World is embracing clean energy, professor says

February 1, 2016
solar cell

Renewable, energy efficient and flexible electricity sources are being adopted by policy makers and investors across the globe and this is sign of optimism in the battle against climate change, a University of Exeter energy policy expert is suggesting.

In a journal article published in Nature Energy today Professor Catherine Mitchell from the University's Energy Policy Group argues that investment in renewable electricity now outstrips that in fossil fuels, and that increasing numbers of policies to improve the efficiency of use and to make energy systems more flexible are pointing to a global momentum in the adoption of systems.

"While the world is still dependent on fossil fuels, because energy systems have long lives, it has got to the point where more than half of global electricity system investment is in renewables rather than investment. It is a sign that globally we have moved our public policy discourse and investor preferences from the old 'dirty' energy system to a clean one," she said.

The adoption of by a few countries like Denmark and Germany in the 1990s, has led to improved understanding of energy system operation and a fall in prices which has had a knock on effect. A few countries, like the UK, remain dominated by conventional energy systems but most are supporting the move to sustainable energy systems.

"They are just trying to act as good global neighbours and have realised that meeting their reduction commitments is no longer as expensive as they thought, and it helps, rather than makes worse, the security of their , " added Professor Mitchell, who us based at the University's Penryn Campus in Cornwall.

While the changing discourse is welcome, Professor Mitchell stresses that the challenge of climate change has not yet been met and that policy statements need to be backed up with firm action: "The recent United Nations meeting on climate change in Paris and its agreements has led to strong support for individual country's sustainable energy policies. However, these statements need to be backed up with appropriate governance—policies, institutions, incentives and energy system rules—to make sure they are implemented and are successful."

'Momentum is increasing towards a flexible system based on renewables' by Catherine Mitchell is published in Nature Energy.

Explore further: Costa Rica boasts 99% renewable energy in 2015

More information: Momentum is increasing Towards a Flexible Electricity System based on Renewables, DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2015.30

Related Stories

Costa Rica boasts 99% renewable energy in 2015

December 18, 2015

Almost all of Costa Rica's electricity came from renewable sources this year, making it one of a few countries in the world to eschew fossil fuels in energy generation, the state electricity agency said Friday.

Africa launches massive renewable energy initiative

December 2, 2015

African heads of state today announced plans for a gigantic renewable energy initiative that would provide as much as 300 gigawatts of renewable energy – twice the continent's total current electricity supply – by 2030.

How will climate policy affect energy access goals?

January 14, 2016

Stringent climate policies would increase the cost of fossil fuels, including those used for the cleaner burning stoves (such as kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity, and piped gas) that are slowly replacing traditional ...

India shines with renewable energy announcement

December 1, 2014

As world leaders gather in Lima, Peru for the next round of the UN climate negotiations, India announced that it intends to more than double its use of renewable energy as a share of its electricity mix by 2020. The action ...

How to curb emissions? Put a price on carbon

September 3, 2015

Literally putting a price on carbon pollution and other greenhouse gasses is the best approach for nurturing the rapid growth of renewable energy and reducing emissions.

Investments may make or break climate change

June 4, 2014

A new International Energy Association (IEA) report, released today, says that the current trend of energy investments falls well short of the amount needed to avoid dangerous global warming, and policies in place are insufficient ...

Recommended for you

Samsung to disable Note 7 phones in recall effort

December 9, 2016

Samsung announced Friday it would disable its Galaxy Note 7 smartphones in the US market to force remaining owners to stop using the devices, which were recalled for safety reasons.

Swiss unveil stratospheric solar plane

December 7, 2016

Just months after two Swiss pilots completed a historic round-the-world trip in a Sun-powered plane, another Swiss adventurer on Wednesday unveiled a solar plane aimed at reaching the stratosphere.

Solar panels repay their energy 'debt': study

December 6, 2016

The climate-friendly electricity generated by solar panels in the past 40 years has all but cancelled out the polluting energy used to produce them, a study said Tuesday.

87 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2016
"World is embracing clean energy, professor says"
and is embracing fossil fuels too, to compensate intermittency.
"Since solar works only when the sun is out, and wind works only when there is wind (and not too much of it), both of these are unreliable (called non-dispatchable). They require dispatchable backup, which adds greatly to the cost. So for example, wind with NatGas Combined Cycle backup costs $0.09 + $0.07 = $0.16/KWh."
http://us-issues....-policy/
https://usissuesc...tion.gif
"so you think we're reducing the use of coal? -- think again"
http://www.forbes...k-again/
http://www.indepe...236.html
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2016
and is embracing fossil fuels too, to compensate intermittency.
I find it telling that every time this person posts, he has to put up the opinions of others, apparently necause of the lack of any factual support. One wonders if it can think for itself.

https://www.etsy....ng-other

promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
factual support
"Germany .. has not been able to eliminate the need for an overlap to cover periods when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing."
"As Germany has accelerated its phaseout of nuclear power, it has at times relied too heavily on coal-fired power plants"
"The bill was passed onto consumers .. have risen 68 percent since 1998"
http://www.nytime...use.html

promile
Feb 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
Obviously we are living real time through big changes in our economy - and also our energy systems. Willie seems oddly wedded to misinformation. Willie's links claim that renewables -
cost far and away more per Kilowatt-Hour than fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro
Is laughably false. Willie and his silly article claim that wind costs 16 cents Kwh, and solar costs 21 cents. A quick look at U.S. state electricity costs - http://www.neo.ne.../204.htm and a comparison against penetration of renewables (both with and without hydro) make that clear. https://en.wikipe..._sources e.g. - Iowa gets 29% of their electricity from non hydro renewables - and electricity rates are 8.24 cents. Something wrong with that math Willie.
Lord_jag
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
solar costs 21 cents.

Lets see. Solar RETAIL costs 80 cents per watt right now.

It lasts 25 years (at least) making power 8 hours per day, every day. (8 hours cause I'm being REALLY generous.)

So... 25x365x8 = 53000 Watt*hours, for less than a dollar. But you want cents per KWh? Easy.

100cents/53KWh = 1.8 cents per KWh.
BUT thats Retail.
BUT that's at 8 hours of sun per day.
BUT that's at $1/watt.

So you're only off by a factor of more than 10x, and only because I'm extremely generous in EVERY SINGLE number and compounding the error in your favor.

You really couldn't be more wrong.
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2016
It is almost for free; cloudy days/winter, no energy storage is needed, just rely on/embrace old fossil fuels.
Lord_jag
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
Well aren't we lucky then that we use most of our power during the day, and far more running HVAC when the sun is out.

It's it wonderful how solar meets our needs most when we need it most!

Thank you for mentioning how perfectly it meets our needs.
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
Well aren't we lucky then that we use most of our power during the day ...

It's it wonderful how solar meets our needs most when we need it most!
No need of light at night, welcome back to cave ages. Yabadabadoo!
david_king
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2016
Conservation is still our cheapest route to reducing fossil fuel use and to meeting future demand. The pacific north west can cut electricity demand by 75% for less than 2¢ kWh. So unfortunate that it requires putting people back to work but maybe we can learn to live with full employment some day. We could change our building codes tomorrow and reduce new construction's future energy requirements by 90% by adopting passive house standards as most of Northern Europe has. The upfront savings in HVAC requirements will often net out the added insulation and ventilation systems.
Transportation is still a hurdle but we may get there sooner than we think with a little luck on the battery or biofuels fronts.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
"World is embracing clean energy, professor says"
and is embracing fossil fuels too, to compensate intermittency.
Only indeterminacy is you WillieWard
It is almost for free; cloudy days/winter, no energy storage is needed, just rely on/embrace old fossil fuels.
You must love the taste of fracking water
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
Keep howling at the moon Willie - mean time reality is passing you by. Here is a good article for you. http://thinkprogr...olution/
a combination of the technologies and strategies discussed above will be able to incorporate very large amounts of renewable electricity into the electric grid cost-effectively. The "intermittency" problem is essentially solved.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2016
The world should really be bracing from "clean" energy. Let's see how clean it truly is.
https://www.googl...products
https://www.googl...ic+waste
Eikka
2.9 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
It lasts 25 years (at least) making power 8 hours per day, every day. (8 hours cause I'm being REALLY generous.)


You -are- being overly generous. The real capacity factors for photovoltaics go from 7-11% in Germany to about 14% in California. 8 hours a day would imply 33% capacity factor which doesn't end up happening anyhere. Reason is that sunlight falls on the panels in a sinusoidal fashion, not on/off, and there is cloud cover.

For a generous 12% capacity factor and 80 cents a Watt, you get about 1 kWh per Watt per year, or 3.2 cents per kWh over 25 years. The panel itself however is only 1/4 to 1/2 the overall system cost which would put the actual price at 6.4...12.8 cents, plus maintenance and upkeep. Even if you add just 1% maintenance cost per year the price has gone up to a minimum of 8.2 cents up to 16.4 cents.

Add transmission costs ~6 c, and you're easily at 14-22 cents per kW. In fact, in the US solar power is getting subsidies at 31 c/kWh.
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2016
Iowa gets 29% of their electricity from non hydro renewables - and electricity rates are 8.24 cents. Something wrong with that math Willie.


There's nothing wrong with the math there. The electricity prices simply do not count the subsidies paid.

The taxpayers are paying however many cents per kWh through federal and state incentives, which ends up with utilities buying already paid for electricity at low rates and dumping them on the grid.

Texan utilities are even giving wind power away for free at nights, because the more people use the wind power - even if it's just going to complete waste - the more the federal government is pumping money into Texas in the form of renewable subsidies, and the more environmental credits they get to sell to "offset" carbon emissions.

The public attitude with renewables is like a spoiled child who wants a pony: nobody thinks about where to put it or what to feed it, they just want to have it even if it ruins the family budget.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
http://www.sunlig...dies.php

There are two subsidies that together can reduce the cost of a commercial solar power system by 70-75% of the original installed price.

1. Federal Investment Tax Credit for Commercial Solar Energy Property

Businesses investing in solar energy equipment and its installation can take 30% of the total project costs (including supporting structures and new roofing installed in conjunction with PV systems). For more information, see IRS Publication 946, IRS Form 4562: Depreciation and Amortization, and Instructions for Form 4562.

2. MACRS Accelerated Depreciation

Investment in solar power generating equipment and its installation are subject to 5-year accelerated depreciation under the IRS' Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System.


For an example. That's from a company that sells solar systems.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2016
http://watchdog.o...bsidies/

"The request was narrowly defined to only include subsidies with clear identifiable impacts on the U.S. Treasury and that are provisions specific to energy,"


And the result is that wind is getting 3.5 cents and solar is getting 23 cents per kWh. The average power prices are around 11 cents, so adding net-metering, a solar power producer is getting around 34 cents per kWh paid by the public. At least. State subsidies add too.

And THAT is the real cost of solar power. Not how much it theoretically costs if all costs were paid overnight, but what we ACTUALLY pay for it.

If solar power "actually" costs less than 5 cents, anyone building it must be making a killing. The question then is, why are we paying them so much if they can make profit anyways? Or is it that it costs so little only because we -are- paying them so much indirectly and on the side?

Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
factual support
"Germany .. has not been able to eliminate the need for an overlap to cover periods when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing."
"As Germany has accelerated its phaseout of nuclear power, it has at times relied too heavily on coal-fired power plants"
"The bill was passed onto consumers .. have risen 68 percent since 1998"
http://www.nytime...use.html


Fossil fules are really cheap at the moment but using them means dumping unsustainable amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the same vein dumping household junk on the street as is done in third world cities is also much cheaper than having a clean city. Would you also advocate to cut down on sewers ? They're expensive !
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
Eikka
The taxpayers are paying however many cents per kWh
Notice your use of the word (however). Would you put a number on that one Eikka? Do you agree with Willie - that wind power costs 16 cents per Kwh. That would mean that tax payers are subsidizing wind to the cost of almost 8 cents a Kwh. Could you support that assertion Eikka? The ptc for wind is 2.3 cents per Kwh - for the first 10 years of turbine operation - and that is now being phased out. Show me where the other 6 cents for wind subsidies are coming from, or the other 11 cents of subsidies for solar are coming from Eikka. I am done arguing with you over facts - that you cannot support. Wind tenders around the world are coming in at 4 cents per Kwh. The cheapest at the moment is Morocco - at 3 cents per Kwh. Subsidies are being phased out in the U.S. - so a few years from now - the facts will become clear even to you. I am sure you will still be tilting at windmills.
Lex Talonis
3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
If only people would embrace the love of Jesus, for his incestious father so loved the world that his way should light the path for ever more.

If you welcome Jesus into your heart and home, he will illuminate your life for free and for ever.
greenonions
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Eikka
and solar is getting 23 cents per kWh.
You made the claim - now show us how solar is getting 23 cents per Kwh subsidy. Provide support for your assertion.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
It lasts 25 years (at least) making power 8 hours per day, every day. (8 hours cause I'm being REALLY generous.)


@Eikka You -are- being overly generous. ... Reason is that sunlight falls on the panels in a sinusoidal fashion, not on/off, and there is cloud cover.
That is why people install sun trackers, you idiot. Or they simply add a few extra panels, which are cheap ($200) and falling in price. Moreover now solar windows are for sale. Solar paint is scheduled to be sold in 2017
Old_C_Code
4 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2016
Oak Ridge Labs Alvin Weinberg's Thorium Molten Salt Reactor proved viable. A fission reaction with (safe) no weapons application in it's waste products. The reactor style also shuts itself off in the event of a failure, since the molten salt flows into a holding tank and solidifies.

No mention of the best idea of all, SAFE NUCLEAR ENERGY.
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lord_jag
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2016
You -are- being overly generous. The real capacity factors for photovoltaics go from 7-11% in Germany to about 14% in California.


7 %. So in 24 hours they only get 1.7 hours of sunlight. 11% is 2.6 hours of sunlight.

According to Eikka, In the depth of winter Germany gets less than 2 hours of sunlight, and in the middle of summer, still less than 3 hours of sunlight. WOW! You're so awesome Eikka. Great numbers. Lets run with those.

So same calculation at 2 hours of sunlight like Eikka says. Still 7.2 cent's per KWh. Still a few country miles from the 21 cents quoted before.

I would like to see this 2 hour summer day in Germany. That would be amazing to observe.
greenonions
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Old_C_Code
No mention of the best idea of all, SAFE NUCLEAR ENERGY.
As someone who hopes that nuclear is a major part of our energy future - I still have to ask - what is the cost per Kwh of the power from this SAFE NUCLEAR ENERGY?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
In terms of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) / real costs, nuclear power is competitive, cheaper than PV rooftop, and more ecologically friendly than PV utilities (solar farms) as it does not ruin natural landscapes; furthermore, nuclear power is reliable(dispatchable) as it is not intermittent as wind/solar(non-dispatchable, 2¢/kwh, worthless).
http://energyinno...ents.png
http://institutef...-MKM.png
http://www.theene...-sources
http://institutef...ologies/
https://www.eia.g...tion.cfm
http://www.forbes...america/
promile
Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
In the depth of winter Germany gets less than 2 hours of sunlight, and in the middle of summer, still less than 3 hours of sunlight.


So that is that yellow thing I so rarely see outside my window. The sun! I never knew. (/sarcasm)

No, seriously. The average sunshine hours in germany for 2015 were 1723 (topping out at 1875 in some parts of the country). Which equates to 4.7 hours of sunshine per day on average ('darkest' place gets 4.3 on average).
http://de.statist...aendern/

Come on over and actually see for yourself. You can have seriously sunny days in germany summer or winter (and seriously drab ones...just like anywhere else)
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
In terms of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) / real costs, nuclear power is competitive, cheaper than PV rooftop, and more ecologically friendly than PV utilities (solar farms) as it does not ruin natural landscapes;
You didyn't include the $trillion USA defense budget used to secure those fossil energies, Willietard

Nuclear doesn't ruin natural landscapes? Go live in Chernobyl you robot sockpuppet

My solar system would pay for itself in one year. In Russia it will be longer because our energy structure is not controlled by zionist Babylonian child molesters anymore
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
Nuclear doesn't ruin natural landscapes? Go live in Chernobyl...
without wind/solar farms to menace, "wildlife thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant"
http://www.thegua...adiation
http://www.design...tion.htm
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
My solar system
solar panels' carcinogenics: gallium arsenide, hexavalent chromium, selenium, brominated diphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls.
https://www.googl...products
https://www.googl...ic+waste
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2016
quite low EROEIs
Energy Returned on Investment(EROI): Nuclear=75, Wind=4, Solar=2
http://blogs-imag...gure.jpg
http://www.forbes...rgy-mix/
http://bravenewcl...fig1.jpg
greenonions
4 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Willie really needs to read his own sources. Here is a quote -
Although wind and solar are now cost-competitive and offer many health and environmental advantages over fossil fuels, these are still considered intermittent sources because the sun isn't always shining and the wind isn't always blowing). As a result, wind and solar are unable to entirely replace the services that certain conventional "baseload'" sources provide to the system. That said, utilities and power operators are discovering a multitude of new ways that low-carbon technologies can offer more value to the power grid across the board.
From - http://www.theene...-sources You should read the whole article Willie - it totally contradicts everything you are trying to lie about.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2016
The world is embracing clean energy - and that is a good thing. One of the things you hear Eikka, and Willie whining about - is the poverty that will be caused by switching to renewables. Here is another aspect to the issue. A project to bring a basic level of power access to 250,000 people in Rwanda - at a cost of $200 per installation.
In many regions of sub-Saharan Africa, the cost of the solar system is less than what people are paying for dirtier forms of fuel used for light, usually kerosene.
Wow - a better world - using renewable energy. Don't tell Willie. http://www.greent...-by-2018 This is a 2 year project Willie. How long would it take to build a nuke - and all those power lines?
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Do they have sufficient water in Rwanda to cool a nuke? It dumps three kWh of waste heat into the local environment for every kWh of power generated. How about the technical infrastructure? The technical personnel? Available nuclear fuel? A place to hide the waste until the next generation finds it?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2016
Does Rwanda want this?

http://fukushima-...nt-port/
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
My solar system
solar panels' carcinogenics: gallium arsenide, hexavalent chromium, selenium, brominated diphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls.
https://www.googl...products
Those are the ingredients in your fracking water, Willietard
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
Does Rwanda want this?
Rwanda wants to contribute enormously in reducing CO2 emissions from dirty savanna ecosystems by covering it with 'green' solar panel.
http://en.wikiped...Topi.jpg
https://upload.wi...Park.jpg
https://en.wikipe...iversity
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2016
This project will put solar panels on peoples houses Willie. Allowing them to stop burning wood and kerosene. Don't you think that will be a plus for the environment?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2016
Tell Willie it is the 21st Century, and we learned from the terrible mistakes of the 20th. Now, I call up my PV panels on the computer "dashboard", and see how much power they are generating now and in the past, can call up the EV and set the temperature, start it charging, lock/unlock, check the range, and other stuff.

We're in the 21st, Willie. We learned from Hiroshima, from Chernobyl, from Fukushima, we do not need power we cannot control, deadly nasty stuff which leaves even nastier stuff we cannot even safely store.

We have grown up. We suggest you do it, too. Since I have you on ignore, I will have to wait until others reveal your response, due to be more canned cut-and-pastes.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2016
We learned from Hiroshima, from Chernobyl, from Fukushima
We learned that even with all incidents, nuclear power presents an outstanding safety record (no one has died from Fukushima radiation), it produces fewer fatalities than wind/solar per gigawatt produced, it is more ecologically friendly as it does not ruin natural landscapes neither slaughter birds with wind blades/solar mirrors, and it is in fact carbon-free(not backed by fossil fuels as wind/solar).
http://nuclear-economics.com/
http://thoriummsr...7_23.jpg
We're in the 21st
Wind-powered machines, and other intermittent technologies, should be in the past in medieval/dark ages; nuclear power is the future.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2016
intermittent technologies, should be in the past in medieval/dark ages
nice opinion Willie - which of course you are entitled to. I guess tell all the people in India, and China, and Rwanda etc. etc. that they have to wait a couple of decades to get their centralized nukes - that will require thousands of miles of transmission - and life long subservience to a centralized power authority. It is understandable that some people still support a monopolistic centralized power system - others are interested in progress - a diversified energy system - with choices - and cheaper, cleaner, energy sources. The project I referenced was one of many - helping people get off cooking and lighting with dirty, unhealthy fuels. As usual, your love for birds - far outstrips any interest in helping the human race progress.
yep
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
http://energyfrom...rapower/
Slow breeder reactors did not support the military industrial complex and were shelved forty plus years ago. It is a new era with new potential.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
We tried Thorium in Fermi I, and it had so many problems they went to a breeder, which immediately failed and "We Almost Lost Detroit". Read the book by the same name.

Send a copy to Willie and Ira.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
We tried Thorium in Fermi I, and it had so many problems they went to a breeder,

So does that "We" mean you were the Senior Engineer there too?

which immediately failed and "We Almost Lost Detroit".

If you were working there as the engineer I can see that happening.

Read the book by the same name.

Is this some more of that,,,,,
You will probably not find a higher level of discourse.

,, stuffs you were crowing about on the other article?

Send a copy to Willie and Ira.

Don't bother to send me one, if he is that good I can get him at the library. Probably he is by some new-agey Art Bell type so I think I will Skippy-skip over him if it is all the same to you.
promile
Feb 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
We tried Thorium in Fermi I ... "We Almost Lost Detroit"
If at least 0.001% of what is said by pathological fibber scaremongers were true, all mankind would already be dead. Or maybe in a heaven powered by unicorn fart energy.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2016
We tried Thorium in Fermi I ... "We Almost Lost Detroit"
If at least 0.001% of what is said by pathological fibber scaremongers were true, all mankind would already be dead. Or maybe in a heaven powered by unicorn fart energy.
Most of mankind has already died, Willietard. East Coast of your USA had groundwater radiation 160000% beyond EPA limits
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
"unicorn fart energy"
-------------------------------

It's on my roof right now, Willie, turning my meter backwards, erasing the kWh I put into the car last night. Think of us PV/EV owners next time you gas up, add or change oil, clean up a leak, or need a tune-up, or an emission check or new muffler or have to change filters. We don't.

No noise, no radiation, no toxic waste, my EV and PV system will pay off for as long as I am alive.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
The situations of Europe and the US are different, because of existing infrastructure and population and some climate. What is advantageous here may not be such elsewhere. It is the nature of most alternative energy sources to be sensitive to parameters, which is why I favor the integration of systems, and the tailoring of all systems to site-specific circumstances.

The US in second place? We are not even there in some measures, such as rapid transportation.
promile
Feb 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
gskam forgot that his EV and PV need connection to electrical grid which intermittency is compensated by burning a lot of fossil fuels. What environmental hypocrisy.
"new natural gas-fired plants are much cheaper to build than ... renewable plants."
"Coal consumption increases ... to 18.7 quadrillion Btu (979 million short tons) in 2040."
http://institutef...gh-2040/
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
East Coast of your USA had groundwater radiation 160000% beyond EPA limits
Naturally-occurring radionuclides in the groundwater, then thanks to nature for geothermal energy which comes from Earth natural radioactive decay, and thanks also to coal mining which serves as backup to wind/solar.
https://en.wikipe...gradient
https://en.wikipe...l_energy
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2016
The power I am using to post comes from my roof, Willie. No nuclear radionuclides, no huge concrete structures, no highly-technical personnel to keep it from killing us, no waste with which to deal, no moving parts but electrons. Quiet. No need for masses of cooling water. No emissions, . . just like my auto.

We get more of our power from renewables than Willie does, unless he lives here or in Costa Rica. The power I buy comes from hydro, both here and from Washington, as well as efficient gas, geothermal, utility-scale PV, pumped storage, wind, and all kinds of new technologies such as fuel cells of all types, landfill gas, efficiency improvements, and such.

We cleaned up our act, Willie. Your turn.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
East Coast of your USA had groundwater radiation 160000% beyond EPA limits
@Willie Naturally-occurring radionuclides in the groundwater, then thanks to nature for geothermal energy which comes from Earth natural radioactive decay, and thanks also to coal mining which serves as backup to wind/solar.
You remind me of idiots living on fast food because the food is "natural"
gskam forgot that his EV and PV need connection to electrical grid which intermittency is compensated by burning a lot of fossil fuels.
My PV doesn't use the electrical grid, Willietard
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
The power I am using to post comes from my roof..
to power his home and an EV, it's amazing the capability of some people of believing in his own fibs.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2016

gskam forgot that his EV and PV need connection to electrical grid which intermittency is compensated by burning a lot of fossil fuels. What environmental hypocrisy.
"new natural gas-fired plants are much cheaper to build than ... renewable plants."[...]


And dubyadubya apparently is living in some kind of pro-Carbon time warp of his own delusional creation, steadfastly ignoring the fact that the technology already exists --and more is being developed apace-- to address this basic and obvious deficiency in renewable-but-intermittent power generation systems.

Behold the future, dubyadubya:

http://phys.org/n....html#ms

The better part of wisdom at this point, dubyadubya, would be for you to update your investment strategy and divest from diminishing ROI fossil fuels.

Unless you REALLY like playing with boom/bust American coal and unconventional gas'n'oil.

Or, unless you are a complete moron.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
Wilie at least recognizes his favorite sources are dying, turning into backups for the newer and better technologies. Little by little, faster and faster, we are chipping away at the Old Ways, and now dominate the future thinking.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2016
The power I am using to post comes from my roof..
@Willeytard to power his home and an EV, it's amazing the capability of some people of believing in his own fibs.
Completely realistic with solar windows
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2016
turning into backups for the newer and better technologies.
limitless free energy becomes limitless green hypocrisy.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
turning into backups for the newer and better technologies.
limitless free energy becomes limitless green hypocrisy.



What a maroon.

yep
not rated yet Feb 08, 2016
We tried Thorium in Fermi I, and it had so many problems they went to a breeder, which immediately failed and "We Almost Lost Detroit". Read the book by the same name.

Send a copy to Willie and Ira.


The article stated it was a next generation design using chloride not the fifties/sixties version.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
What a maroon.
"ad hominem argument"/personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
Pragmatism:
"China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power equipment, but they don't use it themselves. While they manufacture 80% of the world's solar panels, they install less than 5% at home and build a new coal fired power station every week." maybe to compensate wind/solar intermittency.
http://blackquill...id=15333
"China plans on at least 110 nuclear reactors by 2030 and many will be 1400 megawatts or larger" a really carbon-free ecologically friendly source of energy to power huge economies.
http://nextbigfut...ear.html
http://europe.chi...9812.htm
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
"yep", we will find out if Thorium is the magic fuel you think it is, because India is building Thorium powerplants. I will bet you they have the very same problems.

Give it up. Nukes will kill us all eventually.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
will kill us all eventually.
Just in your decrepit mind. But in the real world: "Fukushima-Diachii radiation release caused zero fatalities, and is also projected (by the United Nations) to cause a total of zero fatalities"
http://www.unis.u...237.html
Give it up.


WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
will kill us all eventually.
"Why has the anti-nuclear movement succeeded? It is easy and tempting to write-off its success to dishonourable actions from the leadership of the movement which:
- Lies
- Distorts information
- Grants itself the luxury of being single-issue, and ignores the rest of the world's problems when they don't suit them
- Uses fear-mongering freely and to great effect
- Never, ever feels obliged to correct the record when their fear-mongering is subsequently shown to be completely false"
http://bravenewcl...ntalism/
http://e360.yale....ons/2584
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
What a maroon.
"ad hominem argument"/personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.
Is that what you say at rehab?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
"ad hominem argument"/personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.


Quoth dubyadybya.

And, one figurative breath later, responding to gkam:

"Just in your decrepit mind."


What a maroon.

A full-blown dubyadubyaMAROON chicane, characteristically weak, as ever.

Your toolkit may be full to bursting, but none of the implements it contains are very sharp.

Blunt instruments to go along with the dull wits manipulating them.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
will kill us all eventually.
"Why has the anti-nuclear movement succeeded? It is easy and tempting to write-off its success to dishonourable actions from the leadership of the movement which:
- Lies
- Distorts information
- Grants itself the luxury of being single-issue, and ignores the rest of the world's problems when they don't suit them
- Uses fear-mongering freely and to great effect
- Never, ever feels obliged to correct the record when their fear-mongering is subsequently shown to be completely false"
http://bravenewcl...ntalism/


Garsh, dubyadubya, this describes your playbook with neat exactitude.

What a maroon.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
"ad hominem argument"/personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.
Shame on you!
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
Interesting conclusion:
anti-nuclear/pro-renewables movements have prospered because of dishonorable actions: fibs, distorted information, fear-mongering tactics, myths/beliefs, fabricated/fictional data, with support from academic alarmists, vested political interests and biased sensationalist mass media. http://bravenewcl...ntalism/
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Interesting conclusion:
anti-nuclear/pro-renewables movements have prospered because of dishonorable actions: fibs, distorted information, fear-mongering tactics, myths/beliefs, fabricated/fictional data, with support from academic alarmists, vested political interests and biased sensationalist mass media. http://bravenewcl...ntalism/
Yes the world is conspiring against Willietard
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
"ad hominem argument"/personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.

Shame on you!


and:

Interesting conclusion:
anti-nuclear/pro-renewables movements have prospered because of dishonorable actions: fibs, distorted information, fear-mongering tactics, myths/beliefs, fabricated/fictional data, with support from academic alarmists, vested political interests and biased sensationalist mass media. http://bravenewcl...ntalism/


What's the matter, dubyadubya? Below your daily hypocrisy quotient?

Quoting yourself and re-paraphrasing your own paraphrase are kindergarten-level chicanery.

dubyadubyaMAROON.


WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
What's the matter, dubyadubya?
The environmental hypocrisy is strong with this one.
http://www.windtu...bine.jpg
http://www.windtu...x300.jpg
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
The environmental hypocrisy is strong with this one.
http://www.windtu...bine.jpg]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url]
http://www.windtu...x300.jpg
"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power" but they do not and will never admit the truth that renewables are causing more fatalities and impact on the environment than nuclear.
http://www.greenp.../nuclear
http://www.greenp...nuclear/
http://www.windtu...bine.jpg]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url]
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
What's the matter, dubyadubya?
The environmental hypocrisy is strong with this one.
[url]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url]


The environmental hypocrisy is strong with this one.
[url]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url]][url]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url][/url]
http://www.windtu...x300.jpg

"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power" but they do not and will never admit the truth that renewables are causing more fatalities and impact on the environment than nuclear.
http://www.greenp.../nuclear
http://www.greenp...nuclear/
[url]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url]][url]http://www.windtu...bine.jpg[/url][/url]


Is this demonstrated stupidiosity of a congenital variety, or the result of an accident?

Or both?

What a MAROON!

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2016
..dubyadubya..
What a MAROON!
It seems that bogus-environmentalists are now desperate, trying "bullying" strategies, no logical claims, a behavior of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2016
..dubyadubya..
What a MAROON!
It seems that bogus-environmentalists are now desperate, trying "bullying" strategies, no logical claims, a behavior of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.


And dubyadubya MAROON appears to be so intellectually bankrupt that it must resort to quoting itself.

Really, dubyadubya --if you aren't even going to put in any effort-- why bother at all?

Oh wait --prolly relying upon that 0.20 USD-per-"comment" from the KochBros to keep you supplied with cheap brain-buster liquor.

Have you considered a twelve step program, instead?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2016
Anyone who contradicts the pseudo-environmentalists is insinuated as paid, a dissuasion technique/"bullying", so that the "greenie lie machine", ever greed for subsidies, money from taxpayers, can feel freer to continue to ruin natural landscapes, disturb wildlife's habitats, butcher millions birds and bats, in an unpunished way.
"Renewable energy kills a lot of birds while saving the planet"
"And if you think that solar power might be a more humane way for birds to die, you would be wrong."
http://www.geeksn...-planet/
"The accepted killing and maiming of animals in the name of Green energy"
http://canadafree...le/63650
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
Anyone who contradicts the pseudo-environmentalists is insinuated as paid, a dissuasion technique/"bullying", so that the "greenie lie machine", ever greed for subsidies, money from taxpayers, can feel freer to continue to ruin natural landscapes, disturb wildlife's habitats, butcher millions birds and bats, in an unpunished way.
"Renewable energy kills a lot of birds while saving the planet"
"And if you think that solar power might be a more humane way for birds to die, you would be wrong."
http://www.geeksn...-planet/


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MagicalMAROON dubyadubya has spoken!

gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2016
Radiation causes blindness in the animals of Chernobyl, Willie. Have you looked up to see what it did to the "Children of Chernobyl"?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MagicalMAROON dubyadubya has spoken!
"greenie lie machine" hates the truth, prefers to stay believing in a beautiful fantasy, a world powered by unicorn fart energy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2016
Wow. I just watched a good movie starring Matt damon.

If anybody wants to see a very realistic portrayal of a psychopath, watch The Informant about mark witacre.

Lie upon lie upon lie upon lie.

This is why these people have to be identified and their freedom to victimize restricted.
Go here:

http://www.smartg...internal
Go here:

http://www.mental....va.gov/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.