Clean power is not enough

June 26, 2018, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Due to residual fossil fuel emissions that would remain even with very stringent climate policies enacted from 2020 on, so-called negative emission technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be necessary to comply with the 1.5°C limit. Credit: PIK/Luderer&Wodinski

Debates about the Paris climate targets often centre around electricity supply. Yet, even in a world of stringent climate policies and a clean power generation, the remaining use of fossil fuels in industry, transport and heating in buildings could still cause enough CO2 emissions to endanger the climate targets agreed on by the international community, an international team of researchers finds. Published in Nature Climate Change, the study is the first to focus specifically on the residual fossil fuel emissions from sectors that are not as easily decarbonized as power generation.

"We wanted to decipher what really makes the difference in terms of carbon budgets and residual emissions. To identify crucial decarbonization bottlenecks towards 1.5-2°C stabilization, we focused on the role of fossil fuel emissions that originate in industries like cement or steel making, fuel our transport sector from cars to freight to aviation and goes into heating our buildings," explains Shinichiro Fujimori, researcher from the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and Kyoto University in Japan. "These sectors are much more difficult to decarbonize than our energy supply, as there are no such obvious options available as wind and solar electricity generation."

It turns out that these are the activities that crucially determine how much carbon dioxide will be emitted within this century; if and how much the world will have to rely on negative emissions and ultimately if the internationally agreed climate targets can be met.

The Paris targets of keeping global warming well below 2°C and possibly even at 1.5°C imply a tight limit on cumulative CO2 emissions until 2100. To put this into perspective: the remaining budget for the 1.5°C target could be as low as 200 Gigatons of CO2, which is in stark contrast to the 4.000 Gigatons of CO2 that would be emitted if current trends continue. Mitigation efforts pledged so far are inadequate to reduce emissions sufficiently. This gives rise to concerns about the increasing reliance on uncertain and potentially risky technologies for so-called negative CO2 emissions, pulling greenhouse-gases out of the atmosphere by scaling up for instance bioenergy plantations or carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Hence, the researchers explored different decarbonization pathways towards the Paris climate targets, with sobering results: "We found that even with enormous efforts by all countries, including early and substantial strengthening of the intended nationally determined contributions (the NDCs), our calculations show that residual fossil carbon emissions will remain at about 1000 Gigatons of CO2," explains Gunnar Luderer from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK, member of Leibniz Association), lead author of the study. "This seems to be a lower end of what can be achieved with even the most stringent climate policies, because much of the residual emissions are already locked-into the system due to existing infrastructures and dependencies on fossil fuels. To aim for the ambitious 1.5°C target for end-of-century warming would mean that an incredibly huge amount of at least 600 Gigatons of CO2 removal was required," Luderer points out. "So negative emissions are no longer a choice but rather a necessity."

The team of modelers from all over Europe, the USA and Japan worked with seven state of the art technology-rich integrated assessment modeling (IAM) frameworks—sophisticated computer simulations describing the social and economic interactions that determine climate change as well as the options to stabilize the climate by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, taking into account temperature targets as well as the economic costs and technological options. Their study is the first multi-model comparison in the light of the Paris Agreement that contrasts scenarios of early strengthening of policy ambition in line with the 1.5 -2°C goals with scenarios assuming no strengthening of the countries pledges (NDCs) before 2030.

A failure to ramp up ambition would lock the world even tighter into fossil based infrastructures

"Our analysis shows that beyond a rapid full scale decarbonization of power supply, stabilizing warming in the 1.5‐2°C range also requires substantial reductions in energy demand sectors like industry, transport and buildings," stresses Zoi Vrontisi from E3MLab of the National Technical University of Athens. "In order to achieve the additional fossil fuel reductions required for 1.5°C stabilization, we need to accelerate energy efficiency improvements and a widespread electrification of energy demand." The researchers also show that not strengthening the NDCs before 2030 would not only increase near-term emissions, but also hurts the longer term reduction potentials as it locks-in even more investments into fossil-based infrastructures and leaves the world unprepared to turn around for decarbonization, according to their study. This will further increase the dependence on carbon dioxide removal and is likely to push the 1.5°C out of reach altogether.

"Climate mitigation might be a complex challenge, but it boils down to quite simple math in the end: If the Paris targets are to be met, future CO2 emissions have to be kept within a finite budget," summarizes Elmar Kriegler from the Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The more the budget is overrun, the more relevant will carbon dioxide removal technologies become, and those come with great uncertainties. While it may still be difficult to determine the exact remaining CO2 budget for 1.5°C, one thing is very clear: Ambitions to reduce have to be ramped up substantially and soon to keep doors open to meet the Paris targets."

Explore further: Meeting Paris climate targets will require a substantial reallocation of global investment

More information: Gunnar Luderer et al, Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways, Nature Climate Change (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6

Related Stories

World's carbon emissions on the rise again: IEA

March 22, 2018

Harmful carbon emissions from energy rose in 2017 for the first time in three years, the International Energy Agency said Thursday, proof that the world's efforts to fight climate change are falling short.

Thinking outside the box on climate mitigation

January 15, 2018

In a new commentary in the journal Nature Climate Change, IIASA researchers argue that a broader range of scenarios is needed to support international policymakers in limiting climate change to under 2°C above pre-industrial ...

Recommended for you

Paris climate targets could be exceeded sooner than expected

September 17, 2018

A new study has for the first time comprehensively accounted for permafrost carbon release when estimating emission budgets for climate targets. The results show that the world might be closer to exceeding the budget for ...

More ships and more clouds mean cooling in the Arctic

September 17, 2018

With sea ice in the Arctic melting at an alarming rate, opportunities for trans-Arctic shipping are opening up, and by mid-century ships will be able to sail right over the North Pole—something not previously possible for ...

189 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2018
"Clean power..."
Windmills and solar panels are manufactured/transported/installed/maintained/repaired/recycled by fossil fuels which also keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.
Intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) are just an expensive form and an ecologically hypocritical way of providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for the coal/oil/gas industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, which is a crime in the face of Climate Change.
"Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining / manufacturing / transportation / installation operations."
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."
"While nuclear and hydro are strongly correlated with decarbonization of energy at aggregated national levels, solar and wind are not."
434a
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2018
"Clean power..."
Windmills and solar panels are manufactured/transported/installed/maintained/repaired/recycled by fossil fuels which also keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun blah blah blah


How much do you get paid to spout this shit?

For anyone who's reading this forum for the first time, do a search for this imbecile.

Found the cut and pasted bollocks all over this site. The same tired drivel over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Then google "Paid Shill" and "Corporate Whore"

Have a nice day Willy Warmer - I wouldn't google that if I were you....
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2018
Debates about the Paris climate targets often centre around electricity supply. Yet, even in a world of stringent climate policies and a clean power generation, the remaining use of fossil fuels in industry, transport and heating in buildings...

And why exactly can transport and heating not be accomplished using electricity? These aren't hard to decarbonize. Electric vehicles - even heavy duty trucks - are already out there (and economically superior to the end user with respect to comparable ICE vehicles). Electric heating and more efficiency in home insulation (to the point of net zero or even negative energy homes) also isn't exactly new tech. So where is the problem?

Even airlines are already looking into going electric. The only sector that isn't being seriously looked at currently is shipping. and while I don't think going electric is a feasible pathway for that (yet), hydrogen fuel cells with hydrogen sourced from excess renewable energy would definitely be an option.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2018
A crucial point is that wind/solar has decarbonized almost nothing, in spite of trillions of dollars spent.
"Carbon emissions are on the rise despite record-breaking deployment of renewables, according to new BP Energy data..."
"The data is further evidence that dilute and unreliable sources of energy like solar and wind cannot replace coal and other fossil fuels and will not lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions."
"According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016."
"To put this roughly $2 trillion in investment in solar and wind during the past 10 years in perspective, it represents an amount of similar magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion."
https://www.forbe...climate/
WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2018
"Clean power..."
Windmills and solar panels are manufactured/transported/installed/maintained/repaired/recycled by fossil fuels which also keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun blah blah blah
Sorry if the truth upsets you.
"It should be obvious that wind turbines are not manufactured in wind-powered factories, nor are solar panels assembled in sun-powered workshops. But proponents of renewable energy sources never talk about the carbon footprints of manufacturing, distributing and installing the equipment needed to use them. And no one, to our knowledge, has figured out how to dispose of solar panels safely once their useful lives end—they can't just be dumped in the local landfill."
http://www.inside...u-think/
Wind and solar have low ERoI, i.e. hardly can payback/repay the energy used from fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/recycle their components.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2018
You know, it's worthy of note that one of the two most prestigious scientific journals on Earth, Nature, has found it economically advantageous to christen a journal devoted to climate change, not surprisingly called "Nature Climate Change." They have plenty of articles for it, too.

It's not surprising that most scientists think the deniers are the stupids.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2018
...most scientists think the deniers are the stupids...
It's a big mystery why climate warriors still believe sunshine&breeze unicorn energy is solution to stop Climate Change.
"Right on cue, Al Gore throws Germany under the bus"
"Once a Climate Leader, Germany Risks Being 'Left Behind': Al Gore" - June 26, 2018
"In part because of Merkel's decision to end Germany's reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster in Japan" where no one was killed from radiation exposure.
https://www.nytim...ore.html

"71% of climate experts agree that nuclear power essential to climate stabilization."
https://pbs.twimg...JF_V.jpg
"we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented instead of installed renewable "capacity." Then maybe wind and solar will be seen as the pseudoscientific fraud it is. We need real environmentalism, not good intentions."
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2018
71% of climate experts agree that nuclear power essential to climate stabilization
And I agree with them. Wonder if Willie could show us where that statistic comes from - I would be interested in checking in to it. I wonder how many of those experts also agree that renewable energy should be a part of our response. You see - renewable energy currently generates about the same amount of electricity as nukes - despite being the new kid on the block. Quite an acheivement! Renewables are also much cheaper than nukes, and faster to deploy. You can put up 2 GW of wind in about 3 years. https://www.green....h5MhMgM

Notice the childish language from Willie. He never ceases to draw attention to his lack of ability to have an adult conversation - always defaults to being rude, or childish...
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2018
renewable energy currently generates about the same amount of electricity as nukes
Let's face the reality: intermittent renewables don't displace coal/oil/gas, they just provide them with "greenwashing"; wind and solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers), even with hundreds/thousands of gigawatts(GW) of installed-capacity, are a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change; carbon-free nuclear power is the only scalable way as hydro/geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited) and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse effect and competes with agriculture.

"Two mainstay and false arguments of the climate debate — "It's all a hoax" and "Renewable energy alone can save us" — are beginning to lose steam."
https://www.rollc...y-debate
https://pbs.twimg...QdZw.jpg
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2018
So Willie - from your very own link
renewable power has become a major factor in reducing domestic emissions because it is now big business, led by big companies, that produces big power in massive industrial facilities
So square that with your constantly arguing that renewables are NOT reducing emissions!!! Maybe you should read your own links.

I do agree that combating climate change is going to take an all of the above, all that we can throw at it approach. Telling lies, being rude, being childish are not good stategies.
howhot3
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2018
"Clean power..."
Windmills and solar panels are manufactured/transported/installed/maintained/repaired/recycled by fossil fuels which also keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun blah blah blah


How much do you get paid to spout this shit?

For anyone who's reading this forum for the first time, do a search for this imbecile.

Found the cut and pasted bollocks all over this site. The same tired drivel over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Then google "Paid Shill" and "Corporate Whore"

Have a nice day Willy Warmer - I wouldn't google that if I were you....


My impression too. Willy is a Trumper!
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2018
renewable power has become a major factor in reducing domestic emissions because it is now big business, led by big companies, that produces big power in massive industrial facilities
Big business for natural gas companies that are indeed halving the emissions and wind/solar taking credit ("greenwashing"), although natural gas(methane) is >70x worse than CO₂.
"Natural Gas, Not Renewables, Is Largest Factor In Emissions Decline"
https://www.forbe...decline/

"A carbon tax will kill renewable deployment because it will increase the price of natural gas which is a backup for RE. But it will make nuclear power immediately profitable. This is why a lot of "greens" are really against it deep in their hearts."
"If you have interests in the coal / natural gas industry then by all accounts promote solar panels / wind turbines."
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2018
You see - renewable energy currently generates about the same amount of electricity as nukes - despite being the new kid on the block.
Renewable cultists are so dishonest.
Wind and solar are not new technologies. Windmills and sails were replaced by steam engines centuries ago, and solar is a 19th century technology.
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".
https://uploads.d...97b6.jpg
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg
https://uploads.d...59a5.jpg
https://uploads.d...c6fc.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...FXiP.jpg

Wind and solar are much older technologies than nuclear.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2018
...this imbecile...
..."Paid Shill" and "Corporate Whore"...
...being childish...
...My impression too. Willy is a Trumper!...
Hilarious, renewable cultists have no incontestable proof to contrapose that wind/solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions even with hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity("grenwashing" for coal/oil/gas) then they go direct into personal attacks, or use questionable sources like cleantechnica, reneweconomy, etc.
The "ad hominem argument" and personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason. Lamentable.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2018
Willie
Wind and solar are not new technologies
I didn't say they were new technologies. When I say they are the new kid on the block - I am talking about energy production. You really know nothing about the topic - but keep blurting nonsense. Getting any data for prior to 1980 - is pretty tough. Look at the second chart on this site - and see that in 1980 - the world had 10 MW of installed wind power. http://www.earth-..._all.pdf at a 30% capacity factor - about right for the time - that gives you a whopping 3 MW. Now look at graph 2 on this site - and you will see that by 1980 - the world had 200 GW of installed nukes, https://www.world...-52.html close to 150 GW of operable capacity.

Wow you are really thick...

WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2018
The pattern is clear: wind/solar are growing spectacularly in terms of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and destruction of wildlife habitats, while failing miserably at reducing emissions.
"Study: Wind Power Increases Dependence on Fossil Fuels in EU; Germany Must Soon Begin to Scrap Its Wind Units—A New, Costly Environmental Issue" - Jun 2018
https://institute...l-issue/
"Wind Power: World's Greatest Joke – UK Left Powerless During the 'Big Calm'" - Jun 2018
https://stopthese...ig-calm/
"At low penetrations, "nothing happens" with solar panels / wind turbines. But, as their penetration increases in the grid, it is impossible to continue to hide their "hidden" costs. At high enough penetrations they can actually destroy the grid."
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2018
while failing miserably at reducing emissions
Liar. Wind and solar are certainly reducing emissions. You fail to understand the difference between the electricity sector, and the general energy sector. Not fair to expect wind turbines to reduce emissions from airplanes and ships is it?

https://www.thegu...says-eea
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2018
Not fair to expect wind turbines to reduce emissions from airplanes and ships is it?
Wind and solar are a constant scam.
"Renewable Energy Use In Europe Didn't Stop CO2 Levels From Rising" - May 14, 2018
https://climatech...-rising/
"European Renewables Are Up. So Are Carbon Emissions" - May 14, 2018
"European Union carbon emissions grew 1.8 percent in 2017 despite a 25 percent increase in wind power and 6 percent growth in solar, figures show."
https://www.green...missions
"Major European study finds wind energy increases use of fossil fuels" - May 2018
https://www.scien...18300983
"Renewable Energy Use In Europe Didn't Stop Carbon Emissions From Rising"
Liar.
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2018
Wind and solar are a constant scam
Then so are nukes right? I mean they generate about the same amount of electricity. So do you think nukes are a scam? Do you notice a pattern here Willie. You push the same lies - and I prove you wrong. And you push the same lies. Interesting cycle right?

The question is not 'are emissions going down?' It is 'what would emissions have been without nuclear and renewables?' The answer of course is 'a lot higher.' You just seem to lack the ability to understand the difference between the ELECTRICITY generation system, and the general energy system. Can't expect wind and solar to reduce pollution from planes and ships now - can you Willie?

Niow - about that cost curve on nukes... Hinkley Point is looking at a wholesale price of 12 cents a Kwh - for 35 years, inflation adjusted up. Talk about a scam....

WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2018
they generate about the same amount of electricity.
The difference is in the energy density and capacity factor, (weather-resilient vs weather-dependent):
nuclear >90%, up to almost 3 years of uninterrupted energy production.
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas

Wind and solar are a fossil-fueled scam.
"Do you know what it feels like to work with someone who arrives late, does work that others could easily do, harms others productivity, and then skips out when they're most needed? It's frustrating isn't it? Welcome to the Solar Value Eclipse. Instead of adding value and efficiency to the electric grid, having too much solar harms the grid's reliability, it's fundamental economics, and it costs you more money." - Jun 26, 2018
https://www.youtu...06IW2wwg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2018
The difference is in the energy density and capacity factor
The figure I gave is for actual electricity generated. Yes Willie - we know that nukes in general have a much higher capacity factor. Stop being a broken record. Nukes also have a much higher cost factor. 12 cents a Kwh for wholesale cost in Hinkley Point - inflation adjusted up... in a world of 3 - 8 cents for wind and solar.....
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2018
...12 cents a Kwh for wholesale cost in Hinkley Point - inflation adjusted up... in a world of 3 - 8 cents for wind and solar.....
It's so dishonest not including batteries/energy storage / coal/gas-fired backup plants.

Meanwhile in Germany, a country heavily committed with wind/solar useless placebos:
"Illusion" & "self-delusion"
"Germany...10 years later, despite the now 56 gigawatts of installed wind capacity and 40 gigawatts of installed solar capacity, the country still relies on fossil fuels for more than half of its energy supply." - Jul 2018
"Germany, epicentre of global environmentalism, is losing faith in the green dream. Its energy minister has admitted that it will fall some way short of its 2020 climate targets and that voters are weary of the renewable energy projects which in Germany alone cost taxpayers around €25 billion per year."
http://notrickszo...killers/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2018
It's so dishonest not including batteries/energy storage / coal/gas-fired backup plants
No it is not - https://thinkprog...b91a543/

Keep up liar Willie - things change fast - and if you can't/won't read - you get left behind.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2018
The best you can do is citing a propagandist article that is hard to be confirmed if it's true/false, probably false as most of "100% renewable" propaganda, up to now 100% scams, wrapped in hidden subsidies/tax credits etc.

Here's some fair calculations:
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/

Oops! another solar/wind+batteries scam going belly up.
"Tesla Moves To Close A Dozen SolarCity Facilities Across 9 States" - June 29th, 2018
https://cleantech...-states/
"Tesla's Constant Turmoil Can't Hide The Fact That SolarCity Is Dying" - Jun 22, 2018
https://www.forbe...s-dying/
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2018
The best you can do is citing a propagandist article that is hard to be confirmed if it's true/false, probably false as most of "100% renewable" propaganda, up to now 100% scams, wrapped in hidden subsidies/tax credits etc
Let me translate for you Willie 'I don't like the facts presented in this article - so I will mutter some gibberish - and pretend I have said something meaningful'

The facts on the ground Willie - that can be easily verified - are that the cost of wind/solar/storage continue to fall. There are now examples of tenders - that include renewables with storage - coming in as cheap as legacy fuel sources.

I can show youf BNEF - but I am sure you could find a Breitbart blog by someone with a literature degree - that disagrees. Willie - if you consistently site rubbish sites such as Breitbart - you have no room to comment on sources.
https://www.usato...5210002/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2018
cost of wind/solar/storage continue to fall
While the emissions and electricity prices continue to rise.

"New Science magazine article shows how expensive current battery storage technology is. It can't enable reliable wind/solar generation." - Jun 29, 2018
http://science.sc...full.pdf
"WWF says we have no alternative to gas!"
"WWF are now only realizing that back up of wind turbines with lithium batteries is horrendously expensive!"
https://pbs.twimg...ShGx.jpg

Interesting when renewable cultists " include renewables with storage" they don't talk about the overall ERoI which is undoubtedly negative, i.e. 100% for sure that "unreliables" cannot repay/payback the energy from fossil fuels used to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle their components.
"wind/solar/storage" are a distraction to keeping burning fossil fuels, in no way solution to Climate Change.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2018
Cheap wind/solar/storage are a scam after scam after scam ... endless scams.
"Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chance" - April 27, 2018
https://business....a-chance

The proof that "unreliables" are expensive appears in the electricity bills except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal or cheap gas/fracking that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Oklahoma.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2018
Wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels - https://www.lifeg...il-fuels

But Willie - we can play post links that disagree with each other all day long. The test of the issue is to look at what is happening on the ground. So you want to play the 'use Germany as an example' game right. Well Germany keeps breaking records - so I guess renewables are doing well - https://www.clean...els-grow

But the bigger wider point is that all across the world - energy systems are transitioning slowly to renewable energy - here is just one example for you. https://cleantech...-tariff/

So why would you think it necessary to keep lying - and trying to tell the tide to go out - when the tide does not give a shit what you think or say....
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
So you want to play the 'use Germany as an example' game right.


Only around 5% of total German energy consumption is provided by wind and solar. This is the relevant number, quantifying real progress to transition away from fossil fuels. Those high percentages you see thrown around are misleading since they only consider electricity, not total energy, and also tend to include biomass which is still the most widespread renewable.

I am all for renewables but even countries such as Germany have barely even begun transitioning away from fossil fuels, and have yet to make a real dent in CO2 emissions. Do not be misled by the solar&wind hype into thinking this is an easy thing to do. Far from it!
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2018
Nature has created this disaster of biblical proportions
It's time to crawl into a hole don't move, slow down breathing and heart beat, still not enough as were still producing carbon dioxide, what are we going to do to get us out the is dilemma, nature has created this disaster of biblical proportions when the first microbes colonised planet earth to make it habitable for life to survive.
We have lost our pristine carbon dioxide free Earth and there's no way of going back, unless this obsession with one of most valuable elements without which life won't exist or is that the solution ultimately proposed.
Well if it is, when the proponents of this theory reach their succesfull conclusion, no one will be around to hand out their Nobel prize!

The irony; we have saved the planet by making devoid of all life to remove an element which is essential for life and no one not even a solitary microbe exits to view this splendour
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
Only around 5% of total German energy consumption is provided by wind and solar
Sorry to be a bit snarky shotman - but what is your solution? I would not take Germany's nukes off line if I were in charge - but no one listens to me. I don't believe it is easy - or that it is happening fast enough. One big problem I see - is that where there is progress (roll out of renewables) there is lying, negative, anti progress little shits like Willie - who want to discount the great work being done by the renewable folks. We have only had electric cars on the roads for a short time - and they are making progress. That does not address planes/ships/industrial energy use. So what is your proposal? Should we not be driving down the cost of power by developing next gen renewables? Just say - oh it is a small percentage - why even bother? 40% of electricity seems like a big deal to me.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
Clean energy rules fusion for starters
I really do despair, - ]for lack of sensible solution to energy.
Clean energy is not enough - well that rules out fusion as without our fusion sun there will be now renewable energy to speak of
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
Clean energy is not enough
Its going to be a cold , cold christmas as all energy is sourced from the atom which is harmfull to life if extrcted, even at 92million miles
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2018
Wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuels
Of course "batteries not included".
The best you can do is citing propagandist articles.
What about Germany emissions? A trillion-euro fiasco.

It is easier, faster and cheaper to build gas-fired plants than wind/solar farms(useless placebos) to prevent German children from freezing in the dark, mainly during the Winter.
"The majority of Germans (54%) believe that natural gas is the best partner for renewables."
https://www.world...artners/
https://uploads.d...b2e7.jpg
...energy systems are transitioning slowly to renewable energy...
...while the transition to gas/fracking is going very fast thanks to "greenwashing" provided by intermittent renewables.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
The best you can do is citing propagandist articles
Nope - that is your gig. I can show you facts on the ground. Germany got 40% of it's electricity from renewables in 2017 - that number is climbing. So your example of how awful renewables are - is actually a testimony to how well they are doing - despite the opposition of liars/haters like yourself. Despite looking to shut down their entire fleet of nukes (not a decision I would endorse) - their % of renewables has increased year over year - now standing at 40%. And the tide keeps coming in...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2018
Germany got 40% of it's electricity from renewables in 2017...
Germany has almost a hundred of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar enough to replace hard coal or lignite coal, but even so Germans will have to replace coal by natural gas to pretend intermittent renewables are reducing emissions.
...that number is climbing...
...% of renewables has increased year over year...
Simple pattern: renewable shares of electricity production is growing quickly as well the electricity prices as well the emissions.
https://pbs.twimg...wsFh.jpg

Renewable energy revolution:
https://pbs.twimg...u0Ol.jpg
In no way, intermittent renewables are solution to Climate Change:
https://pbs.twimg...7nUh.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2018
Liar Willie
but even so Germans will have to replace coal by natural gas to pretend intermittent renewables are reducing emissions
Germany is ahead of schedule in terms of transition to renewable energy (35% by 2020). The first half of this year saw renewables producing 42%. So it should be very doable to reach the 100% target by 2050 - https://www.umwel...kurz.pdf

which of course proves the lie to your "will have to replace coal by natural gas"
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2018
Germany is ahead of schedule in terms of transition to renewable energy...
The target should be zero emissions instead of 100% renewable unicorn energy.
Germany (with ~100GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar) has proven to the world that intermittent renewables cannot replace coal/oil/gas or prevent German children from freezing to death, mainly during the Winter.
"Jim Hansen, father of 'global warming', calls renewables a 'grotesque idea'"
https://pbs.twimg...N52w.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Tv9m.jpg
In no way, intermittent renewables are solution to Climate Change.
Most of renewable in Germany is biomass which is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse effect.
https://pbs.twimg...JygR.jpg
Solar/wind cultists are completely dishonest and divorced from reality, and love to call liar whose expose their lies.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2018
The target should be zero emissions instead of 100% renewable unicorn energy
No power source has zero emissions - dunce. The target is to de-carbonize our world. We are working on it - renewable energy, electric cars/trucks etc. https://theconver...er-41615
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2018
No power source has zero emissions - dunce.
"incredibly potent GHG's released from solar-panel manufacturing."
https://pbs.twimg...1zJB.jpg
"GHG emissions from solar panel semi conductor manufacturing out does most countries entire CO2 emissions. Gases like SF6 or NF3 at up to 17,000 more warming than CO2 and stay in the atmosphere for 1000s of years."
https://www.epa.g...industry

Nuclear really decarbonizes the grid, while solar and have failed miserably even with hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts.
"Wind and solar are growing but its obviously crap at decarbonising!"
"The world set a new record for renewable power in 2017, but emissions are still rising" - June 04, 2018
https://qz.com/12...ing/amp/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2018
"incredibly potent GHG's released from solar-panel manufacturing
Same gases that are produced when you make a cell phone, or a computer. Have you given up your cell phone and computer yet Willie? Nukes are worse than solar panels - the toxic gases can be contained in the factories can't they? Here - take a look at nukes.

https://grist.org...e-fears/

But again - I emphasize - I support the use of nuclear power - and hope it can be produced in a cost competitive way. I just don't lie about things like you do.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
"The sun and wind may be clean but the materials needed to convert them to energy are causing an enviromental disaster"
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg
Solar panels and windmills are worse as they require much more materials per gigawatt-installed.
https://pbs.twimg...uM-x.jpg

Environuts say: renewables are a better bet! Putin agrees.
"Thanks to Energiewende, Germany is totally dependent on Russia for gas."
'Germany is a captive of Russia because they got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear plants. They're getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it's something NATO has to look at.'
https://www.realc...sad.html
"Al Gore warns Germany losing climate edge" - Jul 9, 2018
https://www.polit...te-edge/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2018
Solar panels and windmills are worse as they require much more materials per gigawatt-installed
But once installed - they require no fuel - so there is a trade off right? Nukes may require less material per gigawatt installed - but have to be refueled every couple of years - and that fuel has to be mined. Then you have the radio active waste that comes out every couple of years - and has to be stored for many thousands of years. Tough comparison to make - but I will take more material up front - over the environmental devastation of mining uranium - and disposing of radio active materials..

See again - https://grist.org...e-fears/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
But once installed - they require no fuel...
The maintenance is carried out by fossil-fueled machines and the lights are kept on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining by coal/gas-fired backup plants.
"Wind energy's big disposal problem" - Jul 13, 2018
"Germany has more than 28,000 wind turbines — but many are old and by 2023 more than a third must be decommissioned. Disposing of them is a huge environmental problem. Expert Jan Tessmer tells DW he's optimistic."
https://www.dw.co...44665439
"Renewables Cannot Even Fill the Void of Retiring Nuclear Plants" - July 5, 2018
https://institute...-plants/
"Uranium mining contributes small fraction of total nuclear power emissions, study says"
http://thestarpho...dy-says/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
The maintenance is carried out by fossil-fueled machines
As is the mining/processing/transportation of the uranium to fuel your religious fetish nukes. https://www.getty...75609230

Maybe you could mine the uranium with a pick and shovel - and transport it with your bicycle. Remember to wear your lead underwear....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2018
Uranium is a byproduct of copper mining, and intermittent renewables require much more copper per gigawatt-installed.
Uranium is awesomely energy dense, about 4 billion times more powerful than a molecule of air/wind.
It is needed million times more coal and/or gas/fracking to keep lights on when when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.
Wind and solar produce more ecological impacts than they produce energy, are just good in providing "greenwashing" for fossil fuels.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
Wind and solar produce more ecological impacts than they produce energy
Please provide a source for this assertion. No source - and as usual - you are a liar. Just like saying
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
And no matter how many times we ask you for a source for this lie - you got nothing. In other words you are discussing a subject you know nothing about. You just say stupid stuff - and hope that others are as ignorant as you are.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2018
The myth of "CHEAP, green, clean solar/wind unicorn energy" is ruining. The mantra incessantly repeated by the delusional renewable cultists ("it's cheap and replaces fossil fuels") is not changing the reality.
Notice: China is one of the world's leading manufacturers of wind/solar components.
"Nuclear power is cheaper than wind or solar power in China. It's competitive with burning fossil fuels."
"China will still push for more nuclear power to displace coal" - July 16, 2018
https://www.nextb...oal.html

"If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying It?" - May 2018
https://www.forbe...ying-it/
https://www.forbe...c-waste/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2018
The mantra incessantly repeated by the delusional
I provide valid data to support my assertions - not blog sites from bias and misinformed hacks.

So if nukes are so cheap for the Chinese - how come they are charging 12 cents a Kwh to the Brits for Hinkley Point. And how come only 2% of Chinese electricity comes from nukes - vs 13% from wind and solar? https://en.wikipe...in_China

Now why don't you support your claims
Wind and solar produce more ecological impacts than they produce energy
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2018
Still, a low-carbon future, at lower power costs and with the benefit of economic growth from investments – what's not to like?


For anyone who doubts the inexorable rise of renewable energy - that quote is on OilPrice.com - a very pro oil web site. https://oilprice....per.html

Keep howling at the tide Willie - maybe it will heed your howls and turn back.....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2018
how come they are charging 12 cents a Kwh to the Brits for Hinkley...
Notice how wind/solar is "unreliable":
"Weird 'wind drought' means Britain's turbines are at a standstill" - Jul 17, 2018
https://www.newsc...ndstill/
https://pbs.twimg...vdlh.jpg
"Fallacious analysis, enabled by statements like following: "Currently, around 30 per cent of Britain's electricity comes from renewables such as wind and solar power...""
"Truth: ~40% of Britain's RE comes from wood pellets & landfill methane"

Even so, solar/wind cultists ensure us that it's cheap and can power the whole world.
https://pbs.twimg...mM6P.jpg
how come only 2% of Chinese electricity comes from nukes - vs 13% from wind and solar?
It's quite simple, coal/oil/gas keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining.

"Getting Cheaper And Cheaper" except "Batteries Not Included".
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
Notice how wind/solar is "unreliable
No - we did not know that wind and solar are intermittent. Gee thanks for telling us captain obvious. We know that wind and solar are intermittent. But look - Spain gets 45% of it's electricity from renewables - with wind at 22%, and nukes at 20% - https://renewecon...r-83475/

And Chile has set a goal of 100% renewables within 22 years - https://www.windp...les-2040

Britain is now connecting world's largest offshore wind farm - https://new.abb.c...ind-farm

And I could go on and on all day Willie. How come China gets 2% of it's power from nukes Willie? Now come on - support your two claims Willie - and stop deflecting...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2018
Wind and solar are useless placebos, a fraud.
Germany, hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar and hardly can be seen any reduction in emissions or fossil fuel consumption, except the electricity prices skyrocketing.
Japan, just turned on a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy and it already can be noticed an abrupt reduction in fossil fuel usage and emissions, also the electricity prices going down.
"Japan's LNG imports fall to lowest since May 2016 as nuclear units come online" - July 19, 2018
https://www.reute...4N1UF32O
Cheap wind/solar is a scam, worse yet when batteries included:
Nuclear: 10.1 ¥/kwh
Wind: 21.9 ¥/kwh
Solar: 24.3 ¥/kwh
"Japan carbon emissions fall as reactors restart"
https://www.reute...BN1E609Z
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2018
Wind and solar are useless placebos, a fraud
Wow - if you say so Willie - we guess it must be true. Despite the fact that you obviously don't know the first thing about energy. Why else would you post lies like this
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
And then of course be unable to produce any kind of support for your bull.

Any ways - reality keeps making you a dumb liar. Look at Britain - now getting 29% of their electricity from renewables - vs 21% for nukes. Not a placebo or fraud Willie - just hard facts. The tide is coming in Willie - keep howling....

https://www.indep...656.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2018
What should matter is the CO₂ reduction, not installed-capacity of intermittent renewables backed up by natural gas(methane) which emits 50% less CO₂ than coal although methane(CH₄) is >70x worse than CO₂.

It's a good news for the fossil fuel industry: huge quantities of energy from coal/oil/gas will be necessary to recycle the millions tons of solar/wind wastes.
"Experts say that millions of aging panels could have significant environmental impacts — especially since China doesn't have specific regulations on solar panel recycling. The International Renewable Energy Agency predicted that by 2050, about 20 million tons of PV panel waste could be accumulated in China — the largest amount of solar trash worldwide..."
"The Dark Side of China's Solar Boom" - Jul 17, 2018
http://image5.six.../132.jpg
http://www.sixtht...ar-boom-
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2018
Look at Britain - now getting 29% of their electricity from renewables - vs 21% for nukes. Not a placebo or fraud ..."
Fallacious analysis, enabled by statements like following: "Currently, around 30 per cent of Britain's electricity comes from renewables such as wind and solar power...""
"Truth: ~40% of Britain's RE comes from wood pellets & landfill methane"
"Dirtier than coal: burning forests for 'green' energy"
https://theecolog...n-energy

"Britain's Wind Drought Exposes Big Green's Epic Stupidity" - July 19, 2018
https://principia...upidity/
https://www.expre...t-office
https://pbs.twimg...YOZF.jpg

"Wind farms etc contaminating aquifers a worldwide problem."
https://pbs.twimg...KWBl.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2018
Fallacious analysis,
Not at all. There is a big debate about the use of wood chips - but the point is that Britain is moving off fossil fuels, and on to renewables. In time they will not need to use any coal, gas, wood chips, or nukes. The tide is coming in Willie. And Britain was just one example. Here is another - Spain approaching 50% renewables. It is happening all over the world Willie. The tide is coming in.

https://renewecon...r-83475/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2018
Britain is moving off fossil fuels...
BP oil is having high profits thanks to "greenwashing" provided by intermittent renewables.
"The world's largest oil companies are pumping more natural gas than ever before, helping to spur a rise in profits while sating rising global demand for fuels that can mitigate global greenhouse gas emissions."
"Energy giants opening natural gas spigots, fueling profit rise" - July 23, 2018
https://www.reute...BN1KD0F2
https://pbs.twimg...dPHK.jpg

"Has Spain learned its renewable energy lesson?" - Feb 2017
"Spiralling costs"
http://blueandgre...-lesson/
"Greenpeace Spain ... the most effective and economical way to reduce emissions is to keep the current nuclear fleet..."
https://pbs.twimg...9BBM.jpg

"Renewables" are basically dishonest propaganda.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2018
"The world's largest oil companies are pumping more natural gas than ever before
And renewable energy companies are generating more electricity than ever before. So what's your point? Especially if you understand the fact that renewable energy build - is outstripping all other sources. Check out the graph here -
https://www.iea.o...les2017/

Soooo -
This record performance in 2016 forms the bedrock of the IEA's electricity forecast, which sees continued strong growth through 2022, with renewable electricity capacity forecast to expand by over 920 GW


So what's your point? The ship is turning Willie - you are just too wrapped up in your religion - to understand....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2018
"The world's largest oil companies are pumping more natural gas than ever before
And renewable energy companies are generating more electricity than ever before...
...renewable electricity capacity forecast to expand by over 920 GW
920 GW of intermittent energy at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts just to provide "greenwashing" (decorative facade) to keep the expansion of natural gas(methane(CH₄): 86x worse than CO₂), a disservice in the fight against Climate Change.

Lesson from Germany: a hundred of gigawatts of intermittent renewables don't displace coal and/or gas, don't curb emissions and make electricity costlier.
Lesson from Japan: just restart a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy and see the emissions dropping as well the electricity prices and dependence on fossil fuels.
Another lesson: carbon-free nuclear power is the safest source of clean energy; wind and solar useless placebos, "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2018
...renewable electricity capacity forecast to expand by over 920 GW
capacity ≠ production
"Wind has very poor EROI.. no adversary..fraudulent marketing..falsifying wind data..mass manipulation of public with misleading claims of nameplate capacity vs actual production..not to mention human health & environmental impacts. Hiding the truth is no help"
https://pbs.twimg...ChhC.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2018
capacity ≠ production
We know that - stop saying the same thing over and over - when we already let you know that we are aware. The same thing applies to all fuel sources. No plants run at 100% capacity. Oh look - gas and coal only run at around 55% - www.powermag.com/...me-ever/
Off shore wind farms are not far behind - with an average capacity factor around 45%. http://energynumb...nd-farms
How many times do you want the same debate Willie. We know about intermittency, and capacity factors etc. Those issue don't change the fact that renewables are spanking your precious nukes in terms of new build. Maybe the IEA knows more than you do about energy - you think???? Maybe you should actually look at the IEA graph - and see that in 2016 - renewables added 160 GW of CAPACITY - compared to gas at 40 GW. You don't understand the topic of energy Willie....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2018
No plants run at 100% capacity. Oh look - gas and coal only run at around 55% -
coal/gas-fired plants are backup for intermittent renewables.
Off shore wind farms are not far behind - with an average capacity factor around 45%.
45% capacity factor on average is a lie. Danish grid is one of dirtiest and costliest in Europe.
"Denmark's electricity generation source totals for 05-May-2018, including 5475 MW of installed wind generation capacity."
https://pbs.twimg...Meyl.jpg
renewables added 160 GW of CAPACITY - compared to gas at 40 GW.
Without natural gas, people will freeze to death at night or on cloudy/snowy/not-windy days. Without wind/solar - no one would ever notice the difference, except in the electricity bills, wind/solar are paid even when they don't produce energy.
"160 GW of CAPACITY" for almost nothing in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. Carbon-free nuclear power has achieved much more CO₂ reduction with much less gigawatts.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2018
coal/gas-fired plants are backup for intermittent renewables
They are also back up for nukes. It will stretch your understanding - but despite having a high CF, nukes also must have backup. Demand is not flat - so an energy source that produces a flat output curve - cannot match a variable demand curve - without backup. That is why we have peaker plants - along side nukes. So any argument you have against renewables - is also an argument against nukes. Here some reading for you https://renewecon...r-94486/

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2018
Capacity factor: wind/solar ~30%; nuclear >90%, "expensive batteries" unnecessary.
Carbon-free nuclear power plants can back up each other, a thing that intermittent renewables can't do in a reliable way.

Less than 4¢/kwh, >90% capacity factor, reliable/weather-resilient carbon-free nuclear energy, batteries unneeded:
"US nuclear plants are some of the lowest cost generators available. In 2016 average total cost of generation was less than $34/MWhr. Why do so many claim nuclear is "uncompetitive?" "
https://atomicins...markets/
"Nuclear is only expensive in the US and Western Europe due to unstable regulatory policy, poor business/management practices, and lack of experience. In Russia, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada it's cheaper than renewables."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2018
Why do so many claim nuclear is "uncompetitive?
Maybe because they are coming to the tax payer and asking for a massive handout. -
federal handouts for nuclear alone could add up to $280 billion to electricity bills by 2030
You see Willie - if you understood how power generation works - you would know that often - established plants can produce electricity very cheaply - because they have paid off their capitol costs - and you are now just looking at operating costs. I know that is a pretty advanced point for you to understand. If you want to compare apples to apples - you have to look at new build cost, against new build cost. That is why I reference the 12 cents kwh from Hinkley point. Here is another proposed nuke - with a capitol cost of $13 billion dollars - for 2.4 GW of nuke. That is about $5 a watt. Utility scale solar is around $1.00 watt. Even with way lower CF - solar kicks nukes ass on capitol cost - and operating cost. Cont.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2018
cont. - we say nukes are not competitive - because the aren't - simple as that.

Here are the two links. https://www.prnew...049.html

https://oilprice....ity.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear is worth the price as the only scalable way to stop Climate Change. Wind and solar are scalable in installed-capacity but a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions. Hydro/geothermal are geographically limited(site-specifics), and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse effect and competes with agriculture. Intermittent renewables (bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) are scalable ecological disasters.
..Hinkley point...
Wind and solar are useless placebos, a joke, scams, unable to replace even a diesel-generator to recharge electric buses.
"Love the irony: here is the Cardiff 100% green electric bus - being charged up by a diesel generator! Someone has got their maths wrong, or my physics A level was a waste."
https://pbs.twimg...egRN.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2018
the only scalable way to stop Climate Change
That's the same lie you keep telling. Why do you keep telling the same lie - after having been corrected with facts? Wind and solar are both scalable and have the potential to stop climate change. I personally support an all of the above policy - that would involve massive build out of renewables, and nukes. I am on record of stating that over and over. The problem I have with you - is your need to lie. You seem to be working for the nuclear industry. Telling lies is not cool. It makes you a jerk. https://www.forbe...aab32f51

Why do you want to see the world stuck, as opposed to promoting progress?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
Wind and solar are both scalable...
Undoubtedly wind and solar are both scalable, more incontestable yet is that intermittent renewables (even with hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts) have failed miserably at reducing emissions, e.g. Germany.
Real data and statistics don't lie. With just a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear, it makes a big difference, e.g. Japan.

"Nuclear is the largest source of low carbon power in the UK - contributing 21% of all electricity in 2017"
https://pbs.twimg...A32V.png
"Nuclear still UK's main low-carbon power source" - Jul 26, 2018
"Official statistics confirm nuclear as the largest source of low-carbon electricity in the UK, contributing 20.8% of all electricity generated last year, which was broadly stable on 2016 when it accounted for 21.1%."
http://www.world-...r-source
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
Undoubtedly wind and solar are both scalable
Good that you agree - but that of course contradicts this lie that you keep telling -
the only scalable way to stop Climate Change


e.g. Japan.
Tepco understands energy situation a lot more than you do - which is why they are moving beyond Nukes - and throwing their hat in the ring with renewables. https://cleantech...-energy/

The UK situation is changing rapidly Willie
Wind and solar overtake nuclear as source of UK
https://www.indep...656.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
Tepco understands energy situation a lot more than you do - which is why they are moving beyond Nukes - and throwing their hat in the ring with renewables.
"Poor windmill output hurts Fukushima region recovery" - July 29, 2018
http://www.asahi....001.html
"Japan's utilities crank up oil-fired power in face of heatwave" - July 27, 2018
"Like many other regions of the world, Japan has been hit by record temperatures in a two-week heatwave, with more than 80 people dying and thousands rushed to emergency rooms."
https://www.reute...BN1KH0WW
"More people die as a result of NOT using nuclear energy." Fukushima: zero deaths from radiation exposure.

"BNEF says $2.7 trillion went to renewables 2007 to 2017, mainly solar+wind..." for almost nothing in terms of CO2 reduction.
https://pbs.twimg...aroF.jpg
Wind and solar are a fraud.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
Japan's utilities crank up oil-fired power in face of heatwave
Yeah - it's called climate change. That's probably why they are investing bigley in renewables - as it is the fastest and cheapest way to fill in the supply gap caused by the extra demand - that could be avoided if our world was not full of denier liars like Donald and Willie....

Wind and solar are a fraud
Is that why they are kicking nukes ass in terms of cost and quantity of new build? Why the U.S. tax payer is about to take it in the ass cuz the nuclear industry needs another hand out? - https://cleantech...billion/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
"At -60C in the polar night neither solar nor wind energy can power homes. It is either coal or #nuclear. The former is a source of toxic emissions causing #climatechange. The latter supplies people with safe and clean energy."
https://twitter.c...10637568
"Nuclear energy runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week — even in severe weather — and needs to be refueled only every 18 to 24 months. This ensures nuclear energy is always available to supply the grid with the electricity it needs — particularly when other intermittent or "just-in-time" energy sources are unavailable or too expensive."
http://www.inside...dership/

In less than 15 years, most of wind/solar farms will reach the end of their lifetime, so there will be hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity of useless placebos/junks(at cost of trillions of dollars) just polluting the environment / natural landscapes.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
"At -60C in the polar night neither solar nor wind energy can power homes
Plenty of renewable energy in Alaska Willie. You and your friend Donald just can't help spreading lies. But I am happy to concede there may be places in the world that need nukes. I keep telling you that I support nukes and renewables. I am just not a fat liar like you and your friend Donny.

https://www.adn.c...-alaska/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
I am just not a fat liar like you...
The best wind/solar cultists can do is call liar who expose their lies.
"Wind turbines use electricity to keep spinning in cold weather to stop icing"
"New wind turbine farce: How they take power from the National Grid even when they are NOT generating any electricity"
http://www.dailym...ity.html
"WHAT IS POWERING THESE TURBINES IF THERE'S NO WIND?" - Mar 14, 2018
https://www.youtu...PA07kAvo

"Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy contributes no additional capacity to the grid at a penetration level of 6 percent or beyond. Indeed, additional solar above the threshold is actively harmful..."
https://www.insti...r-power/
"This is why solar doesn't work in Canada"
https://pbs.twimg...2o5E.jpg

Wind/solar are a scam after scam...endless scams.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
The best wind/solar cultists can do is call liar who expose their lies
Show me one lie that I have told. I will start with showing you a lie that you have told - and are unable to provide any support for. -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
So who is a liar? You and your buddy Don need a new play book.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
So who is a liar?
Renewables cultists are so delusional, lie to themselves, believe in their own lies.
"Ironically, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) had the opportunity to displace diesel fuel with renewables but chose not to do so."
https://www.renew...rgy.html
"100% renewables fail. This small island of El Hierro has been attempting to power itself with wind, solar, and pumped hydro for 3 years, but the diesel back is still the mainstay electricity generators."
http://euanmearns...-update/
COP 23 - Electric cars recharged with diesel-generators instead of sunshine&breeze:
https://pbs.twimg...tXKU.jpg
Faux-green organizations use marine DIESEL instead of wind/solar/tidal/wave:
"Rainbow Warrior III ... runs on diesel-electric propulsion..."
http://www.ship-t...warrior/
https://pbs.twimg...g9sP.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
Renewables cultists are so delusional, lie to themselves, believe in their own lies
I simply gave you a clear example of a lie that you told - and asked you to find an example of when I have lied. Crickets chirping....

And the tide keeps turning - despite Willie liar and his buddy Donald - who have no clue what is happening before their eyes.
Hence the need for more renewable generation to deliver "more affordable energy" to its customers
That coming from a coal burning mega utility. Quite telling. https://renewecon...s-12056/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
And the tide keeps turning...
The best you can do is citing "RenewEconomy" another biased/unreliable/propagandist website like CleanTechnica et al.
"Alinta seeks 1,000MW of large scale renewable projects"
"Batteries not included", i.e. a gigawatt of intermittent energy that needs to be backed up by coal/gas-fired plants, a good news for the fossil fuels industry.

So-called "renewables" are just an expensive form (economically/ecologically) of providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for the coal/oil/gas industries in order to put carbon-free nuclear energy out of business.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein.
Simply, wind and solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels even in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale.
https://uploads.d...7879.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
The best you can do is citing "RenewEconomy
One of the many sites I look at every day. It beats your dependence on Breitbart, Wattsup, and the Daily Mail. But there are plenty of other resources that you can use to inform you of the transition under way - except that your religious mind block gets in the way. Here - from GTM

Today, renewable energy is taking off in virtually every state in the nation.


https://www.green....VdXdokQ
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
Today, renewable energy is taking off in virtually every state in the nation.
Intermittent renewables are the best way of providing "greenwashing" to keep expansion of gas/fracking.
"Thanks to Natural Gas, US CO2 Emissions Lowest Since 1985" - July 06, 2018
"Gas has cut 50 percent more emissions since 2005 than wind and solar power combined."
"... natural gas plants cut 2.6 times more greenhouse gas emissions than wind and 4 times more than solar."
"In fact, not just lowering emissions directly by more use, a natural gas backbone for the power grid gives us the critical peaking ability to enable a deeper penetration of renewables. Gas plants have the unique ability to quickly ramp up and hit maximum output in a matter of minutes, compensating for "when the wind isn't blowing" or "the sun isn't shining." With capacity factors in the 33–43 percent..."
https://www.realc...310.html
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
to keep expansion of gas/fracking


Except that is not true - so once again you are an ignorant liar.

https://www.eia.g...id=31252

Look at the pretty graph here Willie - theconversation.com/winds-of-change-britain-now-generates-twice-as-much-electricity-from-wind-as-coal-89598

You see coal down, gas down, renewables up, nukes up marginally over the past 10 years. So you are once again a liar.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
I messed up on the link - https://theconver...al-89598
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
...renewables up...
As well the emissions, intermittent renewables are expensive/useless placebos in the fight against Climate Change.
I messed up on the link - https://theconver...al-89598
Greentards say: "Winds of change: Britain now generates twice as much electricity from wind as coal".
But they hide this:
"Wind Power: World's Greatest Joke – UK Left Powerless During the 'Big Calm'" - Jun 2018
https://stopthese...ig-calm/
"Britain's Wind Drought Exposes Big Green's Epic Stupidity" - July 19, 2018
https://principia...upidity/
https://www.expre...t-office
UK domestic energy prices skyrocketing:
https://pbs.twimg...RIOB.png
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
Greentards say

People who are concerned about the environment - point out the facts. Emissions in the U.K. are down significantly - https://www.carbo...-in-1890

Just lie after lie after lie from the idiot who says this -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density


I keep asking you to recuse yourself - but you keep repeating the same lies. Kind of questions your intelligence. Rome was not built in a day - but the trend is in the right direction. Said that you and your liar buddy Donnie - have no understanding of a simple concept - TRUTH - let alone INTEGRITY...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
Emissions in the U.K. are down significantly
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...2PT_.jpg
"Wind and solar are much less efficient decarbonizers than combined cycle gas turbines"
https://www.wind-...urbines/
"UK wind farms found to be most profitable when switched off" - 2018
https://theenergy...hed-off/
"Solar farms receive more cash from green subsidies than selling the energy they produce"
http://www.dailym...uce.html
Rome was not built in a day
"Almost 1,000 UK wind turbines face demolition in next five years" - Mar 2018
https://utilitywe...e-years/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas
Good. Your own admission now is that emissions are falling - and as a result of switching to renewables. In time - there will be sufficient renewables - that we will not need gas. Plenty of examples around the world - where we are on the path to that goal. So after thousands of thousands of lies - saying things like this
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
You now actually have to admit the truth - which is that green house gasses are decreasing - due to (drum roll)
Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
there will be sufficient renewables - that we will not need gas.
Without gas, people will freeze in the dark. Notice: even in small scale, wind and solar cannot work satisfactorily without fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies.
"Green UK is relying on Russian natural gas to keep the population from freezing to death this winter."
https://pbs.twimg...tMcK.jpg
"UK Must Use Diesel Generators to Back-Up Wind Turbines"
http://institutef...urbines/
Carbon-free nuclear power at rescue:
"British reliance on French energy increases by more than quarter" - Jun 2018
https://www.teleg...-quarter
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
"Bird Kill: Exxon Valdez 36,000; Wind mills 20,000,000 every year"
https://pbs.twimg...7Eql.jpg

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
Without gas, people will freeze in the dark
No they won't. You never heard of storage? Plenty of countries in the world are on track to 100% renewables. (Scotland, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Denmark, etc. etc.). You just don't know the facts.

Bird Kill: Exxon Valdez 36,000; Wind mills 20,000,000 every year
Why did you suddenly change the subject? We know that turbines kill birds - but we were talking about your lies. Fossil fuels kill birds too. Your 20 million number is a lie. We don't know how many birds are killed. Cell towers kill a lot more. You just want to change the subject away from your lies.

https://abcbirds....s-birds/

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
Here is a really interesting article - with projections of global oil production for the next 20 years. Essentially - they think production will increase - from about 98 million barrels per day - to closer to 120 million barrels per day. You can see how much of an investment the fossil fuel industry has in business as usual. It is not a question of either renewables or nukes, it is business as usual - vs a new way of doing things. There is massive inertia in the current system. Telling all those lies as Willie does - is just propping up the fossil fuel mega industry. We need honesty - not lies...https://oilprice....nt_added
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
You never heard of storage?
Storage is prohibitively costly; batteries are dirty toxic.
Cell towers kill a lot more.
"Justifying wind turbines by stating cats etc. kill more birds is like stating Hitler was a good guy because Mao killed more people"

"Alternative energy is not 'green' if it is killing hundreds or thousands or millions of birds annually," said Dr. Michael Hutchins, Director of ABC's Bird-Smart Wind Energy Campaign"
https://abcbirds....r-birds/

If global oil production don't increase, prices increase, poor people suffer.Wind/solar are not solution to energy poverty.
"Anti-humanists oppose energy"
https://www.quora...teinhaus
"Anti-Humanism: resources including energy are fixed with only so much to go around, each new life on the planet is unwelcome, every person is fundamentally the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation"
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2018
Storage is prohibitively costly; batteries are dirty toxic
Storage is falling in price - and being used around the world to stabilize the grid. Just because you don't keep up with the facts - does not mean no one does - https://cleantech...-energy/

Justifying wind turbines by stating cats etc. kill more birds is like stating Hitler was a good guy because Mao killed more people
No it is not - stop lying. It is recognizing that wind turbines have a cost. So do nukes. It is a question of balancing out those costs. I support a combination of renewables, and nukes. You just keep up with the ignorant lies - like this one that you can't support -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Liar....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
Storage is falling in price
"The $2.5 trillion reason we can't rely on batteries to clean up the grid" - Jul 27, 2018
"Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role."
https://www.techn...he-grid/

"The green cult mass delusion simply defies the most basic physics. It's as if the entire "green" environmental movement 'believes' that 2+2=5."
https://www.forbe...pensive/
Liar....
Wind/solar cultists have no option except to call liar who debunks their lies.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
they are far too expensive to play a major role
Which is why you can find 63 countries around the word getting 50% or more of their power from renewables. https://en.wikipe..._sources
Which is why states like Oklahoma can get 1/3 of their power from the wind - and have some of the cheapest electricity in the world.
Wind/solar cultists have no option except to call liar who debunks their lies
Telling lies makes you and your buddy Donnie a liar. It is as simple as that. Here - how about this lie you told -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
Which is why you can find 63 countries around the word getting 50% or more of their power from renewables.
Most of renewables are hydro and biomass.
Oklahoma is one of top US gas/fracking producer, i.e. lots of cheap gas(methane) that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
Wind and solar have strong dependence on cheap fossil fuels.
"Are High Oil Prices Starting To Hurt Wind Power?" Aug 1, 2018
"The U.S. uses very little oil to generate electricity, but our energy sectors are inextricably connected, so changes in one often affects others. For example, we are starting to see the rumblings of how the price of oil might affect wind indirectly through natural gas prices."
https://www.forbe...d-power/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
Most of renewables are hydro and biomass
So what????????

You are an advocate for nuclear power. So am I. I just don't need to tell lies, and spread bullshit in order to appease any corporate overlords. So follow this logic.
1. You say that renewables are not credible because they are a 'decorative facade' (your words not mine)

2. I counter by showing that renewables are very much a viable source - as evidenced by 63 countries now getting 50% or more power from renewables

3. You counter saying that does not count - as most renewables are really hydro and bio mass.

4. Well - wind power alone now generates more power globally than nukes - https://www.japan...L1_ZFymE

So after lyng (telling lies) round and round in circles - you have just snookered yourself. If Wind is not viable - then neither is nuclear - so you are an idiot.....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2018
"...renewable sources, the vast majority ... is just people ...burning wood...and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."
https://pbs.twimg...ayq4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...dWLa.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uWMm.jpg
wind power alone now generates more power globally than nukes
80%-100% backed up by coal/gas.
Even with a hundred of gigawatts of intermittent renewables, Germany is struggling to displace coal & gas, to curb emissions and to keep electricity prices affordable.
By just restarting a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy, Japan has reduced the emissions, the electricity prices and dependence on fossil fuels.

Shut down wind/solar farms and no one would ever notice the difference, except in the electricity bills, wind/solar are paid even when they don't produce energy.
Shut down carbon-free nuclear power plants, and emissions/electricity prices increase.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
Bottom line Willie - is that you are a liar. You say that wind and solar are decorative façade. You are a liar. Here is one example. Britain is one of the lead countries in the world in terms of nuclear power generation. YET - wind alone is now generating more power than nukes. So Willie - by your logic - either nukes are a "decorative façade" in which case your whole argument is bullshit, or I am right - and wind and solar are kicking nukes ass - both in terms of cost, and also new build.

https://interesti...ime-ever

Keep asking for that cost curve on nukes - coward...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2018
wind alone is now generating more power than nukes...
Not alone, it's backed up >80% of time by coal/oil/gas power plants to compensate intermittencies; wind/solar are "decorative façade" for the fossil fuel industry.
Keep asking for that cost curve...
"Maintenance worker doing a lap around a nuclear reactor: 1x pair of standard work boots, ~100$"
"Maintenance crews doing routine checks on wind turbines: $800 to $2000 per flight hour."
"Tell me again how wind is cheaper?"
https://pbs.twimg...EMnO.jpg
Also tell me how it is carbon-free and safe, if maintenance is carried out by fossil-fueled machines, and if wind turbines require tons of oil for lubrication and sometimes catch fire and kill people.
https://pbs.twimg...Dwlo.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2018
Not alone, it's backed up >80% of time by coal/oil/gas
I call bullshit on your 80% figure. As usual - you wont be able to provide any support for your outrageous claims.

So let's just focus on your latest lie - saying that wind and solar are 'boutique facade'. I can show you a major industrial country (Britain) - that generates more power from wind - than from either coal or nukes. That is not 'boutique facade' - it is real power generation. https://www.globa...2018-re/

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2018
So let's "a major industrial country (Britain)" generating power just with wind/solar without gas to back them up.
Shut down wind/solar farms and no one would ever notice the difference.
Shut down coal/gas plants and British people will freeze in the dark.
No doubt, intermittent renewables are 'boutique facade' for the gas/fracking industry.

1,000,000,000,000 watts that needs to be backed up by a trillion of watts from coal/gas-fired power plants to compensate intermittencies, and Eco-nuts are celebrating ... for almost nothing in terms of reducing emissions.
"Green Energy Producers Just Installed Their First Trillion Watts" - Aug 2018
"The next trillion will cost $1.2 trillion by 2023..."
https://www.bloom...on-watts
"The world now has more than one terawatt of wind and solar" - Aug 2018
https://www.busin...nd-solar
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2018
No doubt, intermittent renewables are 'boutique facade' for the gas/fracking industry
When you get more terawatt hours from wind, than you get from nukes - in an industrialized nation such as Britain - it is just stupid to call it 'boutique façade.'

Notice that you told another lie - and when I called bullshit on your lie - crickets chirping - and then change the subject.

The next trillion will cost $1.2 trillion by 2023
Well that equates to $1.20 per watt. I guess that is why nukes are going to cost 12 cents a Kwh - inflation adjusted up - vs around 3 - 4 cents for wind and solar. Cuz a nuke will cost you more like $10 per watt. Vogtle has ballooned to $25 billion for a 2.5 GW plant. Yeah that is the way to go Willie - 8 times the capitol cost, and a lot more expensive to operate......https://www.foxbu...-georgia

Shame you have to lie - and then crickets chirping...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
that equates to $1.20 per watt...3 - 4 cents for wind and solar.
Batteries are never included in the total costs, neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
Wind/solar cultists are so dishonest.
Claiming solar/wind is cheap, hiding the fact "batteries not included", it's the same as selling an electric car cheaper than a conventional one, without batteries, where the batteries is one of most expensive components of the car, and dishonestly not informing the innocent buyer.
https://pbs.twimg...63Yg.jpg

Wind/solar/battery wastes are never included in the total costs, unlike carbon-free nuclear where all costs are incorporated.
https://pbs.twimg...Oeid.jpg
"The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction" - Aug 5, 2018
https://www.wired...t-impact

"What would it cost to power the UK for the next 60 years?"
https://pbs.twimg...BYcE.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
Batteries are never included in the total costs
You don't need to include battery cost when you are below a certain penetration. But the costs are coming down - as the quantities of renewables are going up.

https://renewecon...l-83151/

unlike carbon-free nuclear where all costs are incorporated
Which is why you have to pay $10 a watt for the construction - and then levy a special tax on the electricity to cover the cost of waste management. That is why Hinkley Point is going to screw the British rate payer for 12 cents a kwh - inflation adjusted - for the next 35 years. What kind of crony capitalism is that??? I'll take 4 cents wind and solar - and going down every day - over that idiocy. Probably explains why China alone installed 24 GW of Solar in 6 months.
https://www.googl...&oe=
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
The best you can do is citing RenewEconomy and other biased sources like CleanTechnica, etc.
You don't need to include battery cost when you are below a certain penetration.
"Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy contributes no additional capacity to the grid at a penetration level of 6 percent or beyond. Indeed, additional solar above the threshold is actively harmful..."
https://www.insti...r-power/
"Solar's economic value to the electricity grid declines by half when it reaches just 15 percent penetration, according to research by German economist Leon Hirth. "

"At low penetrations, "nothing happens" with solar panels / wind turbines. But, as their penetration increases in the grid, it is impossible to continue to hide their "hidden" costs. At high enough penetrations they can actually destroy the grid."
I'll take 4 cents wind and solar
"batteries not included"
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
The best you can do is to cite highly biased bullshit institutes like ier???
So why is IER so down on cutting carbon?
Because it's backed by the fossil fuel industry, that's why


Now we see who your puppet master are. Ha ha ha ha....

https://www.huffi...727.html

Wind and solar can be integrated on to the grid way above 6% - dummy. https://www.nrel....lar.html

You don't even try to know what you are talking about.....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2018
Wind and solar can be integrated on to the grid way above 6% - dummy.
Parasites cannot survive without a host, in this case, intermittent renewables cannot survive without a fossil-fueled grid.
"Parasites that require a host":
https://pbs.twimg...92Qa.jpg
"All renewables are parasitic on reliable fossil hosts that cost less, and useless as grid supply without their 24/7 fossil hosts on the grid"
"Grid-connected wind and solar systems are currently parasitic, in the sense that they exist on top of and depend on a host system from which they siphon resources."
"Renewables are popular but parasitic on a stable electricity supply. Charges for intermittency need to be introduced to show that renewables on their own currently fail on the requirement of low cost."
So it's why parasitic people love intermittent renewables because they identify themselves with these useless placebos.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2018
Parasites cannot survive without a host, in this case, intermittent renewables cannot survive without a fossil-fueled grid
Yeah - which is why idiots like you think that no country will ever reach 100% renewables - which of course is not true. Trying to explain facts to you is pointless as you are obviously in the pay of your fossil fuel masters - and actually immune to facts. This is a good discussion of the issue of the integration of intermittent sources onto the grid - https://oilprice....ths.html

Really interesting point - is that in just 18 years - wind and solar have gone from basically 0 - to over a terawatt - and the costs keep falling - so the curve will slope up. https://renewecon...t-91295/

Good luck with your nukes - liar Willie.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2018
...in just 18 years - wind and solar have gone from basically 0 - to over a terawatt...
...and with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
Carbon-free nuclear power has done much more with much less money.
"$2 trillion invested in solar and wind during the past 10 years represents an amount of similar in magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion. Yet carbon emissions continue to increase. We could have put it into nuclear!"

"All of you who think that #RenewableEnergy is good for #Climate should take a look at how much more #NaturalGas we are using. We achieved a new record in July, 2018. #NaturalGas leaks of #methane eviscerate the #climate benefits that come from #gas having less #CO2 than #Coal."
https://www.eia.g...t_6_07_b
"#Renewables require growing use of #NaturalGas because they are #intermittent and have dismal #capacity factors."
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2018
"Global wind & solar capacity surpasses 1 Terawatt", trillion-dollar fiascos at replacing coal/gas and reducing emissions.

"Centuries-old villages are being bulldozed to make way to mine brown coal — one of the filthiest and cheapest fossil fuels. As the world's biggest brown coal miner, Germany is at risk of missing its 2020 carbon emissions targets."
"Germany Bulldozes Old Villages For Coal Despite Lower Emissions Goals" - Aug 6, 2018
https://www.npr.o...ergy-gap

Low-quality products are usually cheap, people have to be paid to consume them.
"Getting paid to use German power" - Jan 3, 2018
"Germany is being forced to pay other countries to take its surplus electricity because its power network can't cope with the surge in renewables. With costs spiralling, operators, businesses and regulators are crying out for action."
https://global.ha...r-870713
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2018
and with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions
The world's first nuclear power plant was built in 1954 - so I guess that by your reasoning - nukes are a bigger failure than wind and solar. Of course as I have pointed out many times before - and you are incapable of learning - emissions from the electricity sector are down across the world - https://www.vox.c...ctricity

You are just not capable of understanding the difference between electrical generation - and the concept of energy in general. You can't blame the electricity industry - for emissions of cars, planes, trucks, and heavy industry. If you go back to school - you may some day understand this distinction....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2018
..are a bigger failure than wind and solar
"Just outside the city, 2 wind turbines costing about $3 million, stopped working several years ago. No one bothered to check if the turbines would work at -40°F. They don't"
https://pbs.twimg...IiUb.jpg
"The optimal temperature for solar panels to generate power is 25 degrees Celsius. Anything above that lowers the panels' output" - Aug 10, 2018
http://koreajoong...=3051740

"A 1.6 GW reactor, compared to coal, saves roughly one square meter of arctic ice each second" - Aug 8, 2018
https://www.energ...tic-ice/
While the current 1000 GW of installed-capacity wind/solar are just providing "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.

Natural gas(CH₄) halves the CO₂ emissions and wind/solar gets the credits,i.e. "greenwashing".
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2018
Just outside the city, 2 wind turbines costing about $3 million, stopped working several years ago. No one bothered to check if the turbines would work at -40°F. They don't
Complete misdirection. Your point was that renewables are a failure - cuz they have not caused emissions to drop. My point was - this must also therefore mean that nukes are a failure - cuz they have been around a lot longer than renewables - and they have not caused emissions to drop. See what you did there? It is called misdirection - and it is a tactic that liars use all the time - to distract from the false logic.

A 1.6 GW reactor, compared to coal, saves roughly one square meter of arctic ice each second And with about 1/2 the capacity factor, it will take approx. 3.2 GW of wind power to do the same thing. Wind in Britain is generating more power than nukes - so British wind is now saving as much arctic ice as nukes are.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2018
optimal temperature for solar panels to generate power is 25 degrees Celsius. Anything above that lowers the panels' output
So what??? Should we stop building nukes cuz they have to be shut down when it gets too hot?

https://renewecon...n-87477/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2018
...it will take approx. 3.2 GW of wind power to do the same thing.
wind = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas
Wind cultists are so dishonest. They claim capacity factor 70%, it's misleading because it's only possible in favorable locations; on average it's below 30%.
Notice: in Europe, CF on average is around 20%.
https://pbs.twimg...DpzT.jpg

so British wind is now saving as much arctic ice...
Indeed, wind turbines at a standstill save coal/gas as well birds and bats.
"Weird 'wind drought' means Britain's turbines are at a standstill" - July 2018
https://www.newsc...ndstill/
"UK wind farms found to be most profitable when switched off" - 2018
https://theenergy...hed-off/

Environuts shut down sources of carbon-free energy and then claim victory! It's why fossil fuel interests love and support them.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2018
they have not caused emissions to drop
Take a look at France, Sweden, Ontario, and more recently Japan which restarted a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy dropping emissions, electricity prices & dependence on fossil fuels.
"If you look around a little http://electricitymap.org , you will quickly notice that countries with low CO2 emissions create this with a lot of hydropower, with a lot of nuclear energy or with a lot of both."

After reaching a trillion of watts(1000 terawatts) of installed-capacity globally, at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, there is no doubt that wind/solar are a grotesque fiasco at reducing emissions.
"If Germany Can't Quit Coal, Can Anyone Else?" - Jul 2018
"So if super-green Germany—with its massive wind and solar farms, advanced technology and industrious mindset—can't quit its love affair with coal, can anyone else on the planet?"
https://www.wired...ne-else/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2018
Weird 'wind drought' means Britain's turbines are at a standstill
Yes Willie - wind is intermittent - we keep telling you that we know that. But in the first half of 2018 - wind generated more power than nukes - https://www.globa...2018-re/
But yes - we know that wind is intermittent - how many times do we have to tell you that we know that?
The heat wave is forcing the shut down of nukes - so I guess all power sources have their draw backs don't they?https://qz.com/13...ut-down/
But in the past 18 years - installed capacity in wind has gone from 0 - to over a terawatt. How is the install curve on your over priced nukes working out? Oh that's right - they are so expensive - they are getting their asses kicked by renewables. Who is on the wrong side of history? And the price keeps dropping - and the installations numbers go up up up!!!!
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
..wind generated more power than nukes..
Wind/solar cultists are so dishonest.
Headline: "UK Wind Power Generated More Energy Than Nuclear in First Months of 2018"
Reality: " Six renewable sources of energy combined provide 0.03% more energy than nuclear" "~40% of Britain's RE comes from wood pellets & landfill methane"

"Nuclear still UK's main low-carbon power source" - Jul 26, 2018
http://www.world-...r-source
...installed capacity in wind has gone from 0 - to over a terawatt.
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂) replaces coal and wind/solar takes the credits.
...18 years...Who is on the wrong side of history?
Free energy: Windmills/Wind power
Invented: Persia ~900AD
Obsoleted ~1820 by steam engine
https://uploads.d...1742.jpg
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
Oh that's right - they are so expensive - they are getting their asses kicked by renewables.
"Every time you hear a politician say renewables will push down power prices they are lying. Germany spent $108billion for renewables for 3% of their power to increase prices by 300%. It's all bullshit."

"Elon Musk, Tesla, and the Solar Roof Tile Fraud" - Aug 2018
https://mansionen...e-fraud/

"China Aggressively Pushes to Become Dominant Nuclear Player" - Aug 2018
https://www.theep...377.html

"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition and fear of the unknown."
"Why do so many people in France hate wind farms?" - Aug 2018
https://www.thelo...-so-much
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
Six renewable sources of energy combined provide 0.03% more energy than nuclear
That is absolutely the truth. It is you who is a liar. Just because it was just .03% above is not the point. Sorry you don't know how to do math.
In just 18 years - wind and solar have gone from practically zero, to over a terawatt installed. The progress continues. The fact that you don't like - does not make it not true. https://renewecon...t-91295/

Hold on to your hat King Canute.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
..wind generated more power than nukes..
RE zealots are so dishonest and love to call liar who debunks their lies.
"To be fair, the renewables category here encompasses wind, hydropower, large- and small-scale solar, geothermal and biomass. Nuclear still more than doubles the generation of the second-largest single clean energy source, hydropower." - Aug 09, 2018
https://www.green...neration
In just 18 years - wind and solar have gone from practically zero, to over a terawatt installed.
A terawatt of installed-capacity with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions after trillions of dollars spent and huge ecological impacts caused.

"It's a universal truth: renewables mean higher costs"
https://www.theau...52dd6384
Cheap natgas replaces coal and wind/solar takes the credits.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
RE zealots are so dishonest and love to call liar who debunks their lies
Really - what lie did I tell. Please quote the lie. I will quote just one of the lies you have told -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density


Give it a rest Willie - you are a liar - and history is leaving you on the rubbish pile. Sad thing is that it is liars like you - who are doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industries - and keeping homo stupidus stuck in the age of disnosaurs. History will not be kind to you.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
"Global wind & solar capacity surpasses 1 Terawatt"
"In 1998 coal accounted for ~38% of global electricity production."
"In 2017 coal accounted for ~38% of global electricity production."
https://www.vox.c...e-change
"Why did we spend $2.3T on wind and solar if it doesn't help reduce coal use?"

"Wind and solar are like a high-cost placebo — people will think we are treating the problem."
https://citizenac...cebo.jpg

Meanwhile in China, one of world's largest manufacturers of wind/solar placebos:
"China is funding its nuclear power future by selling solar panels to those who don't know better."
"China weakness is foreign oil dependence but will they scale to building two nuclear reactors per week"
https://www.nextb...eek.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
It's so cute!
Environuts are celebrating destruction of football fields of forests "every hour of every day" (millions of trees chopped down) to give place to solar farms backed up by coal/oil/gas which keep lights on at night or cloudy/snowy/not-windy days.
https://pbs.twimg...6MsJ.jpg
"Just one of the toxic chemicals used in making solar panels, and conveniently enough, they don't regulate the amount going into the environment"
https://pbs.twimg...SNb6.jpg
'GREEN" ENERGY, AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER' "Expensive, risky and–best case–an eyesore that will slaughter uncountable numbers of sea birds, offshore wind turbines are just about the worst possible way to generate electricity–half the time."
https://www.power...ster.php
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
and history is leaving you on the rubbish pile.
Piles and piles of slaughtered birds & bats and other endangered species, and then, in less than 15 years, piles and piles of windmills/solar panels, countless junkyards.
"If energy policy were based on reason and engineering, 97% of the solar panels / wind turbines out there wouldn't even exist."
Otherwise: "If you have interests in the coal / natural gas industry then by all accounts promote solar panels / wind turbines."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
It's so cute!
No - telling lies is not cute. So go ahead - dig through your blog sites to find nonsense that supports your lies. Facts on the ground are self evident. Wind and solar have gone from practically zero - to more than 1 terawatt installed, in around 18 years. The cost of renewables continues to fall - which is why on a daily basis - we see good news on the renewable energy front. One example - https://www.renew...ind.html

I am still also rooting for nukes - and hope we can some day get LFTR's, TWR's, SMR's, and fusion up and running. Unlike you - I tell the truth. History will not look well on anti progress liars like yourself.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
Wind and solar have gone from practically zero - to more than 1 terawatt installed, in around 18 years.
So delusional, wind/solar zealots don't know the difference between quantity and quality, capacity and production...
...and are highly resistant to facts:
"Global wind & solar capacity surpasses 1 Terawatt"
"In 1998 coal accounted for ~38% of global electricity production."
"In 2017 coal accounted for ~38% of global electricity production."
https://www.vox.c...e-change
"Why did we spend $2.3T on wind and solar if it doesn't help reduce coal use?"

The cost of renewables continues to fall
Thanks to subsidies:
"Wind and solar power receive at least 5x more in subsidies than coal and nuclear."
http://www1.cbn.c...-shelter
One example
Again "batteries not included", it's so dishonest.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
So delusional, wind/solar zealots don't know the difference between quantity and quality
Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over - when I have shown that we do know the difference between quality and quantity? It just continues to make you look really stupid. We understand fully the intermittency issue. The reason there is so much renewable build out around the world - is because it provides cheap/clean energy.
Why did we spend $2.3T on wind and solar if it doesn't help reduce coal use
Because it did help reduce coal use. We would be burning a lot more coal now - if we did not have renewables and nukes. Why do liars not understand the difference between a reduction in use, and a reduction in total being used. Renewables and nukes do offset coal use. But some countries like China and India continue to increase there TOTAL energy use.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2018
The reason there is so much renewable build out around the world - is because it provides cheap/clean energy.
It is neither cheap nor clean. It has caused the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal/gas that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Oklahoma.
"Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining / manufacturing / transportation / installation operations."
"The sun and wind maybe clean but the material needed to convert them to energy are causing an environmental disaster"
https://pbs.twimg...QE6Q.jpg
Because it did help reduce coal use.
"In 1998, coal represented 38% of global power generation. In 2017, it represented ... 38% of global power generation."
https://www.vox.c...e-change

Natural gas brakes coal and wind/solar takes the credit, "greenwashing".
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2018
It is neither cheap nor clean
It is both cheap and clean. Just repeating the lie - does not make it true. I understand that you prefer MASSIVE tax payer bail outs for the coal and nuke industries. https://cleantech...billion/ Cheer leader for 12 cents a Kwh nukes - rather than knowing that tenders are now coming in for 2.8 cents a Kwh solar. https://www.pv-ma...-tender/ That is a 25 year PPA Willie Liar.And the price will keep going down.....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
It is both cheap and clean. Just repeating the lie - does not make it true...2.8 cents a Kwh...
It's so dishonest saying solar/wind is cheap NOT including prohibitively expensive energy storage/batteries and/or simply citing propagandist websites like CleanTechnica, RenewEconomy, etc.
"An oil leak from a clean, green wind turbine"
https://uploads.d...abad.jpg
https://uploads.d...b85e.jpg
https://uploads.d...8a9c.jpg

Reliable/weather-resilient carbon-free nuclear energy: less than 4¢/kwh, >90% capacity factor, batteries unneeded:
"US nuclear plants are some of the lowest cost generators available..."
https://atomicins...markets/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
It's so dishonest saying solar/wind is cheap NOT including prohibitively expensive energy storage
Continuing to lie just makes you a stupid liar.

Spectacular falls in the cost of wind, solar and battery technology mean that clean energy is increasingly pushing coal and gas out of the world's electricity generation mix


From - https://www.forbe...60bd300b

simply citing propagandist websites like CleanTechnica, RenewEconomy, etc.
I cite many different sources - as do you - including Breitbart, and the Daily mail. Facts are facts. You are a liar.

US nuclear plants are some of the lowest cost generators available
Then why do they need a massive bail out? - and why is Hinkley point going to cost 12 cents Kwh?

Cont.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
Cont. The bigger question for me - is what do you think you accomplish by spreading lies? What is your point? On a fact by fact basis - you look stupid. Wind and Solar have gone from practically zero - to over 1 Terawatt, in 18 years. https://renewecon...t-91295/ That is a fact. Nuclear has remained flat for the same period of time. www.world-nuclear...day.aspx That is a fact.
What do you think you accomplish - by lying? Showing the world that you don't know the facts - but you are bound and determined to lie - and spread disinformation - that is easily debunked. You do lie. You said that wind and solar are not scaleable. I showed that they are. You said this
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
and many other lies. What do you think you accomplish?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
Spectacular falls in the cost of wind, solar and battery technology mean that clean energy is increasingly pushing coal and gas out of the world's electricity generation mix
Reality:
"The big winner in additional electricity generating capacity during 2017 in the U.S. was natural gas. Once the capacity factor of each technology below is considered, natural gas looks even more impressive."
https://pbs.twimg...J3OO.jpg
going to cost 12 cents Kwh
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/
https://pbs.twimg...yXe5.jpg
"Battery storage reqd to convert Germany's 2013 solar generation to baseload: $800 billion!"

Wind/solar cultists are so dishonest, they believe in their own lies like animals that eat their own feces.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
Wind and Solar have gone from practically zero - to over 1 Terawatt, in 18 years.
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂) has replaced coal and halved CO₂ emissions while wind/solar took the credits, providing an expensive form (economically/ecologically) of "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.

Greentards will never learn the difference between quantity and quality, capacity and production, weather-resilient and weather-dependent, carbon-free nuclear energy and intermittent/unreliables / decorative facades for the coal/oil/gas industries.

In less than 15 year, most of the thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity of intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) will be just a bunch of junkyards that costed trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, a sad reminder of a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change and how "green hypocrisy" rules.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
they believe in their own lies
Why don't you answer the question - about what you think you are accomplishing. You are the one who has been proven to be a liar. You cannot point to one example of where I have lied. I have given multiple examples of your lies. So what do you think you are accomplishing by lying? Your lies are evident. The facts are evident. You are good at twisting facts. it is a fact that wind and solar have gone from effectively zero - to over a terawatt, in about 18 years. Nuclear has stayed pretty level in that same period. The reason for that is clearly that wind and solar are proving to be cheaper. Hinkley point - 12 cents Kwh, solar panels 2.8 cents Kwh. I keep asking - what do you think you accomplish by continuing to spread dis-information. Liar Willie.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
it is a fact that wind and solar have gone from effectively zero - to over a terawatt, in about 18 years.
It's a fact that, even with a terawatt of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, intermittent renewables have failed miserably at reducing emissions. But Eco-nuts don't listen to Climate Scientists.
"71% of climate experts agree that nuclear power essential to climate stabilization."
https://pbs.twimg...JF_V.jpg
"Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - Dr. James Hansen(climate scientist)
Nuclear has stayed pretty level in that same period.
It's because Eco-nuts have fought vigorously to shut down reliable sources of carbon-free energy to give place to intermittent renewables backed up by coal/oil/gas, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
The reason for that is clearly that wind and solar are proving to be cheaper ... solar panels 2.8 cents Kwh.
"Batteries not included", another reason is that solar/wind are heavily subsidized.
"Wind & solar power receive at least 5x more in subsidies than coal and nuclear."
http://www1.cbn.c...-shelter
Neither offshore nor onshore wind is commercially reasonable, even After public subsidies. "When all of the subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees given to the companies on AWEA's board are counted, the grand total comes to a staggering $5.1 trillion."
https://www.natio...illions/
"Why Do Federal Subsidies Make Renewable Energy So Costly?"
https://www.forbe...-costly/

Solar/wind is a huge scam, their purpose is to maintain mankind stuck on coal/oil/gas.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
Why wont you answer the question Willie? What do you think you accomplish by spreading mis-information? I have demonstrated over and over that you present lies. Yet you keep doing the same cut and paste lies.

Here - from your article
until we promote all low-carbon sources the same, I can't see how we achieve our critical environmental goals in time to make any difference to the planet


I totally agree. But that would include being honest about the cost of nuclear - and not spreading the lies that you do. If nukes are so cheap - how come Hinkley Point is going to cost the British Tax payer 12 cents Kwh?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
..wind and solar have gone from effectively zero - to over a terawatt, in about 18 years.
Wind tech isn't new. In the 1930's, it were already used by Nazi-environmentalists/Eco-fascists to butch birds and bats in midair.
"German engineer Hermann Honnef designed this 1,400-foot high, Hydra-Headed Windmill in the 1930s."
https://pbs.twimg...wNiV.jpg
"Virtually all the themes of the modern environmental movement are prefigured --- in the Nazis support of windpower in the 1930's." "The Nazis were the first political party in the world to have a wind power program."
https://www.inves...g-scare/
http://en.friends...y-hitler
https://pbs.twimg...yxDe.jpg

When batteries are included, wind & solar become prohibitively expensive. Their only roles is as decorative facade for coal/oil/gas.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
Wind tech isn't new
So what? The graph shows that in the year 2,000 - there was basically zero wind and solar in the world. Today there is over 1 Terawatt. In the last 10 years - it has gone from 100 GW, to over 1 terawatt. In other words the graph is exponential.

You still refuse to answer the question about why you feel compelled to keep lying, and spreading dis-information. Why you think you accomplish anything by commenting on a subject - that you have been shown to not understand, or to just be a dishonest little liar.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
there was basically zero wind and solar in the world.
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spect...-energy/
"The world is mostly run on fossil fuels (81%). Nuclear makes up 5%, with 14% from renewables. Solar panels and wind turbines contribute 0.8%."
Today there is over 1 Terawatt. In the last 10 years - it has gone from 100 GW, to over 1 terawatt.
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Carbon-free nuclear has done much more with much less money and in much less time and with much less ecological impacts, e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
France: nuclear expansion = deep decarbonization; Germany: renewable expansion = trillion-euro fiasco at reducing emissions
https://pbs.twimg...E_se.jpg

RE zealots don't include batteries, claim wind/solar is cheap, and call liar who exposes their lies.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
they provide zero global energy
In 2016 wind and solar produced about 1.3 Twh of power globally - https://ourworldi...newables Nukes produced about 2.5 Twh - www.world-nuclear...day.aspx
So if renewables produced zero - I guess nukes produced double zero - which is zero - so what's your point Liar liar Willie? In the last 2 years - wind and solar capacity has gone up 20%. How much has nuclear gone up Willie? https://renewecon...t-91295/

So what's you POINT Willie?????

So why don't you answer the question about why you keep posting bullshit - when you have been exposed as a liar - who lies about the facts - but refuses to answer questions about why he lies - and continues to lie?????
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
In 2016 wind and solar produced about 1.3 Twh of power globally
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Wind/solar has low ERoI, worse yet when "batteries included", it means solar/wind consume more energy(mostly from fossil fuels) than they produce.

Environuts believe wind/solar is cheap and replaces fossil fuels, although it isn't happening in practice, not even in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale.
"Power plant closure could make NYC rely more on fossil fuels" - Aug 13, 2018
"...cost on consumers who already among the highest electrical bills in the nation."
https://nypost.co...l-fuels/

If solar/wind were really so good, it wouldn't be necessary to shove it down people's throats by using mandates/constitutional laws.
"The Phony Numbers Behind California's Solar Mandate" - Aug 12, 2018
https://www.wsj.c...34110302
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2018
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions
So given that nukes produced significantly more power over that time period than renewables (renewables were - and still are - in a ramp up mode) - you obviously imply exactly the same thing with regards to nuclear. So then what is you point?

Why not address the bigger point - which is that you are a proven liar - and have no business commenting on a subject that you have proven yourself willing to lie about?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
"$500billion spent, but the only metric that matters for climate is carbon intensity, which remains largely unchanged. Energiewende is unaffordable in economic and climate terms. We don't have the time or the money to follow Germany's example..."
https://pbs.twimg...yKX-.jpg
https://www.energ...formance

"Germany's Failed Climate Goals"
"A Wake-Up Call for Governments Everywhere" - Aug 15, 2018
https://www.bloom...issions/
"Germany, the nation that did more than any other to unleash the modern renewable-energy industry, is likely to fall short of its goals for CO2 even after spending over $580 billion by 2025"

"Germany's once bucolic farmland has been turned into industrial wastelands. 100's of billions of euros have been squandered on subsidies to wind and solar, all in an effort to reduce CO2 gas emissions. However, that objective has failed too: CO2 emissions continue to rise."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2018
You missed the point right Willi???. If you criticize wind and solar - cuz they have not made much of an impact on carbon emissions - then you also have to acknowledge that the same criticism holds true for nuclear. Nuclear currently produces more power than wind and solar - so what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Just posting a bunch more off topic links about Germany - shows you don't understand a very straight forward point.

Why not address the bigger point - which is that you are a proven liar - and have no business commenting on a subject that you have proven yourself willing to lie about?

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2018
Germany... However, that objective has failed too: CO2 emissions continue to rise.
You disgusting liar. - https://data.worl...tions=DE
http://www.eiu.co...17-03-20

CO2 emissions from power generation have been falling – by 13% since 2007 – but other sectors of Germany's economy, such as transport, have seen slower or no progress at all in emissions reduction
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2018
Russian gas replaces coal, reduces emissions, and intermittent renewables take the credits. Putin love faux-greens(fossil-fuel lobbyists). Eco-nuts say: wind/solar are a better bet! Putin does agree.
"Thanks to Energiewende, Germany is totally dependent on Russia for gas."
'Germany is a captive of Russia because they got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear plants. They're getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it's something NATO has to look at.'
https://www.realc...sad.html
"Schröder signed the Nord Stream pipeline deal on behalf of Germany with Putin during his last days in the chancellor's office in September 2005, shortly before the federal elections that saw Angela Merkel replace him." - Aug 12, 2017
https://www.dw.co...40070458
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2018
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
"History will not judge kindly all the greens who stood by while birds were slaughtered in the name of saving the environment."
And the protected bats ...
"Wind Farms Want Permission To Kill More Bats — A Lot More" - Aug 14, 2018
https://www.civil...ot-more/

"Case in point, despite all their solar panels, Germany recently granted a waiver for power plants to keep operating despite the river water being too warm (in their opinion) to protect wildlife."
https://pbs.twimg...H9Hx.jpg
https://www.monte...g/924099

"If it were true that solar panels were cheaper than coal, droves of persons would be installing solar panels and disconnecting from the grid with no need for any incentive. But of course, it is just not true."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2018
"If it were true that solar panels were cheaper than coal, droves of persons would be installing solar panels and disconnecting from the grid with no need for any incentive. But of course, it is just not true
Actually droves of people are installing solar panels - https://renewecon...g-46381/

This is of course the reason renewables are replacing coal across the world.
https://www.forbe...05834c0f

Once again you are a disgusting liar. History will look very badly on shitty liars like you who are blocking progress. It is fascinating how you lie. You are proven to be lying - and you just change the subject, and move on to more lies.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2018
So here is the problem in a nutshell Willie. We face an unprecedented risk with climate change. We don't know if decarbonization will be effective in stopping the warming, but we do know that if we adopt business as usual - we are in danger of triggering run away warming - and rendering the earth unable to support current population levels. The renewable industry is doing what it can to develop alternative technologies - and ramp up their adoption. The last 20 years have seen a doubling approx. every 3 years - and if that curve continues, we will decarbonize electricity in about 20 years. Total power may take more like 30. If the nuclear and renewables industry would work together - they would have a better chance of knocking off the fossil fuel industry. Honesty is necessary. Liars like you tie the problem up into a pissing match between the 2 industries - helping keep fossil fuels dominant. You have a lot of blood on your hands...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2018
This is of course the reason renewables are replacing coal across the world.
RE zealots are so dishonest. Natural gas replaces coal while wind/solar takes the credits providing "greenwashing" to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.
alternative technologies
Wind/solar are not new tech, neither alternatives to fossil fuels, windmills and sails were replaced by steam engines centuries ago, and RE propagandists already in 1891 said that solar would replace all conventional steam engines; in 1930s, Nazi party bet on wind(bird-choppers) and produced more ecological impacts than they produced energy.
we will decarbonize electricity in about 20 years.
Simply wind and solar are a fiasco even in small-scale, there is no proof in practice that intermittent renewables is really decarbonizing, as general rule: natural gas halves CO2 emissions and wind/solar(fossil-addicted parasites) takes the credits providing a decorative facade for the gas/fracking industry.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2018
Natural gas replaces coal while wind/solar takes the credits
Only when big babies like you are involved - and feel the need to keep score.
Yes - sometimes coal is replaced by gas. So what? That is a good thing. Less C02, and less heavy pollutants. Step 2 - build out non carbon sources - such as wind, solar, and nukes - and you have a pretty good plan. Only big babies like you cannot see the benefit of such a plan. There are of course plenty of examples of coal being replaced by renewables. So your point is double bullshit. https://arstechni...us-grid/]https://arstechni...us-grid/[/url]

numbers indicate that something must be displacing our use of fossil fuels. That something was clearly not nuclear, which held steady over the last year. This leaves us with renewables.
https://arstechni...us-grid/]https://arstechni...us-grid/[/url]
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2018
ArsTechnica, another propagandist/unreliable website: "US electricity use drops, renewables push fossil fuels out of the mix".
"...the use of both coal and natural gas to decline last year..." because demand declined(1.5%) due to high prices thanks to high penetration of intermittent renewables.
"The big winner in additional electricity generating capacity during 2017 in the U.S. was natural gas. Once the capacity factor of each technology below is considered, natural gas looks even more impressive."
https://uploads.d...cc93.jpg

Low natural-gas prices and ('cheap but batteries-not-included') renewables are in a symbiotic relationship: intermittent renewables provide a decorative facade("greenwashing") to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry, displacing carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the fight of Climate Change.
https://pbs.twimg...kHTq.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2018
because demand declined(1.5%) due to high prices thanks to high penetration of intermittent renewables.
Oh look - Mr. make shit up is back posting - and as usual not having a clue what he is talking about -
Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes


https://www.vox.c...tilities]https://www.vox.c...tilities[/url]

Damn it is easy showing what a stupid liar you are....

https://www.vox.c...tilities]https://www.vox.c...tilities[/url]
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2018
It seems that South Koreans aren't listening to antinuclear fearmongers(fossil-fuel lobbyists), and definitively don't believe in sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
"..as global warming intensifies, the trend against nuclear power that emerged in many countries after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2011 has reversed... Opposing nuclear energy is now an outdated trend." - 2018/07/31
http://focustaiwa...035.aspx
"7 in 10 Koreans approve of nuclear power"- Aug 16, 2018
https://www.korea...971.html
"Seven out of 10 Koreans surveyed want power to come primarily from nuclear reactors."
http://koreajoong...=3052035
"People in Taiwan have lost faith that government [can achieve] its nuclear-free goal without compromising the stable supply of electricity since the major power outage on August 15 last year."
http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=252025
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2018
Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy.
Indeed, renewables energy prices are so crazy, they go negative, people have to be paid to consume them(low-quality products).
Intermittent energy is very low-quality, it's produced when it isn't needed, but when it's most needed, at night or during the Winter, it's coal and gas that prevent people from freezing in the dark. In the end, intermittent renewables cause the electricity prices to skyrocket.

Greentards will never understand the difference between quantity and quality, weather-dependent and weather-resilient, carbon-free nuclear energy and decorative facades for the coal/oil/gas industries.
Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2018
It seems that South Koreans aren't listening to antinuclear fearmongers
Glad to hear it. I hope they build some new nukes - and we get some more data on the cost of nuclear. I hope we move to an energy system that incorporates as many forms of low carbon energy as we can.

Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge
As does the surge in renewables. The reason that gas is so cheap - is that it has to compete with clean cheap renewables - that are setting the bar in terms of the cost of energy. Willie keeps recycling the same lies - as he does not understand the issues being presented. His fossil fuel masters must be giving him a great deal. https://www.power...t-china/
the world added more solar power than any other type of energy in 2017, surpassing all fossil fuels. A key driver of this has been the record low auction prices of $30 megawatts per hour (MWh)
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2018
the world added more solar power than any other type of energy in 2017, surpassing all fossil fuels.
wind+solar = 0.8% https://pbs.twimg...iqkE.jpg
"Despite renewables growth, there has never been an energy transition" - Aug 17, 2018
"Wind and solar now vie with natural gas to provide new electricity generating capacity."
"Although the percentage shares of biomass, coal and oil in our energy supply have fallen with the rise of alternatives, their total use continues to grow."
"A true energy transition will need to reduce carbon emissions."
Wind and solar are joke, "batteries never included".
https://www.axios...473.html

"The gas industry is extremely supportive of renewables because they get to build gas plants to back up the unreliable renewables. Renewables are a huge wind for the fossil fuel producers. Nobody backs renewables more than gas producers."
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2018
Liar.
you are a liar.
you a dumb liar.
fat liar like you
you are an ignorant liar.
Liar....
is that you are a liar.
You are a liar.
liars like you
you a stupid liar.
dishonest little liar.
exposed as a liar
you are a proven liar
You disgusting liar.
1000 gigawatts of wind/solar that have failed miserably at reducing emissions, at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, and RE zealots are blaming fossil fuels, and call liar who debunk their lies.
"When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser" - Socrates
https://pbs.twimg...IS0Z.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...VObG.jpg

"Why solar and wind won't make much difference to carbon dioxide emissions"
"Solar and wind present two problems. One is low power density ...The other, more serious problem is intermittency..."
https://blog.oup....issions/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2018
You disgusting liar
And I stand behind every assertion that you are a liar. This one was a particularly egregious lie - where you said -
Germany... However, that objective has failed too: CO2 emissions continue to rise
It was very straightforward to look up that piece of information - and come up with rebuttal
CO2 emissions from power generation have been falling – by 13% since 2007 – but other sectors of Germany's economy, such as transport, have seen slower or no progress at all in emissions reduction

When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser
Slander -
make false and damaging statements about (someone)
When someone tells lies - it is not a false statement to point out their lies. Sorry you don't understand the difference between truth and lies....

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2018
On the topic of the decorum of this kind of exchange. Don't get all high and mighty about people using slander when they have 'lost' the debate. You are the one with the potty mouth. You are the one initiating the use of terms like 'tards' - and saying that people are like 'dogs that eat their own vomit.' If you want to introduce some respect - you have to be willing to lead by example. The first example you should set - is not telling lies. I have shown multiple times - examples of you saying things that are provably false. When the error of your false statements is pointed out - with support - you never acknowledge your error. You simply change the subject - and engage in more invective. You set the tone Willie - I just responded like for like....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2018
CO2 emissions from power generation have been falling – by 13% since 2007...Germany..
Natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) replaces coal and halves CO2 emissions and intermittent renewables take the credits, providing "greenwashing" for the Russian gas.
"Putin and Merkel share a drink in the sunshine as they discuss a new gas pipeline" - Aug 18, 2018
http://www.dailym...eal.html

RE zealots still believe sunshine&breeze unicorn energy displaces coal/oil/gas.
https://youtu.be/n64JhAJDQWk
"The lubricants keeping China's wind turbines turning"
https://www.youtu...rhvIY6B4

"Were anti-nuclear power environmentalists indirectly responsible for continued reliance on coal power?"
"The very brief answer is: yes."
https://www.quora...-Sikkema
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2018
RE zealots still believe sunshine&breeze unicorn energy displaces coal/oil/gas


And as I have show you multiple times - there are plenty of examples in which wind and solar DO replace fossil fuels. You can look at the graph on the first page of this article to see the data that supports exactly that. https://theconver...al-89598

So - after whining like a baby because I called you a liar - you immediately pop back up - do not address any of the points that I make regarding your rude postings - and then repeat another lie - that has been debunked previously.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2018
Again the same fake news: "Winds of change: Britain now generates twice as much electricity from wind as coal". Reality: " Six renewable sources of energy combined provide 0.03% more energy than nuclear" "~40% of Britain's RE comes from wood pellets & landfill methane"

Most of renewables is hydro/geothermal/biomass, and natural gas is that is replacing coal and curbing the emissions, while wind/solar acts as parasites taking the credits providing "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.
I called you a liar
ZE zealots can be debunked several times regarding a same fake news but even so they have the petulance of calling liar who debunks their lies.

Take a look at Britain now: natural gas and coal, and carbon-free nuclear power(including French nuclear energy), are preventing British people from freezing in the dark, while wind and solar are on vacation:
https://uploads.d...996c.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2018
Again the same fake news
Obviously you can't read a graph. That graph separates out the different renewable resources. You can see that over the past 8 years - solar and wind have both increased; coal has taken a nose dive; and Britain is burning less methane than it was 8 years ago. Nuclear has remained pretty flat - gone up maybe 2%. So - clearly it is a lie to say that wind and solar are not displacing coal. As we move forward - odds are very good that the percentage of wind and solar will continue to increase.
This makes the government's huge financial support for nuclear, the one low carbon source which keeps going up and up in price, all the more confusing and irrational
I'll say.
https://www.bbc.c...44926442
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2018
they have the petulance of calling liar who debunks their lies.
You show me one lie that I have told.

I will show you one that you have told -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2018
...over the past 8 years - solar and wind have both increased...
No doubt "solar and wind have both increased" but more undoubtedly yet, after reaching 1000 gigawatts of installed-capacity worldwide, is that intermittent renewables are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions and displacing fossils; natural gas replaces coal and halves emissions and intermittent renewables take the credits.

Low-quality parasite/intermittent energy fails every time. High-quality carbon-free nuclear energy at rescue.
Faux-greens(fossil fuel lobbyist) will dislike this:
"German utilities restart 3.7 GW capacity over weekend" - Aug 20, 2018
https://www.monte...d/927629
Nuclear has remained pretty flat
RE zealots destroy carbon-free nuclear and then blame carbon-free nuclear.

"What's the fastest way to add cleanenergy? You guessed it: nuclear."
https://pbs.twimg...kpTS.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2018
No doubt
Which is of course admission of your lie - that
RE zealots still believe sunshine&breeze unicorn energy displaces coal/oil/gas
We have now demonstrated very conclusively that in some situations - wind and solar are replacing coal. Please stop lying - and also take a logic class - so you have a better shot at understanding pretty basic argument.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2018
wind and solar are replacing coal.
Not in Germany and nowhere. It's gas that replaces coal.
Correspondence between a resident of Hesse, Germany and the Green Minister of the Environment. "The contribution of German wind energy to global climate is 0%"
https://www.windw...eologie/
So why destroy the environment with turbines?

"If renewable energy is cheaper why does it continue to need so much money from your taxes?"
https://pbs.twimg...icLY.jpg

"The three things 'renewables' can't deliver: a clean grid, a reliable grid, a cheap grid. It hasn't been done anywhere on the planet, and those that are trying with just renewables are failing on all three."

"Wind turbines started generating electricity in the 1800s. So nuclear is truly a new kid in town respecting electricity generation. And nuclear by far outproduces wind on a global basis."
https://pbs.twimg...asaA.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2018
Not in Germany and nowhere
That's a lie - you liar. I showed you a graph that proves it to be a lie. I could show others -
However there was also an additional 14 TWh from utility-scale solar, representing a 51% growth in output over the first nine months of 2016, and an additional 19 TWh from wind
The lies just roll off your keyboard - and you have no shame - you just keep on going....https://www.pv-ma...in-2017/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2018
RE zealots love to spread misleading information(propagandism/scams): "Solar photovoltaics (PV) grew by a whopping 32% in 2017, followed by wind energy, which grew by 10%." "That won't be anywhere close to 32% and 10% of annual generation."
"THE GULF BETWEEN ENERGY CAPACITY AND ENERGY PRODUCTION" - Aug 21, 2018
"By the end of June, there was a total of 1,013 GW worth of combined wind and solar capacity around the world. Written another way, that's 1 million MW, or a billion kW. Hence the trillion watts, or terawatt."
"This is an example of an article which never once mentions that this installed capacity of solar and wind will technically never actually output 1,013 gigawatts, and indeed over the course of a year, on average, won't get anywhere near full production."
http://4thgenerat...duction/
"we need electricity generation which works 24/7 when we need electricity, not some pathetic Renewable pantomime!"
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2018
Another misleading information(scam) / fake news: "US renewables replace coal and gas in 2017"
Main cause: "The biggest single factor in the decline of thermal generation in 2017 is a fall in demand. Total electricity generation fell by 2.6% in the first nine months of 2017, mirroring a 3% fall in total electric use."
US 2017:
- solar: 0.775%
- wind: 2.35%
- natural gas: 28%
- coal: 14%
- petroleum: 36.2%
https://pbs.twimg...QGt9.jpg
And, according to fake news: "US renewables replace coal and gas in 2017"
- you liar.
Wind/solar cultists are so dishonest, lie to themselves, believe in their own lie, and love to call liar who debunk their lies. Lamentable!
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2018
Another misleading information(scam) / fake news
Yeah - where did Willie learn those words? It is not a scam if it is factually accurate. From the article Willie
in the first nine months of 2017, it also saw 65 TWh more generation from renewable energy
Oh wow - facts that prove you are a liar. You should go have dinner with your friend Donny - and talk about fake news, and scams, and how you are going to bring back the coal industry, and rebuild the Pennsylvania ship yard. You guys are so delusional......
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2018
Lots and lots of installed-capacity added with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
Wind/solar has poor ERoI, worse yet when batteries included.
If it weren't true: with the current 1000 gigawatts of installed-capacity, a meaningful emission reduction would already have been detected, not masked by replacement of coal by gas, incandescent bulbs by led, etc.
"The absolute best form of storage is pumped hyro; but when it is used with wind turbines and solarPV the energy returned on energy invested drops below the breakeven point."
https://pbs.twimg...pE1V.jpg

"Don't be silly. Wind and solar need equivalent conventional back-up - meaning a multi-billion dollar peaking natural gas plant. Once installed, CO2 emissions will be almost the same as coal due to erratic nature of wind/solar; great CASH 4 investors in peakers! Nasty4consumers."
https://pbs.twimg...Mz5G.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...5eQ8.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2018
Lots and lots of installed-capacity added with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions
Just a big fat lie - from a big fat liar - https://www.carbo...-in-1890

So data will show that countries like Britain - that are investing in decarbonizing - are reducing their emissions. The bigger point is that the electricity sector is not the only sector emitting carbon. The biggest emitter is transportation - and we have only just started making any changes on that front - https://www.vox.c...ortation

Of course - rather than celebrate the victories we are winning - liar Willie throw up more lies to keep support his backers in the fossil fuel industries...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2018
"Analysis: UK carbon emissions in 2017 fell to levels last seen in 1890"
Recurrent pattern: natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂) replaces coal and halves CO₂ emissions while wind/solar takes the credits providing "greenwashing" to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.

Notice: while wind & solar are on vacation, natural gas & carbon-free nuclear are keeping lights on in UK:
https://uploads.d...996c.jpg

"Nuclear is the largest source of low carbon power in the UK - contributing 21% of all electricity in 2017"
https://pbs.twimg...A32V.png
"Nuclear still UK's main low-carbon power source" Jul 2018
http://www.world-...r-source
Wind & solar are just decorative facades for the gas/fracking industry.

In the "Transportation Sector" is where it becomes clear that wind/solar is a joke.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2018
In the "Transportation Sector" is where it becomes clear that wind/solar is a joke
Wind and solar are not a joke. They are scaleable - and quite capable of being a major part of the solution in terms of decarbonizing our world. The world's first electric container ship = https://cleantech...-norway/
Electric car growth set to take off - https://www.stati...ne-type/

See Willie liar - Rome was not built in a day - and when you are living in the early days of a revolution - you have to be really sharp - to understand the changes going on around you. Stupid people like you stay stuck in the past - while those with vision - understand the nuances of the revolution...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2018
They are scaleable
Intermittent renewables are scalable in installed-capacity; "batteries not included", so coal/oil/gas scales together to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining; trillion-dollar fiascos in the fight against Climate Change.
Wind and solar aren't part of the solution in terms of decarbonizing our world, they are part of the problem. Carbon-free nuclear power is the only scalable and viable solution.

If wind and solar were so great, why aren't they used to recharge electric cars? Because they are a joke, not even Greenpeace uses these useless placebos to power their ships and inflatable motorboats.
COP 23 - Electric cars recharged with diesel-generators instead of sunshine&breeze:
https://pbs.twimg...tXKU.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...jeVJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...7JiF.jpg
https://uploads.d...e821.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2018
Intermittent renewables are scalable in installed-capacity
Which of course means they are scaleable - period.
If wind and solar were so great, why aren't they used to recharge electric cars?


They are used to charge electric cars. https://www.googl...;bih=939
https://electrek....ar-wind/

Poor Willie - just keeps shooting blanks - have to give him an e for effort.....
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2018
Almost all existing fossil fuel and nuclear generation assets are coming to end-of-life by 2050. They will have to be replaced. Academic studies show clearly that renewables will replace them close to 100% of the time. Large-scale grid integration and multiple forms of renewable generation eliminate most of the purported requirement for storage which critics like to assert is necessary


So we wait and see - as the story unfolds - in real time.

https://cleantech...-future/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2018
It's so ridiculous and dishonest showing pictures of solar panels connected to a fossil-fueled grid as if they were in fact recharging the electric cars.
If solar panels were really so good at producing energy, they would be installed directly on the roof of the electric cars.
Not even Tesla cars have these placebos because they are expensive and useless.
"Why doesn't Tesla make cars with a sun-roof with solar panels?"
https://www.quora...r-panels
"Tesla Model 3: Elon Musk virtually kills the possibility of a solar roof option"
https://electrek....-option/
https://uploads.d...4cdd.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2018
The so-called "green energy" produces more ecological impacts than they produce energy.
"California would have to cover a land area roughly four times the size of L.A. County with nothing but massive windmills" to achieve just the wind portion of the state's 100% renewables goal. - Aug 21, 2018
http://www.latime...ory.html
It's so Eco-friendly: chopping down trees to make room for wind/solar(bird-chopper/landscape-destroyer) farms backed up by coal/oil/gas to compensate intermittencies.
https://pbs.twimg...DXFA.jpg
"Solar power combined with batteries is an environmental nightmare."
https://s3.amazon...aged.jpg
Academic studies show clearly that renewables will replace them close to 100% of the time.
I hope these academic crackpots in their everyday life are 100% powered by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2018
If solar panels were really so good at producing energy, they would be installed directly on the roof of the electric cars
If nuclear power were really so good - all cars would have nuclear reactors... You wont be able to see how stupid your assertions are - but others will. Actually - if you are patient - this is something that will happen -
https://www.green...r-panels
But the panels wont give you a lot of range - due to the physics of solar panels - that you are too stupid to understand.
Almost all existing fossil fuel and nuclear generation assets are coming to end-of-life by 2050. They will have to be replaced. Academic studies show clearly that renewables will replace them close to 100% of the time. Large-scale grid integration and multiple forms of renewable generation eliminate most of the purported requirement for storage which critics like to assert is necessary

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2018
If nuclear power were really so good
Aircraft carriers, submarines, spacecrafts, etc. powered by carbon-free nuclear power reactors.
If windmills and sails were really so good, they wouldn't be replaced centuries ago by steam engines.
"At -60C in the polar night neither solar nor wind energy can power homes. It is either coal or nuclear. The former is a source of toxic emissions causing climate change. The latter supplies people with safe and clean energy."
https://twitter.c...10637568

"Sono Sion solar electric car PROMISES 18 miles of range from solar panels" ... PROMISES...PROMISES...
Wind and solar are a scam after scam ... after scam ... endless scams.
https://pbs.twimg...lPFH.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2018
Cost of plant to power America:
Renewables $15.2 Trillion to $22.8 trillion
Nuclear $3.0 Trillion to $6.7 Trillion
https://www.techn...-energy/

"Germany embarked on Energiewende in 2010 with the goal of eventually making Germany independent of fossil fuels. The idea was to phase out oil, coal, and natural gas to allow for drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Since 2009, Germany has spent over a hundred billion euros on solar and wind energy, but carbon dioxide emissions did not decline over that period. In fact, they have risen by about 2 percent. The financial obligations from the expansion of wind and solar energy will continue to burden taxpayers for another two decades and will end-up costing German consumers around 550 billion euros." - Aug 21, 2018
https://www.insti...ian-gas/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2018
Aircraft carriers, submarines, spacecrafts, etc. powered by carbon-free nuclear power reactors
At what cost?
Unfortunately, there are significant disadvantages to nuclear powered ships, the most significant being the price
You probably never wondered why there are not any nuclear powered oil tankers. It does not surprise us that you are incapable of complex reasoning. large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/fuster1/
100% renewables is technically feasible.
https://www.wefor...by-2050/

As you know - I would be happy to see 80% renewables - and 20% nukes - if the cost of nukes can be brought down (we have no evidence it can.)

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.