Pages: 1 ... 541 542 [543] 544 545 ... 572   Go Down

Author Topic: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa  (Read 192481 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10840 on: June 02, 2021, 11:04:06 am »

I explained this once before in the past, but here we go again. 

Electricity prices are market based on the time of day that the energy is available to the market and are not based upon the cost of producing the electricity.  Baseline power (oil, gas, nuclear) produce on demand throughout the entire day, during both peak and off-peak hours.  Therefore any average pricing for those energy sources takes into account the entire pricing structure.  Wind and solar tend to only produce energy during off peak hours.  So average of those are skewed towards the cheaper times of the day. 

Therefore, making a comparison between baseline and green is not an accurate one due to the skewing towards cheaper times associated with wind and solar. 

Furthermore, you can not turn off wind and solar when it is producing.  So, even if the production is higher then the demand, it will still enter the grid.  This is not a good thing since an over charged grid can cause serious damage to the grid.  In this case, it is better for suppliers to sell the energy wholesale at whatever price they have to to get it out of the grid, causing pricing to crash even more during off peak hours, decreasing the cost further and often below production costs if the amount of wind and solar production is high enough. 

This cost though is not reflected in the cost of wind and solar prices since we have a single grid, as opposed to a different grid for each source of power (functionally impossible to do).  That is right, regardless of what people say, we do not have a free market anywhere when it comes to electricity due to a shared grid.  So, this loss is absorbed by the operating cost of the grid and labeled as taxes or service fees on the bill. 

Unfortunately, this distortion of costs associated with wind and solar, which makes it appear cheaper then baseline power, creates a trap leading people to think investing in wind and solar will save them money.  And it does, at first.  Unfortunately, it is not until you reach a approximately a 10% threshold, give or take a couple points based on your own local conditions, of total power coming from wind and solar, after you are long on your way, that the cost come pouring in, which is where Germany is right now.  The other countries you talk about are just not at that threshold yet. 

This has been outlined pretty extensively by energy economist Lion Hirth. 

On top of that, allowing yourself to become to reliant on wind and solar, which tend to not produce energy when you need it, can cause some pretty serious issues, like what happened in TX.  Wind and solar production dropped by about 98% during the cold snap.  Baseline power did have some issues as well, albeit the drop in power was minimal in comparison and fixable through the use of better parts, whereas wind and solar production dropped because of a lack of wind and sun, something that can not be fixed.  If TX had not become so reliant on wind and solar, and instead invested in more baseline power, they would have been able to supply energy. 

Note, just because I kind of figure you are going to do this, l will nip it in the bud.  Yes, if you look at total KWHs lose during the TX storm from wind and solar vs baseline, the drop is larger in the baseline.  However this is because the baseline produces a significantly larger amount of the percent of total energy in TX.  So, given this, you would expect a small percentage drop in total production of baseline to be bigger in absolute KWHs (given the larger supply to the grid) vs the absolute loss in KWHs from wind and solar that supplies a small amount to the grid. 
Good summation.  Also what's interesting is that although Texas is one of the largest oil producing states, it is the largest wind producing state in the country.  So it's not like they're against green.

Of course, solar and wind are not equally available as in Texas in many parts of the country.  Hence, less sunny NYS is building wind farms off-shore where it's way more expensive to build and maintain, adding to the costs of green.  America is so geographically, environmentally, and climatically diverse, available choices for green electric production vary greatly.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10841 on: June 02, 2021, 02:45:54 pm »

Of course, solar and wind are not equally available as in Texas in many parts of the country. 
Or oil, or coal, or gas: so what?
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10842 on: June 02, 2021, 07:07:23 pm »

Or oil, or coal, or gas: so what?
It makes it less economically feasable to use solar in Minnesota than Texas.  In the case of wind, NYS's installing wind towers off-shore are way more expensive than building them on land in Texas.  The return on investment is way faster in Texas.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10843 on: June 02, 2021, 07:17:34 pm »

It makes it less economically feasable to use solar in Minnesota than Texas.  In the case of wind, NYS's installing wind towers off-shore are way more expensive than building them on land in Texas.  The return on investment is way faster in Texas.
You seem to have a silly idea that energy production has to be local. It doesn't as I pointed out (Or oil, or coal, or gas: so what? ).
It makes plenty of sense to have solar in Minnesota, you seem to believe that because the sun shines more often in Texas, that's where solar should be but not Minnesota. But does Texas have more oil than Minnesota and if so, what should Minnesota do about energy production? More coal?
Quote
NYS's installing wind towers off-shore are way more expensive than building them on land in Texas
So you assume the cost is all that matters, and that there may be more wind in a location off-shore than somewhere (undefined) in Texas. And it doesn't matter if it is more expensive initially, a fact you can't seem to pay attention to. Like the cost to build then clean up two nuclear power plants that went very bad that you ignored. Multiple BILLONS of dollars.
Quote
The return on investment is way faster in Texas.
Again, so what? Its cleaner. It is renewable.
Seems in your 'mind' the only criteria for energy production is initial cost and return on investment. So short sided* considering the costs of dirty energy on the air, the water, the entire planet. But then you are really old, you probably don't think too much about what the planet could be like if we don't move away from coal, oil and of course you've failed to examine the cost of climate change on the planet. Assuming you believe in the science of climate change unlike the last guy in the White House.

*There are consequences to ignoring consequences that are a consequence of my blatant unwillingness to learn from my consequences.”
― Craig D. Lounsbrough


« Last Edit: June 02, 2021, 07:25:32 pm by digitaldog »
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10844 on: June 02, 2021, 07:27:38 pm »

You seem to have a silly idea that energy production has to be local. It doesn't as I pointed out (Or oil, or coal, or gas: so what? ).
It makes plenty of sense to have solar in Minnesota, you seem to believe that because the sun shines more often in Texas, that's where solar should be but not Minnesota. But does Texas have more oil than Minnesota and if so, what should Minnesota do about energy production? So you assume the cost is all that matters, and that there may be more wind in a location off-shore than somewhere (undefined) in Texas. And it doesn't matter if it is more expensive initially, a fact you can't seem to pay attention to. Like the cost to build then clean up two nuclear power plants that went very bad that you ignored. Multiple BILLONS of dollars. Again, so what? Its cleaner. It is renewable.
Seems in your 'mind' the only criteria for energy production is initial cost and return on investment. So short sided* considering the costs of dirty energy on the air, the water, the entire planet. But then you are really old, you probably don't think too much about what the planet could be like if we don't move away from coal, oil and of course you've failed to examine the cost of climate change on the planet. Assuming you believe in the science of climate change unlike the last guy in the White House.

*There are consequences to ignoring consequences that are a consequence of my blatant unwillingness to learn from my consequences.”
― Craig D. Lounsbrough

You can ship oil and gas from Texas to New York by pipeline, but not wind or solar. First, the governor of NYS isn't going to spend NY tax money to build plants in other states.  Second, saying costs and return on investment matter little do not consider the cost to users.  Rates go up to cover costly off-shore construction of wind generator farms.  Also, the longer it takes to pay back due to lower production of electricity and cost to maintain the farm compared to let's say Texas, means NY users, especially poorer residents, have a greater and longer impact on their family expenses.  You have to consider that impact as well.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10845 on: June 02, 2021, 07:41:09 pm »

You can ship oil and gas from Texas to New York by pipeline, but not wind or solar.
FUD.
https://statepowerproject.org/interstate-electricity-markets/
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4221
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10846 on: June 02, 2021, 08:12:10 pm »

You can ship oil and gas from Texas to New York by pipeline, but not wind or solar.

Of course you can.  Electricity is WAY easier, safer and more efficient to ship than either oil or gas.

Also, two things that photovoltaics love: sunlight and cold temperatures.  The colder the better.  Minnesota qualifies on both counts.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10847 on: June 02, 2021, 08:16:57 pm »

Of course you can.  Electricity is WAY easier, safer and more efficient to ship than either oil or gas.
Indeed; Alan shows his audience again, he's utterly lost by such a silly FUD filled assumption and misunderstanding of wind, solar and electricity generation and distribution.
Has he no shame?
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10848 on: June 02, 2021, 11:02:02 pm »

Cool idea Alan. Too bad it will fail because there is only pipelines for oil and gas from Wyoming: 😜
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-warren-buffett-new-nuclear-reactor-wyoming-natrium?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
Quote
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to build new kind of nuclear reactor in Wyoming
The project in Wyoming – the country’s top coal-producing state – is a small advanced reactor that runs on different fuels to traditional ones
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10849 on: June 03, 2021, 01:03:52 am »

Of course you can.  Electricity is WAY easier, safer and more efficient to ship than either oil or gas.

Also, two things that photovoltaics love: sunlight and cold temperatures.  The colder the better.  Minnesota qualifies on both counts.
The NY governor is not going to use NY tax money to build a plant in Texas.  So he's stuck with the climate and geography of NY to generate eletricity.  So he stuck building very costly off=shore wind farms.

TechTalk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2130
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10850 on: June 03, 2021, 01:53:59 am »

There is never any lack of online evidence, from one second to the next, that the internet can make you smarter or dumber depending on what you choose to listen to, read, watch, or believe. You can find plenty of examples right here on this forum! There is a vast amount of great information available online, along with loads of utter crap and everything in between.

Here's an example. "Wind and solar tend to only produce energy during off peak hours." Solar "tends to only produce energy during off peak hours"? What?! Now, there's a genuine lack of understanding of what hours of the day the sun shines or what hours of the day are peak demand for you to ponder. The phrase "tends to only" is a little hard to decipher. But if you separate the word only from tends to, you can make some sense of it one way or another. I'm assuming that most people understand that peak energy demand occurs from around 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which roughly corresponds with daylight—you know, when the sun is out. There's no mention of the different types of solar power, but basically there's photovoltaic and concentrated solar thermal power generating stations. Concentrated solar power generating stations have the additional option of thermal energy storage to regulate variance in power output and making them more usable for base load or on demand generation.

Another example, "Baseline power (oil, gas, nuclear) produce on demand throughout the entire day, during both peak and off-peak hours." First, base load power is the electricity generated to cover the minimum electrical demand during the course of a day. It is that portion of electric power used consistently throughout the entire day. Base load plants generate a constant level of electric power all day long and most types, especially coal and nuclear, are slow to respond to fluctuating demand. The base load power requirement can be met thru a mix of various types of power generating sources or by base load generating power plants. Base load power is not produced to provide "on demand" electricity "throughout the entire day", only the minimum power used over a day.

Since electrical demand fluctuates, other types of power plants are required to meet that demand. Fluctuating demand is met thru intermediate load following, peaking power plants, or thru grid energy storage. It is thru combined base load, load leveling, peaking plants, and grid energy storage that electricity on demand is made possible for use at any given time of day.

Want some more BS? "Furthermore, you can not turn off wind and solar when it is producing. [Why not?]  So, even if the production is higher then [sic] the demand, it will still enter the grid." This person is also apparently unaware of the existence or concept of grid energy storage. Large-scale grid-capacity storage for intermittent renewable energy sources is an exploding field in a host of ways: advancing technologies; increasing capacities; decreasing costs; new innovations; longer durations; increasing demand; expanding investment; and large-scale real-world demonstration sites and functioning deployments which are rapidly expanding around the globe. Here's a good source for news on the latest developments in energy storage. Is the variability of renewable energy an issue? Sure it is. It's a problem with multiple solutions like energy storage or generation dispersal. But, neither the world or technology is static. They both keep moving forward to address challenges thru innovation and progress. The future is pretty certain to look different than the past or present and various renewable energy solutions will continue to emerge and evolve.

There is plenty more FUD to wade thru, but I'm done for today. There are more enjoyable ways to spend time than cleaning up other people's crap.
Logged
Respice, adspice, prospice - Look to the past, the present, the future

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10851 on: June 03, 2021, 07:37:26 am »

There is never any lack of online evidence, from one second to the next, that the internet can make you smarter or dumber depending on what you choose to listen to, read, watch, or believe. You can find plenty of examples right here on this forum! There is a vast amount of great information available online, along with loads of utter crap and everything in between.

Here's an example. "Wind and solar tend to only produce energy during off peak hours." Solar "tends to only produce energy during off peak hours"? What?! Now, there's a genuine lack of understanding of what hours of the day the sun shines or what hours of the day are peak demand for you to ponder. The phrase "tends to only" is a little hard to decipher. But if you separate the word only from tends to, you can make some sense of it one way or another. I'm assuming that most people understand that peak energy demand occurs from around 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which roughly corresponds with daylight—you know, when the sun is out. There's no mention of the different types of solar power, but basically there's photovoltaic and concentrated solar thermal power generating stations. Concentrated solar power generating stations have the additional option of thermal energy storage to regulate variance in power output and making them more usable for base load or on demand generation.

Another example, "Baseline power (oil, gas, nuclear) produce on demand throughout the entire day, during both peak and off-peak hours." First, base load power is the electricity generated to cover the minimum electrical demand during the course of a day. It is that portion of electric power used consistently throughout the entire day. Base load plants generate a constant level of electric power all day long and most types, especially coal and nuclear, are slow to respond to fluctuating demand. The base load power requirement can be met thru a mix of various types of power generating sources or by base load generating power plants. Base load power is not produced to provide "on demand" electricity "throughout the entire day", only the minimum power used over a day.

Since electrical demand fluctuates, other types of power plants are required to meet that demand. Fluctuating demand is met thru intermediate load following, peaking power plants, or thru grid energy storage. It is thru combined base load, load leveling, peaking plants, and grid energy storage that electricity on demand is made possible for use at any given time of day.

Want some more BS? "Furthermore, you can not turn off wind and solar when it is producing. [Why not?]  So, even if the production is higher then [sic] the demand, it will still enter the grid." This person is also apparently unaware of the existence or concept of grid energy storage. Large-scale grid-capacity storage for intermittent renewable energy sources is an exploding field in a host of ways: advancing technologies; increasing capacities; decreasing costs; new innovations; longer durations; increasing demand; expanding investment; and large-scale real-world demonstration sites and functioning deployments which are rapidly expanding around the globe. Here's a good source for news on the latest developments in energy storage. Is the variability of renewable energy an issue? Sure it is. It's a problem with multiple solutions like energy storage or generation dispersal. But, neither the world or technology is static. They both keep moving forward to address challenges thru innovation and progress. The future is pretty certain to look different than the past or present and various renewable energy solutions will continue to emerge and evolve.

There is plenty more FUD to wade thru, but I'm done for today. There are more enjoyable ways to spend time than cleaning up other people's crap.

It wasn't necessary to attack another poster personally if you think your "facts" are more correct than his. It destroys the conversation and is against the forum rules.  You can do better.  After all, you're just as selective in cherry picking the web to "prove" your case as anyone else.

Regarding both posts, I won't get into a debate of whose technical points are correct.  I'll let you guys work them out. I will say that Joe was responding to Peter who claimed that green is cheaper.  Joe was explaining why it isn't.  If your points make it cheaper, why hasn't Germany taken advantage of them?  Their electric costs are the highest in Europe and 2-/2 times the average cost in America even though, I believe, they have more green production that any other European country at around 50%.  Green has been ballyhooed as "free" or nearly so, certainly less costly than fossil.  Germany proved the opposite.  Why should we believe you?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 07:41:22 am by Alan Klein »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10852 on: June 03, 2021, 08:35:50 am »

It wasn't necessary to attack another poster personally if you think your "facts" are more correct than his. It destroys the conversation and is against the forum rules.  You can do better.
Correction of misinformation with facts isn't an personal attack.
If one called you a moron, this is a personal attack.
See the massive difference?
If you feel this destroyed the conversation, stop conversing.
You'd do us and yourself a lot of good!
Quote
I won't get into a debate of whose technical points are correct.
Wise; quit while you're behind.
And then you continue... 😢
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 09:15:58 am by digitaldog »
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

josh.reichmann

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10853 on: June 03, 2021, 09:00:50 am »

To the few posters (two?) locked in some unending dynamic of no use to either - Disengage, take a break, and cut out the nasty tones, self flagellation and abuse. The prodding and bullying is getting tiresome. I won’t block this thread or block members until it’s truly abusive - but take a moment to humbly reflect on how you want to treat people and be treated. Every word we speak / write counts, and there are skillful ways to teach another or even express wrath. There are equally intelligent ways to dismantle a way of thinking with argumentation. More importantly we can all agree there are empowering ways to spend time. Let’s cultivate those, yes?

I hope I’m not being too subtle.

Logged
Compassion and wisdom are inextricably linked.

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3923
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10854 on: June 03, 2021, 11:31:13 am »

It's true, Peter,  that producing electricity is seemingly cheaper with solar and wind if you only calculate narrowly.  But what the advocates don't want to talk about is that you need fossil fuel plants to provide power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.  So you have all these fossil fuel plants that have to be maintained and built to run at those times.  So the true cost turns out to be way higher. 

That's what happened in Germany.  It's going to happen in New York State as I posted earlier when they build off-shore wind generators.  Also, keep in mind that off-shore construction is hugely costly.  NY only hires workers at extremely high union wages.  Add to that the fact they're constructing in the ocean and need to hire marine construction workers.  Also, what about maintenance workers?  They will need boats with captains and crews and helicopters just to transport them to get repairmen out to these facilities.   The cost difference to land-based plants is particularly multiplied and has already gone up substantially since announced only two years ago.

Also, the life span on wind had been only around twenty years vs. decades longer for traditional fossil fuel plants.  So now Germany and other who follow it's path will be stuck replacing the older wind plants with new generators adding to construction costs due to obsolescence.

Let me clear up this thing that I'm against green energy.  I'm not.  If someone can figure out how to burn water, I'd be all for it.  After all, I don't own an oil well in Texas.  My concern is that we're not getting a balanced view of the true cost of wind and solar generation.  Politicians and those in favor of it are hiding true costs.  How can you make good decisions when you only know half truths?  Other European countries are now studying Germany's green power to see why the costs have skyrocketed when it would have seemed they should go down.  Those countries are holding back on moving ahead with their own green or modifying them greatly so not to repeat Germany's errors.  America and other countries would be foolish to just repeat the same mistakes as Germany.  However, the bad news from Germany is being deliberately ignored here because it goes against the politics of green energy.  We shouldn't put our heads in the sand.  Maybe wind and solar isn't the better way.  Maybe we should look at nuclear again.  In any case, we have to be honest with the results others are getting and not ignore them.

Costs of green energy are not calculated narrowly. They include all costs, from design to construction and operation and maintenance and obsolescence. Including union workers and marine construction and helicopters and all that. And these cost calculations are not just projections but also include hard numbers from existing installations. And I note that yet again you ignore the incidental costs of fossil fuels, pollution, global warming, and so on. While we cannot know those numbers, we know the costs are enormous and do really exist.

And yes, we will need some fossil fuel plants for a while. But storage technology is advancing rapidly, batteries in particular. Costs are down, efficiency is up, and on solely economic grounds (no subsidies) utility companies are starting to build wind/solar + battery facilities, such as Florida Power and Light's 400 megawatt battery coupled with a 900 MW solar farm. And in some places, such as the east coast, the wind blows essentially all the time. It's been estimated that offshore wind turbines could supply the ENTIRE electricity needs of North Carolina.

You are right that we need to learn from Germany. But we need to learn how to do it right.

Logged
Peter

"You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts" -- D.P. Moynihan

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10855 on: June 03, 2021, 11:56:07 am »

Well stated Peter.
And it is said "all politics are local" but then so it is possible for power generation too: my 'little' Solar tracker report below (2012 forward).
About my community:
Many passive solar houses were built, and Eldorado remains the largest solar community in the USA.
Kermit was a bit off: not isn't hard being green.  ;)
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10856 on: June 03, 2021, 12:16:09 pm »

Costs of green energy are not calculated narrowly. They include all costs, from design to construction and operation and maintenance and obsolescence. Including union workers and marine construction and helicopters and all that. And these cost calculations are not just projections but also include hard numbers from existing installations. And I note that yet again you ignore the incidental costs of fossil fuels, pollution, global warming, and so on. While we cannot know those numbers, we know the costs are enormous and do really exist.

And yes, we will need some fossil fuel plants for a while. But storage technology is advancing rapidly, batteries in particular. Costs are down, efficiency is up, and on solely economic grounds (no subsidies) utility companies are starting to build wind/solar + battery facilities, such as Florida Power and Light's 400 megawatt battery coupled with a 900 MW solar farm. And in some places, such as the east coast, the wind blows essentially all the time. It's been estimated that offshore wind turbines could supply the ENTIRE electricity needs of North Carolina.

You are right that we need to learn from Germany. But we need to learn how to do it right.


I agree we have to do right whatever we do.  Unfortunately, green has become political.  Too many assume that if it's green, it's the best way. Germany has shown that isn't correct.  Wind and solar used there caused too many operational issues of loss of service as well as economic problems.  Meanwhile, in my old NYS, the Governor is pressing ahead shutting down efficient and clean nuclear generation plants and will be building hugely expensive off-shore wind with fossil fuel backup, hiding the backup from the public as best he can.  This form of green doesn't make sense. Just to do it to check off a political box hurts everyone and accomplishes little. 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10857 on: June 03, 2021, 12:22:15 pm »

Unfortunately, green has become political.
Like masks and vaccines, and climate change.
Now where did that come from?
Green energy production works and it is green. Take it from someone who's generated nearly all his electricity for 9 years.
Quote
Too many assume that if it's green, it's the best way.
No assumption, experience.
If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18445
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10858 on: June 03, 2021, 12:40:27 pm »

And now, for something very serious!
Save the Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=ZZ7c_6xghX8
 ;D
Even better since Aug, 2019
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13956
    • Flicker photos
Re: Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa
« Reply #10859 on: June 03, 2021, 01:02:30 pm »

Like masks and vaccines, and climate change.
Now where did that come from?
Green energy production works and it is green. Take it from someone who's generated nearly all his electricity for 9 years. No assumption, experience.
If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it.
I'm sure you're saving from solar.  I investigated it and didn't see an economic advantage for my situation. Maybe later if costs go up.  I currently paying only 12-1/2 cents/KWH. That's pretty low for the northeast.  When I lived in NYC under Con Ed, I paid a lot more than that.  Maybe double or at least 1 1/2x.  I have ordered an a 22KW emergency generator for loss of utility company grid power during hurricanes, ice storms and other events that take out power.  It will run on utility furnished natural gas. But they'll be no green tie-in at this point.  Generac has battery backup tie-in.,  But they're too small right now to run my AC.  And solar just doesn;t have the ROI.

Unfortunately, here in NJ, all power lines are above ground except for my 55+ community where they're buried.  So storms and trees falling always knock down power lines.  Hence the emergency generator.

While solar might make sense for an individual homeowner, doing green on a state level have costs an individual user doesn't have to deal with such as backup.  An individual gets backup from the utility.  Those extra costs are mainly born by users without individual solar backup who have to use grid power.  They wind up paying most of the costs for both green and fossil backup.  Individual homeowners with solar only pay those costs when you're off your own solar and need grid power.   You have the best of both worlds.   The poor schnook who lives in an apartment and can't use solar or can't afford to switch to solar gets screwed and pays for the homeowner who due to solar have little or no cost.   It's a great deal for you.
Pages: 1 ... 541 542 [543] 544 545 ... 572   Go Up