Why nuclear energy should be part of Africa's energy mix

September 17, 2018 by Oluwole Olutola, The Conversation
South Africa is the only African country that has nuclear power. The Koeberg nuclear reactor cooling tower. Credit: EPA/Nic Bothma

Africa has the least nuclear power of any continent in the world, with the exception of Australia where nuclear power is banned. All the largest economies in the world have nuclear power as part of their energy mix.

Over the past decade opposition to nuclear has been growing as concerns have risen about the environmental costs in terms of radiation risks and waste management, safety concerns, delays in the construction of nuclear power plants, and the high costs involved. The issue of public acceptance is also critical. But these concerns aren't without solutions.

I believe there are three reasons why African countries should pursue the nuclear power option as part of their mix. The first is the continent's dire energy crisis.

Secondly, Africa derives most of its energy from fossil fuels. These are finite and nonrenewable and dwindling in supply. They are also subject to price volatility.

Thirdly, nuclear energy can help countries meet targets under the Paris Agreement to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear can help them reach that goal because carbon emissions linked to nuclear-powered energy are relatively small. In addition, supply is reliable and prices stable and predictable.

South Africa is the only African country that has nuclear power in its energy mix. Two nuclear reactors in Koeberg near Cape Town generate 5% of the country's electricity. But a number of other African countries are currently pursing nuclear power. The list includes Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and lately, Rwanda.

But African countries need to address concerns around . In particular, they need to allay the fear about possible nuclear accidents that continue to permeate the global atomic market.

There is research that governments can draw on that shows some of the concerns are neither peculiar to nuclear power, nor as appalling as they make them to appear.

The need for power

Energy supply on the continent is critically low. There are also the challenges of lack of access, poor reliability and high costs.

A rising population, growing middle class and growing urbanisation would mean more energy is needed for domestic and industrial purposes.

Energy is also critical to the socioeconomic well-being of the majority of poor Africans and Africa's agenda for sustainable development. Nuclear energy has the potential to mitigate these burdens by contributing to the continent's energy mix.

Developments so far

African countries currently considering nuclear power are all at different stages of policy and developing plans.

Many countries are opening up to nuclear energy industry from different parts of the world, including Asia, Europe, North America and Latin America.

A number of countries are already talking to the Russian energy company Rosatom which is currently the biggest nuclear power player on the continent. They include Algeria, Egypt, Namibia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and, lately, Rwanda.

South Africa came close to doing a deal with the company when Jacob Zuma was president. But the deal has gone cold since Cyril Ramaphosa took over the top job.

Egypt has progressed significantly in its nuclear power plans. A site at El Dabaa has been selected. In addition an agreement has been signed with Rosatom for the construction of a , with a financing deal covering 80% of the cost.

One of the biggest challenges to developing nuclear on the continent is finance. There are two possible approaches to manage this. The first includes the usual approach in terms of partnerships between major nuclear energy producing countries and prospective nuclear users.

African countries can also aim for smaller nuclear reactors rather than the conventional (large) ones. To ease the burden of cost, constructing these smaller plants could be deployed in phases as is the case under conventional arrangements.

Another way to lessen the cost burden would be for countries to create nuclear energy partnerships. In addition, the energy plans under the Africa-European Union Energy Partnership, which seeks to promote energy access and security in Africa and the European Union, need to be reexamined. Currently, nuclear energy as a low carbon and partly renewable energy source is not part of the AEEP 2020 energy targets.

What next?

To advance , governments need to show strong political will and put in place an enabling environment for nuclear-powered electricity. This would include coordinated action plans, proper safety regulations and strict adherence to international safety standards.

Both public and private resources and buy-in need to be mobilised. And public awareness about new and up-to-date developments in nuclear energy production needs to be mobilised.

Explore further: Nuclear energy may see role wane, UN agency says

Related Stories

UAE further delays launch of first nuclear reactor

July 4, 2018

The United Arab Emirates said Wednesday that its first nuclear reactor would come online in late 2019 or early 2020, further delaying the launch of the Arab World's first atomic power station.

UAE says its first nuclear reactor complete

March 26, 2018

The United Arab Emirates said Monday that one of four nuclear reactors at its debut plant has been completed as it moves closer to becoming the first Arab nation to produce atomic power.

Kenya signs China nuclear power deal

September 10, 2015

Kenya has signed a deal with China as part of the east African nation's plans to have a nuclear power station by 2025, the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) said Thursday.

Recommended for you

Team breaks world record for fast, accurate AI training

November 7, 2018

Researchers at Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) have partnered with a team from Tencent Machine Learning to create a new technique for training artificial intelligence (AI) machines faster than ever before while maintaining ...

251 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
4 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2018
Solar + batteries is a far better solution for the vast bulk of the population
WillieWard
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 17, 2018
"...environmental costs in terms of radiation risks and waste management..."
"It's now also recognised by UNSCEAR that wind and solar energy are resulting in significant radiation exposure."
Per power installed, radiation exposure form wind and solar is far higher.
https://pbs.twimg..._Lps.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...8hRO.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...mqUn.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...2Mg7.jpg
"Surprisingly, the larger exposures due to the installation of electrical power plants are caused by the installation of solar and wind plants, which results from the use of rare earth minerals and estimates of occupational exposures for their mining." - Sep 2018
http://www.world-...ear-ener
"The issue of public acceptance is also critical..."
"nuclear power is what everyone thinks everyone else opposes"
https://pbs.twimg...hQ-B.jpg
WillieWard
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 17, 2018
Solar + batteries is a far better solution for the vast bulk of the population
If it were true, then smart civilians/entrepreneurs/private investors, without any help from the government, would already buying bunches of solar panels and batteries to build solar farms.
Why don't they do that? Because smart people already have realized that solar/wind are scams, a fraud, parasites that cannot survive without subsidies and a host, i.e. cheap coal/oil/gas to back them up and to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle their components.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2018
Nuclear means big projects. What big projects mean in countries that are known for high corruption rates isn't exactly a wild guess: Cost overruns, sub par construction quality....and the bill (in terms of money and fallout damages) will be paid by the poor.

What happens if one of these countries goes through a civil war or war with a neighbor while having nuclear powerplants is also not something I'd like to think about.

Plus: Nuclear power requires water. Lots of it. Where is that going to come from without killing anything downstream?
(Physics says: The warmer the water you use for your turbines the less your efficiency)

The last thing African countries need is the exchange of dependency on one supplier of fuels for another.

If anyone has solar in abundance it's Africa. They'd be stupid to go for anything else (particularly since it's way cheaper than any other power source - especially nuclear)
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2018
"If it were true, then smart civilians/entrepreneurs/private investors, without any help from the government, would already buying bunches of solar panels and batteries to build solar farms."

They are doing just that in Australia, Willie. Are you still in the 20th Century?

I'm not. I live in California.
WillieWard
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2018
They are doing just that in Australia...
South Australia has one of most expensive electricity and unreliable grid thanks to intermittent renewables.
https://pbs.twimg...K8Ro.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...HXx7.jpg
"It's a universal truth: renewables mean higher costs"
https://www.theau...52dd6384
I live in California.
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" - Sept 15, 2018
https://www.natio...hardest/
"100% "renewables" will fuel poverty and homelessness in California" - Sep 11, 2018
http://www.cfact....ifornia/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (10) Sep 17, 2018
If anyone has solar in abundance it's Africa. They'd be stupid to go for anything else (particularly since it's way cheaper than any other power source - especially nuclear)
"cheaper" except "batteries not included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs.

By saying solar/wind is cheap, hiding the fact "batteries not included", it's the same as selling an electric car cheaper than a conventional one, without batteries, where the batteries is one of most expensive components of the car, and dishonestly not informing the innocent buyer.
https://pbs.twimg...63Yg.jpg

gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2018
Argue away, Willie, you cannot stop progress.
WillieWard
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2018
...you cannot stop progress...
An unstoppable progress except when wind stops blowing or sun stop shining, then it's gas(methane: worse than CO2) that prevents people from freezing in the dark.
Thanks to "greenwashing" (decorative facade) provided by intermittent renewables, gas/fracking is unstoppable.
"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
"Europe becoming more dependent on Russian gas, DOE official says" - Sep 13, 2018
https://www.mysan...6561.php
greenonions1
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2018
a new report has found that the surge of renewable energy generation coming online is the "only thing" currently helping to reduce electricity prices in Australia
All this new renewable capacity... is working to increase competition and put downward pressure on power prices


I love it when a good plan comes together..

https://renewecon...s-72578/
Solon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2018
"Nuclear means big projects.'

I has become that way due to government regulations and restrictions, corporate/ construction industry/ government collusion, and of course the fake threat of terrorist activity and civilisation ending melt downs. Truth is, perfectly good, simple, small and relatively inexpensive reactors can be built and have been by the USA military. Constructed in locomotive foundries and machine shops, moved to where needed, assembled, and functioned as expected. There's no money it it for those who would keep us, and the rest of the world, in energy poverty. Follow the money...
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2018
Truth is, perfectly good, simple, small and relatively inexpensive reactors can be built and have been by the USA military.

Inexpensive? By the military ? You've got to be joking.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2018
Solon
There's no money it it for those who would keep us, and the rest of the world, in energy poverty. Follow the money...
Who do you think is keeping the "world in energy poverty" - and why are they doing that?
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2018
...surge of renewable energy generation coming online is the "only thing" currently helping to reduce electricity prices in Australia
The "only thing" that is causing the electricity prices to skyrocket in South Australia and everywhere is intermittent renewables.
https://uploads.d...5592.jpg

"Electricity prices increased by:"
"51 percent in Germany during its expansion of solar and wind energy from 2006 to 2016;"
"24 percent in California during its solar energy build-out from 2011 to 2017;"
"over 100 percent in Denmark since 1995 when it began deploying renewables (mostly wind) in earnest."
"The price of natural gas declined by 72 percent in the U.S. between 2009 and 2016 due to the fracking revolution. In Europe, natural gas prices dropped by a little less than half over the same period."
"The price of nuclear and coal in those place during the same period was mostly flat."
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2018
The thought of nuclear power plants in some of those African countries causes me some concern. Some of them have a revolution more often than we have an election. Remember this?

http://en.prototh...x418.jpg

I know it sounds very first worldish, but I would not want to see some fruitcake regime looking after one of those facilities. The U.S.S.R. screwed it up, as above. The Yanks came damn close at Three Mile Island........................shudder. Lots of sunshine in Africa. Surely we can help them harness it?
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2018
My power costs went down to nothing, Willlie, and without dangerous nukes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2018
Nuclear means big projects. What big projects mean in countries that are known for high corruption rates isn't exactly a wild guess: Cost overruns, sub par construction quality....and the bill (in terms of money and fallout damages) will be paid by the poor
Lots of water in Africa. Which is why poor countries tend to go for hydroelectric megaprojects
http://www.africa...-africa/

-with the same dangers of corruption and poor quality. They immediately destroy habitat and displace people. And dam collapses have killed and obliterated far more than nuclear ever will.

Small nuke plants (SMRs) can be built to western specs and contain material of little use to terrorists. And they can be designed so that water downstream does not harm wildlife, or they can be built on the coasts.
http://www.world-...ors.aspx
gkam
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2018
Small nukes are like Clean Coal.

They ain't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2018
So Georgie why dont you explain to me that you know this for a fact because as a jobshopper you once stood in a control room and also did instruction booklet validation of some obscure subsystem, offsite?

Maybe I'll fall for it this time.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2018
Any revolution within a 100milies of the power station and all the staff will down tools and get on the nearest plane and fly home - would you stay with bullets flying and machetes chopping, you cannot save the station from meltdown, you have to flee as fast as your legs can carry you.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2018
Willie
The "only thing" that is causing the electricity prices to skyrocket in South Australia and everywhere is intermittent renewables
Electricity prices are not skyrocketing everywhere - liar. The U.S. has very reasonable electricity rates - many states like Oklahoma having some of the cheapest rates in the world - despite high penetrations of renewables.
SA Has Renewables Because It Has High Electricity Prices — Not Vice Versa!
Too complex a concept for liar Willie - correlation does not equal causation.https://www.solar...-prices/
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2018
...you cannot save the station from meltdown...
"Even the worst nuclear accidents result in far fewer deaths than the normal operation of fossil fuel power plants."
Fukushima: zero deaths from radiation exposure.
Chernobyl: now a tourist zone.
Air pollution from fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) respects no border and kills millions of people every year.
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
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2018
...many states like Oklahoma having some of the cheapest rate...
Many states like Oklahoma have abundant supply of cheap coal and/or gas/fracking that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
"Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK
Wind and solar are helping almost nothing to reduce Oklahoma emissions:
- Oklahoma(wind): 431gCO₂/kWh
- Ontario(nuclear): 25gCO₂/kWh
RE promoters are a kind of "snake oil salesmen".

"South Australia's 50% Renewable Energy Fail: World's Highest Power Prices Caused by Subsidised Wind & Solar" - Sep 2018
http://stoptheset...nd-solar
http://stoptheset...disaster
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2018
Many states like Oklahoma have abundant supply of cheap coal
So what? Wind is cheaper than coal now - and the price keep falling. https://meic.org/...l-fuels/

greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2018
Highest Power Prices Caused by Subsidised Wind & Solar
Yes - cheap wind and solar are causing high power prices (sarcasm). In reality it is much more complex than that - and new wind contracts are bringing the cost of electricity down. A doubling in the price of gas is the real culprit for their high electricity prices. Again Willie - Correlation does not equal causation - you should leave it to the grown ups to do the more complex thinking. You fail sadly.

in reality it is not wind and solar that are responsible for SA's "absurd" electricity prices. Instead, they are largely an unfortunate side effect of our new liquefied gas export industry.


https://www.ecoge...e-rises/
Solon
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2018
greenonions1:
"Who do you think is keeping the "world in energy poverty" - and why are they doing that?"

The military-industrial complex of course, and their banker buddies.
Solon
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2018
antialias_physorg:
"Inexpensive? By the military ? You've got to be joking."

I wrote 'relatively', but yes, still exorbitant no doubt.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2018
New Jersey state legislature passed a law to provide a $300 million annual subsidy for the state's remaining nuclear power plants, a move that utilities Public Service Enterprise Group and Exelon said is needed to keep them open
utility FirstEnergy, which has been pushing the Trump administration for emergency bailouts for its bankrupt coal and nuclear power plant division, has also said that it will be forced to close nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania unless it receives "state-level policy relief

https://www.green....mmrKdvY

So wind and solar are liberal, evil, socialist, plans to take away our hard earned money - by getting government subsidies, but god bless America when nukes come around with their hands outstretched...
barakn
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2018
Fukushima: zero deaths from radiation exposure. -WilLIEward
"The Japanese government has recognized for the first time that a worker at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has died as a result of radiation exposure.... Japan's government has previously given compensation to four other workers who had developed leukemia and thyroid cancers as a result of radiation, but this is the first time a death has been acknowledged."
http://time.com/5...n-death/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2018
Solon
The military-industrial complex of course, and their banker buddies
I really don't know how you come to this conclusion - and too complex to handle on comments section. Do you have any links that would flesh this out for me? Thanks.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
Energy is a state of mind.

You have to consider on a daily basis where electrons and protons are fed their phrenetic energetic life style, when then not consuming atomic energy as of atomic decay when they are in stable relationships, just like human relationships our bodies have a daily energy requirement which nature is feeding without resorting to radio-active atomic energy.
So is the same for atomic relationships, they have a source of daily energy that does not require radio-active atomic energy.
We know this, because if all the proton and electrons decided to use their nuclear radio-active energy we would not need light bulbs and x-ray plates as we would glow in the dark like aliens.
Just as plants tap into fusion energy with photosynthesis, protons and electrons are tapping into their nuclear E=MC* without resorting to radioactive decay – they have an indirect way of tapping into their nuclear energy stores as we do in wind, solar and plants in photosynthesis!
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
Wow...what a load of bullcrap ^

Hint: just making up touchy-feely sentences does not imbue them with a relationship to reality.
If you don't know what energy means, then why don't you read some definition first instead of waving an "I am stupid" neon-sign over your head?

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2018
Protons and Electrons Energy is a state of mind.

This daily source of energy the protons and electrons in stable relationships are tapping into without resorting to radio-active decay is pertinently relevant, because our fission and fusion reactors are not tapping into it.
Our fission and fusion reactors are tapping into radio-active energy while at the same instant before we accelerated the hydrogen nuclei down the magnetically confined torus plasma, the hydrogen atoms were happily feeding their phrenetic energetic life style without resorting to their radio-active nuclear energy before they were rudely awoken in our fusion reactors, where they are constantly refusing to play ball!
And now despite this knowledge that protons and electrons have an alternative method of tapping into their nuclear energy source, we are constructing plans to build radio-active hostages to fortune in war-torn revolutionary countryside!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
Tea and Crumpets and Revolutionaries
Wow...what a load of bullcrap ^
Hint: just making up touchy-feely sentences does not imbue them with a relationship to reality.
If you don't know what energy means, then why don't you read some definition first instead of waving an "I am stupid" neon-sign over your head?

Still of that state of mind antialias_physorg, well you can be the first to greet the bullets flying and machete's chopping revolutionaries when they ring the nuclear facilities front door bell for tea and crumpets!
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
you can be the first to greet the bullets flying and machete's chopping revolutionaries when they ring the nuclear facilities front door bell for tea and crumpets!


As I said (and I quote myself from my first post in this very thread)

What happens if one of these countries goes through a civil war or war with a neighbor while having nuclear powerplants is also not something I'd like to think about.


So reading might also be something you could look into - or just this "education" thing in general. I hear it's fascinating stuff. Helps a lot with not sounding dumb.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2018
you can be the first to greet the bullets flying and machete's chopping revolutionaries when they ring the nuclear facilities front door bell for tea and crumpets!

As I said (and I quote myself from my first post in this very thread)
What happens if one of these countries goes through a civil war or war with a neighbor while having nuclear powerplants is also not something I'd like to think about.

So reading might also be something you could look into - or just this "education" thing in general. I hear it's fascinating stuff. Helps a lot with not sounding dumb.

You sound so famililiar antialias_physorg, almost like a clone, it's called a circular argument... which is repetitive by nature..
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
"The Japanese government has recognized for the first time that a worker at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has died as a result of radiation exposure.... Japan's government has previously given compensation to four other workers who had developed leukemia and thyroid cancers as a result of radiation, but this is the first time a death has been acknowledged."
"The Banqiao Reservoir Dam is a dam on the River Ru in Zhumadian City, Henan province, China. Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced. The dam was subsequently rebuilt."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
"It's not just the Bank and G8 who are pushing more dams for Africa; the home-grown New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) proposes at least 13 dam projects. Dams prioritized under NEPAD include Mozambique's Mphanda Nkuwa; the massive Grand Inga project on the Congo River in DRC; Adjarala Dam in Benin, and the Souapiti and Kaleta Dams in Guinea.

"Resource-hungry China is also ramping up its connections across the African continent, offering to build and finance infrastructure in exchange for oil, minerals, and other raw materials. Chinese companies are moving heavily into African dam construction..."
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
You sound so famililiar antialias_physorg, almost like a clone

Maybe it's just what you have been hearing from everyone in your entire life?

That might be a hint, you know?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
Wow, before now I had no idea electrons and protons fed on "radio-active" energy!!
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
Well here you go, Willie, just as I predicted, and real soon after my prediction!

"Jacksonville Utility Board Urges MEAG to Cease Vogtle Nuclear Work"

"Work on Vogtle Units 3 and 4—now expected to cost at least $25 billion with the ever expanding cost shared among several utilities and their customers—has even made legal enemies of business partners. Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) has sued the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) of Florida for allegedly reneging on a deal to buy power from the Georgia co-owner in the Vogtle plant.

JEA wants MEAG to abandon work on Vogtle which, if ever completed, would be the first new nuclear reactor completed in three decades. A letter from JEA Chairman of the Board G. Alan Howard said that abandonment would save JEA customers up to $2.5 billion in favor of other power purchase alternatives including solar."
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
Here is the URL for the article:
https://www.power...ork.html
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
Wow, before now I had no idea electrons and protons fed on "radio-active" energy!!

we learn some new every day gkam, it is a figure of speech - when you go into the details the radiation is often gamma-rays, but when atoms are sitting quietly in the atomic lattice we can safely handle them as everyday objects as long as we don't zap with with high powered lasers
But just as we are consuming energy sitting or a sleep atoms in the door handle are consuming energy without emitting gamma rays, they have an indirect method of obtaining energy without resorting to gamma-rays and other electromagnetic rays and beta radiation
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
Wind is cheaper than coal now - and the price keep falling...
"Batteries not included", so if it isn't coal, then it's oil/gas that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
Fukushima: zero deaths from radiation exposure.
"Top Scientist Says Japan's Decision To Financially Reward Fukushima Worker Is Not Based On Science"
https://www.forbe...science/
"There are No "credible" scientists making the claim that thyroid cancers in Japan can be attributed to radiation"
"Why Fukushima Worker's Cancer Death Was Nothing To Do With Trivial Radiation Exposure"
https://www.forbe...kushima/
https://pbs.twimg...jbEX.jpg
"Mainstream society suffers from superstitious radiophobia. Fossil-fueled air pollution kills 7,000,000 annually. The Fukushima tsunami killed 16,000. Stress from the wildy excessive evacuations reportedly killed more than that."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
But but the RE "snake oil salesmen" have said that wind/solar had already replaced coal in Germany.
"Germany's RWE says too early to exit coal in 2035" - Sept 16, 2018
https://www.cnbc....035.html
"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/
"'Energiewende has made things worse for climate' says report" - Nov 2017
https://www.power...ort.html
No decline in coal over 20 years. Gas (largely private-sector funded & "greenwashed" by heavily subsidized intermittent renewables) up.
https://pbs.twimg...t8Oq.jpg
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
In tsunami waters

The Fukushima perimeter wall was to low and the water pumps instead of being at the highest point above water, they were below the water line so the motors got flooded - is so simple it's not even stupid!
The reactor is by the sea for cooling in tsunami waters so you build high walls and water pumps everywhere and on the roof in water tight containers with water tight emergency power supply for when the inevitable tsunami strikes!

This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design
gkam
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2018
" . .atoms in the door handle are consuming energy without emitting gamma rays, they have an indirect method of obtaining energy without resorting to gamma-rays and other electromagnetic rays and beta radiation"

Uh, . . . . no.

"This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design"

Uh,. . no. The Fukushima designs were really old Mark I BWRs, which I helped to test in the late 1970s for problems in the safety systems. They are not safe. Nor are they practical.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
Apparently, Foolishly Designed Reactor
" . .atoms in the door handle are consuming energy without emitting gamma rays, they have an indirect method of obtaining energy without resorting to gamma-rays and other electromagnetic rays and beta radiation"
Uh, . . . . no.
"This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design"
Uh,. . no. The Fukushima designs were really old Mark I BWRs, which I helped to test in the late 1970s for problems in the safety systems. They are not safe. Nor are they practical.

We have a system on this site gkam, which apparently just like The Fukushima designs is clearly not working, because you have seen the safety precautions at first hand,
So although I have never been there gkam, based on your assessment, my assessment still stands - This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design -
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
A Brief Moment in Time or a Circular Argument

Apparently, Foolishly Designed Reactor
Uh,. . no. The Fukushima designs were really old Mark I BWRs
I gkam, helped to test in the late 1970s for problems in the safety systems
They are not safe. Nor are they practical.
Based on your assessment, my assessment still stands
This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design

This is what I describe gkam and antialias_physorg, a Circular Argument!
This is what is getting everyone's claw, because if nothing else it is frustrating, because we are going round in circles – I always take into consideration faulty design in the first instance because consequently faulty design evidently leads to problems in the safety systems which cannot be corrected because of faulty design in the first instance, these reactor have massive immoveable structures that if designed incorrectly you have to live with them

An improperly designed Safe Reactor is then an unsafe reactor!
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
"This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design"

Which means it is unsafe!!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
"This reactor is safe except for extremely foolish design"

Which means it is unsafe!!

No it doesn't, It has been designed to be unsafe!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2018
gkam:- It has been designed to be unsafe, even if it's unintentional
This is the circular argument I'm pointing out which occurs because the original faulty design is not considered
If you only consider the melt down and not what led up to the melt down, you have a safe reactor, which is now an unsafe reactor that should never have been built.
Sometimes you cannot look at things in isolation; they have to be considered as a whole from the drawing board to the melt down
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2018
I am not interested in semantic arguments.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2018
Willie
so if it isn't coal, then it's oil/gas that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing
Mostly gas - which is of course far better than coal. Sort of asks an interesting question right Willie? Why is it not your precious nukes? Could it be that gas is cheaper than nukes? Thing there is - the cost of wind and solar continue their journey down hill. So as they fall past the cost of gas, it is reasonable to predict that renewables will take over from gas in terms of new build out.

Rome was not built in a day willie - but the ship is definitely turning... I mixed two metaphors in one sentence to really confuse your tiny brain....
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2018
I am not interested in semantic arguments.

it is not a semantic argument, its facing facts
Semantics is subtle meaning in text, a melt down due to faulty design is not subtlety
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2018
Semantics and Design
Take a Reactor and design it with Safety faults, it then become an Unsafe reactor, but design it without safety faults and it is a Safe reactor!
This is like designing £175s a tyre, 30,000mileage car tyres with micro-holes and cursing because its tyres are always going flat at inopportune moments!
There excellent hard wearing tyres that never get a puncture, micro-holes excluded!
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2018
Oh, . . . how simple!
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2018
Oh, . . . how simple!

Exactly gkam, life is simple when you know how!
It's the manufacturing that is the hard part!
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2018
Then, why haven't you saved us?
WillieWard
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2018
...it is reasonable to predict that renewables will take over from gas in terms of new build out...
"Snake oil salesmen" are predicting, by using their incredible premonitory superpowers and crystal balls, that sunshine&breeze unicorn energy will take over from gas, because the magic batteries/energy storage is coming up as prophesied.
According to Prophet Elon Musk, it is plainly possible to power a whole country with solar/wind if you burn a little bit of cannabis instead of fossil fuels to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining.
"Watch Elon Musk smoke marijuana on podcast" - Sep 7, 2018
https://edition.c...-vpx.cnn
... gas - which is of course far better than coal...
Natural gas is a polite term for methane(CH₄) which is 70x worse than CO₂, and is generaly extracted by fracking process.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2018
"Natural gas is a polite term for methane(CH₄) which is 70x worse than CO₂, and is generaly extracted by fracking process."

Guess what? Wind + storage and PV + storage are both cheaper than gas or (cough, . cough), coal.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2018
Guess what? Wind + storage and PV + storage are both cheaper than gas or (cough, . cough), coal.
gskam is a typical "Snake Oil Salesman".
Some years ago, he had announced that wind/solar already had replaced coal in Germany.
Nowadays:
"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/
"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/
"Germany is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and is the largest consumer of natural gas in Europe."
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2018
willie, that graph showed CO2 emissions of fossil fuel generation compared to nukes, but not costs or radiation or waste problems or comparisons with wind or PV.

Rather disingenuous, isn't it?
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2018
Natural gas is a polite term for methane(CH₄) which is 70x worse than CO₂, and is generaly extracted by fracking process
Which is why we are promoting carbon free fuels - to replace fossil fuels. Problem with nukes is they are just too expensive. 12 cents Kwh from Hinkley Point would be too much of a burden on consumers. Thankfully we have wind and solar waiting in the wings.

Drip drip drip Willie....
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2018
an Xcel Energy solicitation set a new solar-plus-storage record after attracting a median price of $36 per megawatt-hour
Did you read that Willie? Solar plus storage at 3.6 cents Kwh. Compare that to a nuke at 12 cents Kwh - and you can see why there is not too many nukes being planned.https://www.green...t-to-gas
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2018
Solar plus storage at 3.6 cents Kwh.
Some years ago, the same "Snake Oil Salesmen" had propagandized "solar/wind+batteries" for only 2¢/kWh. They have believed in their own lies like animals that eat their own feces, through the times.

...Hinkley Point...
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2018
Some years ago,...
I gave you hard numbers - of the bid price for the power. All your childish nursery rhymes can't affect the facts. Solar is kicking nukes ass - based on price. You got nothing - so you just keep up the verbal diarrhea.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
I gave you hard numbers...
What matter is the the final cost to consumers and emissions avoided, and in these requisites, solar and wind are a fraud, just Trojan Horses for the cheap gas/fracking in order to put carbon-free nuclear energy out of business. Intermittent renewables produce more ecological impacts than energy.
Solar-powered oil/gas extraction:
https://pbs.twimg...66RO.jpg
"ONE gas well produces the same amount of energy as 60 wind turbines making wind 12 times more expensive!!"
https://pbs.twimg...moV-.jpg
"A worker in China with the toxic and hazardous job of mining materials for wind and solar technology. Still think they're "sustainable"?"
https://pbs.twimg...lZ3G.jpg
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2018
Willie, see it like this: All power on Earth (solar, wind, fossil fuels, hydro* ) is nuclear power - it just is best to leave the actual fusion happen far away (in the sun).

(* with the exception of tidal power)
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2018
What matter is the the final cost to consumers and emissions avoided
We agree - and a wholesale price of 3.6 cents Kwh - is hard not to like. Renewables avoid just as much in terms of emissions as nuclear. Given the significantly lower price - it is easy to see why there is a lot of wind and solar being built, and not much nuclear.
China has halted construction of 100 gigawatts of coal power over the past year
Ummmm - maybe cuz it is too expensive...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2018
...wholesale price of 3.6 cents Kwh...significantly lower price...
"cheap" according to RE "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
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2018
Renewables avoid just as much in terms of emissions as nuclear.
Renewables, i.e. hydro & geothermal.
Biomass, wind & solar, are an incontestable fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.
"By 2050, replacing fossil fuels with wood will likely result in two- to three times more carbon in the atmosphere per gigajoule of final energy, the paper says" - Sep 2018
https://www.thegu...estation
Wind & solar, a trillion of watts of installed-capacity with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions; natural gas cut CO2 emissions & intermittent RE takes the credits.
"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."
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2018
But many of us succeed, Willie. My PV system works perfectly.

Do they have those nuke subsidies raised yet to save those inefficient and costly nukes?
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2018
Renewables, i.e. hydro & geothermal
Our fecal obsessive keeps throwing the same non answer over and over. Wind and solar are on an exponential curve upwards. Show us a growth curve on nukes Willie. Every Mwh of wind saves the world about 2,600 tons of C02 Willie. That exponential curve upward looks pretty good. Why don't you stop obsessing about fecal matter and vomit - and get us that growth curve on nukes Willie????? https://science.h...cts3.htm
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
Wind and solar are on an exponential curve upwards.
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions; natural gas curbs CO2 emissions and wind/solar takes the credits, "greenwashing".
Every Mwh of wind saves the world about 2,600 tons of C02 Willie.
Every MWh of wind needs to be backed up by another MWh from coal/oil/gas. wind = 20% wind + 80% fossil fuels.

"Investing in "renewables" is worse than not doing anything."

"Between 1973 and 2016, fossil fuels market share dropped from 86.7% of the total to only 81.1. However, in absolute terms their use increase by more than two times. Nuclear was the main winner in this time period."
"The big winners in the period from 1973 to 2016 have been, in this order: 1. Coal (+2237 Mtoe). 2. Natural gas (+2065) 3. Oil (+1571)"
https://pbs.twimg...9pL-.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...CPtt.jpg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2018
Between 1973 and 2016, fossil fuels market share dropped from 86.7% of the total to only 81.1
A 5% drop in market share - that is progress right? Especially bearing in mind that wind and solar are only just now reaching grid parity - and in 2,000, they were essentially at 0 in terms of installment. So you see the benefit of that exponential curve - which will see a very different picture as we move forward. Probably why China just cancelled 100 GW of nukes, but are going pedal to the metal with wind and solar. You should lose your obsession with fecal matter, and vomit - and pay more attention to what is happening in the real world.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
"Between 1973 and 2016...Nuclear was the main winner in this time period."
Solar panels and wind turbines represent 0.8%, practically ZERO even after trillions of dollars spent worldwide, aside the fact that intermittent renewables have strong dependence on coal/oil/gas to manufacture/mine/transport/install/maintain/repair/recycle their components and to keep lights on at night or on cloudy/snowy/not-windy days.
https://pbs.twimg...iqkE.jpg
"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy"
https://www.spect...-energy/
"...renewable sources, the vast majority ... is just people ...burning wood...and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."
https://pbs.twimg...ayq4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...dWLa.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uWMm.jpg
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2018
"$2 trillion invested in solar and wind during the past 10 years represents an amount of similar in magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion. Yet carbon emissions continue to increase."
https://www.forbe...climate/
"World's Most Expensive Joke: $2 Trillion Squandered on Wind & Solar (So Far)…" - Aug 4, 2018
https://stopthese...-so-far/
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/
"France builts its nuclear power in less than 15 years."
"France proved in the 1970s that you can go full nuclear without ruining your economy."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2018
Solar panels and wind turbines represent 0.8%, practically ZERO
Because they were starting from a very tiny base. I have already shown you this graph https://renewecon...copy.jpg
So even as recently as 2,000 - wind and solar were effectively at 0. So you have to be patient. Renewables are now passing nukes globally - AND THE CURVE IS EXPONENTIAL.... You really should take a math class, and understand what that means. We are just NOW reaching the point when solar and wind are at parity. And the cost is going to keep going DOWN. You are too busy obsessing about fecal matter and vomit to understand what that means. Wait and see. Where is your growth curve on nukes - liar Willie????
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2018
Because they were starting from a very tiny base...
"Snake oil salesmen" are always mixing up "installed capacity" with "energy produced" in order to fool the public.
"Snake oil salesmen are not reliable, as well windmills and sails that were replaced centuries ago by steam engines. Not even Greenpeace and other faux-green organizations rely on wind/solar to power their ships and inflatable motorboats across the oceans, but even so the RE "snake oil salesmen" say it will power the whole world by 2045.
https://pbs.twimg...blo5.jpg
Wind/solar "snake oil salesmen": "Pih, I see no problems. Look how glorious results it makes! We can be 100000% renewable by year 3247. I promise!"
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2018
Snake oil salesmen" are always mixing up "installed capacity" with "energy produced
No true Willie - we understand the difference very well. If you look at the data on a site lie this - https://ourworldi...newables you will see that renewable energy consumption curves - very much reflect the exponential curve that I have shown you of installed capacity. They also reinforce the understanding that wind and solar were effectively at 0 as recently as 18 years ago - but the curve is exponential - which you of course could not understand - as you are a 5 year old who likes to obsess on vomit and fecal matter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2018
Update on Georgie favorite plant (besides sativa that is)

"Oglethorpe Power issued a conditional vote to continue construction of Plant Vogtle in the final minutes of an extended voting deadline Monday evening.

"Oglethorpe's vote was the last of the four nuclear power plant's owners to support the continuation of the project despite JEA's urging to halt construction. The owners' vote was triggered when Plant Vogtle costs grew by more than $1 billion in August. Georgia Power, City of Dalton and MEAG Power approved continued construction earlier in the day."
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2018
Intermittent renewables are scam after scam ... after scam ... endless scams.
"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

And even so, dishonest politicians, academic crackpots and the mainstream fake news mass media(in the pocket of fossil fuel interests), continue to shove such useless placebos down people's throats by using misinformation and/or laws/mandates in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy(the lowest cost form of constraining carbon emissions according to new studies).
http://news.mit.e...rgy-0904
Ken_Fabian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2018
The reason(s) Australia does not have nuclear energy is not because it is illegal; that was never more than a paper thin gesture and can be overturned easily by a simple vote in Parliament. Of all the issues with nuclear in Australia that one is inconsequential.

Australia doesn't have nuclear because nuclear has never been simple and easy or least cost, especially not in a nation that practically floats on deep layers of coal. So long as the mainstream Right party (that likes nuclear) uses lies about climate science to prevent a transition to low emissions they can't use the truth to promote nuclear.

The alarmist fears of unreliable and costly renewables are dissipating in the face of their ongoing proven successes. And unlike nuclear they don't need long term commitment and planning or stable governments or even especially strong commitment to climate outcomes. Go renewables!

African nations will choose renewables over nuclear - for entirely rational reasons.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2018
It is good to re-visit the Vogtle plant once in a while. The costs have spiraled once again - with the new total standing at $25 billion - or approx. $10 per watt. Who knows when we will ever see any electrons from the plant - or how much tax payers\utility customers will end up shelling out to cover the cost over-runs/delays etc. Notice Willie never wants to talk about the cost of newclear.
https://www.power...ure.html
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2018
In South Australia, intermittent renewables are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket, aside destruction of natural landscapes, disruption of wildlife habitats, annihilation of millions of birds and bats, at cost of billions of dollars with almost to show in terms of reducing renewables.
Go renewables! Go to hell!
"It's a universal truth: renewables mean higher costs"
https://www.theau...52dd6384
https://pbs.twimg...K8Ro.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...HXx7.jpg
"More wind and solar means higher prices."
https://uploads.d...2eeb.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ryh3.jpg
"More Wind and Solar Power Perversely Locks In Fossil Fuel Generation"
https://reason.co...nd-solar
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2018
African nations will choose renewables...
Correction: African nations will choose coal/gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
"Kenya has postponed its plan to build Sh968 billion nuclear power plant by nine years to 2036 in favour renewable energy projects and coal plant."
"It joins South Africa, which in August cancelled plans to add 9,600 MW of nuclear power by 2030 and will instead aim to add more capacity in natural gas, wind and other energy sources." - Sep 25, 2018
https://www.busin...dex.html

Solar and wind are a joke, scams, a fraud. Intermittent renewables are 'ongoing proven fiascos' at reducing emissions; they only exist to provide a 'decorative facade' for the coal/oil/gas industries in order displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
It is good to re-visit the Vogtle plant once in a while. The costs have spiraled once again - with the new total standing at $25 billion - or approx. $10 per watt
Yeah a fine testament to the cost of red tape and overregulation. People are sick of it, which is why we now have a potus who is cleaning it up.
Solar and wind are a joke, scams, a fraud
Yeah they'll never melt steel or power transcontinental railroads or drive ships across the pacific.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2018
One thing leaf eaters fail to consider is the exponential growth in energy consumption per capita.
https://ourfinite...-charts/

-They always look to current rates and say sure, no problem. And implicit in their rosiness is the idea that growth itself is bad, and we should be happy to live with what we have and what we use.

Not gonna happen. Even as pops shrink, consumption will continue unabated as we use more energy for remediation and to counter the effects of entropy and AGW.

We will not stop innovating and new tech will always require more energy, not less. And renewables will never be able to keep up.
Ken_Fabian
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2018
Interesting that UK steel billionaire, Sanjeev Gupta intends running South Australia's Whyalla steelworks largely with solar power - in his words, ""It's still everybody's perception that it is cheaper to make power from coal than it is from renewables, and it is no longer the case. It was the case not long ago, but it's no longer the case, and we will prove it." Go renewables.

South Australia invested early in wind and solar because energy prices were so high there back when it was mostly coal - the claims that renewables caused it's high prices have always been misleadingly false. And across the world, there is a Swedish project to smelt iron and steel entirely with renewable energy, without coal or coke.

Australia's Energy Market Operator studies say wind and solar with storage are the most cost effective options for Australia's future electricity needs; renewables are proving very capable of keeping up.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2018
Otto -
Yeah they'll never melt steel, or power transcontinental railroads or drive ships across the pacificl
https://www.manuf...lt-steel

http://blog.midwe...-energy/

https://www.marit...cheduled

The real question here - is that when you get your ass handed to you on a plate - over and over - what does it say about you that you keep opening your mouth?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2018
Smelting
https://www.getty...94812770

Rail
https://www.pinte...5845880/]https://www.pinte...5845880/[/url]

Shipping
https://www.pinte...5845880/]https://www.pinte...5845880/[/url]

I mustremembere to compensate for intellectual deficit, real or pretend
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2018
Dont know what happened to that...

Renewables will never meet the demands of industry and commerce, current or future

Smelting
https://www.123rf...lls.html

Shipping
https://en.wikipe...CL_Globe

Rail
http://www.nation...ory.html

I mustremembere to compensate for intellectual deficit, real or pretend

Also lack of imagination etc
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2018
Did you like my pretty pictures greengotts? Did they help you understand? Yes or no?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2018
A small-scale example: solar cooker.
https://en.wikipe...r_cooker
Sun is for free, but even so it's more practical to burn wood or gas to cook mainly at night or on cloudy/snowy days.
Another small-scale example: wind/solar-powered dryer.
https://pbs.twimg...sYR5.jpg
Conclusion: if solar/wind were so good, people would already using it without any incentive/mass media propaganda/laws/mandates.
Get real! Solar/wind don't work satisfactorily(technically/economically) even in small-scale.

"Wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization."
https://wattsupwi...-utopia/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2018
Good quote there willie thanks-
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2018
Otto - your pictures are irrelevant to the fact that this statement that you made
Yeah they'll never melt steel, or power transcontinental railroads or drive ships across the pacificlc
is false. It is proven to be false by the links I provided. You are (once again) handed your ass on a plate. Linking to some pictures changes nothing.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2018
Otto says
Yeah they'll (renewables) never melt steel...

Willie tries to appear smart by throwing in a quote from wattsup
cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores


Shame neither one of you know what you are talking about. Now - just to be clear - Otto said
they'll never melt steel....
So if I can prove that they can melt steel https://www.manuf...lt-steel then otto is proven wrong. On top of demonstrating that otto's statement is false - I can also show that we are currently developing processes that can produce steel (different of course than melting steel) - using renewable energy and hydrogen. Pilot plant up and running in a couple of years - and full operation in about 20 years - https://cleantech...ossible/

Liars will be liars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2018
is false. It is proven to be false by the links I provided. You are (once again) handed your ass on a plate. Linking to some pictures changes nothing
Its easy to understand how greenguts could misconstrue the pretty obvious meaning of my first post. I tried to make it easier to understand, but in vain.

You can lead a dumbass to google but you cant make them use it, no?

Of course I'm familiar with solar furnaces. Who isnt? And who doesnt grasp the magnitude of the energy needs of industry and transportation? Well greenguts for one.

That's also obvious.

Hey you failed to 1/5 my every post. What, bitchslapping lose its thrill?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2018
"...could..."
"Hydrogen From Renewables Could Make Emissions-Free Steel Possible"
"we could power the world with wind and solar"
"could" is a verb largely used by the RE propagandists("snake oil salesmen") to fool the public.

For those who still think solar and wind are the new kids on the block.
Archimedes' Solar Death Ray is known since ancient times, and doesn't work well in practice.

2009: "Obama Commands Mythbusters Crew to Fire Ancient Solar Death Ray"
http://web.mit.ed...ers.html
https://www.npr.o...nd-jamie
Mythbusters debunked solar energy, then Obama realized:
"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." - Obama 2010
https://pbs.twimg...1y0z.jpg
https://www.thegu...reactors
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
the pretty obvious meaning of my first post
Your first post was self evident. You said
they'll never melt steel....
Once again - language not your strong point. If you meant something else - you would have said something else. Unless you play that game that ubavonatuba always played. You say 'A'. I say - that is not true - look (and I provide counter evidence.) You say 'but I never said 'A'.' I say - 'yes you did - look (and I show you where you said 'A'). You get all mad - and say 'but you are supposed to understand - that when I say 'A' - I really mean 'B'. And around and around we go....
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
Willie
"could" is a verb largely used by the RE propagandists("snake oil salesmen") to fool the public.
It's called progress. You wouldn't understand - you are too busy obsessing on vomit and fecal matter. Change comes about through science, and engineering etc. So - Elon Musk says we COULD one day put a colony on Mars. Idiots like you say "oh we have never done done that - so it is impossible." Like stupid Otto saying
they'll never melt steel....
But when I show that we are already melting steel with the sun. Otto says 'oh that is not what I meant.' See - idiots like you two don't understand language - or the process of science. We can extrapolate from what we currently KNOW - to what is possible. It marks the difference between a visionary (Musk) - and a moron (you and Otto).
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2018
...It's called progress...
It's called charlatanism.
...visionary (Musk)...
It seems that Elon Musk understands a little bit of "science, and engineering etc.", although sometimes he acts like a RE "snake oil salesmen".
"Tesla Model 3: Elon Musk virtually kills the possibility of a solar roof option"
https://electrek....-option/
"Why doesn't Tesla make cars with a sun-roof with solar panels?"
https://www.quora...r-panels
https://uploads.d...4cdd.jpg
"Yelp Reviews of Tesla's Residential Solar Business Are Not Pretty" - Sep 26, 2018
https://www.green...t-pretty
"Elon Musk, Tesla, and the Solar Roof Tile Fraud" - Aug 2018
https://mansionen...e-fraud/
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
It's called charlatanism
No - it's called progress. Just as many would correctly assert that the world could be powered by nuclear, others assert it could be powered by renewables. It is pretty simple extrapolation of current technology. Both views are clearly correct. So then we watch reality - to see what happens on the ground. Currently renewables are kicking nukes ass on cost - hence the Hinkley point, Vogtle, and other economic debacles the tax payers are going to get screwed with - https://foe.org/n...-summer/

Keep up Mr. Vomit watcher - drip drip drip.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2018
Funny that you rag on Musk Willie. He builds companies that make highly successful electric cars, solar panels, batteries, and rockets. Mean time - you make comments on the internet about animals eating their own vomit and feces.

Mmmm - who is smarter????
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
Greengotts article says

"effectively complementing current sources of power, these innovations could lead to an even more sustainable future for the rail and energy industries alike"

-complementing passenger train power is not pulling freight trains across the rockies or the alps.

Greengotts article says

"The Icon ships are expected to run primarily on LNG but will also be able to run on distillate fuel"

-Powering a few cruise ships through the mediterranean with H2 for greenie PR purposes is not sending tankers and container ships across the pacific.
Mmmm - who is smarter????
YOU think renewables will power industry and commerce in the future. That's pretty stupid.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
YOU think renewables will power industry and commerce in the future. That's pretty stupid
Because you say so?
In the forests of central Sweden, construction is about to begin on a giant wind farm with a single purpose: to supply power to the aluminium smelters of Norsk Hydro, one of the world's biggest producers, for the next 29 years
You are completely immune to facts. Dunning Kreuger is so weird to watch.

https://www.ft.co...d5404543
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
The greengotts source

"The intermittent wind power will be complemented by hydropower stations, which can adjust their output levels through the 24-hour, day-ahead bidding system that governs the Nordic power market."

The reality source

"in general, hydropower is not even considered a renewable energy in most states or, for the most part, by the federal government... "The reluctance to call hydropower a renewable energy is based on the impact of dams on fisheries and water flows."... The average life expectancy of a dam is 50 years, and 25% of the dams in the Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams are now more than 50 years old."

-Meaning that they silt up and become unusable.

Greengotts posts another sham PR source and pretends relevance.

Greengotts thinks renewables will power industry and commerce in the future. That's pretty stupid.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2018
Greengotts thinks renewables will power industry and commerce in the future
And you have done nothing in terms of providing counter evidence. Countries like Germany, Britain, etc. are working methodically towards 100% renewable power. Current targets are in about 30 years - although there are days currently where they get 100% of their power from renewables. So what is the point in calling people 'stupid' - for believing that what is happening - is actually happening? What do you gain by showing your total ignorance on a science web site? You are immune to facts. A testimony to why the U.S. and perhaps the human race is fucked. Facts have to matter. But they do not matter to you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2018
Hydropower is not renewable.
LNG is not renewable.
Buying energy from eastern europe and russia, is not renewable.

"It's not just the Germans who are in the words of Trump "paying the Russians billions." Along with gas from Norway, Algeria and Qatar, Europe gets more than a third of its gas from Russia."
But they do not matter to you
The truth matters to me.
Countries like Germany, Britain, etc. are working methodically towards 100% renewable power
Building turbines for aluminum plants that must be supplemented by hydro, is not 100% renewable. Is is however, hype.

You like hype, dont you greengotts?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2018
...Countries like Germany...
"The Truth About Wind Energy: 'The Readily Available Wind Power Capacity In Germany Is Less Than One Percent Of Installed Capacity'"
"There are nearly 30.000 wind turbines in Germany. However, the latest figures prove that the available wind power capacity is negligible."
https://www.hande...6FzC-ap4
https://www.thegw...apacity/
"Germany fails to meet EU climate targets, will get billed billions"
https://www.focus...622.html
https://wattsupwi...illions/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
a
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
Renewable energy in Germany is mainly based on wind, solar and biomass. ... The share of renewable electricity rose from just 3.4% of gross electricity consumption in 1990 to exceed 10% by 2005, 20% by 2011 and 30% by 2015, reaching 36.2% of consumption by year end 2017
Willie - sorry that you don't like facts - they are inconvenient aren't they. Maybe you should shut up - and wait and see. I said countries LIKE Germany. There are many countries around the world on track to 100% renewables - and they have heavy industry. You two look stupid.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
You like hype, dont you greengotts?
No - I like facts. You said renewables will never melt steel. I proved you wrong. "Oh that is not what I meant" - you say. No - it is what you said - and you are too stupid to be able to actually say what you mean. You are a waste.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
Otto
The truth matters to me
And you are unable to understand how this statement is at odds with saying things that are false (and have been shown to be false). You said -
Yeah they'll never melt steel, or power transcontinental railroads or drive ships across the pacific


That is provably false is numerous ways. Firstly - you said NEVER. Well - we cannot know what will happen in the future - so NEVER is outside your realm of knowledge - so it is false.
Secondly - I showed you and example of renewables melting steel - so it is false.
Thirdly - we already have ships and trains that are powered by renewables - so it is false.

No Otto - facts do not matter to you. Being a bully matters to you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
Hey thermite can melt steel. That is factually true. Maybe it'll work on an industrial scale.

We sure know that renewables cant.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2018
We sure know that renewables cant.
No we don't - and you are aware of that.- https://www.manuf...lt-steel

No Otto - facts do not matter to you. Being a bully matters to you.

greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2018
We sure know that renewables cant.
The really interesting question - is what do we do as a society - when we face such a blatant level of stupid? Democracy kind of assumes a level of honesty, and rationality. We get Trump and others - when there evolves a critical mass of stupid. People who don't care about facts or reason. We KNOW that renewables CAN scale up, and produce the levels of power needed to run our society. Whether the WILL is of course an unknown, but it is simply a FACT that they CAN. We tend to operate on a belief that there is enough reasonable people - and that progress will actually improve the balance of reasonable vs stupid - to the point that democracy becomes more and more viable. The unreasonable (fascists) lost in the last great war. White supremacy is illogical - and we thought it lost. Seems stupid is raising it's head again....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
Heh, I keep forgetting who im talking to, and left out the obvious qualifier - industrial-scale. Oh wait - I see I did. Include it. Industrial-scale.
The really interesting question - is what do we do as a society - when we face such a blatant level of stupid?
-So explain how your solar furnace can produce steel on an industrial scale.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2018
So explain how your solar furnace can produce steel on an industrial scale
I already showed that steel can be produced with renewables. Renewables can be scaled up to what ever level we choose. When something is demonstrated - and you continue to demand that it be demonstrated again - you are being an asshole. That is the bottom line right? Exchange of ideas requires a nominal level of agreement in terms of being reasonable. You fail that test. Hence my last post - on why we are fucked - and end up with people like Trump. You fail the test of being reasonable. So do Trump supporters. It is scary.

https://cleantech...ossible/
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2018
...countries LIKE Germany...
"In Germany wind and PV capacity have reached nominal 110GW. Our maximum load is approximately 80 GW. But our carbon dioxide emissions still "refuse" to drop. Why? Because we backup wind and PV with lignite, coal and gas. We're still the stinkers of Europe!"
...on track to 100% renewables...
100% renewable is 100% scam.
RE "snake oil salesmen"/charlatans include/exclude hydro, as well natural gas as if it were renewable and not a fossil fuel.
Renewable energy in Germany is mainly based on wind, solar and biomass. ...
"By 2050, replacing fossil fuels with wood will likely result in two- to three times more carbon in the atmosphere per gigajoule of final energy, the paper says." - Sep 2018
https://www.thegu...estation
Biomass, wind and solar, should be excluded from the tools against Climate Change, they produce more ecological impacts than energy.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2018
100% renewable is 100% scam
Because you say so? Remember you are the nasty little troll who accuses people of being like dogs - eating their own feces and vomit.
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
Last year, Germany reached 36.5% renewables as a share of domestic demand
Some sham... drip drip drip Willie - keep obsessing about vomit and feces - then you wont notice the change that is happening under your feet.

https://energytra...on-2017/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2018
100% renewable is 100% scam
If it isn't coal, then it's natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.

"German energy secretary backs forest clearance to build coal mine
Thomas Bareiß says use of polluting fuel at RWE plant is needed to keep the lights on" - Oct 1, 2018
https://www.thegu...oal-mine
"Germany needs LNG terminals" - Oct 2,2018
https://global.ha...s-968728
Last year, Germany reached 36.5% renewables as a share of domestic demand
Most of renewables is biomass.
"Biomass More Polluting Than Coal"
https://www.ecowa...699.html
"Burning wood for power may be worse than coal "
https://renewable...-598870/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2018
Willie troll
Most of renewables is biomass

Germany: biomass the second highest source of renewable energy

https://www.bioen..._energy/
Biomass More Polluting Than Coal
Which is why the NRDC
argues the UK should instead be forging ahead with wind and solar as the least-cost ways to ensure both decarbonisation and a reliable electricity supply as the country retires its coal plants


And why I am an advocate for wind and solar - and not biofuels.

https://www.busin...han-coal

How's the vomit and feces obsession going?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2018
Wind and solar don't ensure decarbonization, on the contrary they are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions, just decorative facades for the coal/oil/gas industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy.
Wind and solar aren't low-cost technologies because "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.

Gas + VRE ˜ 370 g CO2/kWh (assuming 25% VRE power factor)
nuclear 12g CO2/kwh
30 times less!

"so many failed experiments, when will people understand that wind and solar are not reliable energy sources?"

And why I am an advocate for wind and solar...
"If you promote solar panels / wind turbines, you are wittingly or unwittingly promoting coal / natural gas power plants."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2018
Wind and solar don't ensure decarbonization
Nothing ensures decarbonization. If we mine uranium with diesel equipment - nukes don't ensure decarbonization. Renewables have the potential to decarbonize our energy system. The fact that you don't choose to BELIEVE this - does not change anything. Currently renewables make a similar contribution in terms of low carbon power as nukes do. The investment money is going into wind and solar - as they are the low cost option. Why don't you show us that growth curve on nukes Wille? I have shown you the growth curve on wind and solar, the cost curve on wind and solar, and the reality that big money is now flowing into wind and solar. Nukes are begging the government for billions in bail out money. All you have Willie is vile comments about vomit and fecal matter.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2018
Hydro and nuclear are proven technologies at reducing emissions, while wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco, just decorative facades for the fossil fuel industry.
The investment money is going into wind and solar...
... the reality that big money is now flowing into wind and solar...
Interesting that the same 'big money' people that invest in coal/oil/gas are also investing in wind and solar because they know that intermittent renewables are the best way of keeping mankind addicted to fossil fuels.
Wind and solar are low cost option because "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
The fact that you don't choose to BELIEVE this - does not change anything.
REnewables is now a REligion/ideology, completely dishonest and divorced from reality; the wind/solar cultists have no option except to call liar who expose their lies, and keep believing in their own lies like animals that eat their own vomit/feces.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2018
Because you say so? Remember you are the nasty little troll who accuses people of being like dogs - eating their own feces and vomit... Some sham... drip drip drip Willie - keep obsessing about vomit and feces - then you wont notice the change that is happening under your feet
Havent been following your subroutine w/ willie too closely but I see lots of infantile ad hom here... refuge of the bankrupt... have to conclude you're losing and desperate... as usual...

More to industrial steel production than melting iron. None of which can be done with tricky chemistry-
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2018
Havent been following your subroutine w/ willie too closely but I see lots of infantile ad hom here
Interpretation - I don't know what I am talking about - but I will offer an opinion any ways. Sounds like Otto. Willie is the one introducing the topic of renewable supporters being like dogs who eat their own vomit, and on another occasion it was their own feces.

More to industrial steel production than melting iron
Sure is. Makes you look stupid when you say things like
Yeah they'll never melt steel, or power transcontinental railroads or drive ships across the pacific
Three provably false assertions. But you can't give up - despite looking stupid.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2018
Willie liar -
Hydro and nuclear are proven technologies at reducing emissions
Otto disagrees with you on the issue of hydro. I agree with you. Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal etc. are also proven technologies at reducing emissions.
https://www.carbo...-in-1890

https://www.imper...es-best/

That's just an example - I could show you many others.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2018
Wind, solar,...
"UK carbon emissions in 2017 fell to levels last seen in 1890" it's 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 27, 2018
https://www.thegu...-reverse
"Wind Power: World's Greatest Joke – UK Left Powerless During the 'Big Calm'" - Jun 2018
https://stopthese...ig-calm/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2018
it's thanks to natural gas
No - it is thanks to shuttering coal plants - and switching over to gas, and also to renewable energy. - https://en.wikipe...ated.PNG

With the cost of wind and solar continuing down - renewables are set to become a larger and larger percentage of British power generation - squeezing out fossil fuels.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2018
It is impossible to switch from coal to wind/solar. Natural gas are and will ever be a bridge for intermittent renewables.
'Between 2005 & 2015 Ontario phased out coal in favor of nuclear energy."
https://www.youtu...FhxMdZPI
"Ontario is a clean energy leader"
"Germany does not deserve its reputation as a climate leader."
https://pbs.twimg...AoYB.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...-XgP.jpg
"we are getting out of nuclear energy, so we will have to rely on lignite for a long time," says Frank Weigand, CEO of RWE Power:
"we think that the nuclear phase-out was a wrong decision and must be corrected."
https://www.daser...100.html

With the cost of wind and solar continuing down
When batteries included: wind/solar becomes prohibitively costly and "takes more fossil fuels to make it than it will ever return".
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
It is impossible to switch from coal to wind/solar
No it is not.
Scotland 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
One example that disproves your lie. Still waiting for your cost curve on nukes. How is the dog vomit and feces going Willie?
https://www.thegu...scotland
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid.
Parasites cannot survive without a host, in this case, wind/solar cannot survive without coal/oil/gas/fracking to back them up, i.e. to compensate intermittencies.

Coal/oil/gas prevent people from freezing to death when wind stops blowing or sun stops shining mainly during the Winter when energy is most needed.
"UK expected to use coal for power in winter" - Sep 2018
https://www.spglo...n-winter

"Renewable energy sources do not work without the consumption of fossil fuels."
"Whether in the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing processes, transport, assembly and maintenance, renewables consume oil, gas and coal. The Tower of a single wind turbine requires 150 tons of coal for the steel alloy that makes it."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) 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.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2018
Reference for my export quote - http://euanmearns...t-storm/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2018
...the two countries will exchange power...
Scotland exports oversupply of intermittent energy to the UK because it's produced when it isn't needed, but when energy is most needed, mainly during the Winter, the intermittent renewables are on vacation, so Scotland has to import energy from the UK fossil-fueled grid to prevent Scottish Children from freezing in the dark.
...transitions to renewables...
"Despite renewables growth, there has never been an energy transition" - Aug 2018
"Wind and solar now vie with natural gas to provide new electricity generating capacity."
"Although the percentage shares of biomass, coal and oil in our energy supply have fallen with the rise of alternatives, their total use continues to grow."
"A true energy transition will need to reduce carbon emissions."
https://www.axios...473.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2018
Africans should be aware: intermittent renewables will not lift all them out of energy poverty, only carbon-free nuclear can do that.
"Fun Fact: Low energy does not equal prosperity, it equals poverty."
"There are no low-energy, rich countries."
https://pbs.twimg...d4KU.jpg
https://www.cgdev...owth-hub
"Africa is the continent with the highest penetration of renewable energy. It is also the poorest." BIOMASS
https://pbs.twimg...7g85.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...UAyd.jpg
"Nuclear is the only technology that can lift everyone out of poverty and reverse human ­impact."
https://pbs.twimg...aHwI.jpg
greenonions1
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2018
Scotland exports oversupply of intermittent energy to the UK because it's produced when it isn't needed
No - it is over produced in Scotland - so that Scotland can feed the English grid. It is one way the intermittency of renewables will be dealt with. Storage will also play an important role - and there are numerous hydro storage plans on the book.

Drip drip drip Willie - what will you be saying in 50 years - when both England and Scotland have been running on renewables for decades? Probably still be accusing people of being dogs who eat their own vomit/feces. You are such a nice person.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2018
Willie
Although the percentage shares of biomass, coal and oil in our energy supply have fallen with the rise of alternatives, their total use continues to grow.
Oh surprise! Willie does not know the facts. Global coal consumption is now going down.

https://www.busin...y-2017-7
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2018
In Scotland, intermittent renewables(parasites connected to UK fossil-fueled grid) are producing more ecological impacts than energy.
"Wind farm 'could wipe out a third of wildcats'" - Jun 2018
"Scottish wildcats are facing extinction after it emerged that 30 per cent of the species could be wiped out by a wind farm expansion"
http://www.scotsm...-4757611
http://pbs.twimg....dCXZ.jpg
http://www.change...h-forest
"Critically endangered Scottish wildcats' habitat to become wind farm" - Aug 2018
https://www.gover...m/89676/
"Scottish Forestry Commission figures show more than five million trees have been felled thanks to wind farm developments since 2007, with fewer than 1.6 million planted to replace them."
https://pbs.twimg...557V.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2018
In Scotland, intermittent renewables(parasites connected to UK fossil-fueled grid) are producing more ecological impacts than energy
Typical Willie liar statement - made without any support. How do you quantify 'ecological impacts' - and then compare to 'energy' Willie? ALL energy sources have environmental impact - including nukes - http://large.stan...gstaff1/

"FES managed commercial plantations retain some of the best remaining populations of wildcats and we work very closely with FES to firstly ensure the wildcats in our priority areas continue to be protected


Suddenly Willie cares about wild cats - but not about the effects of uranium mining....
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2018
Oh surprise! Willie does not know the facts. Global coal consumption is now going down
Guess that is good for the environment Willie. I will take wind over coal any day.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2018
ALL energy sources have environmental impact...
Wind and solar have their own environment impact more the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
Carbon-free nuclear plants can back up each other, a thing that wind/solar can't do in a reliable way without fossil fuels in a world of limited hydro/geothermal/biomass resources.
...about the effects of uranium mining....
"Uranium is a by-product from copper, phosphate and rare earth mining." "Copper is a major element for renewable energy"

RE zealots talk as if windmills and solar panels grew on trees and mining activities were unnecessary and call liar who exposes the facts.
https://pbs.twimg...uM-x.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...bkab.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...gI1W.jpg
Global coal consumption is now going down...
and gas consumption is going up thanks to "greenwashing" provided by intermittent renewables.
greenonions1
not rated yet Oct 07, 2018
Wind and solar have their own environment impact more the environmental impacts of fossil fuels
Spoken like a true liar - and of course with no support. To suggest that a wind turbine has more environmental impact than coal - is just stupid.

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—do substantially more harm than renewable energy sources by most measures
Where is your source Willie. https://www.ucsus...G1mhKiM8

and gas consumption is going up
So is the production of renewable energy. The curve is exponential. Coal consumption is headed down. No thanks to nukes - but thanks to the hard work being put in to developing renewables.

liar who exposes the facts
But you don't expose the facts. You make them up.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2018
To suggest that a wind turbine has more environmental impact than coal - is just stupid.
Steel and other materials required for wind and solar structures aren't manufactured/mined by sunshine&breeze-powered machines, it's almost carried out thanks to cheap coal.
Windmills and solar panels have low ERoI, worse yet when batteries included, so they hardly can payback/repay the energy from the fossil fuels used to manufacture/mine/transport/etc. their components.
https://pbs.twimg...gI1W.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2018
So is the production of renewable energy.
After 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):
"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...volution

RE zealots lie more than politicians.
Politicians love the "renewables scam" because they don't need to effort so much to lie and fool the public to waste the taxpayer's money on expensive and useless wind/solar placebo projects to favor their supporters(the coal/oil/gas industries and other fossil fuel vested interests against carbon-free nuclear energy).
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2018
After almost a trillion of euros spent
It's called an investment. Kind of like we are doing with fusion - only renewables are proven technology - and that investment is now paying off - with cheap - carbon free energy. Perhaps you don't care about the climate - and think we should keep burning coal.

Where is that cost curve on nukes I keep asking for? I have given you the one for wind and solar. That is why so much investment is flowing into wind and solar right now. Those folks know a good investment when they see one. Not so hot on the nuclear front.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2018
It's called an investment.
It's called insanity, destroying the environment to save it, at cost of trillions of dollars, with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
... renewables are proven technology...
Only hydro and geothermal, and carbon-free nuclear power, are proven technologies at reducing emissions.
"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

Biomass, wind and solar, should be excluded from the tools against Climate Change, they are causing more environmental damages/ecological impacts(destruction of natural landscapes, disruption of wildlife habitats, massacre of millions of birds and bats and other endangered species) than reducing emissions, and are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2018
It's called insanity, destroying the environment to save it
The environmental impact of wind and solar are no worse than that of nukes. Yes there is an environmental cost - as there is with nukes. What Willie would of course have us do is keep burning coal. That's a really bad idea.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2018
The environmental impact of wind and solar ...
...of course have us do is keep burning coal....
Wind and solar aren't alternative to coal/oil/gas/fracking.

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.
Intermittent renewables aren't alternative to fossil fuels.
https://pbs.twimg...1fTH.jpg

"Nuclear power plant in WA generates more production records at 3¢/kWhr" - Oct 8, 2018
"...as Market prices peaked at more than 20 cents/kilowatt-hour, Columbia's cost of power remained steady at only 3 cents/kilowatt-hour."
"The nuclear plant produces enough zero-carbon electricity to power Seattle on its own."
https://www.forbe...records/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2018
Wind and solar aren't alternative to coal/oil/gas/fracking
Sure they are - that is why Scotland has closed all of it's coal plants, has a couple of nukes left, and is transitioning over to 100% renewables. Sure - they will remain connected to the British grid - that is one way renewables will balance. But Scotland is exporting power to Britain - not importing. As the British grid adopts more and more renewables - the system takes shape. Now where is the cost curve on those nukes Willie? Being obsessed with vomit and feces is no excuse for not answering very important questions.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2018
Nuclear power plant in WA generates more production records at 3¢/kWhr
Wow - that's impressive. But the plant is 35 years old - so all the capitol costs are paid off. How much does the electricity cost from a new build plant Willie. Oh right - it is 12 cents a kwh - inflation adjusted up for 35 years. And they are storing all the nuclear waste on sight - so let's see how much it will cost the tax payer to dispose of all that waste - when the plant is decommissioned...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid. Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host, i.e. coal/oil/gas/fracking.
What about Germany? They aren't connected to UK fossil-fueled grid.
"The higher the penetration of solar panels / wind turbines in a grid, the more damage they cause to the grid, consumer pockets and the planet."
"At low penetrations, "nothing happens" with solar panels / wind turbines. But, as their penetration increases in the grid, it is impossible to continue to hide their "hidden" costs. At high enough penetrations they can actually destroy the grid."
"Solar's economic value to the electricity grid declines by half when it reaches just 15 percent penetration, according to research by German economist Leon Hirth. "
"Denmark is an excellent example of the scam called renewables." "Once renewables reach a certain penetration in the grid, it becomes impossible to hide their hidden costs anymore."
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2018
"Mature nuclear which has amortized its construction cost (which even a badly-financed plant like Hinkley C or Vogtle III will do) is the cheapest source of power next to hydropower. It's basically not even a contest."
https://pbs.twimg...WMYa.jpg

It's gas and carbon-free nuclear, and not wind/solar, that replace coal, otherwise also Germany would be successful in displacing coal/gas.
"In 5 years (2010-15) U.K. achieved the largest overall reduction in carbon emissions in Europe thanks to a combination of nuclear, renewables, and gas to replace coal. By contrast, Germany proves that it is not possible to exit coal and nuclear at the same time."
https://pbs.twimg...nNLn.jpg

Wind and solar are useless placebos, fossil-addicted parasites, decorative facades for the coal/oil/gas/fracking industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid
Already addressed that multiple times - can you not read? Scotland mostly EXPORTS power to the grid in England. What that means is that Scotland will be generating enough power from renewables to cover ALL of it's own needs, and then export some power to England. Pretty cool eh? The nukes in Britain are connected to the "fossil-fueled grid" - does that make them bad? What's you point??????
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2018
Scotland ... generating enough power from renewables to cover ALL of it's own needs...
Let's see, typical CF is ~30%, in Europe around 20%, so if a country requires 200GW, it will be needed ~1000GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar, but even so it will not prevent people from freezing in the dark when wind stops blowing or sun stops shining mainly during the Winter, thus anyway it will be necessary coal/gas-fired backup plants.
https://pbs.twimg...DpzT.jpg

Batteries, as well integration costs(transmission lines), are never put into account.
"'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

"100% renewable" is "100% scam"
https://pbs.twimg...bA6p.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2018
thus anyway it will be necessary coal/gas-fired backup plants
No it won't.
Scotland is on target to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020
https://www.irish....3280498

Willie never hear of storage...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2018
Disconnect Scotland from the UK fossil-fueled grid and let's if sunshine&breeze unicorn energy can power a whole nation.
"Scotland 'on target' for 100% renewable energy by 2020"
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.

100% renewable(in a world of limited hydro) is a scam and will ever be.
https://pbs.twimg...mFjB.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uBQC.jpg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2018
Disconnect Scotland from the UK fossil-fueled grid and let's if sunshine&breeze unicorn energy can power a whole nation
Why? One of the understood issues with renewable energy - is intermittency. We have talked about that a million times. So what is wrong with having an interlink between grids. The whole of Europe is becoming one big grid. France is currently connected to Britain. This does not diminish renewables. Look - Germany exports power to France. Does that diminish the French nukes? No - it shows that the modern grid is complex - and interconnections are a part of that grid. You know nothing - Mr. vomit and fecal matter insulter.

https://www.renew...302.html
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2018
Very interesting article here on the demise of coal. We should of course put this in the context of Donald Trump - who has promised a renaissance in the coal industry. This demise is of course no thanks to nukes - as their output has been pretty flat over the past 20 years. So yes - thanks to cheap gas, and cheap renewables. And guess what? Renewables are continuing their downward trend....https://www.green....xY8dVbw

Willie of course wants us to keep burning coal....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2018
One of the understood issues with renewable energy - is intermittency.
Some renewables are more intermittent than others. Wind and solar are much more intermittent/unreliable than hydro/geothermal/biomass, Wind and solar are inherently parasites.
an interlink between grids
Integration costs(transmission lines), as well batteries and ecological impacts/environmental damages, are never put into account.
https://pbs.twimg...RiCK.jpg
"Germany is a net exporter of electricity, even to France"
Intermittent energy is produced when it isn't needed, but when the energy is most needed, mainly during the Winter, it's coal/oil/gas that prevents Germans from freezing in the dark.
"Germany can't rely on neighbours to make up power supply gap - energy group" - Aug 2018
"Green power capacity is growing but not reliable"
https://www.reute...8N1VD3B9
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2018
Very interesting article here on the demise of coal...
...thanks to cheap gas, and cheap renewables...
It's interesting to notice that the RE zealots/"snake oil salesmen" attack coal but barely attack the natural gas(fracking) at same time.
https://pbs.twimg...jQiw.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Shg_.jpg
Intermittent renewables are just 'decorative facades' to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry over carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2018
It's interesting to notice that the RE zealots/"snake oil salesmen" attack coal but barely attack the natural gas(fracking) at same time
It is called triage. I don't like nat gas any more than you do. But I do recognize progress - in the sense that gas and renewables are replacing coal plants around the world - and that is better than nothing. I would love to see a manhattan project for renewables and nukes. Take every fossil fuel off line tmrw, and replace them with renewables an nukes. Of course the cost of this would be staggering - so instead Willie does not at least recognize the progress that has been made in taking coal plants off line - and the potential for renewables to climb that exponential curve - and perhaps decarbonize our energy system in the next 50 years. Willie liar wants to keep burning coal...
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2018
Some renewables are more intermittent than others
Really Willie? I would never have known that if you had not told me! (sarcasm).
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2018
... in the sense that gas and renewables are replacing coal plants around the world...
Gas(methane: worse than CO2) replaces coal plants around the world and intermittent renewables take the credits, providing a "decorative facade" to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.
It is called triage...
It is called "greenwashing".

If 100% hydro, or geothermal or biomass or coal/oil/gas, is possible.
Why not 100% wind/solar?
Because wind & solar are parasites on other reliable sources of energy, and like all parasites, cannot survive without a host, in this case, gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies.
https://pbs.twimg..._Fny.jpg

Interesting, there are countries "Nuclear Superpowers" but not "Renewable Energy superpowers" / Wind&Solar superpowers.
Not much wind/solar here:
Costa Rica: 78% hydro, 10% geothermal
Iceland: 70% hydro, 30% geothermal
Norway: 99% hydro
Paraguay: 100% hydro
Tajikistan: 100% hydro
Albania: 90% hydro
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2018
Gas(methane: worse than CO2) replaces coal plants around the world and intermittent renewables take the credits
Gas, and renewables are replacing coal - and in doing so are reducing carbon emissions. Stop your lying. Ontario would be just one example. https://www.ontar...end-coal We could pick from hundreds of others. Yes - total C02 emissions are flattening - but still rising. This is because liars like Willie wont allow us to break the grip of the fossil fuel industry. The solutions are there - it is a question of political will, and cost - https://cleantech...calable/

When we climb higher on that exponential curve - we will see greater impact on carbon emissions. No thanks to liars like you Willie - who want us to keep burning coal. Where is that cost curve on nukes - you liar.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2018
Why not 100% wind/solar?
It certainly is POSSIBLE - but why is that your metric? Why not a basket of energy sources - primarily lead by wind/solar/hydro/nuclear/wave/tidal/biofuel etc. Why do you insist that it must be 100% - or it is worthless? Why not acknowledge that wind and solar are the cheapest options - and and that cost is going to keep going down. For that reason it makes sense that they form the backbone of a basket of options? Why do you keep lying - which is a practice that keeps us addicted to fossil fuels - and on track to climate catastrophe? Why keep lying Willie - I don't understand it?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2018
Gas, and renewables are replacing coal - and in doing so are reducing carbon emissions.
Gas(methane: worse than CO2) reduces carbon emissions and wind/solar(fossil-addicted parasites) take the credits, providing a "decorative facade" for the gas(fracking/methane) industry.

Ontario is clear example of how wind/solar are scams, a fraud, 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.
https://pbs.twimg...3k5Q.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2018
and of course, the electricity prices skyrocketed in the same rate as intermittent renewables invaded the grid
Then why are Oklahoma rates so cheap? Oh that's right - you just make up lies and then pretend they are facts. Kind of like your hero Donald.
Ontario is clear example of how wind/solar are scams
Except if you had read the article I linked - you would see the shift in power production - away from coal and gas - and into nuclear and renewables. So you are a liar - and can't even be bothered to read information - before repeating the exact same lies over and over. Where is that cost curve on nukes - Willie liar.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2018
Then why are Oklahoma rates so cheap?
Because: "Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK

You can power a ship with 100% coal/oil/gas or carbon-free nuclear.
You can also power a ship with 100% wind/solar, but even so the faux-green organizations, e.g. Greenpeace, prefer marine DIESEL because wind/solar are "unreliables", useless placebos, expensive fossil-addicted parasites.
But even so, the RE charlatans/"snake oil salesman" want us to believe that sunshine&breeze unicorn energy can power the whole world.
https://pbs.twimg...blo5.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2018
Because: "Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation
Which has nothing to do with the fact that Oklahoma gets more than 30% of it's electricity from the wind - and has extremely low electricity prices. Your lie
and of course, the electricity prices skyrocketed in the same rate as intermittent renewables invaded the grid
Is proven to be a lie - by this one reality. You seem pretty stupid - so let me clarify - if your statement were correct - Oklahoma would have high electricity prices.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
Solar/wind are a scam after scam ... after scam ... endless scams.
"Six men jailed over £17m solar panels scam" - Oct 12, 2018
"They targeted 1,500 elderly, retired and vulnerable people over more than two years"
https://www.energ...ls-scam/

If Scotland and UK wind power are so great, why do they want fracking.
"Top climate scientist blasts UK's fracking plans as 'aping Trump'"
"James Hansen, 'father of climate science', accuses Britain of ignoring science" - Oct 13, 2018
https://www.thegu...ng-plans

"Greenpeace website specifically advocates fossil fuel use over nuclear power."
https://pbs.twimg...GN1t.jpg
"Greenpeace UK expressly argues for ongoing use of fossil fuels."
https://www.green...r-power/

Intermittent renewables are a fraud.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
If Scotland and UK wind power are so great, why do they want fracking
Same reason fracking is happening all over the world - profit. How come you don't understand this? Renewables threaten the cash cow the FF industries have nurtured over the past few centuries, and they are not going to go quietly into the night. Liars like you who promote the burning of coal contribute to this bullshit by lying about the progress being made - despite the money pushing the legacy industries. History will not remember you trolls well.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
Same reason fracking is happening all over the world...
Wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions and replacing (simultaneously) coal/oil/gas.

Smart states/countries are giving up sunshine&breeze unicorn energy in order to save people's money, bird and bats, natural landscapes and wildlife habitats.
"Ontario cancelling 758 'unnecessary and wasteful' renewable energy contracts"
http://www.nation...ontracts
"758 renewable energy contracts cancelled by Ontario government, millions in savings promised"
http://globalnews...ancelled

~4 trillions of dollars was spent on wind/solar without any noticeable greenhouse gas reduction.
If wind/solar are reducing emissions (not clearly detected (masked by replacement of coal by gas, incandescent bulbs by led), it's the most expensive(economically/ecologically) way.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2018
Wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions and replacing (simultaneously) coal/oil/gas


Or the backbone of the future of global energy supplies. Trends currently say that you are on the wrong side of history. https://renewecon...copy.jpg

The people of Germany support energeiwende - 95% to 5%. Keep supporting the FF industries Willie troll. History will not judge the trolls well.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2018
https://renewecon...copy.jpg
The best that the RE "snake oil salesmen" can do is showing "installed-capacity" instead of "emissions avoided" in order to fool the public.
1,013GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar globally 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 and wind/solar took the credits, providing "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.

Germans have been systematically brainwashed by the mainstream fake news mass media(in the pocket of coal/oil/gas interests).
"German highschoolers are officially taught to dread nuclear energy."
https://pbs.twimg...6AC1.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...7zLd.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...J1c4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...IAwg.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2018
The best that the RE "snake oil salesmen" can do is showing "installed-capacity
That is a pretty good place to start - right? Yes we know they are intermittent - and have lower capacity factor. So what? The install curve is exponential. Go look it up.

So check out this cost curve on the cheapest electricity in the world. Should be looking at 1 cents Kwh within 12 months. We are watching the transition real time.....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2018
The install curve is exponential.
As well the environmental damages/ecological impacts, destruction of natural landscapes and wildlife habitats, annihilation of millions of birds/bats and other endangered species, are all exponential, with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
...cheapest electricity in the world...1 cents Kwh...
"cheapest " except "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs. Typical "snake oil salesmen".

Yes we know they are intermittent - and have lower capacity factor.
Fossil fuel barons know this too, it's why they love and support intermittent renewables, and hate carbon-free nuclear, their only true rival.

"No sun? No wind? No problem, natural gas has it covered. See why natgas is a great partner for renewable power sources."
https://pbs.twimg...wzm1.jpg
https://twitter.c...54220800
https://pbs.twimg...M1S4.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2018
As well the environmental damages/ecological impacts
As would the environmental cost of nukes.
The environmental impact of wind power when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor
You want us to keep burning fossil fuels. All power sources have their environmental cost - that is just a fact. So does driving a car, living in a house etc. etc. Wind and solar are on the low end of that cost. https://en.wikipe...nd_power

carbon-free nuclear, their only true rival
Sad comment that Willie. Nukes are not doing too well are they? We're not building too many these days are we? https://www.stati...rldwide/
You won't supply that cost curve will you? Good job we have cheap - carbon free renewables to pick up the slack...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2018
The environmental impact of wind power when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels...
Wind and solar are backed up 80% of time by fossil fuels.
Unlike hydro/geothermal/biomass and carbon-free nuclear power, wind and solar are strongly tied to fossil fuels.
By providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for coal/oil/gas in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy,
intermittent renewables are as deadly and dirty as fossil fuels.
https://pbs.twimg...vpsR.jpg

"Major coal and natural gas companies are using renewable energy as the lipstick on their pig. Don't buy it."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2018
Wind and solar are backed up 80% of time by fossil fuels
That's a lie - and you keep making it - and never provide any support. Oklahoma gets around 30% of its power from the wind. Demnark got 43% of it's power from the wind in 2017. How can that possibly be backed up 80%? You cant do math.

https://www.rte.i...nd-farm/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2018
You have only Oklahoma as showcase, a gas/fracking producer, even after trillions of dollars spent globally on intermittent renewables.
Just compare the emissions: Denmark (wind) vs France(nuclear)
France(nuclear): 53g CO₂eq/kWh
Denmark: 600g CO₂eq/kWh
https://pbs.twimg...XeL7.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2018
You have only Oklahoma as showcase
Nope - but it just takes one exception to prove that you are a liar. There are 4 states that get more than 30% of their power from wind, and Denmark gets around 43%. Just picking examples to prove that you area liar. You said
Wind and solar are backed up 80% of time by fossil fuels
Which is of course a lie - that you cannot support.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2018
Denmark gets around 43%
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions,and has one of most expensive electricity of the world thanks to intermittent renewables.
https://uploads.d...5592.jpg

Wind and solar are backed up 80% of time by fossil fuels
Typical CF is ~30%; in Europe ~20%; Denmark: (wind 27.8% + solar 11.4%)/2 = ~19.6%
https://pbs.twimg...DpzT.jpg
if a country requires 200GW, it'll be needed ~1000GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar, but even so it'll be necessary coal/gas-fired backup plants for when wind stops blowing or sun stops shining to prevent people from freezing in the dark.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions
Liars will be liars wont they?

Emission levels decreased during the period, falling from 57.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2000 to 36.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2017


https://www.stati...denmark/

That is 21 million ton reduction in just 17 years. If the graph keeps going straight - they will be at 0 in less than 30 years. Seems like a good plan to me. How's them nukes of yours doing - mr. dog vomit.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
Typical CF is ~30%
And a coal plant is around 53% - https://www.mjbra...rief.pdf

Did you figure that into false statement about being backed up 80% of time by fossil fuels? How did you arrive at your number 80% Willie. You can't just pull numbers out of your ass - show us the actual calculations. Give us some references to support your '80% of the time' rubbish.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2018
That is 21 million ton reduction in just 17 years.
France has done much more with much less money, in much less time and with much less ecological impacts thanks to carbon-free nuclear power.
France(nuclear): 53g CO₂eq/kWh
Denmark(wind/solar): 600g CO₂eq/kWh

And a coal plant is around 53%
And nuclear is around 90% and can go beyond 100%, a thing that intermittent renewables are unable to achieve without coal/oil/gas to back them up.
"Record 940 days of continuous operation for Heysham unit" (2 years and 7 months)
http://www.world-...164.html

"Intermittent sources like all wind and all solar need firm backup to 100% of their capacity. So, if you have to build the firm backup anyway, what do you need wind and solar for? Nothing."

"Wind/Solar is - and always will be - a complete joke."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2018
France has done much more with much less money, in much less time and with much less ecological impacts thanks to carbon-free nuclear power
I bet you can't support those assertions with any real data.

The first nuclear power plant by EDF in France was opened in 1962
The French nuclear research programs go back into the 1940's. How much money was spent on developing nuclear?

So it has taken France approximately 50 years to go from 0 to 75% of their electricity production.

So you are singing the praises of a system that produces 12 cents Kwh power, and I think 2 cents Kwh power - heading down soon to 1 cents Kwh power makes more sense.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2018
So, if you have to build the firm backup anyway, what do you need wind and solar for?
Because fossil fuels are finite, polluting, and expensive. So cheap, carbon free, renewable energy makes sense. Just because we have not completed the transition, does not mean we will not complete the transition.
With almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions
Liars will be liars - and then of course never admit that anything they said is a lie.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2018
...2 cents Kwh power - heading down soon to 1 cents Kwh...
"Batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
Solar/wind are a fraud, a scam after scam ... after scam ... endless scams.
"Scam alert over Solar Victoria scheme" - Sep 18, 2018
https://finance.n...-calling
Because fossil fuels are finite, polluting, and expensive.
"For every barrel of oil consumed over the past 35 years, two new barrels have been discovered."
https://blogs-ima...misu.jpg
https://www.forbe...e-world/
cheap, carbon free, renewable energy
Hydro and geothermal are low carbon, but wind and solar are far from being low carbon, they are intermittent and need to be backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies.
Liars will be liars
Liars are the first ones to call others liars.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2018
Liars are the first ones to call others liars
Well - when you say something that is provably false - it makes you a liar. "I know you are but what am I" responses just make you a five year old.
For every barrel of oil consumed over the past 35 years, two new barrels have been discovered
Are you arguing that oil is infinite? If not - what is your point? There are 3 major reasons that we must stop using fossil fuels. 1. Pollution (see China, India etc.) 2. Climate change - IPCC says we have 12 years to radically reduce our carbon emissions. 3. FF are finite - and at some point we will hit peak production.

Obviously you are in the 'burn all we can burn - and take the money and run' camp. Probably why you resort to calling supporters of the best alternative (renewables) horrible names such as dogs that eat their own vomit. You are reprehensible.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2018
Scotland is on target to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020
Coincidentally: "The national animal of Scotland is the unicorn."
https://pbs.twimg...RKct.jpg

There are 3 major reasons that we must stop using fossil fuels.
There are 3 major reasons that we must stop using wind and solar. 1. Pollution (they don't displace simultaneously coal/oil/gas/fracking at the same time) 2. Climate change - they have failed miserably at reducing emissions even after trillions of dollars spent worldwide. 3. they cause more ecological impacts than reduce emissions.

Biomass, wind & solar, are land-intensive and a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions, they cause more ecological impacts/environmental damages than reduce emissions.
"This is what Indonesia's mass deforestation for palm oil looks like in occupied West Papua."
https://pbs.twimg...UCH2.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2018
Coincidentally: "The national animal of Scotland is the unicorn
That's about par for your level of contribution to the debate.

they cause more ecological impacts than reduce emissions
We keep asking you to provide support for your rubbish. Just saying something means nothing - when it is not true.

This is what a wind farm looks like - https://3ohkdk3zdzcq1dul50oqjvvf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/10-GE-three-key-trends.jpg

Here's a nuke - https://www.getty...66406249

And Willie's favorite - https://www.thegu...a#img-14
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2018
This is what a wind farm looks like...
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
https://wattsupwi...bine.jpg

"Exposed: The Shocking Toxicity of Solar Panels" - Oct 19, 2018
https://principia...-panels/

"The price of green madness: Winter deaths in Scotland at highest level in 18 years"
https://www.bbc.c...45876204

""Renewables" serve as a front for the fossil fuel industry."
"Ruinables have no role. They have to be backed by full load power."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2018
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
But the land can be used for agriculture - so you are comparing apples to oranges. Also does not need ongoing mining of uranium - and it does not produce any highly toxic radio active waste that will be with us for many thousands of years. Most importantly - it provides clean/cheap/home grown electricity.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2018
But the land can be used for agriculture...
Most of plants don't grow under solar panels, and sometimes glyphosate is used to keep panels free of weeds.
Wind turbines contaminate aquifers, it's worse than fracking.
"Wind farms etc contaminating aquifers a worldwide problem."
https://pbs.twimg...KWBl.jpg

"Uranium is a by-product from copper, phosphate and rare earth mining."
"The solar and wind fuel cycles emit considerably more radiation (mainly from mining rare earth metals) than the nuclear fuel cycle"
https://pbs.twimg...8hRO.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...2Mg7.jpg
it provides clean/cheap
"cheap" but "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
"Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining / manufacturing / transportation / installation operations."
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2018
Uranium is a by-product from copper, phosphate and rare earth mining
It's also mined independently - and causes a great deal of pollution. https://www.nap.e...hapter/9

In fact - uranium mining causes FAR more pollution per unit of power generated than wind or solar. See - I can make unsubstantiated claims too Willie liar.

At least I can substantiate the reality that wind and solar are WAY cheaper than nukes - and of course the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2018
cheap" but "batteries not included
WAY cheaper than nukes - even with storage. Keep up Willie - the world is changing.

https://renewecon...s-76846/

I know math is not your strong point Wille (wow - reading and math impaired) - so I will do the conversions for you. Nukes = $120 u.s. per Mwh. Wind and solar with storage = $56 u.s. per Mwh. Yeah - let's build Hinkley Point - and screw the British tax payer for the next 35 years....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
"...wind and solar are WAY cheaper..."
Practically, wind and solar have no value, they aren't alternative to fossil fuels.
"Eirgrid are de-rating the value of wind farms by 90% in their new report so 100mw of wind is only equal to 10mw of a conventional generator."
https://pbs.twimg...k0cc.jpg
"If it's so cheap then you don't need the subsidy anymore, great !"

Less than 4¢/kWh, batteries unneeded, carbon-free nuclear is one of cheapest.
https://pbs.twimg...NMMo.jpg
https://www.nei.o...1810.pdf
https://atomicins...markets/
https://www.forbe...records/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
..of course the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Interesting that the mainstream mass media already indirectly refer to wind/solar as "unreliable".
"Inside the Fukushima reactor | 60 Minutes Australia"
https://www.youtu...n7fdaPVs
"Greenpeace is selling "a lie when it comes to nuclear". "
https://www.9news...en-heard
"Why I left Greenpeace"
https://www.youtu...nJq19R60
"Greenpeace has been a great ally to the fossil fuel industry with their activism against nuclear power, which is the only power source that can really displace burning dead dinosaurs."
"Greenpeace is Marxist political organisation. Has nothing to do with environment and climate."
"Greenpeace: "green on the outside, red on the inside, like a watermelon."

"Wind/Solar Energy"
"Biggest Most Corrupt Scam Ever To Be Forced on Humans!"
https://pbs.twimg...bA6p.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2018
Practically, wind and solar have no value, they aren't alternative to fossil fuels
Yes they are - which is why so much money is pouring into renewables right now - and so little into nukes. Renewables are the only viable alternative to fossil fuels - highlighted by countries like Scotland - on track to get 100% of electricity from renewables - withing just a few years.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018
...why so much money is pouring into renewables right now...
Because investing in "unreliables" is the best way of providing a 'decorative facade'("greenwashing") to keep the expansion of coal/oil/gas/fracking industries over carbon-free nuclear power, a disservice in the fight against Climate Change.

In Scotland and Ireland, wind is producing more ecological impacts than energy.
"Hundreds Of Unexplained Whale Deaths Might Be Linked To Offshore Wind Farms...." - Oct 23, 2018
http://jasonendfi...orig.jpg
http://jasonendfi...nd-farms
"Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint..."

Renewables are the only viable alternative to fossil fuels
Sails and windmills were replaced by steam engines centuries ago. In 1891, solar thermal scam.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2018
Hundreds Of Unexplained Whale Deaths Might Be Linked To Offshore Wind Farms
That about sums up your scientific credibility. The whale deaths MIGHT be linked to offshore wind farms. Of course they MIGHT be linked to nuclear power stations - or global warming - oil rigs, or a million other possibilities.

Because investing in "unreliables" is the best way of providing a 'decorative facade
Or maybe cheaper, cleaner, home grown fuels is the future - after all - renewables are the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are finite.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2018
Unlike wind/solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers), carbon-free nuclear power plants occupy small areas(tiny footprint), leaving more space for nature.
https://pbs.twimg...SNS4.jpg
...cheaper...
"cheaper" but "batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
...cleaner...
"Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining / manufacturing / transportation / installation operations."
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg
...renewables are the only viable alternative to fossil fuels...
Biomass is alternative to fossils. Wind and solar are a joke.
https://pbs.twimg...e7wD.jpg

Faux-greens prefer to feed cars rather than poor children.
https://pbs.twimg...8yD2.jpg
Land-intensive Eco-hypocritical energy solutions such as biomass, wind & solar, should be excluded from the tools against Climate Change; they cause famine and poverty.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2018
Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining...
Clean is a relative term. All energy sources have their environmental costs - so unless you want to live in a world without any energy supply - you have to pick the least dirty. That is of course renewables. Shit - just look at this mess when you mine for uranium - http://theconvers...cy-91204
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2018
Faux-greens prefer to feed cars rather than poor children
I oppose the use of ethanol - just a crony capitalist give away to the farmers. I support the electrification of our transportation system. Shame we have hypocrite republicans here in the u.s. - who support a liar in chief (Willie's friend) - who wants to push more ethanol down our throats in an expansion of big gubermint.

https://www.washi...7fc50cdf
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2018
All energy sources have their environmental costs...
All energy sources have their environmental costs which are inversely proportional to their energy density. Wind and solar have low energy density, up to 80% of time backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies, manufactured/mined/transported/maintained by fossil-fueled machines. So by providing a 'decorative facade'/("greenwashing") for fossil fuels, intermittent renewables are as deadly and dirty as fossil fuels. For example, rare-earth metals, gas/fracking and coal, produce much more radioactivity than carbon-free nuclear power.
https://pbs.twimg...O7Pl.jpg
https://uploads.d...e255.jpg
"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product."
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2018
All energy sources have their environmental costs which are inversely proportional to their energy density
You made that exact assertion before - and were slapped up the side of the head with it. Of course the environmental cost of wind is not greater than that of coal - idiot. Do you think it makes you look smart - to keep getting slapped up side the head? To keep making the same assertions - no matter how many times facts can be used to show that you are wrong???
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2018
...the environmental cost of wind...
Wind is intermittent and is backed up by coal/oil/gas, so it's as deadly and dirty as coal.
Without wind, no one would ever notice the difference, except in the electricity bills, wind producers are paid even when they don't produce energy.
Without coal, people will freeze to death, mainly during the Winter, when the oil for lubrication of wind turbines freezes.
https://pbs.twimg...5ice.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...iLHq.jpg
"Wind turbines use electricity to keep spinning in cold weather to stop icing"
"New wind turbine farce: How they take power from the National Grid even when they are NOT generating any electricity"
http://www.dailym...ity.html
"WHAT IS POWERING THESE TURBINES IF THERE'S NO WIND?"
https://www.youtu...PA07kAvo
"UK wind farms found to be most profitable when switched off"
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2018
Wind is intermittent and is backed up by coal/oil/gas
Unless it is not backed up by coal/oil/gas - so you are a liar. Scotland is on track to get 100% of it's power from renewables - no coal/oil/gas liar. Scotland EXPORTS power to England.
so it's as deadly and dirty as coal
You have no evidence to support that lie.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2018
Just look at the logic of an idiot like Willie. "We have not yet phased out all coal plants - so that means that wind farms are bad." How stupid. This transition is going to take decades. There is now a coalition of 74 countries/states that have committed to phase out coal by 2030. The world will probably not be coal free for another 100 years. But should we let the perfect, be the enemy of the good? How stupid that we criticize progress, because we have not yet crossed the finish line.
https://www.globa...lliance/
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2018
Scotland is on track to get 100%
Just disconnect Scotland from the UK fossil-fueled grid and lets see if Scottish people will like to see their children freezing to death at night or on cloudy/snowy/windless days mainly during the Winter when energy is most needed.
There is ~1000GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar globally.
Please, show us a single place(>10,000 inhabitants) where it is 100% powered (off-the-grid) by "wind/solar+batteries" in an economical viable way(without any external big money artificial support, e.g. Elon Musk).
https://pbs.twimg...4Pce.jpg
There is now a coalition of 74 countries/states that have committed to phase out coal by 2030.
If it isn't coal, then it's oil/gas/fracking that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2018
Renewables are cheap/clean...
"cheap" except "batteries not included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs.
"clean" if you ignore how windmills/solar panels and batteries are manufactured/mined/transported/installed/maintained.

Wind and solar are an epic fail at reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels everywhere. The best that the RE "snake oil salesmen" can do now is try to mislead the public by saying it's cheap/clean/eco-friendly, not including batteries, transmission lines, coal/gas-fired backup plants, or how it's manufactured/mined/transported, or how many birds and bats it slaughters in midair, and how it's a grotesque fiasco at reducing emissions even after trillions of dollar spent globally and huge ecological impacts caused.

"Think we can fix the climate without nuclear power? Then you'd better stop thinking and start calculating."
https://thebreakt...for-1.5c
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2018
Just disconnect Scotland from the UK fossil-fueled grid
It would be Britain that would be upset - as Scotland EXPORTS power to Britain. What will you be saying about renewables - when the whole European grid is run on renewables?

Think we can fix the climate without nuclear power?
I think we can run the world on just renewables if we choose. I support a mixed basket - which would include nukes. I don't think we will make the necessary adjustments to keep temp increase to 1.5 degrees. That is because of the lock grip of the Fossil Fuel industries. Dumb asses like you - who can't even recognize the small progress that is being made are a big part of the problem. We need a Manhattan project of energy transition. Probably not going to happen - and dumb asses who cannot see what progress is being made - and fail to understand the need for an all of the above approach - are a big part of the problem.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2018
You have only Scotland as showcase even after ~1000GW of installed-capacity of solar/wind globally, i.e. nothing really off-the-grid 100% powered by wind/solar+storage.
There is ~1000GW of installed-capacity of wind/solar globally.
Please, show us a single place(>10,000 inhabitants) where it is 100% powered (off-the-grid) by "wind/solar+batteries" in an economical viable way(without any external big money artificial support, e.g. Elon Musk).
https://pbs.twimg...4Pce.jpg


I support a mixed basket
You support a mixed basket because you know that wind and solar are parasites on other reliable sources of energy such hydro/geothermal/biomass more specifically coal/oil/gas/fracking.
Parasitic people (sociopaths) identify themselves with the "unreliables" it's why they love them so much and defend these useless placebos with all their heart by believing in their own lies like beasts that eat their own vomit/excrement.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2018
You have only Scotland as showcase
Liar - I could (and have) talked about Denmark, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. I just referenced 29 countries - and a total of 74 cities/states/countries that are committed to phasing out coal by 2030. So I can reference countries/states/cities that are on the transition to 100% renewables. Can you show us any that are on the way to 100% nukes? Maybe that is because nukes are getting their asses kicked on cost.
You support a mixed basket...
I support a mixed basket because it makes sense - which is why it is happening. Each location is unique - and will have unique solutions.
like beasts that eat their own vomit/excrement
I assume this is self referential. Maybe you should seek help.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2018
Denmark, together with Germany, has one of dirtiest and costliest grid in Europe.
Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states.

"More than 60 farms — most in Scotland..."
"Record payout for big wind – for generating nothing"
https://wattsupwi...nothing/
https://www.theti...cgw3cwpz

Wind is free.
Free to kill as many eagles as they like
Free to kill as many birds & bats as they like
Free to charge record high prices & not deliver a zac of electricity.
Free to vacuum up taxpayer money via corrupt schemes
Free to destroy neighbours health Wind is indeed free.

"The wind fleet in Scotland is costing the UK consumer billions!!!!"
"Scotland Squanders ₤Billions on Subsidised Wind & Gets Stone Age Power in Return"
https://stopthese...-return/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2018
Denmark, together with Germany, has one of dirtiest and costliest grid in Europe
Maybe you could support that lie with some actual data. My quick check on Google shows that Denmark is actually very clean. Look at page 8 on this report - file:///C:/Users/david/Downloads/Miljrapport%202017_EN.pdf

Go ahead Willie - tell us where you got your lies from....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2018
Denmark, along the year, the electricity is dirty and expensive, and highly reliant on fossil fuels.
"Denmark's electricity generation source totals for 05-May-2018, including 5475 MW of installed wind generation capacity."
https://pbs.twimg...Meyl.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ryh3.jpg
"Germany and Denmark have invested heavily in wind power & have some of highest energy prices in EU. Germany's over reliance on weather dependent energy has meant they have increased mining and burning dirty lignite coal to keep lights on = raised emissions. Very 'green' - not."
"The US and the UK have reduced their emissions more than Germany. Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and California have higher renewable penetrations than Germany. It's almost like folks focus on Germany because it's replacing nuclear with renewables. Even if that's not exactly working"
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2018
Willie liar - you present a graph that show 1 days worth of electricity by source. That is called CHERRY PICKING. For 2017 - Denmark got 43% of their electricity from the wind - https://www.thelo...ministry

So your one days worth of data shows how little you know about the subject at hand. Denmark has a very clean grid - and it is getting cleaner every year. You have to resort to CHERRY PICKING one day of data - to support your lie of Denmark having a "dirty" grid. You are pathetic. No wonder you have to fall back on talking about dogs eating their own vomit. Obviously self referential.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2018
Denmark got 43% of their electricity from the wind
At cost of huge ecological impacts/environmental damages, hundreds of billions of euros and expensive electricity bills, with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. France has done much more with much less money and in much less time, and with much less damages to the environment and ecology, in the fight against Climate Change, thanks to carbon-free nuclear energy.
wind = 20% wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
Denmark has a very clean grid - and it is getting cleaner every year.
"Danish CO2 emissions expected to increase, despite government plan" - Jun 2018
https://www.thelo...ent-plan

You can only present intermittent RE connected to fossil-fueled grids as showcase, because wind/solar are weak in terms of energy density and cannot stand alone by themselves, they are inherently parasites, have strong dependence on fossil fuels.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2018
So then how did they get 43% of their electricity from the wind in 2017? Wonder what Willie liar will be saying in 2035 - when all of their electricity is from renewables, or in 2050 - when all of their energy is from renewables!!! http://www.go100p...s%5D=109

It all makes Willie's lies about a dirty grid, and about 80% coal/oil/gas pretty sickening. Willie is not looking too informed about the reality on the ground is he?
hundreds of billions of euros
Also spent on nuclear/oil/gas etc. But yes Willie - converting over to a new energy source has a cost. So does Fukushima - and the U.S. nukes that are now sucking billions of dollars - that could be used for better/cheaper renewables.
https://spectrum....troubles

And that $9 billion is just one plant....

WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid to hide intermittencies and instabilities.
"North-east windfarms receive £1 million because weather was too windy" - Oct 29, 2018
https://www.press...o-windy/

Intermittent renewables are neither cheap nor clean.
"Fukushima wind turbine, symbol of Tohoku earthquake recovery, to be removed due to high maintenance costs" - Oct 27, 2018
https://www.japan...removed/
when all of their electricity is from renewables, or in 2050
"More solar panels mean more waste and there's no easy solution" - Oct 25, 2018
"It's going to be a major problem by 2050"
"Recycling isn't economically viable right now for solar panels"
https://www.theve...ecycling
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2018
"Saying nuclear is too expensive compared with renewables is like saying an airliner is too expensive compared with a bicycle."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2018
Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid to hide intermittencies and instabilities
No one is hiding the fact that wind and solar are intermittent. Scotland is connected to British grid - France is connected to the UK grid - all of Europe is becoming more and more interconnected. It is called progress. Cheaper/cleaner power - and the intermittency issue dealt with in numerous ways - including interconnections.
... is like saying an airliner is too expensive compared with a bicycle
A Kwh is a Kwh. Your analogy is stupid. Cheaper/cleaner fuel - sure beats the billions of $'s being pumped into shoring up outrageously expensive nukes. Of course the crony capitalists all of a sudden believe in massive gubermint subsidies for nukes - at the same time as lying about renewables. No wonder you can only talk about dogs eating their own vomit....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2018
No one is hiding the fact that wind and solar are intermittent.
It's why gas(fracking) industry love intermittent renewables.
"Renewables can only compete with huge subsidies and state mandates. Besides, renewables need gas to load-follow them so gas loves wind and solar." - Oct 31, 2018
"U.S. Natural Gas Goes Global" - thanks to "greenwashing" provided by intermittent renewables.
https://www.forbe...-global/

Texas, a state heavily committed with intermittent renewables:
"As oil and gas exports surge, West Texas becomes the world's "extraction colony""-Oct 2018
https://www.texas...s-surge/

It is called progress. Cheaper/cleaner power
It is called scam.

Renewables are a fraud, they are just a 'decorative facade' to keep the expansion of gas/fracking industry over carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2018
It is called scam
Which is why billions of dollars are being poured into renewables - and your precious nukes sit sadly on the side lines - due to not being competitive from a cost perspective.
new nuclear power stations in the UK are "obviously" unable to beat windfarms in terms of prices, even when the renewable source's intermittency is taken into account
https://www.clean...les-head

And the cost for renewables will keep falling - which is why you are unwilling to present any cost curves on nukes - and I can show you 10 ways to Sunday how the cost of renewables is fallllllling by the year - and will keep falling. Cheap/clean renewable energy - what's not to like????
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2018
...why billions of dollars are being poured into renewables...
Wind&solar = 'boutique façades' for the gas(fracking) industry.
"UK fracking firm produces first shale gas" - Nov 2, 2018
https://phys.org/...gas.html
...new nuclear power stations in the UK are "obviously" unable to beat windfarms in terms of prices...
"Batteries not included", so it's gas/fracking that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing.
Cheap/clean renewable energy
Wind & solar is "CLEAN" if you ignore how batteries/windmills/solar panels are manufactured/transported/installed.
Wind & solar is "CHEAP" if you don't include batteries or coal/gas backup plants or integration costs.
Wind & solar is Eco-friendly if you don't care about birds/bats.
https://pbs.twimg...l7_c.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...rMAF.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...VCoh.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...K19a.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2018
Wind&solar = 'boutique façades' for the gas(fracking) industry
Or a viable energy source that is forming the basis of the grid of the future. As usual Willie is unable to provide a cost curve on the cost of nukes - cuz the nuclear industry is begging evil gubermint for more bail out money - cuz wind and solar is kicking their ass on cost.

https://www.clean...les-head
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2018
...cuz wind and solar is kicking their ass on cost...
"Batteries not included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs.
if wind and solar were cheap and good at producing energy, it wouldn't be necessary mandates/subsidies.

Wind and solar produce more environmental impacts than energy.
"Green Germany? Shocking Video Shows How Wind Farm Plantations Are Destroying The Country"
"Germany has transformed a large part of its once idyllic landscape into an industrial wasteland littered by wind turbines – all in the name of environmentalism."
https://climatech...germany/
"The world's largest solar PV farm uses 200,000 litres of water each day to keep the panels clean. Yet some people think that we are soon going to source all our electricity from solar farms in deserts."
http://www.newind...326.html
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2018
Batteries not included
Batteries included - liar. https://thinkprog...b91a543/

Yawn - still waiting for you to show us the cost curve on nukes - or are you a bot based in China?

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2018
Batteries included - liar.
The best you can do is citing propagandist (fake news) websites in order to fool the public.
If it were really cheap, there would already be at least a small place(>10,000 inhabitants) 100% powered by solar/wind+batteries without any external big money artificial support, but there isn't.
...liar...
"When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser" - Socrates
https://pbs.twimg...VObG.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...IS0Z.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2018
The best you can do is citing propagandist (fake news) websites in order to fool the public


Nope - I present facts. Here is the growth curve on wind installations. https://renewecon...copy.jpg

Here is some information on the current situation regarding investments in solar- https://www.indep...051.html

FACTS Willie - something that you and Donald have a problem with...

When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes the Tool of the Loser
When you lie - people call you a liar - funny thing that.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2018
Nope - I present facts. Here is the growth curve on wind installations. https://renewecon...copy.jpg
RE zealots present installed-capacity instead of emissions avoided in order to fool the public.
Trillions of dollars have been invested in intermittent renewables with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
Big "green energy" projects are ironically largely owned by large fossil fuel corporations.
There are two of kind of fossil fuel companies that DON'T invest in "unreliables"(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers):
those who are DUMB or HONEST;
Most are DUMB.
wind/solar = 20%wind/solar +80%coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies
All manufactured/mined/transported/installed/maintained/repaired/recycled by fossil-fueled machines.
https://pbs.twimg...fsKV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...hKVY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...HN1x.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2018
RE zealots present installed-capacity instead of emissions avoided in order to fool the public
You think 'the public' is as stupid as you. People understand the issues of installed capacity, intermittency, and cost. That is why so much money is pouring into renewables, and nukes are getting their asses kicked. You think 'the public' can't tell a liar, from someone who knows what they are talking about.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2018
People understand the issues of installed capacity, intermittency, and cost.
It's why people by free will don't waste their money hard-earned money on solar/wind/batteries because they know that sunshine&breeze unicorn energy is expensive and ineffective at replacing other reliable sources of energy.
So it's needed mandates/constitutional laws to shove these useless placebos down people's throats, or subsidies/tax credits(taxpayers' money) to foster the entrepreneurs.
"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

That is why so much money is pouring into renewables
Pouring money into intermittent renewables is the best way of providing a 'decorative facade' ("greenwashing") for coal/oil/gas/fracking in order to put carbon-free nuclear energy out of business.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2018
It's why people by free will don't waste their money hard-earned money on solar/wind/batteries


But they will by free will wast their money hard-earned money on nukes right????

Dumb ass. Maybe that is why - in 2017 -
The world added more solar capacity than coal, gas, and nuclear plants combined


https://www.reute...CN1IZ0YL
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2018
The world added more solar capacity than coal, gas, and nuclear plants combined
Installed-capacity of intermittent renewables doesn't mean coal/gas displaced or emissions avoided. Wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco.

"As Renewables Drive Up Energy Prices, Voters In U.S., Asia & Europe Are Opting For Nuclear Power" - Nov 8, 2018
https://www.forbe...r-power/

"...study shows that the nuclear industry has reduced its total generating costs by 19 percent since their peak in 2012. These reductions in cost are so dramatic that 2017 total generating costs of $33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) have gone down to almost what they were nearly 10 years ago in 2008 ($32.75 per MWh)." - Nov 6, 2018
https://www.nei.o...year-low
Less than 4¢/kWh, batteries unneeded, carbon-free nuclear energy is one of cheapest.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2018
Installed-capacity of intermittent renewables doesn't mean coal/gas displaced or emissions avoided
Yes it does. Every Kwh generated by reneables - is one not generated by fossil fuels - simple logic. And now that renewables are cheaper than even maintaining existing fossil fuel plants - and the costs are going to keep dropping - you have a new landscape. https://renewecon...s-72497/

The new element is that wind and solar LCOE is now beating existing coal and nuclear plants, even those which have been fully depreciated


Wrong side of history - Willie liar...
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2018
Every Kwh generated by reneables - is one not generated by fossil fuels - simple logic.
A logic that is not observed in practice.
"Emissions in Germany have not decreased for the last 9 years & emissions from transportation have not fallen since 1990…. Germany inched ahead of Denmark for the highest electricity prices for household customers"
https://www.sandi...ory.html

"Fracking, Not Renewables, Is the True Energy Revolution of Our Time" - Nov 2018
https://www.ameri...on-time/

Wind and solar cause more ecological impacts than reduce emissions.
"Wind farms have cascading impacts on ecosystems across trophic levels" - Nov 2018
https://www.natur...8-0707-z
https://phys.org/...ems.html

... liar...
RE "snake oil salesmen" have to lie like there's no tomorrow.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2018
RE "snake oil salesmen" have to lie like there's no tomorrow
So true. Liars can't help themselves. But facts are facts - trumpites just don't understand the concept of facts.

The big surge in small scale rooftop solar installations over the past year continues to reshape the Australian grid, eating away at demand for coal in Queensland and capping grid demand across the country


The transition continues. https://renewecon...d-35290/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2018
The transition continues. https://renewecon...d-35290/
You have only RenewEconomy, CleanTechnica, and other propagandist/unreliable sources to cite. Lamentable!

"GHG emissions from Australian energy in the age of the renewables investment boom. PS we banned nuclear in 1998."
https://pbs.twimg...GsQs.jpg
Electricity prices in Australia are skyrocketing thanks to intermittent renewables.
https://pbs.twimg...XZ_-.jpg

"Germany still constructing new coal power stations" - Jun 2018
http://www.aircli...stations
https://notalotof...in-2009/

But facts are facts...
RE cultists simply ignore the facts to stay believing in a world 100% powered by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy, no matter how it will cost economically and environmentally.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2018
Australia's emissions from the electricity sector are declining - https://twitter.c...-figures

Notice how lying cherry pickers spend their lives trying to prove their point - but they don't know the facts.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2018
So let's take California (the world's 5th largest economy) as an example. Electricity sector emissions are down dramatically. Overall emissions are down (494 million metric tonnes - down to 429 million).
Really, in the last two years, it's all solar, wind and storage. There's no gas


The transition is happening liar Willie - you just can't see it. And I even used Green Tech Media - cuz I know how much liar Willie hates the truths being reported by Cleantechnica....

http://www.latime...ory.html
https://www.green....ActpGeM
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2018
Natural gas has replaced coal and halved the CO2 emissions while intermittent renewables took the credits providing "greenwashing" for the gas/fracking industry.

"Wind Farms Might Heat up the Planet, After All" - Oct 5, 2018
https://futurism....-climate
Definitively intermittent renewables are not solution to Climate Change.

For those who still believe solar and wind are new technologies:
"In 1869 Mouchot developed the first parabolic style solar cooker, which was later used by Napoleon III for French colonial troops in Africa"
http://large.stan...40/nii1/
"214–212 B.C. – Archimedes' Heat Ray"
http://energyinfo...x151.jpg
http://www.ancien...ray2.jpg
https://i.redd.it/jpvoeke470r01.jpg
https://www.scien...ship.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2018
Natural gas has replaced coal and halved the CO2 emissions
Looks like you missed the quote I cited. Let me repeat for you
Really, in the last two years, it's all solar, wind and storage. There's no gas
See how liar Willie makes assertions - but clearly does not understand the facts, and does not supply credible references to support his attempts at rebuttal. Laughable.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2018
There's no gas
California has ~34% gas, ~18% hydro, ~3% biomass, ~4% geothermal, ~9% carbon-free nuclear.
Wind and solar are parasites on other reliable sources of energy. Natural gas curbs CO2 emissions, while intermittent renewables take the credits.
"If all the wind or solar vanished, the grid would continue operation without the slightest problem, because the grid has to be able handle the load without wind or solar"

Let's take a look at UK/Scotland.
"100% renewables" is an environmental nightmare.
https://pbs.twimg...66nO.jpg
Destroying the environment to save it.

"The wind industry is a massive class action suit waiting to happen. [Especially now that the World Health Organisation has confirmed the health risks – which, of course, just like Big Tobacco, Big Wind has been covering up for years]"
https://www.breit...ofessor/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2018
California has ~34% gas,
And in 2015 - it was 44% gas. That is a 10% drop in just 2 years. https://en.wikipe...lifornia So my assertion is correct - that over the past two years "it's all solar wind and storage. There's no gas."

The transition is happening. Willie just can't see what is going on.

the World Health Organisation has confirmed the health risks
No they have not.
given that dozens of studies have already turned up nothing
https://www.newsc...-health/

But keep quoting Breitbart - and mocking someone for quoting reneweconomy - hypocrite liar.

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

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