Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Ahh ?….so are you now agreeing that fossil fuel/Nuclear generated electricity is cheaper than Wind and Solar generation ?
Nope. Solar and wind are far cheaper on a $/kwhr basis. But for countries without storage or other generation, you can't use only solar and wind. So they add the cheapest source for THEM which is usually coal, since coal mines and railcars are cheaper than oil pumps and pipelines, and you need a working supply chain to get solar and wind into a country.

But like eating at McDonald's 24/7 because they have good deals, the cheapest approach is often not the best long term approach.
 
Someone needs a reality check !....

Does he even know what 9GW of solar looks like ? :shock:
Current new installations are running use approx 30 square km per GW
So 9 GW would mean installations totaling over 250 sqr km of area..!
..and that is INSTALLED CAPACITY , not output capacity which is about 20% of that figure !
And again it only produces useful power for 6-8 hours a day !
The size, complexity, and cost of the Battery farm needed to smooth out that supply doesnt even bear thinking about.
Then ...how long does any rational person think it is going to take to build facilities on that scale.?
In Australia, it will take 5 years to get construction approval...and that assumes it doesnt get blocked by environmentalists who might be a little pissed about 250+ Sqr km of pristine dirt being permanently blacked out from the sun :roll:
....Tell him he's dreamin' .!
 

Attachments

  • d9c0299d183a0677f6f81081d67f21db.jpg
    d9c0299d183a0677f6f81081d67f21db.jpg
    100 KB · Views: 3
I'm pretty sure he's taking about the extreme high costs of externalities in the case of fossil fuels.
Are you also agreeing now that currently wind and solar result in higher electricity cost to the consumer, than fossil fuel generation ?
.. but you believe there are some unidentified future consequences resulting from fossil fuel generation ?
If so, what exactly might those consequences be ?
 
Are you also agreeing now that currently wind and solar result in higher electricity cost to the consumer, than fossil fuel generation ?
.. but you believe there are some unidentified future consequences resulting from fossil fuel generation ?
If so, what exactly might those consequences be ?
Current generation. More to come. Fires, floods, drought, anomalous freezes, anomalous quakes, migration, crop failures, commodity crises, asthma, lung disease-- the list goes on and on. We know you're a blinkered denier, but we also know what we can see with our own eyes.
 
We know you're a blinkered denier, but we also know what we can see with our own eyes.
The first prediction that CO2 might increase temperatures came around 1900 when Svante Arrhenius performed the basic calculations that described the increase in temperature you might see from CO2 increases. But back then the change was so tiny that it wasn't an immediate problem. In 1912, for example, a Popular Mechanics article said that the burning of coal might cause warming through CO2 releases, and "the effect may be considerable in a few centuries."

In the 1950's, when London coal smogs were killing thousands, scientists like Keeling and Revelle started raising the alarm, warning that the ocean would not magically absorb all the CO2 we were generating - and that there was a cost to all the coal burning beyond hundreds of thousands of deaths from coal pollution.

It became a widespread issue in the scientific community in 1988 when the risk was first discussed at the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, the first time that a scientific consensus began to emerge on what increasing CO2 production might result in.

But during all that time there wasn't much warming, so it was easy for the average person to ignore the research and the threat. It was even easier for deniers to deny it was happening, since the changes were so small.

In 1998 we saw one of the first really anomolaus warm years, but again, since it was one year deniers could say "it was one year! That's it!" One famous article claimed "there's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!"

But since then it has become harder and harder to deny. That exceptionally warm year that deniers claimed was an extreme outlier is no longer even in the top ten warmest years. The 1998 record was broken in 2010, and 2014, and 2016, and 2023 by larger and larger amounts each time. The anomaly is now over 1 degree C, a threshold that deniers formerly claimed we'd never approach.

Today people see climate change with their own eyes in massive wildfires driven by drought and warmer temperatures, shorter growing seasons, loss of land due to erosion and sea level rise and heatwaves that are becoming increasingly dangerous to human life. Deniers can no longer make two of their favorite arguments - "the climate's not warming, stupid!" and "OK so it's warming, so what?" The only angle they have left is "the climate's warming but we're not doing it, stupid!" and they have been playing that for all it's been worth. During this time they've been heavily bankrolled by the oil companies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about climate change, exactly the same way (and often using the same people) as tobacco companies did in the 1950s to make cigarettes appear safe.

However, it's becoming harder and harder to fool most of the people most of the time. With more and more revelations about the fossil fuel money behind the denial movement, it's becoming clear to even the most conservative people out there that there's a truth that oil companies don't want people to see. In court oil companies are now admitting that CO2 causes warming, but also saying that the way to fight it is to tax people to build CO2 scrubbers - not to simply find alternatives to oil and coal. That sudden change in direction is revealing to many people. Another recent trial revealed that Exxon-Mobil has had a good estimate as to how much warming fossil fuel burning would cause, and has had it for the past 40 years - and it's been fairly accurate, even as they deny it's happening.

As we go into the future the denier movement will not go away; there is simply too much money (hundreds of billions in profit every year) that people very much want in their pockets. And climate change denial puts that money in their pockets at the expense of the poor who suffer the storms, droughts, famines and loss of land that climate change results in; as always, sh!t rolls downhill. Fortunately the science is now being taken more seriously by most people, and we are starting to work on alternatives. There's a long way to go of course - but it's a start.
 
Fires, floods, drought, anomalous freezes, anomalous quakes, migration, crop failures, commodity crises, asthma, lung disease--
There is NO scientific proof linking any of those issues to CO2 increase, let alone Anthopogenic CO2 induced emmissions,..
And, a question……
..remembering that CO2 is in a constant planetary “carbon cycle” ……
… how can we be sure that the increase in atmospheric CO2 , (280-420 ppm), is the result of increased emmissions, rather than a decrease in adsorbtion By the natural sinks ( eg,.warmer oceans). ?
 
In 1998 we saw one of the first really anomolaus warm years, but again, since it was one year deniers could say "it was one year! That's it!" One famous article claimed "there's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!"
Jack, you are truely racked with concern over this Climate change and warming, yet missing the fundamental problem !.
As i have said, , the climate will change , as it has in the past ( hotter and colder) before any possible human factor, but what is important is to understand the root cause of any change so as not to waste time, resources, and economic viability, chasing false solutions.
What are you and the misguided authorities going to do when it is realised that no amount of timkering with a tiny amount of CO2 , has no significant effect on the planets climate ?
And if you think the fossil industry is corrupt, you should follow the money trails for the Wind and Solar industries!
 
Jbut what is important is to understand the root cause of any change so as not to waste time, resources, and economic viability, chasing false solutions.
ABSOLUTELY! That's why we have done man-centuries of work on this topic, and now understand it.
how can we be sure that the increase in atmospheric CO2 , (280-420 ppm), is the result of increased emmissions, rather than a decrease in adsorbtion By the natural sinks ( eg,.warmer oceans). ?
Because of the isotope ratios in the atmospheric carbon. We know the new carbon coming from buried carbon that has only recently been unearthed.
What are you and the misguided authorities going to do when it is realised that no amount of timkering with a tiny amount of CO2 , has no significant effect on the planets climate ?
So you reject the science.

Rejecting science for political reasons / personal financial benefit rarely ends well.
 
There is NO scientific proof linking any of those issues to CO2 increase, let alone Anthopogenic CO2 induced emmissions,..
There are reams of proof. I linked several studies showing how CO2 increases are driving the warming. I know no amount of proof will ever budge you from your anti-science agenda - but for other readers, it's all there.
 
There is NO scientific proof linking any of those issues to CO2 increase, let alone Anthopogenic CO2 induced emmissions,..

I knew you'd say that, because you've insisted on being wrong about this throughout.
 
Because of the isotope ratios in the atmospheric carbon. We know the new carbon coming from buried carbon that has only recently been unearthed.
Unfortunately, that ratio (4%%) does not correlate to the 50% increase in the atmospheric CO2 ??
all it indicates is that there is a different minor source of CO2.….and does not explain the other 46% increase ?
So you reject the science
No, i will accept any “PROOVEN” science !
but i reject theorys that do not stand up to scientific interrogation !
I linked several studies showing how CO2 increases are driving the warming
No, you did not Jack.
..you simply linked to studies THEORISING a correlation between CO2 increases and warming

you've insisted on being wrong about this throughout.
It is you who insists i am wrong…! Time will tell if you are correct or just another member of the allarmist cult .
 
Nuclear was 3.5 times more expensive than coal back in the 1960's, sellafield was a reperposing plant after its fire while been named from windscale as its public opinion got to so bad they renamed it and changed the sites intentions form creating power to the world waste recycler now we have a multi trillion head ache thats got over a century of work there.

I used to advocate for nuclear but after my latest role i believe its singlehandedly left britian broke for the sake of security its a novel idea thats been implemented with no future realism of tackling its waste bit like the plastics industry.

While trying to avoid a public inquiry into the viability of recycling the worlds waste in uk in the early 1970 the plant had a tank leak radiation and hide it even from senior members to make sure they got the contract this was found out and they still got the contact and done some meduim level waste dumping at sea, this was a goverment branch at the time so clearly the tech can be trusted if throughly thought out but every person around it not so much !
 
And why did think reperposing was key becuase they invisioned uranuim prices skyrocketing as the world reactors came online and it just didnt happen so we not only left with the mess of it but finacially kicking the can down the road everytime a new goverment came in until the tax payer finally picked the check up so if we want to talk about cash hand outs nuclear is by far top of the leader board by a taken the piss margin.
 
I mean, solar and wind by themselves are amazing but need energy storage solutions (whether that's pumped hydro, some sort of closed-loop hydrogen thing, batteries, or a combination of the three) to be able to act as a grid backbone, and honestly our grid would probably work better and be more resilient if it were comprised of a bunch of local microgrids based around a few solar/wind farms with grid forming capability and energy storage, and then the local grids were linked by MVDC or HVDC and grid-following inverters to each other and to large standalone sites for things like nuclear power.

The upside to that approach is that it would make our infrastructure far more resilient than it is now; the downside is that it would probably be a few trillion dollars to do. Like I still think it's very much worth building a generation of fusion or fission power plants to replace the natural gas plants that are online now (both to provide backstop baseload while we get the hang of building microgrids, and to provide backstop power in the event that something goes wrong on a solar or wind farm), but nuclear and renewables are the way to go.

Re: climate change, I live in Massachusetts; it's mid-January and it was 50 degrees yesterday; last year I was able to commute 20 miles on a street motorcycle fairly close to year-round. There's no way that's in line with what Massachusetts winters used to be, and that's been a steady progression since I moved up here.
 
Last edited:
You haven't shown any proof of your dribble in over five years and over three hundred pages...
It's a religion for him. And logic/proof/facts have no effect when it comes to religion.
I mean, solar and wind by themselves are amazing but need energy storage solutions (whether that's pumped hydro, some sort of closed-loop hydrogen thing, batteries, or a combination of the three) to be able to act as a grid backbone, and honestly our grid would probably work better and be more resilient if it were comprised of a bunch of local microgrids based around a few solar/wind farms with grid forming capability and energy storage, and then the local grids were linked by MVDC or HVDC and grid-following inverters to each other and to large standalone sites for things like nuclear power.

Agreed. The new California net metering law are beginning to drive that. Solar is no longer all that cost effective without storage due to the change in time-of-use payback structures - you get effectively no credit for power generated when demand is low (i.e. 10am) but lots of credit for power generated when demand is high (5pm.) So a large solar system with a small battery for self consumption is now more economical than solar only.

Nuclear power is great but there are two problems with it.

1) It is by far the most expensive form of power we have (per megawatt-hour) and it takes ~20 years to get a new plant online from conception to first megawatt-hour generated. That's a lot of money, and a lot of time to wait until your investment pays off. Most people will not invest in anything with a >10 year payback.

2) It is difficult to get it to load follow efficiently. It really wants to be outputting 100% power all the time; that mimimizes cost per megawatt-hour.

So it makes sense to use nuclear power to provide base load - the load we always need, 24/7, summer and winter. For any power beyond that, natural gas or nuclear+storage makes more sense. But if you are adding storage anyway, then it's a lot cheaper to install solar (or wind) than nuclear.

Re: climate change, I live in Massachusetts; it's mid-January and it was 50 degrees yesterday; last year I was able to commute 20 miles on a street motorcycle fairly close to year-round. There's no way that's in line with what Massachusetts winters used to be, and that's been a steady progression since I moved up here.

Yeah, I grew up on Long Island and the bay used to freeze most years. And some kid would always try to walk across and fall in, and we'd get the usual lecture about not doing that (we'd do it anyway of course.)

Nowadays it's so rare that they write news stories about it, because a lot of people hadn't seen it in their lifetime.
 
It's a religion for him. And logic/proof/facts have no effect when it comes to religion.


Agreed. The new California net metering law are beginning to drive that. Solar is no longer all that cost effective without storage due to the change in time-of-use payback structures - you get effectively no credit for power generated when demand is low (i.e. 10am) but lots of credit for power generated when demand is high (5pm.) So a large solar system with a small battery for self consumption is now more economical than solar only.

Nuclear power is great but there are two problems with it.

1) It is by far the most expensive form of power we have (per megawatt-hour) and it takes ~20 years to get a new plant online from conception to first megawatt-hour generated. That's a lot of money, and a lot of time to wait until your investment pays off. Most people will not invest in anything with a >10 year payback.

2) It is difficult to get it to load follow efficiently. It really wants to be outputting 100% power all the time; that mimimizes cost per megawatt-hour.

So it makes sense to use nuclear power to provide base load - the load we always need, 24/7, summer and winter. For any power beyond that, natural gas or nuclear+storage makes more sense. But if you are adding storage anyway, then it's a lot cheaper to install solar (or wind) than nuclear.



Yeah, I grew up on Long Island and the bay used to freeze most years. And some kid would always try to walk across and fall in, and we'd get the usual lecture about not doing that (we'd do it anyway of course.)

Nowadays it's so rare that they write news stories about it, because a lot of people hadn't seen it in their lifetime.
Agreed! Nuclear for 24/7 baseload, wind and solar plus storage for everything else :) Just out of curiosity, did/do you go to MIT and live on 5E at East Campus?
 
If they are well thought out and executed, "virtual power plants" (where leased home solar feeds leased home batteries (including the EV in the drive) with draw down with the power company to buffer the grid ) seem to be a workable solution. A few are up and running various places. It's cheap for a power company to install a bunch of rooftop solar compared to a big solar farm, and transmission losses are much smaller.Plus you spend less on overtime restoring power after a storm if most of your customers can go days without suffering.

It's going to take a pretty smart grid to make it work, but we're long overdue for that.

I suspect they'll need to be federally regulated and backed, like banks, to ease some of the problems if/when the parent company folds. Probably should be customer owned co-ops, but I doubt that will happen.
 
Back
Top