.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #350 on: August 06, 2019, 12:55:49 pm »

Assuming you even tried digging, that's a shame. It is also hard to judge (without getting a subscription) if the opinion piece only focuses on the resources required to build, maintain, and decommission traditional wind-driven power generators. Does it compare that cost to that of running traditional utilities plants?

It would have shown you that while the production of a regular windturbine does consume resources (and provides a lot of jobs), the net result over the lifespan of such a device is positive, and that's not only if you look at the cost/benefit ratio. If you then look at the amount of carbon (and other) emissions that was avoided by running it (producing clean energy) instead of burning fossil fuel, the balance tips even more in favor of wind energy.

Also, there are different types of windmill designs (VAWT), more easy to maintain, and more efficient at lower wind-speeds (and thus usable in urbanized environments), and can be packed much closer together to create wind parks.

Cheers,
Bart

Every article that I have read that looks at real life data over the entire power supply chain (manufacturing, product of power, transportation of power, etc.) shows that the cost of wind/solar is considerably higher than other traditional power production. 

Even many environmentalist that are pro-wind/solar admit that neither will ever be a base load power source just due to the expense, massive amount of land required to produce the same amount of energy and, most importantly, that wind/solar are so intermittent. 

Additionally, all those extra jobs mean that more money will need to be allocated to payroll, which raises the price of power.  Having power that is too expensive will evetually weaken the overall economy. 

All of this, by the way, is being proven by Germany.  Their carbon emissions have not gone down and their energy prices have gone up.  "Energy poverty" is a new term coined in Germany as a result of power being so much higher then neighboring countries it is putting people into poverty. 

It's time for us to give up on wind/solar and go all in on nuclear, otherwise our climate crisis will never be solved. 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 01:10:49 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8831
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #351 on: August 06, 2019, 01:51:18 pm »

Every article that I have read that looks at real life data over the entire power supply chain (manufacturing, product of power, transportation of power, etc.) shows that the cost of wind/solar is considerably higher than other traditional power production.

Hi Joe,

Maybe this will answer part of your questions:
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/

The difficulty is that different countries offer different opportunities, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Countries that are closer to the equator than my country may have better opportunities for Solar based solutions, others will be able to use different kinds of hydropower generation, others (e.g. near the seashores) may have more opportunities for wind power generators. Lots of potential currently remains untapped, because fossil fuel is priced so low (not all cost to society is priced in). The moment Carbon taxes are introduced, things will change even more rapidly.

This entire field is changing rapidly, in favor of renewables.

Even Boone Pickens Is Falling Out of Love With Oil
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/boone-pickens-etf-change-to-renw-from-boon-says-it-all-about-oil
Quote
Venerable oil baron T. Boone Pickens is giving up on oil sort of. Less than 18 months ago, his fund launched an ETF tracking stocks of companies expected to benefit from any increase in Brent crude oil prices. But soon, BOON the ticker of the NYSE Pickens Oil Response ETF will be no more. Instead, it will be relaunched as RENW, offering exposure to stocks benefiting from the transition to toward a low-carbon economy.

And there are more articles covering the switch to renewables, even by this oil dinosaur, e,g, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/t-boone-pickens-fund-to-replace-crude-oil-etf-with-renewables.

Quote
It's time for us to give up on wind/solar and go all in on nuclear, otherwise our climate crisis will never be solved.

I'd agree nuclear (especially thorium-based technology) is part of the way forward, but not the only one, and certainly not yet in the coming decades.

We will need a mix of all sorts of power generation, but also for power storage. I wouldn't be surprised if Hydrogen based Powercells gain more traction, and as we switch away from natural gas for heating, the same pipeline infrastructure, with more suitable pressure stations, can be used for the transportation of Hydrogen gas for heating. The cost for transforming from natural gas to hydrogen gas, will be relatively low because the transportation infrastructure is already there. I've been told that the cost to modify the home heating system for a different type of gas is not very high either.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14558
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #352 on: August 06, 2019, 02:19:03 pm »

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims[/b]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/
[/quote]

 ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o 8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D ROTFL!

Bart, I wish I could simply type in the whole article, but if I did that I'd be violating the guy's copyright. He's right on the money. It simply ain't gonna happen. He didn't even mention the butchery of birds that results from windmills, and the frying that  results from solar panels. What he talked about was the requirement for materials, including rare earths necessary to put this junk together. It's a convincing article, and he makes clear why it won't happen.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 02:37:10 pm by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #353 on: August 06, 2019, 03:59:29 pm »

Hi Joe,

Maybe this will answer part of your questions:
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/

The difficulty is that different countries offer different opportunities, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Countries that are closer to the equator than my country may have better opportunities for Solar based solutions, others will be able to use different kinds of hydropower generation, others (e.g. near the seashores) may have more opportunities for wind power generators. Lots of potential currently remains untapped, because fossil fuel is priced so low (not all cost to society is priced in). The moment Carbon taxes are introduced, things will change even more rapidly.

This entire field is changing rapidly, in favor of renewables.

Even Boone Pickens Is Falling Out of Love With Oil
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/boone-pickens-etf-change-to-renw-from-boon-says-it-all-about-oil
And there are more articles covering the switch to renewables, even by this oil dinosaur, e,g, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/t-boone-pickens-fund-to-replace-crude-oil-etf-with-renewables.

I'd agree nuclear (especially thorium-based technology) is part of the way forward, but not the only one, and certainly not yet in the coming decades.

We will need a mix of all sorts of power generation, but also for power storage. I wouldn't be surprised if Hydrogen based Powercells gain more traction, and as we switch away from natural gas for heating, the same pipeline infrastructure, with more suitable pressure stations, can be used for the transportation of Hydrogen gas for heating. The cost for transforming from natural gas to hydrogen gas, will be relatively low because the transportation infrastructure is already there. I've been told that the cost to modify the home heating system for a different type of gas is not very high either.

Cheers,
Bart

No real data is provided in this article, only referenced.

However, it seems that the numbers he is providing only take into account the actual cost to build the turbines and solar panels.  It does not go into the cost of land (of which 500 times more is required to produce the same amount of energy), the cost of developing that excessively larger amount of land (with all of the concrete, metal, glass, etc. needed), the fact that in order to make this cheap the land needs to be really far from where the energy will be used requiring expensive long distance power lines, and then the cost of maintaining all of these things. 

The article did also bring up having turbines (and other things) in the sea, which I guess would take away part of the cost of land, but did not go into the extra cost of building in a salt water and maintaining metal objects & parts in the significantly more corrosive saltwater environment. 

Once again, having a 3 acre one-gigawatt nuclear power plant operating 90% of the time located close to a city center is a much better option, by leaps and bounds, then a 1500 acre wind/solar farm only producing energy, at most, 30% of the time located miles outside that city center needing long range power lines.  We will eb much better off putting all of our effort into nuclear, and other clearly efficient energy solutions, then wasting our time on wind and solar. 

Insofar as your reference to power storage, you just seem to not be reading up on the deficiencies of batteries.  You always loose at least 20% of the power when you store it in a battery, but it could be as much as 40%.  It is a much better option to just have a modern grid with a power supply that can be ramped up or down as needed to supply the grid then storing electricity to use it later. 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 04:04:40 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #354 on: August 06, 2019, 04:10:29 pm »

Hi Joe,

Maybe this will answer part of your questions:
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/

The difficulty is that different countries offer different opportunities, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Countries that are closer to the equator than my country may have better opportunities for Solar based solutions, others will be able to use different kinds of hydropower generation, others (e.g. near the seashores) may have more opportunities for wind power generators. Lots of potential currently remains untapped, because fossil fuel is priced so low (not all cost to society is priced in). The moment Carbon taxes are introduced, things will change even more rapidly.

This entire field is changing rapidly, in favor of renewables.

Even Boone Pickens Is Falling Out of Love With Oil
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/boone-pickens-etf-change-to-renw-from-boon-says-it-all-about-oil
And there are more articles covering the switch to renewables, even by this oil dinosaur, e,g, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/t-boone-pickens-fund-to-replace-crude-oil-etf-with-renewables.

I'd agree nuclear (especially thorium-based technology) is part of the way forward, but not the only one, and certainly not yet in the coming decades.

We will need a mix of all sorts of power generation, but also for power storage. I wouldn't be surprised if Hydrogen based Powercells gain more traction, and as we switch away from natural gas for heating, the same pipeline infrastructure, with more suitable pressure stations, can be used for the transportation of Hydrogen gas for heating. The cost for transforming from natural gas to hydrogen gas, will be relatively low because the transportation infrastructure is already there. I've been told that the cost to modify the home heating system for a different type of gas is not very high either.

Cheers,
Bart
To argue that renewables will get cheaper when the governments add a carbon tax has nothing to do with economics.  Of course, if I add special taxes or give credits and rebates for renewables, the cost seems to go down. But it doesn;t really because someone is paying for those credits and rebates and taxes.  Also, it's not a level playing field.  It doesn't take a genius to realize that government favoritism influences what people buy or produce when government puts their thumb on the scale.


It also stops a move to a better product possible like your suggested Hydrogen based.  But as long as the government plays favorites, picking one fuel over another, the free market cannot work which would select the best possible methods.  Companies go where the money is.  If government gives you credits, you're going to use that fuel.  Meanwhile a better fuel will be sidelined because it's more expensive relative to the government favoritism.  Keep the government out of it.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #355 on: August 06, 2019, 04:29:51 pm »

No real data is provided in this article, only referenced.

However, it seems that the numbers he is providing only take into account the actual cost to build the turbines and solar panels.  It does not go into the cost of land (of which 500 times more is required to produce the same amount of energy), the cost of developing that excessively larger amount of land (with all of the concrete, metal, glass, etc. needed), the fact that in order to make this cheap the land needs to be really far from where the energy will be used requiring expensive long distance power lines, and then the cost of maintaining all of these things. 

The article did also bring up having turbines (and other things) in the sea, which I guess would take away part of the cost of land, but did not go into the extra cost of building in a salt water and maintaining metal objects & parts in the significantly more corrosive saltwater environment. 

Once again, having a 3 acre one-gigawatt nuclear power plant operating 90% of the time located close to a city center is a much better option, by leaps and bounds, then a 1500 acre wind/solar farm only producing energy, at most, 30% of the time located miles outside that city center needing long range power lines.  We will eb much better off putting all of our effort into nuclear, and other clearly efficient energy solutions, then wasting our time on wind and solar. 

Insofar as your reference to power storage, you just seem to not be reading up on the deficiencies of batteries.  You always loose at least 20% of the power when you store it in a battery, but it could be as much as 40%.  It is a much better option to just have a modern grid with a power supply that can be ramped up or down as needed to supply the grid then storing electricity to use it later. 
Joe, you're really hot to trot on nuclear.  I agree that it might be the best.  France seems to do well with them.  Problem is NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard.   How do we get past this at this point?  The rules and regulations are so oppressive, the political obstacles so intense, that most producers are not interested.  Or are they? 

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14558
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #356 on: August 06, 2019, 04:46:11 pm »

The time will come, Alan -- when people need power and find out they can't get it from so-called "renewable" energy. Our current problem started with "The China Syndrome," and was exacerbated by the Russian fiasco.The politics will change somewhere down the line because nuclear is the only workable option, unless something equivalent to nuclear suddenly pops up. Any such popup is being retarded by the left's fanatical focus on (intermittent) wind and sun.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3926
    • advantica blog
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #357 on: August 06, 2019, 06:12:41 pm »

You always loose at least 20% of the power when you store it in a battery, but it could be as much as 40%.  It is a much better option to just have a modern grid with a power supply that can be ramped up or down as needed to supply the grid then storing electricity to use it later.

You'll loose also a lot of electricity in the transmission lines and transformers.
A short transfer from the solar roof panel to a large battery in the garage and from there to the microwave is much more appealing.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8831
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #358 on: August 06, 2019, 07:05:31 pm »

You'll loose also a lot of electricity in the transmission lines and transformers.
A short transfer from the solar roof panel to a large battery in the garage and from there to the microwave is much more appealing.

Yes, and in addition, there will be a surplus of solar energy produced during the summertime, which is better used for storage than by switching-off the panels. And storage is not only possible in traditional batteries, but it can also be in hydro-pumped or compressed-air or kinetic energy, or as heat in a basin (e.g. salt, or basalt), or for electrolysis to produce hydrogen gas.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #359 on: August 06, 2019, 07:24:26 pm »

Both home installed roof solar and industrial produced solar or wind electricity require traditional fuels for backup.  So the utility has to maintain or build new fossil plants for backup.  All these costs will be passed on to consumers and businesses. 


NYS's democrat Governor Cuomo, who wants to be President someday,  is planning on spending $3.2 billion for offshore wind for 1 million homes or $3200 per home.  Of course, you know the final cost will be higher.  Even the design estimate doesn;t include the offset backup power plant costs.   This is why Germany with 40% of its electric coming from renewables spends 2 1/2 times more per KWH than in the US.  The NYS governor will have the utility subsidize much of this through higher electric costs to their users.  But the Governor directed that those costs will not be itemized by the utility on rate-payer bills.  So the public will never learn how much they're paying for all this "free" electricity.   


This is why people like me see the whole push for renewables as BS.  There's no trust we're being told the truth about anything.  How could there be?
https://nypost.com/2019/07/22/cuomos-incredible-wind-power-pander/
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 112   Go Up