Renewable energy sources can take up to 1000 times more space than fossil fuels

Wind power
Credit: Leaflet/Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 3.0

To generate renewable energy takes more space than one might think. New research by environmental scientist Paul Behrens and master's student John van Zalk shows how much space is needed for nine specific types of energy. Biomass, hydro and wind, while vital, take up the most space. Natural gas and nuclear take least. Publication in Energy Policy.

Different fuel types need different amounts of space, and renewable energies generally need more space than . One way to compare them is to use the concept of power density – the average electrical power produced in one horizontal square metre of infrastructure. For the first time, researchers at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, gathered 177 estimates of U.S. power densities across the scientific literature and compared the power density for nine specific energy types. The results can be applied to other countries as well.

More space, but less polluted

They found that power densities can vary by as much as 1000 times, with biomass the lowest (at 0.8 W/m2) and the highest (at 1000 W/m2). Solar and wind power needs around 40-50 times more space than coal and 90-100 times more space than gas. "However, the production of fossil fuels is a very dirty business," says Paul Behrens, environmental scientist at Leiden University. "So, while renewable energies take up more space, that space will be less polluted, and can be developed for multiple uses such as farming around the base of wind turbines."

Rooftop solar

The analysis also found that solar power densities are continuously increasing over time, with research suggesting that new three-dimensional designs could reach over three to five times today's figures by the middle of the century.

With an increasing population, and the need for food and housing, land will be at a premium moving into the middle of the century. "The very low power densities of biomass make it a difficult sell, especially since the land on which it is produced can sometimes be used for growing food instead," Beherens says. "To avoid competition, rooftop solar will be the best bet—providing clean power that doesn't compete with other land uses. Offshore wind will help, and future technologies such as algae farms may be another option to avoid land competition."

To investigate where the impact would be felt most intensely, the authors applied their to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Renewable Electricity Futures Scenarios. Despite a near tripling in land used by the power sector in southern states, the northeast would experience the greatest visible change with over 10 percent of land devoted to energy generation in nine states.


Explore further

New wind turbines show high efficiency in low winds

More information: John van Zalk et al. The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities and their application in the U.S., Energy Policy (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023
Journal information: Energy Policy

Provided by Leiden University
Citation: Renewable energy sources can take up to 1000 times more space than fossil fuels (2018, August 28) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewable-energy-sources-space-fossil.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
23 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 28, 2018
At two cents/kWh, wind cannot be beat, and the land under the turbines can still be used for agriculture. It is a win-win. Can't use the land contaminated by radiation or coal toxins.

Aug 28, 2018
Sooo...
- if we put wind off shore (as is the case with almost all new installations)... who cares?
- if hydro is already being used to near max capacity and the only hydro remaining would be wave energy (which is also off shore)...who cares?

...which leaves solar, which can be put on roofs (which aren't being used otherwise). Does that count as 'taking up land'?

Biogas shouldn't be a large part of any push for renewables anyhow (because it's not really CO2 neutral).

Natural gas and nuclear take least.

Shouldn't we be counting the areas that are unusable due to Fukushima and Chernobyl (and also the areas that are becoming uninhabitable due to climate change)? I think that should change the numbers a wee bit.

There's really more than enough unused land - even in the densest populated countries (OK, maybe not Vatican city). While interesting I don't think this research has any relevant impact.

Aug 28, 2018
That is only a small part of the matter.
Converting wind energy into electricity, windmills remove some of the ability to do work from moving air. But the wind does many things, including moderating temperatures over large areas, distributing seed, moving topsoil. Already, it's recognized that windmill farms increase he temperature of the air downwind from them.
With their huge areas of polished, reflective surfaces, solar farms prevent cloud formation, superheat dust overhead and create a massive disparity between the temperature of the air and the ground. Already, solar farms are recognized as causing city like heat island effects.
The fact is, chemtrails cause the altering of the atmosphere, not "fossil fuels".

Aug 28, 2018
Yeah, julian misses the noise, stink, pollution and toxics from coal, apparently.

Aug 28, 2018
"The fact is, chemtrails cause the altering of the atmosphere, not "fossil fuels"." - Julianpenkook

Ya, and Alex Jones is a honest man too.

LOL!

Aug 28, 2018
At two cents/kWh, wind...
"Batteries not included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
Wind and solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) are not alternative to fossil fuels. Intermittent renewables are just a decorative facade, an expensive form (economically/ecologically) of providing "greenwashing" for the fossil fuel industry.

"Energy density strongly determines environmental impact. High-density fuels require less mining, materials & land — & generate less waste."
Wind/solar has a huge environmental/ecological cost that is entirely neglected by the faux-greens.
https://pbs.twimg...ZLMG.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...WrDQ.jpg

Aug 28, 2018
Shouldn't we be counting the areas that are unusable due to Fukushima and Chernobyl...
"Green energy ", according to faux-greens:
https://uploads.d...64a7.jpg
https://uploads.d...2671.jpg
https://uploads.d...f114.jpg
"Nuclear exclusion zone", according to anti-nuclear fearmongers:
https://uploads.d...4b1a.jpg
https://uploads.d...071d.jpg
https://uploads.d...727b.jpg

"The difference between nuclear & solar exclusion zones is that life thrives in the former while *all life must die* in the latter."

Aug 28, 2018
This is really a simplistic study. Floating Solar PV (FSPV) on large reservoirs & other water bodies also offers significant potential and water savings from evaporation.

It is estimated that in India's major reservoirs alone, there is potential of 909.05 Gigawatt power generation & saving of 16233 billion liters of water per year exists if large reservoirs are used in India for Floating Solar PV Power Plants. That number is about 3 times the world PV generation for 2016.

Aug 28, 2018
This is such a BS article. The title gives it away; 1000 times more space than fossil fuels???? Define space. Once you release CO2 (and all of the airborne pollutants) into the atmosphere, they can have a footprint that spreads for 1000s of miles before becoming undetectable. If we include that, then the claim is total crap! BS.

Aug 28, 2018
A fossil fuel needs to consume vast amounts of air for the chemical process of combustion. Once it has undergone that process, the fuel is consumed and converted into other chemicals that are released into the atmosphere with major side effects for that down-wind. A solar panel takes some energy to make, but once done, is good for 25 years. Similarly for a wind turbine. 25 years of low maintenance consistent energy production. In contrast fossil fuels, it's like wham-bam and done, then dig around on your hands and knees hoping you can find more.


Aug 29, 2018
A fossil fuel needs to consume vast amounts of air for the chemical process of combustion.
Notice: intermittent renewables are not alternative to fossil fuels. Wind and solar are inherently parasites on other reliable/weather-resilient forms of energy specifically coal/oil/gas to compensate intermittencies.
Windmills and solar panels have low ERoI, worse yet when "batteries included", i.e. they hardly can payback/repay the energy used from fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle their components.
"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."
http://www.inside...u-think/

Aug 29, 2018
Little by little, Willi-kins.

The trend is becoming a rout.

Aug 29, 2018
How much space an energy source takes up is of little relevance given we have no shortage of space for the energy sources that take up the most space. For starters, rooftop areas without solar panels are just wasted space anyway and if every roof top was covered in solar panels and we had good energy storage + supergrid + various other non-fossil-fuel energy sources (note how I don't exclude the possibility of including some nuclear) then we should easily produce all our electrical energy without burning fossil fuels and nobody will have to move home or stop farming because of 'lack of room' from installing solar panels or wind turbines.
I am aware that some people did have to move home from some of the bigger hydroelectric dam projects but I don't propose building any more big hydroelectric dams but rather build more run-off-the-river hydroelectric power stations (see link below) that don't displace people.
https://en.wikipe...ctricity

Aug 29, 2018
Run-off-the-river hydroelectric is currently massively underexploited and has some big advantages over big-dam hydroelectric;

https://en.wikipe...ctricity
"...Advantages
When developed with care to footprint size and location, ROR hydro projects can create sustainable energy minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment and nearby communities.
...
run-of-the-river hydro-electric plants do not have reservoirs thus eliminating the methane and carbon dioxide emissions caused by the decomposition of organic matter in the reservoir of a conventional hydro-electric dam
...
Without a reservoir, flooding of the upper part of the river does not take place. As a result, people remain living at or near the river and existing habitats are not flooded.
...
Disadvantage
...a run-of-the-river project has little or no capacity for energy storage"

But the above disadvantage can easily be completely mitigated with supergrid etc so is trivial.

Aug 29, 2018
Floating Solar PV (FSPV) on large reservoirs & other water bodies also offers significant potential

Not only that, but it effectively cools the solar cells, too (PV efficiency drops off if the solar cells get too hot)

A solar panel takes some energy to make, but once done, is good for 25 years. Similarly for a wind turbine.

...and you can then even recycle the stuff. Good luck recycling CO2.

Aug 29, 2018
Good luck recycling CO2.
"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
"incredibly potent GHG's released from solar-panel manufacturing."
https://pbs.twimg...1zJB.jpg
"Alibaba sells SF6 Gas in "minimum order" amounts of 10,000 kilos! Huge orders are needed because of the constant use and release of SF6 gas is needed for the etching microfabrication process of solar-cells"

"An astonishing amount of energy (coal) is required to make solar panels. And when they are scrap after 25 years they will leave an equally astonishing amount of toxic waste."
https://www.youtu...RNupPmNI

Aug 29, 2018
"GHG emissions from solar panel semi conductor manufacturing out does most countries entire CO2 emissions.
WillieWard

Your own link says;

"the use of fluorinated GHGs did not begin until the late 1980s,
...
Many companies in the semiconductor manufacturing have successfully identified, evaluated and implemented a variety of technologies that protect the climate and improved production efficiencies. Solutions have been investigated and successfully implemented in the following key technological areas:

Process improvements/source reduction
Alternative chemicals
Capture and beneficial reuse
Destruction technologies
..."

And NOWHERE in you link does it suggest your completely made-up propaganda CRAP.


Aug 29, 2018
WillieWard

Your second weblink, which isn't a scientific weblink but pretends to be one, says a LIE.
It says that SF6 contributes more to global warming that CO2 and then at the end clearly implies wikipedia confirms this. So lets see what wikipedia REALLY says about this, shall we?

https://en.wikipe...fluoride
"...
Given the small amounts of SF6 released compared to carbon dioxide, its overall contribution to global warming is estimated to be less than 0.2 percent
..."

The makers of your second link may go to jail for scientific freud; just like they should. Personally I think there should be a law against saying LEIS pretending to be science and that you should also go to jail with them for such dishonesty. You are immoral.

Aug 29, 2018
"A Potent Greenhouse Gas Used to Make Solar Panels Is on the Rise" - Feb 2017
"Nitrogen trifluoride emissions in the United States, while very low compared to carbon dioxide, could be an easy target in the fight against climate change."
https://www.seeke...288.html
"Solar Panels Increased Emissions Of A Gas 17,200 Times More Potent Than CO2"
https://dailycall...han-co2/

"The sun and wind may be clean but the materials needed to convert them to energy are causing an environmental disaster"
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg

Aug 29, 2018
My above misedit;
" LEIS" should be "LIES"

Aug 29, 2018
Personally I think there should be a law against saying LEIS pretending to be science and that you should also go to jail with them for such dishonesty.
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg
"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."

Aug 29, 2018
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"

...says a cult leader who says scientists and there science is lying.

Aug 29, 2018
Gosh, Willie, my PVs are still pumping it out for the household, the two electric cars and the home batteries.

Have they succeeded in getting enough subsidies for the nukes to keep them open?

Aug 29, 2018
humy, I accidentally voted you down above.

Profuse apologies.

Aug 29, 2018
"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."
https://pbs.twimg...y2SK.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...QRVI.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."
my PVs are still pumping it out for the household, the two electric cars and the home batteries.
gskam has found out a way of converting his lies into perpetual motion to produce electricity to power his "two electric cars and the home batteries".
https://pbs.twimg...NLn7.jpg

Aug 29, 2018
...says a cult leader who says scientists and there science is lying
Good luck picking up the baton Humy. Trying to have an exchange with Willie is a total head banger. He lies, insults, contradicts himself multiple times on any thread - and most importantly is totally immune to any kind of logic. As you point out - he has completely contradicted himself on the issue of C02 emissions from solar panels. Here is the actual science
Nuclear power is twice as good as coal, with the energy embedded in the power plant and fuel offsetting 5% of its output, equivalent to an EROI of 20:1. Wind and solar perform even better, at 2% and 4% respectively, equivalent to EROIs of 44:1 and 26:1.
from - https://www.carbo...otprints

Don't expect to make any forward progress with head banger there.

Aug 30, 2018
When direct and indirect emissions are put into account, nuclear power is virtually carbon-free, far much more CO₂-free than intermittent renewables.
https://pbs.twimg...taD7.jpg
Wind and solar are trillion-dollar fiascos, they have failed miserably at reducing emissions.

It can be better observed in practice:
Germany has about a hundred of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar enough to replace hard coal or lignite coal, but even so they will have to replace coal by gas to fake intermittent renewables are reducing emissions.
Globally, wind and solar have achieved an impressive milestone of a terawatt(1000 gigawatts) of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
Carbon-free nuclear has done much more with much less money, in much less time and with much less ecological impacts.

The best that RE zealots can do is call liar who exposes the facts.

Aug 30, 2018
Whining will not keep the nuke plants open, Willie.

Aug 30, 2018
...will not keep the nuke plants open...
Carbon-free nuclear power plants are closing; gas/fracking is expanding thanks to "greenwashing" (decorative facade) provided by intermittent renewables.
"Solar Power Too Cheap to Meter? Another Green Dream" - Aug 24, 2018
"Private investment in shale gas has added 500% more energy to America than government subsidized wind and solar combined."
https://economics...en-dream
"Germany can't rely on neighbours to make up power supply gap - energy group" - Aug 22, 2018
"Green power capacity is growing but not reliable"
https://www.reute...8N1VD3B9
"'Green' California Is More Reliant On Foreign Oil Than Ever Before" -Aug 28, 2018
"California's biggest source of crude oil imports is now Saudi Arabia with more than 98 million barrels in 2017."
https://dailycall...ign-oil/

Aug 30, 2018
humy, I accidentally voted you down above.

Profuse apologies.
Thats ok georgie. I refixed it for you.

Aug 30, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power plants are closing
We know that Willie - we know. But it's OK - no need to cry - they just can't compete with cheap renewables. Renewables are lower carbon that nukes any road - so we don't have to waste a bunch of money bailing out a dying industry....

Renewables capture two-thirds of global investment in power plants to 2040 as they become, for many countries, the least-cost source of new generation


https://www.iea.org/weo2017/

Aug 30, 2018
they just can't compete with cheap renewables.
They just can't compete with cheap gas/fracking "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
"cheap renewables", "batteries not included", so it's gas(methane: worse than CO₂) that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.
In no way wind and solar are low-carbon, they have failed miserably at reducing emissions everywhere, they only exist to provide a decorative facade to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.
Renewables capture two-thirds of global investment in power plants to 2040 as they become, for many countries, the least-cost source of new generation...
"two-thirds of global investment" with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions, and are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket.
More renewables mean higher electricity prices:
https://uploads.d...5592.jpg

Aug 30, 2018
They just can't compete with cheap gas/fracking


Wrong again - the facts show that they can't compete with cheap renewables - which is why cheap renewables will capture 2/3 of global investments in coming years - and of course extend out beyond that - and you see costs for renewables continuing to fall - and nothing will be able to touch them.

Renewables capture two-thirds of global investment in power plants to 2040 as they become, for many countries, the least-cost source of new generation


Aug 30, 2018
First Energy is announcing the closure of 3 nukes, 4 coal plants, and some oil plants over the next few years. All as a result of
Solar and wind have shown significant price drops since the AES plant came online in 1991
Poor Willie - always trying to defend the indefensible.


Aug 31, 2018
There is no country/state that has been decarbonized with solar and wind without natural gas/fracking.
There is no country/state where coal was displaced with wind and solar without natural gas/fracking.
As general rule: 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.

Almost there is no place where electricity prices aren't skyrocketing with the penetration of wind and solar, except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal or gas/fracking that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Oklahoma.

On the other hand: there are lots of countries/states, e.g France, Sweden, Ontario, etc. and more recently Japan, where clearly carbon-free nuclear power has displaced fossil fuels, reduced emissions and kept the electricity prices affordable.

Aug 31, 2018
They just have yet to close them.

Aug 31, 2018
As general rule: natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂
Why don't you provide some support for that assertion - or is it just another lie like so many others? Also understand that methane being used for producing electricity - is putting less C02 into the atmosphere than coal - and we are burning the methane - so it is not being vented straight into the atmosphere.
where clearly carbon-free nuclear power has displaced fossil fuels, reduced emissions and kept the electricity prices affordable
Sure - and plenty of places where renewables have done the same thing - such as Britain, Scotland, Norway etc. With the falling cost of renewables - we will see more and more of this as we go forward.

Aug 31, 2018
...plenty of places where renewables have done the same thing - such as Britain, Scotland, Norway etc.
Most of renewables are hydro/geothermal/biomass.
With the falling cost of renewables...
...while the electricity prices are skyrocketing, reason: "batteries not included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.

By providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for coal/oil/gas in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy,
intermittent renewables are as deadly as fossil fuels.
https://pbs.twimg...vpsR.jpg
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density.
It's needed hundreds/thousands of wind turbines in a windy day(otherwise backed up by coal/gas-fired plants) to match the output of a carbon-free nuclear power plant.
https://pbs.twimg...xW1l.jpg

Aug 31, 2018
Will we ever find a way to survive the nuclear waste problem from nukes?

Aug 31, 2018
Commercial nuclear waste has killed no one, it's tiny and safely stored, and emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas, while the wastes from windmills and solar panels are full of arsenides and other chemical carcinogens that never lose their toxicity with time and are being dumped directly into the environment with no regulations.
https://pbs.twimg...jmtY.jpg
"Nuclear Waste: Ideas vs Reality"
https://thoughtsc...leak.png
https://thoughtsc...reality/
https://thoughtsc...r-waste/
"Used Nuclear Fuel"
https://www.youtu...vIzH2W6g
https://www.youtu...dQQsxiq0
https://www.youtu...ZMxf_kZg

"Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining / manufacturing / transportation / installation operations."
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg

Sep 01, 2018
@WilleWart is obviously a rightwing anti-environment troll just doing what those type trolls do. I mean seriously, look at how absolutely stupid this moron statement is; " nuclear waste has killed no one". A nuclear physicist Mr. Wart is not. He probably doesn't even know how deadly a banana can be what with all of that potassium-40 decaying and all. Oooo how spooky.
https://en.wikipe...ssium-40

How dare you Mr. willy-warthog even compare waste from a windmill or solar panel to anything, Your a lier and a turd-packed disinformation officer of the Trump kind. You must like the smell of crap is all I can figure.

Sep 01, 2018
Most of renewables are hydro/geothermal/biomass
So what? The scales are tipping - and the balance of power is changing. https://www.eia.g...&t=3 So what is your point? The scales are tipping. In 2018 - renewables passed nukes. Did I mention that the scales are tipping? Willie lives in yester year - longing for the smell of burning coal. The world passes the stupid by - as things change - and they don't notice....


Sep 01, 2018
In 2018 - renewables passed nukes.
Indeed, and it's an irrefutable proof that carbon-free nuclear power, even with few gigawatts, is unbeatable at reducing emissions, electricity prices and dependence on fossil fuels; while wind and solar, even with a trillion of watts (1000 gigawatts) of installed-capacity, are a trillion-dollar fiasco; simply natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) has replaced coal and reduced CO2 emissions while intermittent renewables took the credits providing an expensive form of "greenwashing" to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.
"The fastest growing fuel in the world during 2017 was not "renewables" or nuclear but rather natural gas. Here are the top 30 consuming countries."
https://pbs.twimg...-Plp.jpg
"The big winner in additional electricity generating capacity during 2017 in the U.S. was natural gas..."
https://uploads.d...cc93.jpg

Sep 01, 2018
Indeed, and it's an irrefutable proof
No it is not. Hinkley point will screw the British tax payer for 12 cents Kwh - inflation adjusted up - in a world of 3 and 4 cent kwh renewable power. Stupidity.
wind and solar was the key to reducing customer bills...The best way to bring down power bills .. is to invest in new renewable energy
That comes from the State energy minister - who knows lots more about electricity generation than liar Willie....

https://renewecon...y-52072/

Sep 01, 2018
So, according to His Williness, there is pollution and carbon release making wind/solar/hydro, but not when building "carbon-free" nuclear plants?

Sep 01, 2018
Trollbane, in the late '70's we in a research company working for the government wanted to see if a nuclear plant would produce more energy than it took to produce it. The government refused to let us do it, saying if we did, we would not get another contract again, ever.

We were working at the time on nuclear safety tests on the GE Mark I & II BWRs. Like the ones at Fukushima. Willie has never been in a nuclear plant.


Sep 01, 2018
but not when building "carbon-free" nuclear plants?
And of course - not when mining, transporting, processing, transporting enriched uranium. Or when transporting nuclear waste, and baby sitting it for the next 10,000 years. We use bicycle power for all of that (-:….

Sep 01, 2018
Will we ever find a way to survive the nuclear waste problem from nukes?

If what you mean is the waste from nuclear power, yes, easily. It is just a matter of burying it deep in impervious rock where it cannot ever credibly reach the surface. I don't see a problem with that.

But, that is all besides the point because nuclear power is one of the most expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. Renewables, and apparently especially wind power, tend to be a lot cheaper. Thus it can be argued that nuclear power, at least for now, isn't cost effective. This could well one day change if nuclear fusion ever gets off the ground but, we need to start action now so we cannot risk waiting for that.
Supergrid and cheap-enough energy storage can be added to renewables.

I often think the environmentalist are right for rejecting nuclear power but for the wrong reason; They seem to be concerned about the safety issue when they should be reject it only on economic grounds.

Sep 01, 2018
...in a world of 3 and 4 cent kwh renewable power. Stupidity.
RE zealots are so dishonest, insisting "wind/solar is cheap" but not including batteries / coal/gas-fired backup plants / integration costs.
wind and solar was the key to reducing customer bills...The best way to bring down power bills .. is to invest in new renewable energy
"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."
https://pbs.twimg...UYZ6.jpg


Sep 01, 2018
...there is pollution and carbon release making wind/solar/hydro, but not when building "carbon-free" nuclear plants?
What should matter is the final result: hydro and nuclear have in fact reduced the emissions, while wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco.
"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."
"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."
"Unless you are blessed with lots of hydro or geothermal, only nuclear can eliminate CO2."
"The IEA says that the world has already developed ~1/2 of its hydroelectric potential. And since that only services ~6% of total CURRENT energy demand"

Sep 01, 2018
...in a world of 3 and 4 cent kwh renewable power. Stupidity.
RE zealots are so dishonest, insisting "wind/solar is cheap" but not including batteries / coal/gas-fired backup plants
WillieWard

Here is just one example showing YOUR dishonesty;
https://meic.org/...l-fuels/

"In Montana, wind energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, especially coal. In fact, wind energy is less much less expensive than coal for customers of NorthWestern Energy – the state's largest utility."

...and then there is the supergid + flow batteries thus you are just talking crap with that "but not including batteries / coal/gas-fired backup plants"; no "coal/gas-fired backup plants" required for renewables.

Are you paid well by the fossil fuel industry for your propaganda?

Sep 01, 2018
...And of course - not when mining, transporting, processing, transporting enriched uranium. Or when transporting nuclear waste...
RE zealots are so dishonest, as if windmills and solar panels grew on trees and mining/transporting/manufacturing/installing/maintenance/repairing were not necessary.
"Uranium is a by-product from copper, phosphate and rare earth mining." "Copper is a major element for renewable energy."
"Uranium mining contributes small fraction of total nuclear power emissions..."
http://thestarpho...dy-says/
"Cost-effective method of extracting uranium from seawater promises limitless nuclear power" - Jun 14, 2018
https://newatlas....s/55033/
"For those that say sunshine and wind are free, we say: uranium is almost free. Only only 0.39 cents per kWh."
https://pbs.twimg...pxP8.jpg

Sep 01, 2018
...nuclear power is one of the most expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. Renewables, and apparently especially wind power, tend to be a lot cheaper.
Intermittent renewables are not alternative to fossil fuels, they just provide them with "greenwashing". Wind/solar tend to be a lot cheaper because they are heavily subsidized, "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.

Less than 4¢/kwh, 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/
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/

Sep 01, 2018
"In Montana, wind energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, especially coal. In fact, wind energy is less much less expensive than coal..."
Again "batteries not included".
https://www.eia.g...p?sid=MT
Wind and solar only exist to provide a decorative facade for the fossil fuel industry.
"Major coal and natural gas companies are using renewable energy as the lipstick on their pig. Don't buy it."
...and then there is the supergid...
"Do we need smart grids because we make stupid decisions?"
https://pbs.twimg...RiCK.jpg

...the environmentalist are right for rejecting nuclear power but for the wrong reason; They seem to be concerned about the safety issue when they should be reject it only on economic grounds.
It isn't about safety, it's about money, faux-green organizations are in the pocket of the gas/fracking industry.
https://uploads.d...a0bf.jpg

Sep 01, 2018
Again "batteries not included"
Even with batteries - renewables are cheaper than coal - so you have no point - https://thinkprog...b91a543/

Sep 01, 2018
Even with batteries - renewables are cheaper than coal...
"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."
Moreover, Germany wouldn't have to replace coal by Russian gas to pretend intermittent renewables are reducing emissions and to fake Energiewende was a good investment.
"Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chance" - April 27, 2018
https://business....a-chance

Sep 01, 2018
They have run out of space for radioactive water at Fukushima, Willie.

How much can you take?

Sep 01, 2018
"If it were true that solar panels were cheaper than coal, droves of persons would be installing solar panels
But they are Willie - they are. - https://renewecon...copy.jpg

https://www.energ...ar-boom/

https://www.ecdon...PuNwyQYT

Like shooting fish in a barrel Willie.

Sep 02, 2018
But they are ... - they are. - https://renewecon...copy.jpg
Lots and lots of installed-capacity of intermittent energy with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions because it's all backed up by coal/oil/gas to keep lights on when sun isn't shining or wind isn't blowing.

3 countries are permanently green:
Norway, 85% hydro
Sweden, 40% nuclear 40%hydro
France, 75% nuclear, 15% hydro
https://www.youtu...OoC_kKI0
France 12x Cleaner than Germany at less than 1/2 the price !
https://pbs.twimg...gLHI.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...qVXz.jpg

"Wind or solar is an appendage to the electrical grid rather than an essential part of the system. If all wind or solar vanished, the grid would continue operation without the slightest problem. You may read that coal plants have been replaced by wind or solar. That is never true"
Like shooting fish in a barrel...

Sep 02, 2018
"Renewable is a disingenuous word: All those wind towers, turbines and solar panels will have to be dismantled and disposed at the end of their productive life. That detritus isn't renewable."
"Low density in electricity production means heavy, possibly abusive land use, as demand for wind and solar is pushed. By contrast most nuclear problems will be solved by science, including waste."
"But they can't overcome the second law of thermodynamics: You can't get more electric energy out of a square meter of a solar cell than sunlight falls on it. That's absolute. Likewise, with wind: No more energy can be extracted from the wind than it contains. More research won't change that."
http://whchronicl...mistake/

"Wind turbines kill 80,000 bats a year in the UK, and 600,000 in the USA"
http://www.dailym...ght.html

Sep 02, 2018
Copy and paste away, Willie. It will not save the disaster of nuclear power.

Sep 02, 2018
"It will not save the disaster of" wind/solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers).
"UK summer 'wind drought' puts green revolution into reverse" - Aug 27, 2018
https://www.thegu...-reverse

"Germany demands Belgium close their nuclear plants for safety reasons, while killing over 3000 people a year from their coal emissions. The most dangerous reactors are the ones that are shut down early, or never built."
https://www.energ...r-plant/
"The true energy Luddites are those that promote solar panels / wind turbines and oppose nuclear energy."
https://uploads.d...7284.jpg

Sep 03, 2018
That detritus isn't renewable
It is recyclable. - https://earth911....-panels/

So it is all a question of options. Which option is the least bad? You could stop using energy - maybe live in a cave, and grow all your own food, and make your own clothes. Do you live in a cave..? Otherwise you have to live with the realities of the technologies available. As we have shown you 10,000 times - renewables are a far better option than fossil fuels in terms of the full life pollution costs. Nukes and renewables are pretty similar - with some much higher risks and costs on the nukes. The market seems to be sorting out the cost factor - renewables are kicking nukes ass.

Sep 03, 2018
Gee Willie, It's like listening to a religious zealot, zero rationality and all emotion.
Even pointing out your facts are totally wrong (thank you posters) makes no impression on your belief.
It's a disease.

Sep 03, 2018
Willie
France, 75% nuclear, 15% hydro
You don't even know the fundamentals of the subject. You post bullshit - and anyone who is keeping up - can immediately recognize how uninformed you are - but you keep howling at the moon. You at least show us how desperate the fossil fuel industry is to spread disinformation. Much blood on your hands Willie.

Overall, some 89 TWh of its electricity came from renewable energy sources last year, meeting 18.5% of total power demand
https://renewable...-601190/

Sep 03, 2018
As renewable energy becomes more and more competitive, the nuclear industry business model belongs to the past
Macron said he would stick to a target of reducing France's reliance on nuclear to 50% by 2025. He aims to double wind and solar capacity and phase out coal power by 2022


The times they are a changing....http://www.climat...-macron/

Sep 03, 2018
"The true energy Luddites are those that promote solar panels / wind turbines and oppose nuclear energy."

Wow, it just keeps on getting better.

Willie, I am WAY ahead of you with my electric house and two electric cars, and the
PV system which powers them all. Want pictures?

You are living in the past, Willie.

Sep 03, 2018
As we have shown you 10,000 times - renewables are a far better option than fossil fuels in terms of the full life pollution costs.
Wind and solar are not alternative to fossil fuels.
"200 years ago or so, almost all the energy humanity used was renewable and we nearly destroyed our forests and pushed whales to extinction. Coal saved the forests and oil the whales."
Thanks to DIESEL and other fossil fuels, faux-green organizations and Eco-hypocritical celebrities, aren't killing whales to power their ships and inflatable motorboats private jets and yachts, because wind and solar are joke in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale; intermittent renewables only exist to provide "greenwashing" for fossil fuels in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy.
It is recyclable.
It is recyclable by fossil-fueled machines, or do you believe sunshine&breeze unicorn energy is 100% powering the gskam's home and his two electric cars?
If so I have a bridge in NY to sell you.

Sep 03, 2018
Overall, some 89 TWh of its electricity came from renewable energy sources last year...
Most of renewables is hydro, the ('cheap but batteries-not-included') wind/solar are just a decorative facade for the fossil fuels in order displace carbon-free nuclear.

Oops! It seems that French are not so easy to be fooled as Germans.
"French minister's exit may give EDF's nuclear plants new lease of life" - Aug 28, 2018
https://www.reute...CN1LD27E
The world is becoming sick of these faux-greens(fossil fuel lobbyists) and their Eco-hipocritical means of energy production(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) backed up by coal/oil/gas.
'do as I say and not as I do'
"French environment minister on crusade against fossil fuels owns six cars"
http://www.telegr...els-six/

Sep 03, 2018
We have the future here and now, and can be free from nuclear disasters with appropriate means of power production.

Want pics of my PV plus battery and EV system? You do not have to reciprocate. I have lots of pictures of Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Sep 03, 2018
I have lots of pictures of Fukushima and Chernobyl.
"Fukushima Diaries The picture painted by anti-nuclear fear mongers does not match reality. Visit Fukushima with these three witnesses."
https://www.youtu...l_MaRngI
https://www.youtu...gLGA5TpM
Chernobyl is now a tourist zone:
https://pbs.twimg...fnSb.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...AIUA.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...hGK9.jpg
Want pics of my PV plus battery and EV system?
Yes, of course, as well a proof that your home and cars run entirely off-the-grid, 100% powered by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.

Sep 04, 2018
Most of renewables is hydro
Yes. So what? I like hydro. That is changing. https://renewecon...copy.jpg
You are just too stupid to see what is happening as we speak. The world is changing. Your need to lie - and spread disinformation is transparent.

Sep 04, 2018
Most of renewables is hydro
Yes. So what? I like hydro. That is changing. https://renewecon...copy.jpg ...
No doubt wind and solar are growing spectacularly reaching 1000GW of installed-capacity globally at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, and more spectacular yet is the spectacular failure of intermittent renewables at reducing emissions and keeping the electricity prices affordable.
Hydro and nuclear are proven technologies in terms of decarbonizing the grids(verifiable with only a few gigawatts) while wind and solar, with a terrawatt(1000 gigawatts) are undoubtedly a huge fiasco, simply natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) has replaced coal and halved CO2 emissions while wind and solar have taken the credits providing "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.

Definitively, RE zealots don't know the difference between quantity and quality, as well capacity and production.

Sep 04, 2018
Hydro and nuclear are proven technologies
As are wind and solar. That is why there is so much being installed around the world - because not only are they proven technologies - but they are cheaper than nukes.

Sep 04, 2018
As are wind and solar. That is why there is so much being installed around the world - because not only are they proven technologies - but they are cheaper...
"cheaper" except "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
"Wind and solar are proven technologies. They've proven they can't replace coal and natural gas as a primary energy source."
https://uploads.d...b835.jpg
Thanks to subsidies/tax credits, wind and solar exist to provide a decorative facade("greenwashing") to favor coal/oil/gas over carbon-free nuclear energy.
"We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." - Warren Buffett
http://www.canyon...-pq2.jpg

Sep 04, 2018
@WillieWard; So what? Do you own stock in Uranium Mines or what? There is no greenwashing going on here. It more of a case of "Not in my backyard" with nuclear plants.

Besides, wind an solar are an infinitely cheap resource and can produce electricity without the massive supply chain needed for other forms of energy. Perfect for the energy needs of a future advanced civilization.

Sep 04, 2018
cheaper" except "batteries not included
Cheaper even with batteries included. You know 12 cents a Kwh is not hard to beat - especially if you are using solar panels and wind turbines that are producing 3 cents Kwh power.

https://www.vox.c...y-future

Sep 04, 2018
Cheaper even with batteries included.
The best that RE zealots can do is citing unreliable/propagandist websites, or allowing gskam to talk about his "solar PV + batteries" system that is able alone, entirely off-the-grid, to power his home and his two electric cars, and all his neighborhood and maybe the whole state.

Please cite a whole state/country that isn't mostly powered by hydro/geothermal(e.g. Costa Rica, Paraguay, etc.), i.e. that is powered mainly by "wind/solar + batteries".

...wind an solar are an infinitely cheap...
Because "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.

"Not in my backyard"
"nuclear power is what everyone thinks everyone else opposes"
https://uploads.d...eedf.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...H9JK.jpg

Sep 04, 2018
The best that RE zealots can do is citing unreliable/propagandist websites
Says Willie - who quotes Breitbart, and The Daily Mail. What a hypocrite. We actually have facts on our side Willie. Here is the growth curve for wind and solar over the past 20 years. Want to share your gif of the graph of nukes for the same period? I thought not...

https://renewecon...copy.jpg

Sep 05, 2018
...Here is the growth curve for wind and solar over the past 20 years...
https://renewecon...copy.jpg
According to your graph: "Global wind and solar installations, cumulative to June 30, 2018" Total: 1,013GW
It means ~1000GW of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions; simply natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) has reduced CO2 emissions while intermittent renewables have taken the credits providing a decorative facade for the gas/fracking industry.

Now see the graphs and observe how carbon-free nuclear power is amazing at reducing emissions:
https://pbs.twimg...eO5o.jpg
https://uploads.d...9daf.jpg
https://actinidea...info.png
https://pbs.twimg...wpzl.jpg

Sep 05, 2018
Willie already lost.

I had wondered where Baghdad Bob went, . . .

Sep 05, 2018
...already lost.
I had wondered where Baghdad Bob went, . . .
Please cite a whole state/country that isn't mostly powered by hydro/geothermal(e.g. Costa Rica, Paraguay, etc.), i.e. that is powered mainly by "wind/solar + batteries".
... or do you believe sunshine&breeze unicorn energy is 100% powering the gskam's home and his two electric cars?
If so I have a bridge in NY to sell you.

Sep 05, 2018
You are right on that, Willie, because after we put in a new A/C, and the second EV, the Tesla, we had to pay $200 for the year last year, for the household with new A/C, and both cars. But his year I have been using the supercharger network which is free for the Model S.

I'll have to add panels to the pergola.

Sep 05, 2018
Please cite a whole state/country that isn't mostly powered by hydro/geothermal(e.g. Costa Rica, Paraguay, etc.), i.e. that is powered mainly by "wind/solar + batteries
Why should we do that? I asked you for a growth curve on nukes. You did not show us one did you? The point is that renewables are the new kid on the block - but because of their low cost - they are growing exponentially. Fossil fuels have been around for hundreds of years - and nukes for 70 years. Wind and solar have only been built on any scale - for the past 20 years or so. Don't be so impatient. Sweden would be a good case study as we go forward.

https://www.indep...686.html
cont.

Sep 05, 2018
Renewables, meaning large-scale wind in Sweden, on the other hand, are cheaper and cheaper to commission and to run. This together with low wholesale prices will make it less likely that new nuclear power plants will replace the remaining ones when they are phased out due to old age
If you close your mouth, and open your mind - you might see what is happening in front of you. Every day we read articles about new build wind and solar farms. Where is your growth curve on nukes Wille - we want to see the facts - not your fossil fuel funded, ignorant, counter factual opinion.

Sep 06, 2018
..renewables are the new kid on the block..
"Even the first electricity-producing windmills and the first working solar cell are from the 1880's."
https://thoughtsc...ovation/
..but because of their low cost..
Because "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
they are growing exponentially
And failing miserably at reducing emissions.
Fossil fuels have been around for hundreds of years..
"200 years ago or so, almost all the energy humanity used was renewable and we nearly destroyed our forests and pushed whales to extinction. Coal saved the forests and oil the whales."
..large-scale wind in Sweden..
"WIND Power Can't Fill Sweden's Nuclear Energy Gap"
https://climatism...imatism/
"Wind turbine performance decline in Sweden"
https://docs.wind...eden.pdf

Sep 06, 2018
America is on its way to become nuclear-free.

Sep 06, 2018
Even the first electricity-producing windmills and the first working solar cell are from the 1880's
I explained my comment very clearly. Wind installations were effectively at zero in terms of contribution to the grid - until about 20 years ago. In that 20 period - they have shown an exponential growth curve. Too bad such a point is too sophisticated for you to understand.

Sep 07, 2018
America is on its way to become nuclear-free.
It's thanks to cheap natural gas(fracking) "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
Solar and wind are a joke, parasites that cannot survive without subsidies/tax credits and a host, in this case, fossil fuels which keep lights on when sun isn't shining or wind isn't blowing.

Sep 07, 2018
I explained my comment very clearly. Wind installations were effectively at zero in terms of contribution to the grid - until about 20 years ago. In that 20 period - they have shown an exponential growth curve.
Clearly understood: exponentially from zero to 1000 gigawatts of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to contribute in terms of reducing emissions. Carbon-free nuclear has done much more with much less money, in much less time and with much less damages to environment and ecology.

Windmills and sails were replaced centuries ago by steam engines, in 1891 solar/wind cultists said solar would replace steam engines, and up to now they believe wind/solar is cheap and is replacing fossil fuels although in their everyday life they ride aboard fossil-fueled vehicles. Most of RE zealots are sociopaths, gskam is their best/worst example, kind of people that believe in their lies like animals that eat their own feces.

Sep 07, 2018
No Willie, my power system paid off in just over three years!!

Sep 07, 2018
Clearly understood: exponentially from zero to 1000 gigawatts of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars
Well it's cheaper than nukes - so you would have to same the same thing about nukes - so what's your point? Renewables are on a roll. Where is your growth curve on nukes Willie. Oh that's right - you don't have one. Here two articles on wind - from just one day
https://cleantech...auction/
https://www.cnn.c...dex.html

Drip drip drip Willie.....

Sep 07, 2018
Here's a quote for you - when trying to understand the seismic shift happening in the energy world
replacing the 94 GW of uneconomic coal generation with solar or wind energy would save Indian industrial and residential consumers $8 billion per year, but even replacing the 30 GW of older uneconomic coal would reduce annual power costs by $3 billion
And the costs keep going down. 50% drop in the past 2 years - https://www.forbe...69a4c0fa

Drip drip drip Willie. Can you show us that cost curve on nukes some time soon?????

Sep 07, 2018
Well it's cheaper than nukes..
"Batteries not included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
..replacing the 94 GW of uneconomic coal generation with solar or wind energy..
It isn't solar or wind that replaces coal, it's natural gas; solar/wind provides gas with "greenwashing".
"Output of wind turbines is very different to installed capacity"
https://pbs.twimg...ZXkS.jpg

"nuclear power is the second cheapest power source in China after coal fired power generation"
https://pbs.twimg...4ReC.jpg

"France's nuclear clean energy is over three times faster and cheaper than Germany's solar and wind" - Sep 2018
"France builts its nuclear power in less than 15 years"
https://www.nextb...ind.html
https://www.nextb...-min.png

Sep 08, 2018
Batteries not included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs
Yes it is. Do you enjoy making false statements - and then getting schooled on your lies?

50% drop in the last 2 years Willie. Drip drip drip Willie. Got that cost curve on Nukes for us yet?

Sep 09, 2018
"France's nuclear clean energy is over three times faster and cheaper than Germany's solar and wind" - Sep 2018
"France builts its nuclear power in less than 15 years"

France's nuclear clean energy is getting old and frightens everyone three times faster than German's solar and wind.
And France built its nuclear power quite some time ago. I have no news of new plants getting build like before. Since more than a decade, actually.
Or do you know how things are running in my country more than myself, Willy? Feel free to inform me. I'd be interested.

Sep 09, 2018
Ontario is a clear example of how wind/solar are just Trojan Horses for the coal/oil/gas industries. Ontario grid was mainly powered by carbon-free energy sources(hydro and nuclear) then came up the faux-greens(fossil fuel lobbyists) with their eco-hypocritical energy solution(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) and then the share of gas increased to keep the lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts, and of course, the electricity prices skyrocketed in the same rate as intermittent renewables invaded the grid.
"According to the Ontario engineers (And they should know), adding more wind(or solar) actually increases CO2. Reason is that nuclear output is reduced to compensate & since nucs can't ramp quickly, gas is burned when RE not producing."
https://pbs.twimg...3k5Q.jpg
German's solar and wind.
German's solar and wind are a trillion-euro fiasco at reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.

Sep 09, 2018
" since nucs can't ramp quickly,"

Yeah, they are slow-responding dinosaurs.

Sep 10, 2018
they are slow-responding dinosaurs.
They were designed to meet the demand and not to serve as host for parasites. Gas-fired backup plants love to host these parasites, in exchange get "greenwashing".
"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 range even on good days, naturally intermittent wind and solar are "unavailable more than they are available." So as the required backup, natural gas that enjoys a much more reliable 85–90 percent range will remain crucial as the complement for renewables"
https://www.realc...310.html
"Coal or gas-fuelled generators must be spinning in stand-by, ready to be throttled up as soon as wind speed diminishes. Add to this extra fuel-burning as the turbines are ramped up"

Sep 10, 2018
Willie, I was a Senior Engineer in Technical Services for Pacific Gas & Electric. I may understand the dynamics of power systems better than you. We have had significant wind resources for forty years, Willie, we understand it all professionally, not from political prejudice.

Sep 10, 2018
I was a Senior Engineer in Technical Services for Pacific Gas & Electric.
Then you got fired because they realized you are a maniac compulsive sociopath pathological liar that could sabotage the carbon-free nuclear plants to please Greenpeace and other Eco-terrorist organizations.

Sep 10, 2018
"otto", is that you?

Sep 10, 2018
"otto", is that you?
It could be - or Willie could just be copying Otto - monkey see monkey do kind of thing. They are certainly both as immune to facts. Otto is still pushing e-cat. 50 years from now - he will be saying that next month we will get to see the e-cat in action. The world will be running primarily on wind and solar - and Willie will be quoting from 1950s articles about too cheap to meter...

Sep 12, 2018
...certainly both as immune to facts...
Fact: wind and solar have grown exponentially reaching an outstanding milestone of ~1000GW of installed-capacity globally, at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts aside expensive electricity prices, with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions; simply natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) has replaced coal and halved the CO2 emissions while intermittent renewables took the credits ("greenwashing").
"Despite renewables growth, there has never been an energy transition" - Aug 17, 2018
"A true energy transition will need to reduce carbon emissions."
https://www.axios...473.html

Certainly wind/solar cultists are immune to facts, having something of sociopathy, believing collectively in their own lies like animals that eat their own feces.

Sep 12, 2018
Willie, please go away. You are always wrong and usually insulting.

Nobody likes you. You are the Rafael (Ted) Cruz of the internet.

Sep 13, 2018
Nobody here likes the fact that wind and solar, even with ~1000GW, are a trillion-dollar fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.

If the matter is decarbonization:
- nuclear is continuously cheap;
- wind and solar are exponentially expensive.

"How much cost to abate CO₂ with 'renewables' and nuclear. The benefit of very high capacity factors of nuclear is obvious at one glance."
"$/tonnesCO₂"
https://pbs.twimg...Xy8H.jpg
http://nuclearfor...emma.pdf

"Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power" - Sep 11, 2018
https://thumbor.f...kgej.jpg
https://www.forbe...n-power/

Sep 13, 2018
nuclear is continuously cheap
Would that be like 12 cents a Kwh cheap - as in Hinkley Point?
wind and solar are exponentially expensive
As in the cheapest source of new build energy - and the price just keeps going down.

FACTS are such problematic things to trolls. https://www.forbe...5cbf6ce9

drip drip drip Willie....

Sep 14, 2018
the cheapest source of new build energy...
RE zealots never include in the final costs: batteries / coal/gas-fired backup plants / integration;
or cite propagandist articles that only they believe in.

It's why oil&gas investors love wind/solar cultists:
"A one percentage point increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity in a country is associated, on average, with a 0.88 percentage point increase in the long-run share of renewable energy."
https://uploads.d...c752.jpg
http://www.nber.o...454.html
"Wind Power Installation Amplifies The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies"
https://www.scien...18300983

"The fastest growing fuel in the world during 2017 was not "renewables" or nuclear but rather natural gas. Here are the top 30 consuming countries."
https://pbs.twimg...-Plp.jpg

Sep 14, 2018
Renewables are now cheaper than gas, Willie.

In fact, storage is replacing peaking plants. And everything is replacing costly and dangerous nukes.

Sep 14, 2018
In fact, storage is replacing peaking plants.
If someone here believes in what gskam quacks,
I have a bridge in NY, also the Eiffel tower, to sell you.

"We often have climate charlatans claiming China is leading the renewable revolution. Well here is the truth."
"Chinese-backed Overseas investments in Fossil Fuels have actually outpaced Non-Hydro Renewable investments by almost 100:1."
https://pbs.twimg...cNEq.jpg
http://climatetra...ewables/

U.S.:
"coal is the most-used electricity generation source in 18 states; natural gas in 16; nuclear in 9: hydro in 6 and petroleum in one."
https://pbs.twimg...K-V1.jpg

Sep 14, 2018
China has halted construction of 100 gigawatts of coal power over the past year,

Renewables are poised to be cheaper than fossil fuels in every major region of the world by 2020

The 2020s will be the decade of fossil fuel demand peaks," Kingsmill Bond, the author of the report wrote, "as one bastion after another is stormed and overwhelmed by the rising renewable tide."


Willie should try looking out the window - instead of cherry picking sections of a report - but that's what happens when you are a troll - who never looks out the window.
https://money.cnn...newable/

Sep 17, 2018
Renewables are poised to be cheaper than fossil fuels...
If it is true, then show us a small country, or even a small city/island entirely off a regional grid, where coal was replaced by wind and solar and not by natural gas. Please don't cite again and again countries like Costa Rica which is mostly powered by hydro/geothermal.

Thanks to intermittent renewables:
"Europe becoming more dependent on Russian gas, DOE official says" - Sep 13, 2018
https://www.mysan...6561.php

Thanks to "greenwashing" provided by wind/solar:
"Germany is razing a 12,000-year-old forest to make way for a coal mine" - Sep 13, 2018
https://qz.com/13...al-mine/

"100% "renewables" will fuel poverty and homelessness in California" - Sep 11, 2018
http://www.cfact....ifornia/

Sep 17, 2018
Here you go, Willie for batteries and peaking plants.

https://www.bloom...lifornia

https://www.scien...angeles/

https://www.engin...nts.aspx

Once again, you lose.

Sep 17, 2018
"Green Energy Scientists Unveil 800,000-Ton Potato Capable Of Powering Entire City" - Aug 2018
https://pbs.twimg...Pumm.jpg
https://www.theon...28577530

Sep 17, 2018
I guess you do not know how the power system or the generators work, just being able to paste what others say.

Nice clear day, . . . another good day for power production here at home.

Sep 17, 2018
"Green Energy Scientists Unveil 800,000-Ton Potato Capable Of Powering Entire City" - Aug 2018
https://pbs.twimg...Pumm.jpg
https://www.theon...28577530
"The immense challenge of battery energy storage made simple: to store the energy contained in one doughnut (yes a doughnut!) you need 10 Lithium ion laptop batteries! Of course, doughnuts are not the best fuel... comparison gets worse for real fuels."
https://pbs.twimg...Sory.jpg
At 1.5 MJ/Kg a ham sandwich has a higher energy density than a Li-battery.
https://uploads.d...af16.jpg
"The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction" - Aug 2018
https://pbs.twimg...Oeid.jpg
https://www.wired...t-impact


Sep 18, 2018
Willie
If it is true, then show us a small country, or even a small city/island entirely off a regional grid, where coal was replaced by wind and solar and not by natural gas
Why should you require anyone to show this? I keep asking you the same question - and you are not capable of understanding. It would be like a company coming out with a cheaper better car - and you expecting that overnight - all the existing cars on the road would disappear. The transition is going to take many decades - and interconnection is going to be one of the main ways of dealing with intermittency. Rome was not built in a day Willie - and it makes you an idiot when you just keep saying "look look - Rome is not finished yet." 40 cities now running on 100% renewables - and 58 more planning to do the same over the next 20 years - https://insidecli...olutions

Sep 18, 2018
The midwest nukes are begging, crying for bailouts to keep running. They cannot compete with renewables which carry the weight of construction in their bills, where those nukes do not any more.

And now renewables are cheaper than coal or gas!!

Sep 18, 2018
And now renewables are cheaper than coal or gas!!
RE promoters are a bunch of charlatans/sociopaths("snake oil salesmen"), the only thing that matters is to continue to misleading the public(with help of academic crackpots and the mainstream fake news mass media(in the pocket of fossil fuel interests)) to get more and more subsidies/tax credits to build more and more wind/solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) just to provide a decorative facade to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.
It would be like a company coming out with a cheaper better car...
Just remember: sails and windmills were replaced by steam engines centuries ago; in 1891 the RE "snake oil salesmen" said solar would replace steam engines; in 1930s, the Nazis invested heavily in wind energy for nothing except to kill birds and bats.
Rome was not built in a day...
Rome didn't have ~1000GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.

Sep 18, 2018
Gosh, Willie, my silent PV panels replaced all of those sources of electrical power for me.

Sep 18, 2018
Rome didn't have....
It's an expression Willie - but I understand you are not capable of understanding such subtle language. It means that things take time. You cannot expect an energy system the size of ours - to change overnight. It is going to take many many decades. But it is building steam - and I can show you a growth curve on renewables - and you can't show one on nukes. Maybe that's cuz renewables are cheaper - and kicking nukes ass.

Sep 19, 2018
...I can show you a growth curve on renewables...
The "growth curve on renewables" is accompanied by a growth curve on natural gas, with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
No decline in coal over 20 years. Gas (largely private-sector funded & "greenwashed" by heavily subsidized intermittent renewables) up.
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
"Germany energy consumption continues to rely on 87% in fossil and nuclear sources" because wind/solar is "unreliable"
https://pbs.twimg...g9P0.jpg
https://www.faceb...0965239/

Yes. I do remember that the RE "snake oil salesmen"/sociopaths/charlatans said that wind/solar already had replaced coal in Germany.
"Germany's RWE says too early to exit coal in 2035" - Sept 16, 2018
https://www.cnbc....035.html

Sep 19, 2018
Sorry, Willie, but renewables with storage are now cheaper than even coal.

Sep 19, 2018
The "growth curve on renewables" is accompanied by a growth curve on natural gas
With one small - but very important caveat. The growth curve on wind and solar is exponential, whereas the growth curve on gas is linear. If you had taken any math classes - you would understand the significance of that (wind and solar will soon overtake gas.). In fact - gas consumption is projected to max out in the next 5-10 years, and then go into sharp decline. https://peakoilba...-report/

https://www.eia.g...id=27512

Sep 19, 2018
Since the first nuclear reactor was shut down in 2003 as a part of Germany's nuclear phaseout, electricity from renewables has increased almost twice as much as nuclear power has shrunk. Coal power – both from lignite and hard coal – has also dropped. The lights have stayed on.


https://energytra...on-2017/

drip drip drip Willie - the ship is turning....

Sep 20, 2018
The growth curve on wind and solar is exponential...wind and solar will soon overtake gas...
Batteries are never mentioned by the RE "snake oil salesmen".
There is no doubt that solar/wind is growing, but more undoubtedly yet, after reaching ~1000GW of installed-capacity globally at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, is that intermittent renewables are a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.
Coal power – both from lignite and hard coal – has also dropped.
Not only batteries, but RE "snake oil salesmen" dishonestly leave out the equation the Russian gas.
The lights have stayed on.
Thanks to Russian gas.
"Germany Is Addicted to Russian Gas" - July 2017
https://www.bloom...backyard

Sep 20, 2018
Batteries are never mentioned by the RE "snake oil salesmen"
They are mentioned all the time - you are just too stupid to know it. https://thinkprog...b91a543/

Sep 21, 2018
an Xcel Energy solicitation set a new solar-plus-storage record after attracting a median price of $36 per megawatt-hour
See Willie - people are talking about batteries. The cost of solar, and the cost of batteries are going to continue their journey down. We are still waiting for your cost curve on nukes.

https://www.green...t-to-gas

Sep 21, 2018
"super cheap renewables plus battery storage"
"solar/wind+batteries" for only 2¢/kWh has been propagandized through the years by the "snake oil salesmen", they believe in their own lies like animals that eat their own feces.

Sep 21, 2018
Please stop your fascination with feces-eating animals.

The rest of us have outgrown that stage of pre-adolescence.

Sep 21, 2018
solar/wind+batteries" for only 2¢/kWh has been propagandized...
And you remember too cheap to meter on the nuke front too - right? Just because someone said something - does not mean you have to buy it. Smart people understood that the nuclear fan boys were full of shit - and we ignored them. The numbers we present on wind and solar are real world numbers - not projections about the future.

Please stop your fascination with feces
He is also fascinated with vomit. Freud would have a lot to say on that front. Probably something to do with being stuck in an anal fascination phase.


Sep 22, 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."

If wind and solar were so good and cheap, they would already be widely used to produce hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, and other synfuels to help to decarbonize the "transportation sector", and also for desalinization to produce fresh water.
In most of serious studies/researches, wind and solar are not even cited, they largely mention hydro and carbon-free nuclear, because wind and solar have low ERoI, worse yet when batteries are included.

If it were really true that solar/wind is indeed so cheap and good, it wouldn't be necessary laws/mandates to shove it down people's throats.
"California Climate Policies Facing Revolt from Civil-Rights Groups" - Sep 15, 2018
https://www.natio...hardest/

Sep 22, 2018
That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power.
More fecal fixation from our resident liar. Show me the growth curve on your fecal power sources. I have shown you wind and solar.

If wind and solar were so good and cheap,..
We are just reaching the point where wind and solar are at or close to parity with dominant system of fossil fuels. There is a great deal happening in the field of transportation (read up on companies like Protera). You cannot expect a vast system like global energy to change overnight. Drip drip drip Willie.

Sep 22, 2018
"We are just reaching the point where wind and solar are at or close to parity with dominant system of fossil fuels."

No, according to the most recent applications wind and solar both plus electrical storage are between 2.1 and 3.2 cents/kWh. And no waste problems, and little maintenance. No other power sources can match that.

Sep 22, 2018
No other power sources can match that
Well - in fairness - you do have to take into consideration the intermittency issue. The price also varies based on location. But yes - all the data indicates that around the world - wind and solar are either at, or close to parity. The price will keep coming down - so the situation will keep getting better for renewables. You are in an especially good position in California - with high peak prices, and a good climate. Your solar panels will make more sense there - than say in Canada. Definitely interesting times...

Sep 22, 2018
"Well - in fairness - you do have to take into consideration the intermittency issue."

No, I do not. Please read wind plus storage, in batteries. Shall I look up the solicitation and responses?

Sep 22, 2018
No, I do not
I think you do. The problem with intermittent sources is of course the issue of what to do when the sun don't shine, and the wind don't blow. Yes - we can add batteries - to buffer. However - there comes a big question - of how big should we make the batteries? Do we allow for one days worth of storage, or 30 days worth? That will of course be site specific. So to say that we know the cost of wind plus storage, is not telling the whole truth. Some situations will require more storage than others. I don't believe that we are yet at the point of saying that solar or wind plus storage is always the cheapest option. ...
making these two technologies the cheapest ways of producing electricity in many countries during the 2020s and in most of the world in the 2030s

But please feel free to 'look up the solicitation and responses'

https://www.techn...by-2040/

Sep 22, 2018
So gkam - what is the cost of a Kwh coming from an offshore wind farm off the coast of England? Is that the same cost as coming from the coast of Spain? Does that include batteries? How big are the batteries? Could you give us a source for your answers? What about the cost of electricity from an existing coal plant in India, or China, or Pennsylvania?

Sep 22, 2018
Solar-Plus-Storage
Xcel Attracts 'Unprecedented' Low Prices for Solar and Wind Paired With Storage
Bid attracts median PV-plus-battery price of $36 per megawatt-hour. Median wind-plus-storage bids came in even lower, at $21 per megawatt-hour.
Jason Deign January 08, 2018
https://www.green...citation

"As reported by Reuters, wind farm electricity rates offshore are around 57.50 poundstserling per MWh."

Sep 23, 2018
"I don't believe that we are yet at the point of saying that solar or wind plus storage is always the cheapest option"

Nobody said it was always anything. But it is now cheaper than gas peaking plants in some locations such as San Diego. And Australia.

Sep 23, 2018
Nobody said it was always anything
But what you did - was contradict me - when I said that we "have to take into consideration the intermittency issue." You and I are both advocates for renewable energy. But it is a very complex subject. Cost vary based on location. Off shore wind is much more expensive than on shore wind. Adding batteries - increases the costs - and that increase depends on how many hours of storage you need to factor in.

When we are countering idiot liars like Willie - we surely need to be truthful about the complexity of this issue. Yes - in some markets - wind and solar are the cheapest option for new build. We are even seeing reports of new build wind and solar - being competitive with existing ff. That is an amazing reality. Costs are going to continue down on renewables, Gas is probably not going down - as gas producers are losing money at today's prices. I am just cautioning honesty in this complex topic - or we look bad.

Sep 23, 2018
...wind and solar both plus electrical storage are between 2.1 and 3.2 cents/kWh...
Solar/wind zealots are a bunch of charlatans("snake oil salesmen").
"Congrats To Renewable Energy – One Third Of US Households Struggle With Energy Bills" - Sep 20, 2018
http://www.contin...y-bills/
"One-third of households struggle to pay energy bills"
https://nypost.co...y-bills/
"How Solar and Wind Mandates Tax the Poor and Middle Class"
https://www.realc...098.html
https://www.thegw...y-bills/
"How N.J. forces the poor to finance the fight on climate"
https://www.nj.co...cli.html

Sep 23, 2018
I am not arguing with you, GO, I am saying it is even better than you opine, because we have already crossed the threshold of being cheaper, and now we only have to follow it up by replacing gas plants, too, in our plans.

And "Willie" is not a person but a billboard.

Sep 23, 2018
we have already crossed the threshold of being cheaper
In many markets, but not all. Factoring in storage cost is very complex, as different venues are going to need different amounts of storage. The point remains that we do have to take into consideration the cost of intermittency, when talking about the cost of renewables. That complexity is made even more complex - when you look at what you are replacing. Gas peaker plants are more expensive than coal plants - so it seems like a no brainer to start knocking off the most expensive plants first - and as the costs continue down - renewables will become the source of choice across all markets.

Sep 23, 2018
Willie
Congrats To Renewable Energy – One Third Of US Households Struggle With Energy Bills
And not once in your article - was there a connection established between renewable energy, and high electricity prices. Actually the U.S. has very low electricity costs. Here in Oklahoma - we have a very high penetration of wind, and very low electricity prices. So one state can disprove your lies - fecal obsessed liar. That article was the most transparent piece of propaganda I have ever read. Your headline said "Congrats to Renewable Energy" - and then did NOTHING to support the assertion that renewable energy has caused high electricity prices. Nonsense.

Sep 24, 2018
...renewables will become the source of choice across all markets...
Intermittent renewables are the best choice for the fossil fuel industry, specifically to keep the expansion of gas/fracking over carbon-free nuclear energy.
"And this is why fossil fuel companies pay for anti-nuclear campaigns."
"Oyster Creek Nuke Retires; Gas Demand Set to Grow as Wave of Retirements Planned by 2023" - Sep 17, 2018
http://www.natura...-by-2023

RE "snake oil salesmen": "Pih, I see no problems. Look how glorious results it makes! We can be 100000% renewable by year 3247. I promise!"


Sep 24, 2018
Intermittent renewables are the best choice for the fossil fuel industry
No - they are the best choice for our world. California (the world's 5th largest economy) is on track to get 50% of it's power from renewables by 2026, and 100% by 2045. https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8
So why not wait until 2045 - and see what the landscape looks like. Oh right - you are too busy obsessing about fecal matter and vomit.

Sep 25, 2018
...100% by 2045...wait until 2045...
Until 2026, most of current installed-capacity of intermittent renewables will just a bunch of junkyards that costed hundreds of billions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, a tremendous fiasco at reducing emissions.
If wind and solar were so cheap and good, it wouldn't be necessary laws/mandates to shove it down people's throats.
"California Climate Policies Facing Revolt from Civil-Rights Groups" - Sep 2018
https://www.natio...hardest/
"How Solar and Wind Mandates Tax the Poor and Middle Class"
https://www.realc...098.html

"If wind and solar are truly the energy sources of the future -- with reliability and low costs -- let the market determine that. Why do they need mandates and billions of dollars of federal subsidies to make them work?"

Sep 25, 2018
If wind and solar were so cheap and good, it wouldn't be necessary laws/mandates to shove it down people's throat
Yes it would - cuz they are competing with subsidized fossil fuels. https://www.vox.c...ubsidies
Of course that concept would be out of reach of someone who spends most of their time talking about vomit and fecal matter...

Sep 26, 2018
... talking about vomit and fecal matter...
"Solar Roadway: 10¢ return on $1000 investment!"
https://www.youtu...AAYfD5NU
"Solar Roadways Prove Expensive and Inefficient"- Sep 25, 2018
https://www.green...fficient
https://arstechni...results/
https://phys.org/...lts.html

"Solar/wind are only "cheap" if you ignore subsidies + required natgas plants (and their CO2) + upgrade to grid"

"Germany's small business sector that makes up about 60% of all businesses are suffering from ever higher electricity costs. The more renewables they add to the grid, the higher the costs go, each new unit will cost more than the last." - Sep 24, 2018
https://www.bloom...d-merkel

Sep 26, 2018
Solar/wind are only "cheap" if you ignore subsidies...
Just lies upon lies from the one who obsesses about vomit and fecal matter. Shame you don't spend more time learning the facts. Of course - then you would disappear in a puff of irrelevance.
United States' cheapest available source of new electricity, without subsidies, in 2017.
https://www.forbe...b956ce9a

Sep 27, 2018
If solar and wind were really cheap and were a serious substitute for fossil fuels, it wouldn't be necessary subsidies, tax incentives, laws/mandates, massive media propaganda to shove it down people's throats.
In the same way it wasn't necessary massive mass media propaganda/incentives/etc. for the Ford T to overtake the electric cars(already commercialized 20 years before).
"July 12, 1900 electric cars, almost as popular now as they were 118 years ago."
https://pbs.twimg...xBqz.jpg
http://grassroots...282.jpeg
"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."

Sep 27, 2018
Willie liar
it wouldn't be necessary subsidies
Well - being that all other sources of energy are subsidized - they have to be given a fair shake - don't they?

https://oilprice....get.html

Sep 28, 2018
Ban subsidies for coal/oil/gas and poor people will freeze to death at night or on cloudy/snowy/not-windy days, mainly during the Winter when energy is most needed.
Ban subsidies for wind/solar, and poor people will thank you because wind/solar are useless placebos that only serve to cause the electricity prices to skyrocket.

"Wind and solar power receive at least 5x more in subsidies than coal and nuclear." - Jun 22, 2018
http://www1.cbn.c...dv_0.jpg
http://www1.cbn.c...n-energy

...liar...
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg


Sep 29, 2018
The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying
First thing a liar does is lie.

Wind and solar power receive at least 5x more in subsidies than coal and nuclear
As they should. They are the emerging industries - trying to compete with legacy industries that have been receiving government supports for many many decades. Wind and solar subsidies are now scheduled to phase out - so we will get to see how things shake down. My money is on wind and solar. Of course - crony capitalists in the nuclear industry will keep up the lies - and keep begging for their subsidies - cuz 'too big to fail.....' Remember too cheap to meter? Looks like that may actually come true with wind and solar....

Sep 30, 2018
They are the emerging industries...
Windmills and sails were replaced centuries ago by steam engines, because wind, although for free, is intermittent/unreliable. In 1891 the RE "snake oil salesmen" said solar would replace steam engines, but it hasn't happened because solar, although for free, is intermittent/unreliable.
https://uploads.d...97b6.jpg
Don't matter how much money is spent on wind/solar, it's almost impossible to change the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
Remember sunshine&breeze is for free and renewable, but windmills/solar panels/batteries aren't. In less than 15 years, most of wind/solar farms will be just a bunch of junkyards that costed trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions, a sad reminder of the "green's insanity". As predicted:
https://pbs.twimg...PcFv.jpg

Sep 30, 2018
Windmills and sails were replaced centuries ago by steam engines
And now steam turbines are being replaced by wind turbines, and solar panels. Drip drip drip Willie. How is it going with that vomit and fecal matter?

Oct 01, 2018
And now steam turbines are being replaced by wind turbines, and solar panels.
Steam turbines are being replaced by GAS turbines "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
Gas turbines(methane: worse than CO2) replace coal(steam turbines) and wind/solar takes the credits providing a 'decorative facade' for the gas/fracking industry.
"A one percentage point increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity in a country is associated, on average, with a 0.88 percentage point increase in the long-run share of renewable energy."
http://www.nber.o...454.html
https://uploads.d...c752.jpg

And now steam turbines are being replaced by wind turbines, and solar panels.
If every lie told by the RE "snake oil salesmen" could be turned into electricity, it would power the whole world uninterruptedly 24/7/365 forever.
https://pbs.twimg...phbt.jpg

Oct 02, 2018
Steam turbines are being replaced by GAS turbines
And they are being replaced by wind and solar. As the cost of wind and solar continues down - they naturally become the default option - due to cost. Don't take someone's word for it - just look at what is happening.
In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—more than twice the $143 billion spent on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel oil power plants, according to the IEA.
Drip drip drip Willie - you are too busy dreaming about vomit and fecal matter - too busy trying to argue that what is happening is not happening - you can't see what is happening in the world around you - you are a troll.

https://www.wsj.c...28718400

Oct 02, 2018
...the cost of wind and solar continues down...
"Batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs; and the result is clear: wind and solar have caused the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal/oil/gas that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Oklahoma.
...In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—more than twice the $143 billion spent on new nuclear...
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
Carbon-free nuclear has done much more with much less money, in much less time and with much less ecological impacts.

Wind and solar are scams; parasites that run on coal/oil/gas providing them with "greenwashing".
"Germany needs LNG terminals" - Oct 2,2018
https://global.ha...s-968728

Oct 02, 2018
Wind and solar are scams
Nope - they are viable forms of cheap - low carbon - distributed energy. That is why there is so much investment activity going on in this field - and why your nukes are choking. -
Global spending on renewable energy is outpacing investment in electricity from coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, driven by falling costs of producing wind and solar power


https://www.wsj.c...28718400

Drip drip drip Willie....

Oct 02, 2018
Wind and solar aren't viable forms of energy, they are parasites on other reliable sources of energy such as hydro/geothermal/biomass and/or coal/oil/gas. It's possible to power a whole region(off a regional grid) with hydro/geothermal/biomass without wind/solar, but it's hard, almost impossible economically, to power a whole region(off-the-grid) with only wind/solar without coal/oil/gas to back them up.
...falling costs of producing wind and solar power...
"Batteries not included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
Global spending on renewable energy is outpacing investment in electricity from coal...
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Intermittent renewables are a good investment in order to keep the expansion of the coal and gas/fracking industries over carbon-free nuclear power.

"81% of primary energy use came from fossil fuels in 2006, hasn't changed in 2018."
https://pbs.twimg...RInD.jpg

Oct 02, 2018
Wind and solar aren't viable forms of energy
Yes they are. This is why we have an exponential growth curve on wind and solar - and billions of dollars of investment capitol is now flowing into them. I already gave you all the links on this. You are just like Otto. Say something false. Get owned by the facts - and proven wrong. Say the same false thing over again. You are a troll - with nothing else to do than make crude comments about vomit, and fecal matter.

Oct 03, 2018
This is why we have an exponential growth curve on wind and solar - and billions of dollars of investment capitol is now flowing into them.
"an exponential growth" with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Billions and billions of dollars is now flowing into wind and solar because the "big money" know that intermittent renewables are the best way of keeping humanity addicted to fossil fuels.
"The competition between renewables and fossil fuel is an illusion. They actually support each other."
"Their true rival is nuclear and that is why everybody attacks it."
https://pbs.twimg...M1S4.jpg


Oct 03, 2018
WilLIEward, whose comments are so toxic and dumb that the rbrtwjohnson sockpuppet is needed to keep the ratings out of the toilet.

Oct 03, 2018
an exponential growth" with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions
Actually plenty to show for it.

https://www.carbo...-in-1890

Oct 04, 2018
... https://www.carbo...-in-1890 ...
"UK carbon emissions in 2017 fell to levels last seen in 1890", thanks to natural gas. 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.
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...2PT_.jpg
"UK summer 'wind drought' puts green revolution into reverse" - Aug 2018
https://www.thegu...-reverse
"Wind Power: World's Greatest Joke – UK Left Powerless During the 'Big Calm'"
https://stopthese...ig-calm/

Oct 04, 2018
RE zealots have no option except to go into personal attacks. LOSERS!
"When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser" - Socrates
https://pbs.twimg...IS0Z.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...VObG.jpg

Oct 04, 2018
RE zealots have no option except to go into personal attacks. LOSERS!
like calling people dogs who eat their own vomit... That is definitely a sophisticated strategy!!! One that brands you as the vile little troll you are. We simply point out the facts - like the exponential curve on the installation of renewables around the world. Keep asking for your curve on the cost of nukes. You have nothing in terms of facts - so you call people foul names.

Oct 05, 2018
"Large-scale wind power needs more land, causes more climatic impact than previously thought" - Oct 2018
https://techxplor...sly.html
"How much land is needed for wind & solar energy production vs nuclear enenergy?"
https://pbs.twimg...xW2v.jpg
"A wind farm would need 235 square miles to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant. The average life of a wind turbine is 5 years, a nuclear plant 50 years The nuclear plant would be cheaper, use less land and produce more power."

Wind/solar produce more ecological impacts than energy.

RE charlatans: solar/wind is cheap and replaces fossil fuels.
"electric cars don't burn fossil fuels"
"Lets go for a walk..."
https://pbs.twimg...POdA.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...qhKJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...lgYJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...33DR.jpg

Oct 05, 2018
More ecological impacts than energy.
"Wind power can raise global temperatures, Harvard study finds"
https://www.press...y-finds/
"How wind power could contribute to a warming climate"
https://www.scien...-climate
"The down side to wind power"
https://news.harv...wn-side/
"Revealing the Dark Side of Wind Power" - Oct 4,2018
"Surprising new research suggests harvesting cleaner energy may have serious consequences for the environment."
https://www.bloom...t-it-was
"Harvard: Wind power will create significant warming of 0.24C, plus eat up 5 to 20x more land than thought"
https://wattsupwi...thought/

Oct 05, 2018

""When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser" - Socrates" -WillieWard

Socrates never said that. There's no evidence for the phase existing before 2008. https://www.snope...r-loser/
Another lie from the lying liar WilLieWard.

Oct 05, 2018
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg

Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density.
"Harvard researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require 5 to 20 times more land than previously thought, &, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm U.S surface temperatures 0.24 degrees Celsius."
"The down side to wind power" - Oct 4,2018
https://news.harv...wn-side/

It is cheaper and more ecologically friendly to build a coal/gas-fired power plant, because a wind/solar farm(bird-chopper/landscape-destroyer) will require anyway a coal/gas-fired backup plant to compensate intermittencies.
https://pbs.twimg...moV-.jpg
Wind/solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels.

Oct 05, 2018
Wind/solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels
Yes they are.
will on Thursday witness an end to the coal age which fired its industrial revolution with the closure of Longannet power station
Six new onshore windfarms with investment of over £650m are currently in construction


Just one example proving you to be a liar. There are many others.

https://www.thegu...scotland

Oct 05, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid.
Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host, i.e. a fossil-fueled grid.

Scotland: "93% OF TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY IN 2016 CAME FROM Oil & Gas"
https://www.gov.s...1701.pdf

RE zealots: but ... but "Rome was not built in a day", then show an impressive number in installed-capacity to fool the public and CO2 avoided by natural gas as if it were thanks intermittent renewables.

Oct 06, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid.

Yes - and it exports power to the U.K.
Scotland was exporting electricity to England virtually all of the time

And so what? As the UK grid transitions to renewables - the two countries will exchange power - as a means of balancing the intermittency of renewables. So you are wrong.

We are in the early days of the transition to a new grid. I don't know if we will ever be at 100% renewables - or if some other source such as modular nukes will come up as cheaper. What I do know is that your statement is a lie
It is impossible to switch from coal to wind/solar
It is possible to switch from coal to wind/solar. We will need storage. We will probably use a basket of power - wind/solar/wave/tidal/bio/geothermal/nukes etc. Drip drip drip - and you and Otto are left in the dustbin of history - a testament to the stupidity of small minds.
http://euanmearns...t-storm/

Oct 06, 2018
Yes - and it exports power to the U.K.
And imports power from the UK fossil-fueled grid when wind stops blowing or sun stops shining or during prolonged droughts, mainly during the Winter when energy is most needed.
Parasites cannot survive without a host; Scottish wind farms cannot survive without the UK fossil-fueled grid to hide the intermittencies.
"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."
http://www.theene...ductions
"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."
https://www.scots...-4653500

Oct 06, 2018
Wind/solar produce more ecological impacts than energy.
"Esteemed professor David Keith from Harvard engineering dept. recalculated studies on land area required to meet 100% US electricity needs from industrial wind turbine projects. His sophisticated tech studies showed it would require 33% of the US landmass:" - Sep 2018
https://keith.sea...2018.pdf
https://pbs.twimg...EV49.jpg

Oct 06, 2018
And imports power from the UK fossil-fueled grid when wind stops blowing or sun stops shining
But the Brits (Scotland is part of the UK) are transitioning over to renewables aren't they? So - drip drip drip - both grids are under transition. The dispatchable electricity currently provided by FF - will be replaced by a combination of factors - including storage, grid sharing, demand control etc. Drip drip drip Willie - both the Brits and Scotland are on a path to 100% renewables. You are wrong. Too busy obsessing about feces and vomit.

Oct 07, 2018
....are transitioning over to renewables...are on a path to 100% renewables.
Even after trillions of dollars spent globally and huge ecological impacts caused, there is no place in the world, even a small city/island, that has transitioned entirely and successfully(technically/economically) from fossil fuels to wind/solar.
Wind and solar are parasites on other reliable sources of energy such as hydro/geothermal/biomass and coal/oil/gas.
100% renewable(in a world of limited hydro) is a scam and will ever be.
https://pbs.twimg...uBQC.jpg


Oct 07, 2018
that has transitioned entirely
So what? The transition is going to take decades. It will accelerate - as the costs keep coming down. Nowhere has transitioned 100% to nukes either - have they? Does that mean nukes are no good? Or perhaps it just means that our electrical grid is massively complex - and no one source is going to supply all of our power.

So where is that cost curve on nuclear power Willie? Still obsessing about vomit and feces?

Oct 07, 2018
Nowhere has transitioned 100% to nukes either...
France is almost 80% carbon-free nuclear-powered. There are aircraft carriers, submarines, ships, airplanes, spacecraft, 100% nuclear-powered.
Not even Greenpeace relies on wind/solar to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats across the oceans, they use marine DIESEL instead, and sails just for decoration.

Get real! Wind and solar are scams and will ever be.
Intermittent renewables are distraction to keep mankind stuck on fossil fuels, e.g. Germany, ever more dependent on coal and addicted to Russian gas.
https://pbs.twimg...bA6p.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...EmTc.jpg
The transition is going to take decades.
RE zealots believe in their own lies like animals that eat their own vomit/feces.
https://pbs.twimg...apxV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...QF7h.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...epg8.jpg

Oct 07, 2018
France is almost 80% carbon-free nuclear-powered
But 80% is not 100% - is it?
Scotland is almost 70% carbon-free renewable energy - and on track to hit 100% in just a few years. When will France be at 100% nuclear? How's the vomit and feces obsession going Willie?

https://www.scott...numbers/

Oct 08, 2018
Face the reality:
"Where is the European Energy Revolution?" - Oct 4, 2018
"Europe is the birth-place of the energy revolution. Except that so far, the revolution has mainly taken place in media headlines and political speeches."
https://www.fenno...O99rXbGG
https://www.fenno...Ir0xDDXn
https://www.fenno...volution

Wind and solar are massive mass media scams.
Almost a trillion of euros spent and huge ecological impacts caused(ruination of natural landscapes, disruption of wildlife habitats, massacre of millions birds and bats) with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.

Disconnect Scotland from the UK fossil-fueled grid and let's see if Scottish people will like to live in an intermittent way.

Oct 08, 2018
Where is the European Energy Revolution?
It's rocking along pretty well Willie.
Consumption of renewable energy doubled between 2004 and 2016
In 2016 they were at 17%, so 3 more doublings, and we will be well past 100%. That will be in 36 years....
https://ec.europa...and_2016

Oct 09, 2018
Consumption of renewable energy doubled between 2004 and 2016
Mathematically: 2 * 0 = 0
Wind and solar are a 'round error'.
https://pbs.twimg...iqkE.jpg
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spect...-energy/
"Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, it provides about zero energy"
http://www.ration...-energy/
"Wind Turbines Provide Zero% of Global Energy: Despite $Billions Squandered on Subsidies"
https://stopthese...bsidies/

"Global wind & solar capacity surpasses 1 Terawatt" at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.

Oct 09, 2018
Mathematically: 2 * 0 = 0
But it was not at zero - so you make yourself look stupid (yet again).
Renewable power capacity totals 160 gigawatts (GW) worldwide (excluding large hydropower), about 4 percent of global power sector capacity.


http://www.ren21....port.pdf

Oct 09, 2018
Renewable power capacity totals...
capacity ≠ production
"Our study demonstrated that there is no correlation between high installed capacity of renewables and low carbon intensity. Overall carbon intensity performance of the whole system is what counts – not individual technologies. Carbon intensity, not installed capacity."
https://pbs.twimg...jHz4.jpg

RE charlatans/"snake oil salesmen" are always trying to fool the public by mixing up "installed capacity" with "energy produced" and "CO2 avoided".

Oct 09, 2018
capacity ≠ production
What a broken record you are. We know that Willie. The point still stands - that the generating capacity in 2004 was not zero. So your stupid little equation - 2 * 0 = 0 is meaningless. You know nothing about the subject at hand. Wonder why there is so much investment these days in wind and solar - and nukes are begging the feds for bail out money...

Oct 10, 2018
Wonder why there is so much investment these days in wind and solar...
Investing in useless placebos is the best way of keeping mankind addicted to fossil fuels.

"Switzerland has the lowest carbon-intensity of energy supply among all IEA countries thanks to hydro and nuclear generation. This will be affected as the country removes nuclear from its energy mix." - Oct 2018
https://www.power...iea.html

"Berlin's commitment to stay nuclear free complicates Europe's push to lower emissions." - Oct 2018
"The U.N. report reviewed 85 scientific studies and found that "nuclear power increases its share" in most of the pathways to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050. The median estimate sees nuclear power boost its role in the global energy supply by more than half between 2020 and 2050."
https://www.polit...nuclear/

Oct 10, 2018
Investing in useless placebos is the best way of keeping mankind addicted to fossil fuels
Except that renewables are proven, low cost, carbon free power sources. What's your solution? Renewables are building steam. As the costs fall - the transition will accelerate. So unlike legacy nukes that should be able to stand on their own feet by now, wind and solar will be cheap, carbon free power - and not be begging the gubermint for bail out money. Where is your cost curve on those nukes - Mr. vomit and feces?

Oct 11, 2018
Except that renewables are proven, low cost, carbon free power sources.
Correction: hydro and geothermal are proven carbon free power sources. Biomass, wind and solar, are trillion-dollar fiascos at reducing emissions; they cause more environmental damages/ecological impacts than reduce emissions; they should be excluded from the tools against Climate Change, in order to preserve birds and bats, natural landscapes and wildlife habitats.

RE "snake oil salesmen" are entirely dishonest, they mix up capacity with production, hydro with wind/solar, don't include batteries and integration costs(transmission lines), all in order to fool the misinformed public.
"'Renewable investment boom tipped to slow' because the bankers suddenly discovered you need a massively expanded transmission network. If only this was forseeable ..."
https://www.smh.c...8te.html

Oct 11, 2018
they cause more environmental damages/ecological impacts than reduce emissions
They cause less environmental damage than nuclear - so what is your plan - Mr. Vomit and Fecal matter?

nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower
That splains why there is so much investment going on in clean, safe, cheap, home grown renewable energy, and the nuclear industry is begging for gubbermint bail outs.

Oct 12, 2018
windpower = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
That explains why there is so much investment going on intermittent renewables: it's the best way of providing a 'decorative facade'/"greenwashing" to keep mankind stuck on fossil fuels; take a look at Germany and California, ever more addicted to coal and/or gas thanks to wind and solar.
"'Green' California Is More Reliant On Foreign Oil Than Ever Before" - Aug 2018
https://dailycall...ign-oil/
"Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power" - Sep 2018
https://www.forbe...n-power/

It is cheaper and more ecologically friendly to build a coal/gas-fired power plant, because a wind/solar farm(bird-chopper/landscape-destroyer) will require anyway a coal/gas-fired backup plant to compensate intermittencies.


Oct 12, 2018
windpower = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
So how come 4 u.s. states gets more than 30% of their power from the wind - unless you are a liar - and only know how to throw insults about dogs eating their own vomit. It is early days - the transition is just building steam - but 3 more doublings, and the whole world will be running on cheap, carbon free, home grown power. Drip drip drip Willie.

https://insidecli...ris-awea


Oct 13, 2018
...gets more than 30% of their power from the wind...
For example, Germany has obtained sporadically(daily/hourly) more than 90% of their power from intermittent renewables (i.e. almost 100% with risk of blackouts due to intermittent oversupply), but even so, along the year, they have failed miserably at reducing emissions, dependence on fossil fuels, and the electricity prices are skyrocketing.
If the electricity prices don't skyrocket, it's because the region has abundant supply of cheap coal/gas/fracking that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Oklahoma.

After certain level of penetration, intermittent renewables make the grid unstable and the electricity bills costlier.
"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..."

Oct 13, 2018
For example
You don't need a "for example." You said -
windpower = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
Which is of course a lie. That lie is demonstrated as a lie - by the fact that 4 u.s. states get more than 30% of their energy from wind. Enough said. You are a liar. Moving the goal posts is a tactic of trolls. When they say something that is a lie - and the lie is exposed - they dodge - and try to change the subject. Stop it Willie. You are a liar. Oklahoma gets more than 30% of its power from wind - and electricity prices are very low - thanks to cheap gas/coal/and renewables.