from Mike WryleyThe capital costs of wind power, availability, losses in collection and power factor, high maintenance costs , backup requirements and land leases make any claim of being “competitive” highly suspect.
Power company executives and the experts at the Energy Information Agency (https://www.eia.gov/) disagree.
Display Morefrom Mike Wryley The capital costs of wind power, availability, losses in collection and power factor, high maintenance costs , backup requirements and land leases make any claim of being “competitive” highly suspect. A trip down I 80 in Iowa is a testament to the so called “wind farm” being an assault on the environment, wild life and serenity of the outdoors. I guarantee that my electrical utility bills have only increased during the last 10 years. Wind energy is a total farce as a national energy policy, a scam on the ratepayer and taxpayer alike, and all predicated on a lie.
Seems you are very knowledgeable in carbon burning propaganda!
The lowest price tag for energy is e.g. solar in southern deserts with installation costs of 2-3cents/kwh. Wind in Europe is around 6cents/kwh. Both technologies have moderate follow up costs.
Carbon burning comes at the price of destruction of ocean live, health destruction of man due to micro particle emission and nitrogen gases. Further the nitrogen gas emission leads to unwanted fertilization of e.g. forest ground that leads to a destruction of the symbiotic live between trees and soil fungus.
Wind turbines sometimes kill a bird, fracking kills a whole landscape and an unknown number of living species. The same holds for oil exploration in the ocean. To compensate deep water horizon, we have to build 100'000's of wind turbines to reach the same level of destruction...
Nothing in my post is unsupported, or propaganda. The average German pays 36 cents per kWh, and his economy is basically in recession. You parrot the tripe of the AGW hysteria industry and apparently do not have the intellectual scientific curiosity to check the validity of your information.
The average German pays 36 cents per kWh, and his economy is basically in recession
This high electricity cost in Germany is true ... however the reasons for recession are many and varied..
when the Dragon sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold..from Australia to the Ruhr..
https://www.dw.com/en/china-sn…y-catch-a-cold/a-47168422
Even Switzerland may not be immune,,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news…manufacturing-slump-chart
however renewable energy appears to be able to create more jobs than fossil fuel energy..
some prognostications for somewhere in excess of 400,000 in the US in the next 30 years
if I should live so long...
carbon burning has a huge hidden and as yet unrealized cost that is about to be imposed on the world. When the coastal cities of the world are underwater, the cost to move them and the people who live in them to higher ground will come due.
Nothing in my post is unsupported, or propaganda. The average German pays 36 cents per kWh, and his economy is basically in recession.
This is (36cents) a fact I Agree:
But only fools elect a government that is payed and stirred by EON/Siemens etc. (energy sector) & car industry (Daimler, BMW, Volkswagen).
The Germans pay 36 Cents because the Government changed the rules how EON/Wattenfal can write the Bills not because of the new energy uplift the have to pay.
Indirectly the Germans finance the old dirty coal industry that produces current during time wind/solar alone would fully cover the demand.
In a free market EON had to charge the costumer always the prize of the current not their costs to get rid of their cheaper coal energy when nobody wants to have it.
Why did you never ask the government why they payed the "Häuslebesitzer"- the main electors of CDU - 200% of the costs of their solar installation ??? The prices for panels went down by a factor of four but the rules did not change.
Happy corruption!
PS: Did you know that the same corrupt government silently wrote a law to stop any on shore wind??? Thus Germany will loose all the competence in Wind soon.
I don't care if renewable electricity is more expensive - we should be using as much of it as we can for the planet's sake. He who wants to eat cheap may often eat dirty.
I agree that if the AquaFuel device is real, it is probably using some sort of fuel. That is, the Aqua has more energy in it than people think. However, if magnetic motors are real, I do not see what source of fuel they might be tapping. I think they would violate the conservation of energy. Perhaps by tapping zero point energy? Or something? I don't know. I doubt they even exist. But anyway, I have seen the term "over unity" used to describe such devices. I guess it means "violates the conservation of energy." Cold fusion definitely does not fall into this category. (It may violate the Coulomb barrier, but that is a different story.)
You may be aware of http://www.free-energy-info.com/PJKBook.html Among these curious persons or investigators of unusual claims are very few who believe in a violation of the conversation of energy. Rather, like the LENR community, they want confirmation. For LENR, we seek confirmation of fusion. For the Free Energy community, they seek confirmation of "the sea of energy in which we reside". I would very much like to link the loss of mass that doesn't produce kinetic energy to the poorly described and not yet linked mass that yields so called "Free energy". That assumes that any form of potential energy per relativity adds to mass of the system (relative to system mass once the energy is produced). I haven't any publishable data for that linkage. However, I think there is a linkage. If so then once a linkage to a source of the energy is established, these "Free energy" devices are as likely as LENR to replace fossil fuels or even renewable energy technologies.
I don't care if renewable electricity is more expensive - we should be using as much of it as we can for the planet's sake
More expensive within reason. You would not want to pay five dollars per kilowatt hour. Where it becomes "unreasonable" is a judgment call. Different people have different limits.
I like the idea of offering renewable energy at a modest extra cost for do-gooder people who are willing to pay more & corporations looking to score in PR. Many power companies in the U.S. offer this nowadays. It is a bit like offering "cage free" eggs at the supermarket. Since I have a soft spot for chickens I often buy them. Plus I think they often taste better.
Rapid progress is being made reducing the carbon content of electricity. In California coal-fired electricity has been eliminated. U.S. states vary a great deal in their sources of electricity and carbon content. The EIA has an interesting new section for each state:
https://www.eia.gov/beta/states/overview
North Dakota had no wind energy in 2000 and now it is around 25% of total generation:
https://www.eia.gov/beta/state…data/dashboard/renewables
See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera…hanged-in-your-state.html
International stats can be found here:
Message to Mike Wryley: Note that cost of electricity in North Dakota is 12 cents/kWh, despite the fact that 25% of their electricity comes from wind. It is 15 cents in Iowa even though 37% of their electricity comes from wind. The U.S. average is 13 cents. West Virginia, where nearly all electricity comes from coal, is 12 cents. Clearly, wind power cannot be much more expensive than coal. Actually, it is cheaper in many parts of the U.S., especially in the middle of the continent.
https://www.eia.gov/electricit…_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
These stats have been stable for years. There are now only $7 billion in subsidies for alternative energy, so there are no significant hidden costs for wind energy. $3.5 billion of that goes to ethanol, which is an energy sink, not a source. Fossil fuel energy subsidies are down to $0.5 billion. About $2.8 billion goes to wind and solar.
Message to Mike Wryley: Note that cost of electricity in North Dakota is 12 cents/kWh, despite the fact that 25% of their electricity comes from wind.
This is pretty much in line with the general rule. Currently installed kWh generation wind power cost 6 or less cents depending on wind quality, the other half are grid costs.
The problem with Germany is as said: If you buy your electors by 200% extra payment for nothing it must end that way. I remember the gold rush years when the journals were full with advertisements like: More that 12% annual return on investment...This guaranteed for 20 years!! Now, afterwards you can sell the current at a high price for almost free of production costs...
I like the idea of offering renewable energy at a modest extra cost for do-gooder people who are willing to pay more
This a better alternative than Yale University economist William Nordhaus wrote in 2008
. “For any policy to be effective in solving global warming, it must raise the market price of carbon,
which will raise the market prices of fossil fuels and the products of fossil fuels.”
Actually the best alternative is to put $ into cold nuclear fusion R&D ..
Well, I think I have said this elsewhere (perhaps even in here) but I do projects and later excute the instalation of Solar Panel based energy systems for irrigation in off grid locations (with deep cycle AGM battery banks) and include on these systems part of all of the energy use for domestic purposes of the farm owners. The cost has gone down enough to make it preferrable even than connecting the farms to the electric grid. If you use a good inverter that protects the battery bank from over draining and size the panel array properly to the power production of your location, at least in my area (which, I have to admit, is blessed from the solar energy point of view), makes no sense to go in other direction currently, and surely solar power installation base here is growing exponentially, without need for subsidy and cheaper than coal.
at least in my area (which, I have to admit, is blessed from the solar energy point of view),
Algeria? North Chile?
Algeria? North Chile?
North of Chile. City of Arica (Northernmost city of Chile).
I don't care if renewable electricity is more expensive - we should be using as much of it as we can for the planet's sake. He who wants to eat cheap may often eat dirty.
A rather cavalier attitude as the cost of energy has a lot to do with people’s standard of living, especially in developing countries.
Natural gas is hardly a “dirty” fuel, and modern coal plant stack emissions are pretty innocuous if the mercury is scrubbed.
Just where in the hell do you think all that carbon came from in the first place ?
where in the hell do you think all that carbon came from in the first place ?
according to the current consensus belief carbon originated by hydrogen fusion
the same mythical origin is posited for uranium/thorium in coal
and radon in natural gas (after a few steps like alpha decay starting with big stars once upon a time..
The problem with merely calculating the direct cost of coal-fired electricity generation is that nobody puts a price on cleaning up the waste mountains, the lakes of dirty water from the coal-washers, and restoring the trashed environment coal mining leaves behind. Coal mines in the UK have had a habit of filing for bankruptcy when those bills fall due. This is happening right now in Australia, and I expect the same thing happens in the good 'ol USA. So the real price is paid by the planet that gave us the coal in the first place.
The problem with merely calculating the direct cost of coal-fired electricity generation is that nobody puts a price on cleaning up the waste mountains, the lakes of dirty water from the coal-washers, and restoring the trashed environment coal mining leaves behind.
Plus no one accounts for the people who die prematurely from coal smoke particulates. In the U.S. that's roughly 20,000 people per year. In China it is estimated at 366,000:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0…ealth-smog-pollution.html
This could be reduced with improved scrubbers, but that would increase the cost of coal fired electricity. Coal is already uneconomical, costing more than natural gas everywhere in the U.S., and far more than wind or solar in many parts of the country.
If any other industry killed 20,000 people in ways that could easily be prevented, the industry would be subjected to massive lawsuits and it would be gone in a few years. The electric power companies get away with it because:
They have doing it for over a century and no one seems to notice;
They have enormous political power;
Most of the victims live in rural areas near power plants, and they are poor people who have no political power or influence. I have driven past coal plants in rural Georgia during an inversion. They stink for miles around. When you get close, it is like being caught in thick fog. Schools, houses and factories are barely visible from the road. The roads have signs warning of limited visibility. I have seen these plants from airplanes taking off from Atlanta. The smoke goes for miles. If you were to build something like that near Atlanta, subjecting wealthy and middle class people to the smoke, there would a hue and cry and it would be headline news in every newspaper and website. The plant would be permanently shut down the next day.
Mike Wryley and others seem oblivious to these problems. I expect they do not live within 50 miles of a coal plant. Even if carbon were not producing global warming, these problems should make getting rid of coal our first priority.
Incidentally, one of the best illustrations of global warming is in the xkcd comic:
I kind of stopped trying to convince anyone that GW is real nor to try to link it to CO2 of anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere. Doing so seems to draw the attention of people that are as fervent deniers of both GW and its link to CO2 as the defenders of flat earth idea are passionate and impervious to reason and facts.
I rather focus, as you are doing with the premature death of people data, in the health and environment debacle that is associated with the burning of fossil fuels, of which the CO2 is the lesser Evil compared with all the cancer causing, endocrine disrupting poisons released along with the burnt of fuels. That for me is by far the main concern and the ongoing disaster caused and imposed by mankind on Earth.
I kind of stopped trying to convince anyone that GW is real nor to try to link it to CO2 of anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere. Doing so seems to draw the attention of people that are as fervent deniers of both GW and its link to CO2 as the defenders of flat earth idea are passionate and impervious to reason and facts.
I rather focus, as you are doing with the premature death of people data, in the health and environment debacle that is associated with the burning of fossil fuels, of which the CO2 is the lesser Evil compared with all the cancer causing, endocrine disrupting poisons released along with the burnt of fuels. That for me is by far the main concern and the ongoing disaster caused and imposed by mankind on Earth.
I concur.
