Switching to a home battery won't help save the world from climate change

December 11, 2018, University of California - San Diego
Switching to a home battery won't help save the world from climate change
Credit: ACS

Home energy storage systems might save you money, but under current policies, they would also often increase carbon emissions. That is the conclusion reached by a team of researchers at the University of California San Diego in a study published recently in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Conventional wisdom may suggest that these storage systems, which are essentially household batteries such as the Tesla Powerwall, could be instrumental in weaning ourselves off greenhouse gas-emitting . But deploying them today, without making fundamental policy and regulatory reforms, risks increasing emissions instead.

If residents use these systems to reduce their electricity bills, the batteries would draw from the grid when it is cheapest. And because utilities don't structure how much they charge with the goal of lowering emissions, the cheapest power more often comes from power sources that emit carbon, such as coal. In addition, batteries do not operate at 100 percent efficiency: as a result, households that use them draw more power from the than they actually need.

For the systems to actually reduce greenhouse gasses, utilities need to change their tariff structures substantially to account for emissions from different power source. They would need to make energy cheaper for consumers when the grid is generating low-carbon electricity, researchers said.

The first-of-its-kind study, conducted by a research team from UC San Diego's School of Global Policy and Strategy and Jacobs School of Engineering, modeled how residential energy storage systems would operate in the real world. The study modeled deployment across a wide range of regions, utilities and battery operation modes.

"We sought to answer: what if consumers on their own or in response to policy pressure adopt these systems? Would emissions from the electric power system go down, and at what economic cost?" said lead author Oytun Babacan, a postdoctoral scholar at the School of Global Policy and Strategy.

The systems are so new that they are not in many homes. But this year saw a substantial increase in installations, with sales tripling from January to September of 2018.

When the systems are set up to operate with the goal of cutting emissions, they can indeed reduce average household emissions by 2.2 to 6.4 percent. But the monetary incentive that customers would have to receive from utilities to start using their home systems with the goal of reducing emissions is equivalent to anywhere from $180 to $5160 per metric ton of CO2.

"This is impractically high, and very high compared to other emissions reducing options that are available," said Ryan Hanna, a postdoctoral researcher at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, who earned his Ph.D. at the Jacobs School of Engineering.

Most households adopting energy storage are likely to choose equipment vendors and operation modes that allow them to minimize electricity costs, leading to increased emissions, Babacan added.

"Thus, policymakers should be careful about assuming that decentralization will clean the electric power system, especially if it proceeds without carbon-mindful tariff reforms that aim to reduce residential energy bills and energy consumption associated CO2 emissions," he said.

Absent tariff reform, policymakers could still encourage environmentally beneficial operation of the devices by ensuring that system developers and equipment vendors favor clean energy use by tracking and adjusting to variations in marginal emissions across the bulk grid, the authors noted.

Although the systems do not encourage cost-effective emissions control at the moment, authors were quick to note that the advantages of batteries should not be overlooked.

"There is an enormous upside to these systems in terms of flexibility and saving households money," the authors said. "While the increase in home batteries deployment is underway, we need to work on multiple fronts to ensure that their adoption is carbon minded."

Researchers selected 16 of the largest utilities companies in the country and dug into their tariff structure, carrying out the first systematic analysis of how much utility companies charge residential customers to forecast the economic and environmental impact of these systems, if they were to be widely deployed across the country.

Residential energy storage systems present a promising avenue for policymakers and companies such as Tesla seeking to decentralize electric power systems, reducing costs to consumers in the process.

In addition to Tesla, companies such as Evolve have invested heavily in residential energy . There also is an increasing interest in states such as New York and California to decentralize energy, both to empower consumers with greater control over their energy choices, and to create competition in a sector traditionally structured around regulated monopolies. With energy storage widely expected to play an integral role in efforts to deeply decarbonize the electric power system, organizations like the California Energy Commission are also actively advocating for their use.

Explore further: Does energy storage make the electric grid cleaner?

More information: Oytun Babacan et al. Unintended Effects of Residential Energy Storage on Emissions from the Electric Power System, Environmental Science & Technology (2018). DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b03834

Related Stories

Does energy storage make the electric grid cleaner?

February 2, 2018

Carbon-free energy: Is the answer blowing in the wind? Perhaps, but the wind doesn't always blow, nor does the sun always shine. The energy generated by wind and solar power is intermittent, meaning that the generated electricity ...

Reducing a building's carbon output can also lower costs

March 2, 2018

Researchers from Concordia University's Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering have found a way to significantly reduce carbon emissions produced by residential and non-residential buildings, while also ...

California utility launches first hybrid power systems

April 17, 2017

A California utility has launched unique systems combining a hybrid battery and gas turbine to produce and store electricity for use during hot summer months and other times when power demand soars.

Recommended for you

Machine learning identifies links between world's oceans

March 21, 2019

Oceanographers studying the physics of the global ocean have long found themselves facing a conundrum: Fluid dynamical balances can vary greatly from point to point, rendering it difficult to make global generalizations.

How fluid viscosity affects earthquake intensity

March 21, 2019

Fault zones play a key role in shaping the deformation of the Earth's crust. All of these zones contain fluids, which heavily influence how earthquakes propagate. In an article published today in Nature Communications, Chiara ...

220 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2018
But worth the cost and waste for survivalist purposes, as during earthquakes and such.

Right george?
carbon_unit
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2018
Not losing power because of a heavy snowstorm or an ice storm does provide a good level of robustness we currently don't have. If Puerto Rico would have had a significant number of solar/wind installations, some of them would have been damaged, but many not. There would be widespread pockets of power all over, despite the grid being down.
Pooua
5 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2018
This article makes it sound like homeowners would be using Powerwall with conventional utility connection, but I think the idea of Powerwall is using it with PV. I know that not everybody can do that, and doing it causes other problems for the grid, but emissions isn't necessarily one of those problems. Did the researchers take into account using Powerwall with a home PV system?
Benni
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2018
Gas used in utility plants costs $16-20 per megawatt hour compared to $22 for coal & releases 60% less carbon dioxide. Gas generation of electricity accounts for more than 1/3 of the total with coal now about 1/4 of the total, the remainder divided between hydro & nuclear. In the face of this the author makes these extraordinarily dumb statements:

"And because utilities don't structure how much they charge with the goal of lowering emissions, the cheapest power more often comes from power sources that emit carbon, such as coal"

"Thus policymakers should be careful about assuming that decentralization will clean the electric power system, especially if it proceeds without carbon-mindful tariff reforms that aim to reduce residential energy bills and energy consumption associated CO2 emissions,"

Of course George will be here to either agree with these two dumb statements or he will say the changeover isn't occurring fast enough & we're all doomed anyway.

carbon_unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2018
@pocua The figure does include a PV column, but it is not clear what is going on. Always negative?? Not sure what Energy Arbitrage is about. Unfortunately the article is behind a pay wall.

As typical, the title of this article is wrong. It should be "may not" save the world from climate change instead of a solid "won't".
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2018
This article makes it sound like homeowners would be using Powerwall with conventional utility connection


The combination of solar plus Powerwall is many times more expensive than power bought off the grid. If you have solar, there's no incentive to put the power into a battery because the subsidies are paid per power sold out of the house, and reimbursed back as free electricity (net metering).

The people rather buy the batteries as backup solutions. The full cost of an installation comes out at about 40 cents a kWh used, so it doesn't make sense to wear out the battery if you can put your solar power on the grid and get it back for free from the "virtual battery".
aksdad
2 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2018
But deploying them today, without making fundamental policy and regulatory reforms, risks increasing emissions instead

That says everything you need to know about the goals and methods of the warmists. Despite several good reasons to have a power storage battery in your home, what they really want is for you to do what they think. Because they're smarter and they know what's best for you and the planet.

Meanwhile, defying all their delusions of knowledge about the fate of the planet, sea level rise continues at its leisurely pace, virtually unchanged during the entire time humans have been measuring it; in fact slowing in the last several years

https://climate.n...a-level/

and warming has slowed to a crawl

https://www.nsstc..._bar.png

while CO₂ levels continue to increase

https://www.esrl....ull.html

Hmmm, maybe CO₂ isn't the culprit.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2018
@carbon, you're right about "may not" vs. "won't." The article appears to ignore the displacement of fossil fuel sources by PV. It depends upon not exceeding the amount of PV you generate. It's kinda hard to tell exactly how they've done the calculations, since as you say the paper is paywalled.

It will, however, be better if industrial-sized storage solutions are used for windfarms and solar farms. Economy of scale. And the cube root relation of linear size to surface area will help too.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2018
The article appears to ignore the displacement of fossil fuel sources by PV.
...... because there isn't any, know why? Probably you don't, but I'll tell you anyway.

These kinds of systems are mostly installed in structures that would never have been otherwise constructed were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV, so there is no displacement of one for the other.

A few years ago a closeby landowner thought he could run his house off a lead-acid battery system recharged by a dinky wind turbine & a PV setup. Talk about a novice getting an education in a hurry, the wind often didn't blow at critical recharging times deep in that valley & now he has an abandoned PV system because the surrounding hills only allow short exposure to the sun.

Now he has a huge shed full of useless batteries, full & empty containers of sulphuric acid that are laying around all over the backside of his garage leaching into the water table of his neighbors.
sparcboy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2018
"If Puerto Rico would have had a significant number of solar/wind installations, ..."

They could be constructed where they could be laid on the ground in the event of an approaching hurricane. Have no idea why this isn't already done for the primary power lines running across major population areas. Cut the power. Lower the poles. Storm passes. Raise the polls back up and start repairing from the intact primary power lines.
Anonym518498
Dec 11, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2018
And because utilities don't structure how much they charge with the goal of lowering emissions, the cheapest power more often comes from power sources that emit carbon, such as coal.

Since solar and wind are cheaper than coal, how does that compute? And energy giants would LOVE to have individuals play the part of taking up and buffering the overproduction these power sources tend to put out. INstead of having to dump the excess or shutter windwfarms they could still sell all they can generate (maybe even at reduced prices so it'd be a win-win for everyone)

They don't need to adapt the prices to when they have low carbon on the grid. You could just crosslink the powerwalls to a weather site and that'd give it a pretty good idea when low carbon energy can be had. Tesla is way smarter (and way more agile) than 'big energy'.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2018
It would be most interesting to see the sources of funding for this paper. Since it's paywalled that will be difficult. Gee, wonder how that works?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2018
What looks a bit weird is that there are 4 affiliate institutes on the paper
- School of Global Policy and Strategy
- Deep Decarbonization Initiative
- Center for Energy Research, and ∥Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California San Diego

But the first two are actually part of the University of San Diego.

The fourth one is:
Brookings Institution

And I'll cite wikipedia here:
An investigation by The New York Times, reported on September 6, 2014, found the Brookings Institution to be among more than a dozen Washington research groups to have received payments from foreign governments while encouraging U.S. officials to encourage support for policies aligned with those foreign governments' agenda

Who are the two biggest donors I hear you ask? Norway and Qatar...who happen to be really big oil producing countries.

Umm...yeah...
greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2018
The article appears to ignore the displacement of fossil fuel sources by PV
. And Benni responds -
......
because there isn't any, know why? Probably you don't, but I'll tell you anyway
And then Benni proceeds to make an assertion - without any support.
These kinds of systems are mostly installed in structures that would never have been otherwise constructed were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV


So Australia now has 2 million home PV systems. But none of these homes would have been built "were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV" Really?????

https://renewecon...e-90424/

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2018
Thanks, @antialias. That's about what I figured.

The Bookings Institute is notorious.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2018
It would be most interesting to see the sources of funding for this paper. Since it's paywalled that will be difficult. Gee, wonder how that works?

The Da Snob jackass brays again.
Yep, paywalled and difficult, like your rectum, where your boyfriend is still trying to find your "sweet spot".
WillieWard
2.8 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2018
"Home energy storage systems ... would also often increase carbon emissions."
Definitively "solar/wind+batteries" is not solution to Climate Change.
In a world of limited hydro, carbon-free nuclear power is the only scalable way.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2018
So Australia now has 2 million home PV systems. But none of these homes would have been built "were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV" Really?????


You bet " Really?????...........if Musk hadn't come in with his battery project ALL those "homes" would be vacant right now were it not for the availability of the battery project. You should do some more reading about what has caused the crises in the first place, & why after years of figuring out how to make the desert livable again there was NO OTHER alternative.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2018
.if Musk hadn't come in with his battery project
As usual - bait and switch. What a moron. You said
But none of these homes would have been built "were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV
And I showed you one example - of a country that now has 2 million home PV systems - that disproved your point. As usual - the conservatives make fools of themselves - and then just keep digging.
chromakey
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2018
Gas used in utility plants costs $16-20 per megawatt hour compared to $22 for coal & releases 60% less carbon dioxide.

Be that as it may, those statistics don't take into account the effects of methane leakage from "abnormal conditions" arising during regular natural gas extraction and processing.

(http://science.sc...aar7204)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2018
.if Musk hadn't come in with his battery project
As usual - bait and switch.

But none of these homes would have been built "were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV


And I showed you one example - of a country that now has 2 million home PV systems - that disproved your point. As usual - the conservatives make fools of themselves - and then just keep digging.


.....bait & switch is on you, the context was the situation in Australia where conditions BECAME unliveable that would otherwise have displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2018
.bait & switch is on you,
God - you conservatives can obfuscate, and twist, and confuse... How do you get so good at bullshit?

You said
But none of these homes would have been built "were it not been for the availability of battery recharging PV


That is of course not true - and demonstrated to be not true - by the existence of 2 million homes in Australia - that have had solar panels put on their roofs. The homes were already there. Your statement is not true. God - like talking to little children who have not developed complex reasoning skills yet.
snoosebaum
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2018
how to ruin your power grid [ oz ]

https://www.youtu...X-Ib3Q5Q
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2018
...existence of 2 million homes in Australia - that have had solar panels put on their roofs...
Solar/wind cultists love to talk about installed-capacity but not about emissions avoided, mainly when comparing emissions and electricity prices of solar/wind-powered countries/states with carbon-free nuclear-powered ones.
https://www.elect...map.org/
https://uploads.d...5592.jpg
cardzeus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2018
Sci-Hub - removing paywalls everywhere... https://sci-hub.t....8b03834
cardzeus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2018
Unintended Effects of Residential Energy Storage
on Emissions from the Electric Power System
Oytun Babacan*,1,2, Ahmed Abdulla1,2,3, Ryan Hanna1,2, Jan Kleissl2,3,4 and David G. Victor1,2,5
1
School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
2
Deep Decarbonization Initiative, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
3
Center for Energy Research, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
4
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
5
The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
*
Corresponding author e-mail address: oybabacan@ucsd.edu (O. Babacan)
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2018
That is of course not true - and demonstrated to be not true - by the existence of 2 million homes in Australia - that have had solar panels put on their roofs. The homes were already there


......and they would be in the process of abandonment right now if Musk hadn't come along to save the bungled project.

It was a dumb idea in the first place to even build all those structures in that location because there was no backup plan for the likelihood that the power grid could suffer catastrophic failure one day, the Australian government KNEW this when they did it & had NO BACKUP PLAN because it had eliminated coal as a backup fuel. How stupid can stupid be?

But of course as blind greeno politicians have no foresight, the less than brilliant government planners needed a private sector entrepreneur to bail them out of their massive foible.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2018
and they would be in the process of abandonment right now if Musk hadn't come along to save the bungled project
2 million homes would be in the process of abandonment? Prove it.

But the bigger point is that there are 2 million homes generating power from their solar panels. This of course leads to
the displacement of fossil fuel sources by PV
And you are now tying yourself in knots of obfuscation - trying to argue that what is happening - is not really happening. You and Willie liar - conservatives who just can't stop spreading false bullshit - and then arguing yourselves into knots - trying to argue that what is up is really down.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2018
Since solar and wind are cheaper than coal, how does that compute?


By the fact that they aren't.

Where coal is most used, coal is really really cheap. Russia exports it at 1-2 cents a kWh to eastern Europe for example, where it is turned into electricity and heat in old soviet-built powerplants at neglible cost. It's the same as gas in California - couple pennies at the pipeline, and most of the cost is in the hurdles set up by politicians.

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2018
Hey, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, why is it if there's so much electricity around, we gotta pay for it?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
Since solar and wind are cheaper than coal, how does that compute?
By the fact that they aren't.

Where coal is most used, coal is really really cheap. Russia exports it at 1-2 cents a kWh to eastern Europe for example, where it is turned into electricity and heat in old soviet-built powerplants at neglible cost. It's the same as gas in California - couple pennies at the pipeline, and most of the cost is in the hurdles set up by politicians.
This is notoriously and enormously true. A five for that one, @Eikka.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
Eikka
and most of the cost is in the hurdles set up by politicians


Yeah - we would not want to discourage the burning of coal would we? And of course there are not hurdles set up by politicians on wind and solar. Currently - installing solar on your roof in the U.S. costs 2 to 3 times that of other parts of the word. Ask the industry why it is so expensive here - and the answer is because of the red tape.

https://www.green....sql6HlQ
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
...the displacement of fossil fuel sources by PV...
solar/wind = 20% solar/wind + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies, aside fossil fuels to manufacture and keep them running, ruining natural landscapes and wildlife habitats, butchering millions of birds and bats in midair.
"Nuclear displaces fossil fuels, while renewables lock them in and provide them with "greenwashing." "
...liar...
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying" - James Randi (magician, skeptic, opponent of pseudoscience).
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg
"The renewable energy cult is as dishonest and divorced from reality as any religion, and it is a religion, not science."

"we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented instead of installed renewable "capacity." Then maybe wind and solar will be seen as the pseudoscientific fraud it is. We need real environmentalism, not good intentions."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
...politicians on wind and solar...
"Solar panels / wind turbines should be labeled "political energy" because, were it not for politics, they wouldn't even be in the mix."
Politicians in order to please a minority of Eco-nuts, the majority have to afford the costs(hundreds of billions of dollars, expensive electricity prices) as well the environment(destruction of natural landscapes and wildlife habitats, millions of birds and bats and other endangered species).
https://pbs.twimg...5LWS.jpg
Most of the Environmental Movement has nothing to with protecting the environment and reducing emissions, it has more to do with money and ideological power. It's pure ideology, a bunch of psychotics/schizophrenics brainwashed by sociopaths with vested interests. Green Ideology is like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.
https://cached-as...arge.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...3Pgb.jpg
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2018
Since solar and wind are cheaper than coal, how does that compute?


By the fact that they aren't.

Where coal is most used, coal is really really cheap. Russia exports it at 1-2 cents a kWh to eastern Europe for example, where it is turned into electricity and heat in old soviet-built powerplants at neglible cost. It's the same as gas in California - couple pennies at the pipeline, and most of the cost is in the hurdles set up by politicians.


OK Eikka........what is you proposal to cut out the layers of middlemen?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2018
installing solar on your roof in the U.S. costs 2 to 3 times that of other parts of the word. Ask the industry why it is so expensive here - and the answer is because of the red tape.


It depends on the amount of sunlight available for conversion to electricity.

A US home of 1500 sq feet would require a 6500 watt PV installation to go off the grid. The biggest system I see available from contractors is a 5000 watt system for about $12k, but DOES NOT include labor costs & peripheral equipment costs kicking up FINAL costs to the $20k range minimum, I see some contractors advertising a 5kwatt system for as much as $30k, this for an AVERAGE house with AVERAGE sun exposure.

The AVERAGE homeowner living in an AVERAGE house does not have over $20k to spend, and those who might be tempted to try is likely to find their AVERAGE size house does not have enough roofspace for a 5kwatt system, much less that for a 6.5kwatt system to go off the grid. Then the battery cost.

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2018
The AVERAGE homeowner living in an AVERAGE house does not have over $20k to spend, and those who might be tempted to try is likely to find their AVERAGE size house does not have enough roofspace for a 5kwatt system, much less that for a 6.5kwatt system to go off the grid.


.......and I should add here that just because the popular 5 kwatt system is installed, does not mean you will get something close to the 5k watts needed to moving the AVERAGE US house off the grid, this rating is for PEAK sunlight exposure, something only those living in the deserts of the southwest will get the benefit of. Move those same systems 1-2k miles northeast & watch power out put drop over 50% by the time you get to Maine. Keep in mind, a 5 k watt system is a RATING SPECIFICATION, not a guarantee of what YOUR final power output will be.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
I have a pair of PowerWall II batteries because I live in earthquake country, but have already been used for short power outages. They are charged by the PV system, and come with cool software.

The thing I learned about alternative energy systems back in the days was they have their most effectiveness when integrated with other systems, preferably newer ones. My thesis in 1980 used anaerobic digestion to rid a large diary of manure problems and power the entire diary and a large ethanol plant with the technology of the time.

The PV system works best with the electric cars, giving us our own source of transportation in uncertain times. Wind and batteries are winners together. But the biggest factor is this:
Alternative energy is not just possible, not just practical, but is now PROFITABLE!
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2018
Eikka
and most of the cost is in the hurdles set up by politicians


Yeah - we would not want to discourage the burning of coal would we?


Of course we would, but that's besides the point.

And of course there are not hurdles set up by politicians on wind and solar. Currently - installing solar on your roof in the U.S. costs 2 to 3 times that of other parts of the word.

It doesn't cost you individually as the owner much anything because it's subsidized. Applying for all the federal, state, and municipal level incentives and subsidies can get you 97% off the price tag in places.

Ask the industry why it is so expensive here - and the answer is because of the red tape.


And why do you think that is? Because it's subsidized. The more it costs, the more taxpayer money you can siphon. If you are a politician involved in the industry and want to put public money into your own pocket, you'll put up red tape for an excuse to subsidize yourself more.
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
The point is, if you're a political leader in a country like China or Poland, and you have to choose between 10x more expensive but clean power, and continuing to burn cheap coal, it's not really a question at all.

At best you'll be playing lip service to the whiny predominantly urban middle-class environmentalists while moving the coal burning plants further away from cities to pretend they're not there, because no matter how much we'd like to stop polluting, the moment your power bills go up by that much, the working classes pick up torches and pitchforks and go after the politicians like the yellow vests in France.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2018
OK Eikka........what is you proposal to cut out the layers of middlemen?


Stop subsidizing solar power. No tax rebates, no net metering. Use it or lose it. Then it's sink or swim - either the price drops, or nobody buys it.

If it's really that cheap, then someone will pick it up at a lower price. If not, then why should we want it in the first place?

Alternatively, fund the subsidies by a steeply progressive tax to offset the fact that only rich people can afford to buy solar systems in the first place. Watch as all the politicians and their lobbyists scramble to push the prices down to avoid paying for it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2018
Where coal is most used, coal is really really cheap.

Only because you act as if the 'cleanup' cost (and the healtcare cost and the future climate change cost and ... ) are paid by someone else.

Why exactly should these costs be NOT part of the cost of the energy source?

I tend to calculate total cost of something. And by that measure I stand by my statement:

Wind and solar (and hydro where available) are cheapest. Everywhere.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
Some folk think cost, in money now, is the only criterion for energy systems.
I think survival supersedes it.

It is time for many to broaden their education.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
From this article:

"And because utilities don't structure how much they charge with the goal of lowering emissions, the cheapest power more often comes from power sources that emit carbon, such as coal."

I see flaws in that one assertion:

1, certain renewables have in recent years already become generally cheaper than coal; most notably wind power.

2, the main reason why fossil fuels are sometimes cheaper than their alternatives is because the alternatives haven't yet been developed and expanded to a large enough scale to provide us with all our energy demands AT ALL TIMES thus fossil fuels are sometimes cheaper because they are the ONLY type of power currently available that provide us with all our energy demands.

The answer to 2 above is of course to further develope and expanded renewables to a large enough scale so to provide us with ALL our energy demands at ALL times; that would then give them a chance to always be cheaper than fossil fuels.

+ supergrid.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
'' further develope and expanded renewables to a large enough scale ''

like australia but sometimes the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine , no matter what the
scale

and what happens to cost when all these renewables need renewing ?
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
You are incorrect. When I worked for it, the PG&E service territory alone was 97,000 square miles, with enough differences in climate and environment to guarantee we had hydro, wind, some PV, geothermal, and other sources upon which to depend. We used lots of fossil and nukes then, too but are phasing them out now for wind and batteries and PV.
snoosebaum
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2018
supersmart grid ;

https://www.windy...:eU7aghB , right now, this minute ,its dark AND windless accross the potential ' supergrid ' of N africa/ eu
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
Nope. They have wind power.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
I'll bet they were buying power from BC

and
https://www.youtu...amp;t=6s

and go look at the map
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2018
and what happens to cost when all these renewables need renewing ?


......you start all over again. PV systems :

"A solar panel has two warranties: a performance and equipment guarantee. A solar panel's performance warranty will typically guarantee 90% production at 10 years and 80% at 25 years. An equipment warranty will typically guarantee 10-12 years without failing. SunPower offers the best warranties.Mar 29, 2018"

https://news.ener...arranty/

Did you even know that at the end of 25 years your power output will be 80% of day one?

The PV cells begin to break down just like electronic components on a circuit board. After you've owned the house system for 25 years & you want to sell, guess who won't buy a house that in just a few more years will require a $40k upgrade? And do you think there will subsidies available than as now to ameliorate the cost? Not a chance.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2018
Wind and solar (and hydro where available) are cheapest. Everywhere.
Hydro maybe, but wind and solar of course not: (batteries not included, neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs). They are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere except in states that have abundant supply of cheap gas(fracking) that needs to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Oklahoma, or at gskam's home in LalaLand with his magical system of converting his lies into perpetual motion to produce free electricity uninterruptedly.
"If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?" - Apr 2018
https://www.forbe...pensive/
https://www.forbe...reasons/
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2018
https://www.forbe...reasons/


>WW.....this was the really interesting link, but there's more I think, sudden increasing labor costs.

As PV installations come into increasing demand, newly skilled laborers must be hired by Utilities & Private contractors.

When demand for installations was low, the market could easily fill the labor demand & at much lower cost, but now a turning point has been reached & PV installation costs are now off the last year's bottom & rising. It seems PV system laborers want wages equivalent to trade electricians, rather than low skilled construction worker wages at about $20/hr, the electrician rate rate being almost $50/hour & they're starting to get a big chunk of that labor rate in areas where there is high PV demand.

Now what does the average homeowner of 1500 sq ft think he/she can fork over five years from now when subsidies no longer exist?
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
and gkam bs correction

PGE ; Eligible renewable resources, such as wind, geothermal, biomass, solar and small hydro (33 percent).
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
Eikka
if you're a political leader in a country like China and you have to choose between 10x more expensive but clean power, and continuing to burn cheap coal, it's not really a question at all
Except that China and India are both erecting massive quantities of both wind and solar. So that just demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

https://sbr.com.s...t-decade
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
Eikka
Stop subsidizing solar power
I agree up to a point. The qualifier for me would be that you also have to stop subsidizing all other energy sources also. At this point - if the chips were allowed to fall, wind and solar would be cost competitive in most markets - and the cheapest option in many. It is definitely a big problem that it is hard to actually pin down the cost of power for different sources - because of the complexity of government supports.

I further believe that it is a legitimate role of government to shape policy on issues like energy. We do want to discourage the use of polluting systems such as coal and oil - and I think that government supports are an appropriate approach. I don't want to have to wear a gas mask when I go out the front door, and I think climate change is the number on threat to the survival of the human race. That makes it an important topic for government policy - in my opinion.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2018
Stop subsidizing solar power


I agree up to a point. The qualifier for me would be that you also have to stop subsidizing all other energy sources also.


> greeno:
What "subsidies" in what energy sector are you talking about? Just don't launch into legitimate business capital expenditures being the same as "subsidies", there wouldn't be any business of any kind anywhere in the country if every dime of revenue were treated as if it were profit, we'd be like Venezuela today.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
What "subsidies" in what energy sector are you talking about?
Once again - a conservative wants to engage in a debate - but shows that he/she does not know the basics of the topic. Why don't you prove your point about 2 million homes that
would be in the process of abandonment right now...


But on the subject of subsidies to other fuel sources - https://www.nrdc....ubsidies

https://www.washi...949537a6
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2018
But on the subject of subsidies to other fuel sources - https://www.nrdc....ubsidies


No, greeno, I'm not talking about donation subsidies to your favorite website, which is what your liink is about. You go to your favorite website, & bring it back here describing the content so we know what to look for without having to spend an hour searching for something that may not even exist.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
@LennitTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist thinks it can twist someone else's posts and then lie about what they're claiming. Standard @LennitTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist technique. Standard trolling. You obviously haven't stopped lying yet, @LennitTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
I'm not talking about donation subsidies to your favorite website, which is what your liink is about
From my link
The largest amount of US subsidies are for oil and gas production. The total for 2015/2016 was an average of $15 billion a year in fiscal support for oil and gas production
Are you really that stupid? The 2 articles I referenced are totally relevant - on topic - and talking about government subsidies for energy sources. I guess your point is just to use bullshit and obfuscation to try to discourage any one who may be interested in a better future. You are just a troll....
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2018
I guess your point is just to use bullshit and obfuscation to try to discourage any one who may be interested in a better future. You are just a troll....


Hey, greeno,

The bullshit is on you & the website you linked to. What did we see on the opening page? Yeah, a greenie website begging for donations. After seeing that, I said screw it, I'm not spending an hour sifting through a greenie propaganda site just because a greenie comrade of theirs doesn't know how to put up decipherable links to bolster claims he's making. I have zero interest in subsidizing your favorite website.

So, if you're so opposed to what you claim are oil & gas sector subsidies, why then are you so in favor of subsidies for PV, Wind, etc? Anything that has value can stand on it's own, otherwise it won't no matter what. It's still energy, and everybody around here seems on board for.......affordable energy? But not you?
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2018
The bullshit is on you & the website you linked to
Hey troll - typical conservative - who does not have facts on his/her side. Don't challenge the actual information - as you can't. So start squirming around - and disapprove of the source. Well smart people don't care what a troll like you - or Willie Ward think. It is not relevant. The facts are that all energy sources receive subsidies - and my point is that if you want to really see what the cost of an energy source is - then remove all subsidies - and see what shakes out.
everybody around here seems on board for.......affordable energy? But not you?
I am totally on board for affordable energy - and that is one of the big benefits of wind and solar. I could give you links supporting that position all day - but like the troll you are - you would not read them - as it is you who like the little Trump worshipers - have a real problem with facts and truth.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2018
Solar and wind energy are beating dirty fossil fuels and nuclear power in the marketplace. They are winning not because they are clean and necessary to combat carbon pollution, but because they are less expensive for power producers, companies, and customers.

https://cleantech...heapest/

And the costs will keep falling. Can't say that about your fossil fuels can you Bennie?

https://www.green....s6xQTMc

Maybe you should read some more science and technology information - instead of watching Fox news.
humy
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
Thanks for that greenonions1; It says:

https://cleantech...heapest/

"...Solar and wind energy are beating dirty fossil fuels and nuclear power in the marketplace. They are winning not because they are clean and necessary to combat carbon pollution, but because they are less expensive for power producers, companies, and customers.

As 2018 closes, it's now safe to say that clean renewable energy is at an inflection point. Cost is no longer the biggest challenge to greater adoption of wind and solar; it is now the rules of the power markets that often keep the cheapest options from winning.

It makes business sense
..."

... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2018
and my point is that if you want to really see what the cost of an energy source is - then remove all subsidies - and see what shakes out.
.......no, this wasn't your point, here was your original your "point":

Stop subsidizing solar power

I agree up to a point.
......righto, "up to a point".

OK greeno? The fact of the matter is you want never ending subsidies for your ACCEPTABLE sources of energy in spite of it's lack of affordability by the AVERAGE world citizen.

Greenos like you do not know how to calculate ENERGY INPUT for the manufacture of a product versus ENERGY OUTPUT that will be derived from that product, but it's why I have an Engineering degree & YOU don't, you're JUST a forever greenie living in a fantasyland that has no basis in reality, it's what is going on in Venezuela today, you should move there & enjoy the pristine benefits such a social paradise has to offer.

humy
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
https://www.green....ebGrRzM
"... Why PV Costs Have Fallen So Far—and Will Fall Further

Solar innovation is still very strong.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers have dissected the causes of solar price drops over the last four decades — a trend that analysts say will continue.

In a report last month, the MIT team identified public and private research and development (R&D) and improvements in cell efficiency as the major factors contributing to a 99 percent reduction in module costs since 1980.
...
the top factors contributing to PV cost reduction are not static over time.
...
Wood Mackenzie forecasts that spot prices for modules could fall from $0.30 per watt-DC to $0.18 per watt-DC in the next five years, a 40 percent drop.
..."

... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.
humy
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
Continued:

"......
cell manufacturing equipment is becoming increasingly efficient, reducing power consumption. "All of the material inputs to making a solar panel are still falling,"
...
"..solar is [already] cost-competitive with natural gas and coal in most geographies in the United States. We've already reached that threshold."
..."

... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.

The trolls here that say renewables will never be cost effective have already run out of places to hide.
-and yet they continue with their usual moronic and increasingly desperate and crazed runts.

Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
It makes business sense

... No carbon tax nor subsidies required.


You preach it but won't practice it.

If every subsidy that is offered to so-called renewable energy were ended everywhere in the country tomorrow, next month every PV manufacturer & installation contractor in the country would be out of business, and it's because novices like YOU do not understand the concept of Cost Engineering a product.

In energy generation products, unless energy output exceeds the cost of energy input of the product by a wide margin it will not be AFFORDABLE by Mr & Mrs Average citizen, therefore they can't buy it, it's not AFFORDABLE.

There are places in this country right now where wind & PV products are being installed with OVER 50% subsidy incentives, otherwise it's not AFFORDABLE. And guess who would be among the first to scream the loudest if you heard a politician demanding 100% of Renewable Energy Generation products subsidies should come to an IMMEDIATE end?
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2018
Benni the obfuscator.
The fact of the matter is you want never ending subsidies for your ACCEPTABLE sources
My very next sentence after
I agree up to a point
was
The qualifier for me would be that you also have to stop subsidizing all other energy sources also


So obviously I am NOT saying that I want never ending subsidies for ACCEPTABLE sources. I am saying that if we stop subsidizing renewables - we should also stop subsidizing fossil fuels and nukes. That is very clear in what I wrote - and you are just being an asshole.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2018
Why PV Costs Have Fallen So Far—and Will Fall Further


This has NOTHING to do with the costs of INSTALLING such systems. That article is discussing ONLY HARDWARE COSTS which have absolutely zero to do with LABOR COSTS for installation which are now rising dramatically, and you don't know why do you? Just go back up to one of my earlier posts where I discussed LABOR COSTS of installation.

Installation contractors ALWAYS pass along their labor costs, they don't stay in business if they don't.

Installation of the presently popular 5kwatt PV system is rising dramatically in the currently booming construction field, this is due to rising shortages of labor in all the construction trades & especially in the most skilled trades, like electricians.

Get it through your almost impermeable thinking processes that INSTALLATION COSTS are exceeding drop in HARDWARE costs. Don't like it? Then the government should manipulate the economy so it goes into recession.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
So obviously I am NOT saying that I want never ending subsidies for ACCEPTABLE sources. I am saying that if we stop subsidizing renewables - we should also stop subsidizing fossil fuels and nukes.


....in the meantime you won't explain what the "subsidies" to "fossil fuels & nukes" are. You just send us to sites begging us for money to subsidize the existence of their political action campaigns.

Hey, greeno, here's one for you.....how about if those political action sites you link to simply take all that donated money they rake in & send it to the contractors doing installations & have those monies earmarked ONLY for the wages of the WORKERS doing the installation labor, you see that way you could end the presently dramatically rising installation costs of PV systems so that contractors could avoid passing along rising wage costs. But you wouldn't be in favor of that would you, you'd rather have the ARGUMENT rather than the SOLUTION to the argument?

gkam
1 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2018
Okay, "Benni" here is what he is talking about.
https://www.thegu...per-year

Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year
A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuels

That is $5,000,000,000,000!!

Got it? Send it to Willie.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
Benni screamed: "There are places in this country right now where wind & PV products are being installed with OVER 50% subsidy incentives, otherwise it's not AFFORDABLE."

Okay, show them to us, Benni.
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2018
Why PV Costs Have Fallen So Far—and Will Fall Further


This has NOTHING to do with the costs of INSTALLING such systems. That article is discussing ONLY HARDWARE COSTS
Benni

Nope; Analysts have obviously take into account all costs, including installation and that includes, obviously, labor costs, and they still say its cost-effective. This is clear in the links provided by anyone who cures to to read them. Try again.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
...Except that China and India are both erecting massive quantities of both wind and solar...
"We often have climate charlatans claiming China is leading the renewable revolution. Well here is the truth."
"Why are the Chinese building 259GWe of coal fired power stations if wind and solar are so economical?"
https://t.co/ygv1qr2MCm
"China is a net exporter of solar panels / wind turbines. On the other hand China is the #1 importer of oil and coal and #2 importer of natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...26QZ.jpg
"Chinese-backed Overseas investments in Fossil Fuels have actually outpaced Non-Hydro Renewable investments by almost 100:1."
http://climatetra...ewables/
https://pbs.twimg...cNEq.jpg
nuclear cheaper than RE
https://pbs.twimg...4ReC.jpg

"China is funding its nuclear power future by selling solar panels to those who don't know better."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
Hey troll - typical conservative...
...Well smart people don't care what a troll like you...
...but like the troll you are...
...have a real problem with facts and truth...
If you have no more logical arguments: shout "shill" "troll"!!!
https://uploads.d...d08e.jpg

"Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic"
https://nypost.co...-traits/
Green movement has nothing to do with protecting the environment or reducing emissions. It's just a bunch psychotics/schizophrenics brainwashed by sociopaths(pathological liars) with personal vested interests.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018

wind & PV products are being installed with OVER 50% subsidy incentives, otherwise it's not AFFORDABLE."

Okay, show them to us, Benni.
.....ok:

https://www.forbe...c6846e23

"A study by the University of Texas projected that U.S. energy subsidies per megawatt hour in 2019 would be $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas, $15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar. Many of the renewable energy subsidies come in the form of a Production Tax Credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Wholesale prices for electricity in 2017 were between approximately 2.9 cents to 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Therefore the wind production tax credit covers 30% to 60% of wholesale electricity prices."

Last sentence, do you see 30-60%? Probably you don't.

Then back up & read the "$15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar" vs $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas. Year of 2017.

greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2018
Willie
We often have climate charlatans claiming China is leading the renewable revolution
Not knowing the facts - makes you stupid. You also are disgusting - as well as ignorant - calling people dogs that eat their own vomit. How do you think that makes you look, or affects your credibility? China is leading the renewable revolution - https://www.teles...019.html

Attacking the source also makes you ignorant - especially coming from someone who constantly cites Breitbart, and the Daily Mail. I can find you dozens of other references showing that China is leading the world in renewable investments - and we are just reaching the tipping point - at which renewables are the cheapest.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
Nope; Analysts have obviously take into account all costs, including installation and that includes, obviously, labor costs,


What analysts? You got a site for them making these statements? I gave you one for 2017, and when you put up your quote try avoiding one from back in 2010, or some other far gone irrelevant date just because it fits your narrative.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2018
Benni is trying to twist everything up in knots. I stated
The qualifier for me would be that you also have to stop subsidizing all other energy sources also
So clearly my point is that if we advocate removing subsidies on renewables - we also should remove subsidies on all other energy sources - to get a level playing field. That is a clear and simple point. Benni then says -
The fact of the matter is you want never ending subsidies for your ACCEPTABLE sources
Which is clearly not true - and makes Benni an asshole for distorting what I said.

Benni also demands
What "subsidies" in what energy sector are you talking about?
That I assume means - either Benni does not believe that other energy sources receive subsidies (proving he does not understand the topic he is trying to discuss). Or he has not point - and is just spouting bullshit. (I vote for both). So anyway - I clarify what subsidies I am talking about with a couple of links - cont.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
Benni opens one link - does not read it - and tries a big deflection about the credibility of the link. Total bullshit. Any way - if Benni's point is that other sources do not receive subsidies - it makes him/her a total asshole - cuz he/she then provides a link that clearly discusses the subsidies that other fuel sources receive. Anyone who has done basic reading on the topic knows that all sources have subsidies - and we could provide links all day to support that (including Benni's own link.) Benni of course could not provide any links that dispute the fact that ALL sources receive subsidies. All making it very clear that Benni is ignorant of the topic - and an asshole who just wants to troll....
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2018
https://www.thegu...per-year

Read the article, Benni.

No hiding, no sneaking away.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
if Benni's point is that other sources do not receive subsidies


Comparing :

$15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar" vs $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas. Year of 2017.

Just for the sake of your bloated subsidy argument:

Wind subsidy at the low end compared to coal: $15/$0.5= 30
Wind subsidy at the high end compared to coal: $57/$0,5= 114

I'd still be interested in knowing what the $0,50 subsidy for coal is about, but you won't tell us, so I'm just gonna let you have the argument because it is so overwhelmed by the subsidies given to wind & solar that it is all but meaningless in terms of the ratios of the numbers.

Solar subsidy at the low end compared to coal: $43/$0,5= 86
Solar subsidy at the high end compared to coal= $320/$0.5= 640

......and just do the same thing for natural gas which emits less than half the content of CO2 of coal. Do you think you could do that math without help from me?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
"Let's give the final numbers and then back up to dig into the details. The subsidies were $4.9 tn in 2013 and they rose to $5.3 tn just two years later. According to the authors, these subsidies are important because first, they promote fossil fuel use"

"as pointed out by the authors, a more correct view of the costs would encompass:

not only supply costs but also (most importantly) environmental costs like global warming and deaths from air pollution and taxes applied to consumer goods in general."

OK geek, I copied & pasted the meat of the article from your link. Totally absent was WHAT THE SUBSIDIES WERE. Are we supposed to believe the SUBSIDIES were a bunch of newsprint that was put out to encourage people to use coal, nuclear & gas? And were it not for this then coal & wind would not be at:

Wind subsidy at the low end compared to coal: $15/$0.5= 30
Wind subsidy at the high end compared to coal: $57/$0,5= 114

C'mon georgy, you need real events for your tagline.
greenonions1
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2018
Just for the sake of your bloated subsidy argument:
I never made a bloated subsidy argument - you are bullshitting again. I simply stated that if we are going to pull subsidies off renewables - I would want us to pull subsidies off all energy sources - so that we would have a level playing field.

Do you think you could do that math without help from me?
What math do you want me to do? The only point I am making is that ALL fuel sources receive government subsidies - and if we advocate pulling subsidies from renewables - then let's level the playing field - and pull all subsidies. Not a hard concept to grasp - and clearly the point I have made multiple times on this - and other threads. You are just being an asshole by trying to obfuscate, and complicate things. Now - please prove that other energy sources such as coal, oil, gas, nukes - do not receive subsidies - or concede that you are just a troll....
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2018
Good article supporting the reality that ALL fuel sources receive government subsidies. - https://www.vox.c...ubsidies
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
I never made a bloated subsidy argument - you are bullshitting again. I simply stated that if we are going to pull subsidies off renewables - I would want us to pull subsidies off all energy sources - so that we would have a level playing field.
Sure, you said this out of one side of your mouth, then out of the other side you said:
Eikka
Stop subsidizing solar power
I agree up to a point. The qualifier for me would be that you also have to stop subsidizing all other energy sources also. At this point - if the chips were allowed to fall, wind and solar would be cost competitive in most markets - and the cheapest option in many.


Your claim was that if all "subsidies" to all energy sources were zero today, that "wind and solar would be cost competitive in most markets - and the cheapest option in many." When you made that statement without any data to back it up, I put up some data that makes your "competitive" & "cheapest" a laughable selection of words.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
Your claim was that if all "subsidies" to all energy sources were zero today, that "wind and solar would be cost competitive in most markets - and the cheapest option in many." When you made that statement without any data to back it up, I put up some data that makes your "competitive" & "cheapest" a laughable selection of words.


.........and greeno, I should have added that Levelized Costs of Energy is highly variable from country to country. The more isolated that country is from a standard power grid that is standard in the US, Canada, and much of Europe the greater that difference will be in countries that have no such distribution outlets. Think 60% of the world falling into a sub-standard distribution grid thus levelizing the costs of doing it some other way.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2018
When you made that statement without any data to back it up, I put up some data that makes your "competitive" & "cheapest" a laughable selection of words
So you are changing the subject aren't you? Because the discussion is about you accusing me of
The fact of the matter is you want never ending subsidies for your ACCEPTABLE sources
But I never said that - and that is the subject of the discussion. I proved to you that I actually said something very different than that. So the appropriate response would be to acknowledge that you are a bullshitter - and claim people say things that they did not say.

Now - I do stand by my assertion that wind and solar without subsidies are cost competitive in most markets. Any one who reads on the subject would know that. I will give you one link to support it. I could give you many more.

https://oilprice....ion.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
..eat their own vomit..
It's so funny how the solar/wind cultists have now to lie like there's no tomorrow and call liar who expose their lies, because their greatest showcase, Germany Energiewende, is an incontestable trillion-euro fiasco at reducing emissions and replacing fossil fuels; other showcases, e.g. Costa Rica, are mostly powered by hydro/geothermal, there is no small place(>10,000 inhabitants) at least 1/3 powered by solar/wind parasitizing hydro instead of coal/oil/gas, even after an impressive millstone of ~1000GW of installed-capacity globally at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts for almost nothing in terms of reducing emissions, in most cases natural gas(methane: worse than CO2) has replaced coal and halved the CO2 emissions while intermittent renewables took the credits providing a 'decorative facade' to keep the expansion of the gas(fracking) industry over carbon-free nuclear energy, a disservice in the fight against Climate Change.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2018
This Danegeld

As theoretically fossil fuel use diminishes in theory the global warmest cause diminishes as does global warming
but
where is the pork in that
renewable replaces fossil fuel would end the cause of the renewable fresh air tax
the truth be out boys and girls
this global warming is simply a device
nothing to do with global warming
an Anglo Saxon fad
invented as a means to an end
pork, pork and more pork
The planet can only be saved by payment of this Danegeld
https://en.wikipe...Danegeld
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2018
As theoretically fossil fuel use diminishes in theory
......actually granDy, most people are unaware of the fact that ONLY coal is a fossil fuel.

Oil & gas are not fossil fuels, they are constantly being made from deep within the earth & percolate up into the crust of the Earth where they often get trapped in the pockets we tap to draw them to the surface. It's a myth that oil formed from decayed dinosaur carcasses.

The levels from which we trace the origins of oil & gas are so deep that we know for a fact these hydro-carbons do not originate from life that once existed on the surface of the planet. Hey, we still dig up their old bones located only a short distance below our feet, and they are never immersed in oil.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2018
Now - I do stand by my assertion that wind and solar without subsidies are cost competitive in most markets


Populations in the United States, Canada, & most of Europe where exists the world's most efficient electric power grid serves less than half the world's population.

I pointed out above that Levelized Costs of Energy is highly variable from country to country & that 60% of the world's population is not served by the efficient electric power grid system that serves 40% of the world's population therefore creating a tremendous deviancy of LCOE gap between those populations. So you're somewhat correct about your statement "without subsidies are cost competitive in most markets", but you didn't know why you were right on THAT point until I just explained it to you, so yeah, 60% of the world's population lies outside a modern electric power grid.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
It's so funny how the solar/wind cultists have now to lie like there's no tomorrow and call liar who expose their lies
Are you saying that you never resort to insulting people - and saying that R E cultists are like dogs that eat their own vomit? Are you really trying to tell that lie. You moron...
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2018
Benni
Oil & gas are not fossil fuels
You are so stupid - you don't even know how to use google.
Oil or petroleum is a readily combustable fossil fuel that is composed mainly of carbon and hydrogen, and is thus known as a hydrocarbon
https://energyedu...ormation
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2018
Benni
Populations in the United States, blah blah blah
But your last few posts are all a deflection. I have given you a link - and there are dozens more - that supports the assertion that wind and solar are now cost competitive with fossil fuels. But none of that is relevant to the discussion at hand - of you accusing me of saying something I did not say - and then going in to obfuscation overdrive to avoid the obvious reality - that you are a liar.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2018
of you accusing me of saying something I did not say - and then going in to obfuscation overdrive to avoid the obvious reality - that you are a liar.
@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist's favorite tactic. Why I call it @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2018
...wind and solar are now cost competitive with fossil fuels...
It's in the Transportation Sector that can bee seen clearly that wind and solar are far from being competitive with fossil fuels, not even Greenpeace uses wind/solar/wave/tidal/algae to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats, they use diesel instead.

Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host, i.e. a fossil-fueled grid.

...Oil & gas are not fossil fuels...
Coal/oil/gas are a kind of BIOMASS, fossilized biomass, solar energy stored millions of years ago. They are essential to melt ores to manufacture solar panels and windmills, to lubricate windmills to keep them spinning and butchering millions of birds and bats in midair, to keep the lights on at night or on cloudy/snowy/windless days to prevent people from freezing in the dark, and also to fuel the machines that give maintenance to keep the bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers in operation.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Willie liar
It's in the Transportation Sector that can bee seen clearly that wind and solar are far from being competitive with fossil fuels
Really? Well if you learn to do math - you will see that an electric car is certainly cost competitive with a gas car. My next car will certainly be an electric - just not smart to retire a perfectly good car early. But it takes to transition over doesn't it. Just like my gas car - it would not make financial sense to lose the investment I currently have in my perfectly good little honda civic. But times are changing Willie - and the earth is moving under your feet. Tesla trucks are not yet on the road - and batteries are very much an emerging technology. You don't know what you are talking about.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Oh look - Willie liar does not know what he is talking about -
the all-electric ferry cuts emission by 95% and costs by 80% compared to fuel-powered counterparts and the results are attracting customers[/q[ Keep up Willie - it can't feel good to constantly be wrong - and have people making fun of you!

https://electrek....on-cost/
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2018
Coal/oil/gas are a kind of BIOMASS, fossilized biomass,


>WW: Oil & gas ARE NOT the product of the remains of bio-mass of any kind. You're falling into the same catch-phrase mantra of semantics of greeno & his links to his favorite politician action groups. These people don't even know the depth the deepest oil wells, they are as deep as 35K feet, almost 7 miles, no biomass exists at that depth, not even the deepest ocean depths go that far down.

New oil & gas is being created within the Earth even as we speak. The chemical processes are lengthy & complex with regard to time. Dinosaur bones are not found anywhere near the most massive oil deposits.

The term "fossil fuels" is a mantra used by political action groups. These groups capture the simple minds of people like greenonions & suck them for donations while they use those donations to build for themselves bigger houses than their donors can afford, right greeno?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2018
...an electric car is certainly cost competitive with a gas car. My next car will certainly be an electric...
If it's cheaper, it's thanks to subsidies(a way of transferring wealth from the poorest to the richest).
"California's electric vehicle mandate is a transfer of wealth to the wealthy" - Mar 2018
https://www.daily...wealthy/
"How 'Green' Energy Subsidies Transfer Wealth to the Rich" - Jul 2018
http://www.dailys...the-rich

If solar panels were really so good at producing energy, they would be installed directly on the roof of the electric cars.
Not even Tesla cars have these placebos because they are expensive and useless.
"Tesla Model 3: Elon Musk virtually kills the possibility of a solar roof option"
http://electrek.c...f-option
..liar..
who exposes your lies?
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
New oil & gas is being created within the Earth even as we speak. The chemical processes are lengthy & complex with regard to time.
Indeed, it isn't necessary fossil plants/animals to create hydrocarbons, natural gas(methane(CH₄)) is naturally-occurring on planets with no living things.
"On Titan, the largest of Saturn's 62 moons, hydrocarbons naturally rain down from the skies in a "dreary drizzle" and collect in the form of vast lakes and dunes."
"...More Oil & Gas Than Earth"
http://oilprice.c...rth.html
"Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth"
http://www.nasa.g...213.html
"Saturn has a tiny moon with more oil and gas than Earth"
http://www.busine...-2017-12

Who needs expensive useless placebos like wind & solar just to parasite reliable sources of energy?Parasitic Sociopaths
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Come to my neighborhood, Willie, and see Reality.

Need for me to argue with Billboard Willie, I have an actual, working system which is paid off and provides me with free power and transportation fuel.

I need no political sources to give me posts to argue a lie.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Who needs expensive useless placebos like wind & solar
But wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels, and much cheaper than nukes - so I guess we all need them - unless you want to keep burning coal until we all choke to death...
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Willie is wanting to jump on the band wagon - and argue that oil is not a fossil fuel. Well Willie - you are arguing against the consensus of the experts on that one - so why don't you tell us what your qualifications are for defying the science?

https://www.lives...eum.html

And then Willie wants to tell us about a tiny moon on Saturn - but he obviously doesn't read the article itself - cuz it say -

These materials do not form naturally on earth
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2018
...But wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels...
If it were really true that "solar/wind+batteries" is cheap and good at producing energy, then droves of people would be buying and installing solar panels/windmills/batteries and disconnecting from the grid with no need for any incentive/propaganda/authoritarian laws/mandates.
https://pbs.twimg...vxBa.jpg

Even not including batteries, wind and solar are far more expensive than carbon-free nuclear power.
Including batteries, wind and solar are ~20x costlier ($1096/MWh or 109.6¢/kWh)
"The True Costs of Nuclear and Renewables" - Dec 11, 2018
http://4thgenerat...x284.png
http://4thgenerat...ewables/
"The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included"
http://euanmearns...ncluded/
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2018
They are doing just that, Willikins, but not disconnecting, because staying on the grid has advantages for both the person and the system.

Willie is not an energy professional so he does not understand the field. Copying and pasting is not understanding, it is just copying.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2018
Oils bottomless lakes
As theoretically fossil fuel use diminishes in theory
......actually granDy, most people are unaware of the fact that ONLY coal is a fossil fuel.
Oil & gas are not fossil fuels, they are constantly being made from deep within the earth & percolate up into the crust of the Earth where they often get trapped in the pockets we tap to draw them to the surface. It's a myth that oil formed from decayed dinosaur carcasses.
The levels from which we trace the origins of oil & gas are so deep that we know for a fact these hydro-carbons do not originate from life that once existed on the surface of the planet. Hey, we still dig up their old bones located only a short distance below our feet, and they are never immersed in oil.

This explains the constant forcasts when oil runs out, as there are constanly more oil lakes being found all the time
There has not been any doom laden forecasts lately of oil running dry
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
If solar panels were really so good at producing energy, they would be installed directly on the roof of the electric cars
No they would not - there is not enough surface area. You are ridiculously stupid for not knowing such a basic fact as that. Where's that cost curve on nukes we keep demanding Willie?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Unmasking the global warming myth

Oil, a naturally occurring substance appears to be true, oil and methane on our other lifeless planets
It has always been shown in junior school text books of the 60s of coal under compression turning into oil
there is a whole incorrect mindset at work here
This means there is plenty of oil and gas to power our electric cars when the oil and gas runs out
That is if a battery weighing 8lbs contains the same amount of energy in a gallon of oil or 8lbs
Where that battery can fill up in the same time as you can put a gallon in your tank
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2018
Willie is wanting to jump on the band wagon - and argue that oil is not a fossil fuel. Well Willie - you are arguing against the consensus of the experts on that one - so why don't you tell us what your qualifications are for defying the science?


Greeno, these are YOUR experts, the ones who will say ANYTHING you want to hear. Probably none of them can solve a Rate of Reaction equation, and certainly you can't, but I can, it's why I finished three semesters of Chemistry during my six years in Engineering school studying Nuclear & Electrical Engineering.

Greeno, you don't even have a wind turbine on your property or a PV installation on that paltry 1/2 acre patch of dirt you park your Honda Civic on. I seriously doubt you can identify the working end of a screwdriver, the clue being your Civic instead of a pickup truck. I have four chainsaws that provide me with lots of free heat from RENEWABLE TREES, how you doing in that department ?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2018
If solar panels were really so good at producing energy, they would be installed directly on the roof of the electric cars
No they would not - there is not enough surface area. You are ridiculously stupid for not knowing such a basic fact as that. Where's that cost curve on nukes we keep demanding Willie?


Finally you swerved into a TRUTH, PVs won't work on cars due to lack of surface area, But you don't believe the same thing about getting the average 1500 square foot house off the grid, are you ridiculously stupid for not knowing such a basic fact as that?

Just to show you my generosity I gave you a 5 Star for actually thinking something through in the process of all your rambling psycho-babble you've been posting.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2018
I have a pair of PowerWall II batteries because I live in earthquake country, but have already been used for short power outages. They are charged by the PV system, and come with cool software
-Sadly, George's wonderwall will go up in flames along with his entire neighborhood when the earthquake hits and the firestorms ensue.

That is, unless you fill up enough of those water barrels eh george?
I worked for PG&E
Saay there did you have anything to do with this then?

"On Nov. 9, the utility reported to regulators a problem with a line near the location initially identified as an ignition point for the Camp Fire. On Friday, PG&E said in a filing with the utilities commission that it had also identified a problem with its equipment near a point now under suspicion as a second origin point of the blaze."

-"PG&E... firestorms are our business"
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2018
Willie is not an energy professional
And no, neither are you.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
When folk get their "science" from political sources, we get people like Willie and Benni and antigoriclewhiner.

We do not buy batteries to save money, that is a straw man argument. We buy them at home for security, and in utilities for mass storage, replacing peaking plants and providing smoothing of intermittent power sources and loads.

They are now sufficiently cheap to make PV plus storage and wind plus storage the lowest cost power bids for utilities. No other sources can touch that, which means we should stop building coal and gas-fired systems now.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2018
Benni the liar.
But you don't believe the same thing about getting the average 1500 square foot house off the grid, are you ridiculously stupid for not knowing such a basic fact as that?
Exactly which basic fact are you referring to? Average solar panel measures about 18 square foot. you will need around 30 panels for an average house - giving you about 540 square ft. Let's say your 1500 sq ft house - is 30 ft by 50 ft. With a 25 degree slope - that would give you a roof face of 16.5 X 50 = 825 sq ft. Plenty of space for a 5K system. So what are you babbling about - liar Benni.

https://evergreen...-panels/
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2018
Benni
But you don't believe the same thing about getting the average 1500 square foot house off the grid, are you ridiculously stupid for not knowing such a basic fact as that?
Exactly which basic fact are you referring to? Average solar panel measures about 18 square foot. you will need around 30 panels for an average house - giving you about 540 square ft. Let's say your 1500 sq ft house - is 30 ft by 50 ft. With a 25 degree slope - that would give you a roof face of 16.5 X 50 = 825 sq ft. Plenty of space for a 5K system. So what are you babbling about -
See what I mean, you don't know what you're talking about & you don't care ........you're just a lonely little old man living on a patch of dirt imagining owning a Civic makes you an environmental genius.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2018
@williew
If solar panels were really so good at producing energy, they would be installed directly on the roof of the electric cars
erm... dafuq are you smokin', man?
Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host, i.e. a fossil-fueled grid.
bullsh*t

I've not been on the grid for over 20 years and I have all the amenities that you and everyone else has

unlike certain other posters, I really do know about solar and wind
here is a good book that will teach you about it: https://realgoods...-edition

greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2018
See what I mean
No one sees what you mean. You would have to say something cogent in order for people to see what you mean.

The point in question was that a car does not have sufficient surface area to accommodate solar panels. A house does. Ask Captain Stumpy, or gkam - they both discuss the fact that they have solar panels running their homes - so obviously you are wrong. I showed that you are wrong - with some quick data.

.you're just a lonely little old man living on a patch of dirt imagining owning a Civic makes you an environmental genius
Wife and I have a 2300 sq ft home - so not sure what the patch of dirt bullshit is about. Civic is 13 years old - but still gets me to work and back - so hanging with it until it croaks. Compared to you - I clearly am a genius - I keep owning you - and you just change the subject - and go off into left field with some more stupid bullshit - like about what car I drive.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2018
Wind and solar are parasites and cannot survive without a host, i.e. a fossil-fueled grid.
It's possible to power a whole region(off-the-grid) only with hydro/geothermal/biomass without solar/wind but it's almost impossible(at least economically, 20x costlier) to power a whole region only with solar/wind without coal/oil/gas/fracking to keep lights on at night or on cloudy/snowy/windless days in a world of limited hydro.

Green sociopaths have only Oklahoma(a state with cheap coal and gas) as showcase.
Please cite a small region(>10,000 inhabitants, off-the-grid) at least 1/3 powered by solar/wind parasitizing hydro instead of coal/oil/gas/fracking.
Not much wind/solar here:
Costa Rica: 78% hydro, 10% geothermal
Iceland: 70% hydro, 30% geo
Norway: 99% hydro
Paraguay: 100% hydro
Tajikistan: 100% hydro
Albania: 90% hydro

The best showcase that the green sociopaths have is the magical PV system of gskam(a maniac compulsive pathological liar) powering the whole state.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2018
Exactly which basic fact are you referring to? Average solar panel measures about 18 square foot. you will need around 30 panels for an average house - giving you about 540 square ft. Let's say your 1500 sq ft house - is 30 ft by 50 ft. With a 25 degree slope - that would give you a roof face of 16.5 X 50 = 825 sq ft. Plenty of space for a 5K system.


......then why haven't you installed it on your roof if you think this will take you off the grid?

The fact of the matter is this won't take you off the grid & building code roof setbacks of such a system won't allow the installation of what you described. And to top it off a 5kwatt system NEVER ouputs 5k because you don't live in the desert southwest, you will get half that output & a 1500 sq ft house needs 6.5kw.

Hey greeno, when you goin' off the grid? So far all you have is a dumpy little car & zero installation of wind & PV you like to preach about.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
Benni, all the nasty nonsense from you cannot delete the reality of renewables now. My system works, to my surprise, much better than advertised. It is only 4.59 kW, and carries the household and both cars. The house is 2300 square feet. So much for your statistics.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2018
Benni, all the nasty nonsense from you cannot delete the reality of renewables now. My system works, to my surprise, much better than advertised. It is only 4.59 kW, and carries the household and both cars. The house is 2300 square feet.


....and you're lucky to have 150 days of sun or partly sun in the Pacific NW, & you want to come up with a story like this?

Your claim of 4.59 holds no water for 2300. You might have just enough roofspace by code just to install a 5k system with required setbacks, but getting 4.59 from it is absolute BS, the reason being the less than optimal offset days you cannot get 4.59k from a 5 k system, which is MOST of the year.

Subtract 150 from 365= 215 days your system cannot get even close to 5k output, far less than half.

You might get 4.59K for about 50 days of full sun out of the entire year, but NEVER anything more & it's undoubtedy a lot less than you'd be willing to admit & you'd need a lot more than a single 5k array......
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2018
.....so george, with your house at 2300 ft², that versus the average of 1500 is 1.5 times larger than the average with the average requiring 6.5k to get off the grid.

Multiplying 1.5 times 6.5= 9.75k daily output to get off the grid, that's a minimum of two 5k systems for which at 2300 YOU do not have nearly enough roofspace for installation to get even close to your 4.59 on the most sunny days of the year which there are only 50.

antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2018
....and you're lucky to have 150 days of sun or partly sun in the Pacific NW, & you want to come up with a story like this?

Your claim of 4.59 holds no water for 2300. ........
You might get 4.59K for about 50 days of full sun out of the entire year, but NEVER anything more & it's undoubtedy a lot less than you'd be willing to admit & you'd need a lot more than a single 5k array......

@benni, why do you bother with gskum? He's such a PROVEN pathological LIAR that all the other Chicken Littles on this forum avoids him.
Just as you, many before, have confronted him with the numbers that confirmed his LIES. And in the end we have gotten the same response from him -- His LIES will never hurt him.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
Benni, you are giving me guesses based on your assumptions. Before putting in the PV system, our power bill was usually about $100/month, low by PG&E standards. It was calculated the system would provide 90% of the household power, but we found it covered 100%, and also supported the first EV, to our surprise. When we added a second EV, it was covered, too. Last year we had A/C put in, and ran it hard for two weeks and the bill went crazy, costing us $200 for the year.

My wife and I each put on about 10,000 miles/year on our two EVs. We charge at night, off-peak. All of our electrical appliances are energy-efficient, our heater is condensing, water heater is instantaneous, all the window glass is double-pane, we insulated the attic and walls, and stiffened the structure for seismic safety.

We have 18 of the 255 Watt panels, 12 facing South, 4 facing East, and 2 facing West.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
None of the nasty-mouthed renewable-energy deniers can deny my system. It is reality. I will even send pics. They can act like Trump and LIE, and LIE, and LIE, but that is falling flat now.

The system is real and so is the performance. Think of me when you get panels or an EV, which will be sooner than you assume.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
I really like it when ultra-goricle thuds in, because his demeanor and lack of civility betrays his character and lack of knowledge.

I do not recommend home batteries for energy savings unless you are in unusual conditions. They are very valuable to utilities for load response and storage for intermittent sources. In fact, the lowest bids to provide utility power are from wind plus storage and PV plus storage in batteries.

I put ours in for emergencies, hoping for no payback.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2018
The system is real and so is the performance
Georges PV performance degradation - 15 years
80yo georges personal degradation - 10 years

-good to go, relatively speaking
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2018
put on about 10,000 miles/year on our two EVs. We charge at night, off-peak


&

Last year we had A/C put in, and ran it hard for two weeks and the bill went crazy, costing us $200 for the year.
....you're not OFF THE GRID!

The system is real and so is the performance. Think of me when you get panels or an EV,
So what,
I don't care about how "real" your system is, you're still on the grid!

We have 18 of the 255 Watt panels, 12 facing South, 4 facing East, and 2 facing West.
......18x255=4590 watts.......and you told us you were getting a "4.59 daily output"? No you aren't, you only have a system with a max capacity of what you claim your output is, a preposterous 100% efficiency in an area of the country with so much cloud cover that it's impossible to get so much as 50% efficiency, half of 4590 (2295)2.295= max daily output averaged over one year.

For you to be off the grid at 9.75k, you need 9.75/2.295= 4.26 systems of present output.

gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
Benni, I am still grid-connected for benefits to both. I have said that repeatedly, and explained why. If you missed it, too bad.

Yes, my system works, but your calculations do not. I never said I got 4.59 kW, I said that was the max rated value of the panels. I max out at about 3.9 kW. And our total power costs for three years of power and transportation fuel were about $300. I may add a pair of panels to the system.

Stop reading what you want to believe because you are just fooling yourself, and nobody else.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
It is so interesting to see the bluster and BS from those without systems or knowledge of their operation and value.

With 30,000 miles on the 2015 VW e-Golf, and 34,000 on the 2013 Tesla Model S, P 85, how many oil and filter changes did we dodge? How many trips to the gas station? How many emissions checks? Tune-ups? Fixes? How much for gasoline alone?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2018
It is so interesting to see the bluster and BS from those without systems or knowledge of their operation and value.

With 30,000 miles on the 2015 VW e-Golf, and 34,000 on the 2013 Tesla Model S, P 85,


I doing my assessments based only on your PV system, I care not about your cars, or greeno's. Your cars have nothing to do with the efficiency at which your max rated 4590 watt operates, because all this time I thought you were off the grid & you're not even close.

You max out at about 3.9 kW for how many days of the year? 50? And for those 50 days 3.9/4.95= 78% efficiency. And for partly sunny days about 60%? And today 0%, and how many of those do you get? Suddenly real fast you're under 50% annual average. And for a setup like this the contractor charges $20-30K.

To be off grid you need 9.75kwatts daily. At 9.75/3.9 on a good day you need 2.5 systems. That cost is easily pushing up against $50k and you have no roofspace for 2.5, at 50% efficiency you need 5.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2018
You need Watt-hours, not Watts. And where do you get your ridiculous numbers? Mine are actual, not "calculated" by some critic without such a system. I gave you the technical figures, yet you profess to know more than I do about the efficacy of my system without even looking at it.

Argue all you want.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2018
You need Watt-hours, not Watts. And where do you get your ridiculous numbers? Mine are actual, not "calculated" by some critic without such a system. I gave you the technical figures, yet you profess to know more than I do about the efficacy of my system without even looking at it.

Argue all you want.


Hell's bells man, stop being pissy over the small stuff about watt hrs, screw that shit. I'm just bouncing off the numbers you gave me versus what I know about climate conditions where you live in calculating your system's efficiency.

If there is something you feel needs correcting to my estimates, you've had plenty of latitude to do it & you haven't, that tells me I'm on the right track about the overall annualized efficiency of your PVs. In fact it leads me to believe I'm overstating my estimate of your system even being close to 50% efficient. How'm I doin'?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2018
If there is something you feel needs correcting to my estimates, you've had plenty of latitude to do it & you haven't, that tells me I'm on the right track about the overall annualized efficiency of your PVs. In fact it leads me to believe I'm overstating my estimate of your system even being close to 50% efficient. How'm I doin'?

To be off grid you need 9.75kwatts daily. At 9.75/3.9 on a good day you need 2.5 systems. That cost is easily pushing up against $50k and you have no roofspace for 2.5, at 50% efficiency you need 5.


So, I've established your site needs five 4590 watt systems to get you off the grid. How many homeowners will pay 5 x $20-30k for electricity that expensive ($100-150K)?
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2018
"Hell's bells man, stop being pissy over the small stuff about watt hrs, screw that shit."

Watt-hours are what run the system. You are not doing acceptably, now having added technical ignorance to your list of troubles.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2018
Hell's bells man, stop being pissy over the small stuff about watt hrs
Translation - Benni does not know the units of electricity that are relevant - to have an informed discussion of the subject.
Benni asked why I am not off grid. I do not have solar panels on my house currently - as it would not be cost effective. I have a 2300 Sq ft house, in Oklahoma. Averaged electricity bill comes in at $70 a month, due to very conservative use of A/C. Oklahoma has very low electricity rates (5 cents Kwh on smart hours) - so it is currently not economically justified - due to high cost of installations ($3.50 watt) due to red tape issues. Here is a good article on that subject - https://www.green...n-the-us

I expect to have solar panels - and an electric car - some time in the next 5 years. Probably wont go off grid - unless the cost of batteries comes down. So what?
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2018
Benni - I did want to answer one issue. You called me a lonely old man - living on a patch of dirt - driving a honda civic. The big question is 'what does that have to do with science/technology/energy? Answer nothing. It is just childish ad hominem - from someone who has nothing substantive to contribute. I also have used ad hominem - calling you an asshole. Let me tell you why I respond. You see - you may be right - I may be old, lonely etc. So what? I tell the truth as I know it, and I stand up for science, technology, and a brighter future for the human race. I call you an asshole - cuz you lie, and obfuscate. You make the human race look really stupid. So I take a minute to call you out. Just like stupid Willie Ward, and racist Otto.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2018
The big question is 'what does that have to do with science/technology/energy?
Your competence in questioning that of mine.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2018
Watt-hours are what run the system. You are not doing acceptably, now having added technical ignorance to your list of troubles.


No you're dead on wrong, electricity powers (runs) the system, not TIME. as measured in hours, days weeks months, years, decades, centuries, etc. It is the output in terms of POWER as measured in watts that determines the usefulness of the application for it's intended use.

I've NEVER seen Name Plate data include anything about "hours", just WATTS. Do you know waht an electric powered drill is"? OK if you do, look on the Name Plate Data attached to the drill & you won't see anything there about "hours".
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2018
>gkam,

You max out at about 3.9 kW for how many days of the year?
......what are your watt days?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2018
But gee, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist, what are those kilowatt hours thingies on the electric meter?

Just askin'.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2018
But gee, what are those kilowatt hours thingies on the electric meter?

Just askin'.


No Name Plate Data on a meter, it's not a tool, spread the word that you just learned something for the first time in your life.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2018
But that's what you pay for. Kilowatt-hours. I check it a couple times a year to make sure they're not cheating. Don't you? Do you look at the bill, or just pay it? Or are you institutionalized so you don't have to worry about stuff like that?
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2018
Benni -
Your competence in questioning that of mine
Whether I am old, lonely, live on a patch of dirt, and drive a Honda Civic - all has no bearing on my competency to question your competency. Or do you think that only young people, or people who drive Chevys can question your competency? I don't need to question your competency - your lack of competency is on full display - when you make such stupid responses - as quoted above, and think that understanding the difference between a Kilowatt, and a Kilowatt hour - is being "pissy about the small stuff" - when it is really essential to understanding the topic.

So quick summary - you say solar panels cannot run a 1500 sq ft home. Gkam and Captain say that they can - and they both have panels running their homes to prove it. You got nothing. What is your point? Ours is that solar is a viable option in terms of producing low carbon electricity.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2018
you say solar panels cannot run a 1500 sq ft home
....never made such a statement.

they both have panels running their homes to prove it
gkam needs 4 times more than what he's got to power his house, otherwise he's powering off the grid, he admits it. I don't know about Stubby, he's on the Ignore.

What is your point?
......that gkam needs 4 times more systems than he's got to be off the grid.

Ours is that solar is a viable option in terms of producing low carbon electricity.
No kidding, I never suggested it was inviable, just not COST EFFECTIVE.

Our field monitoring equipment that we employ in remote areas uses PV/Battery systems, expensive little things that they are. So in your world of fantasy, who's gonna be the one to pay getting your 2300 ft² house off the grid? Do you think putting out $100-150k is a cost effective idea? It's a stupid idea compared to the cost getting power from the grid, besides YOU do not have enough roofspace.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2018
Wrong again, Benni. As I said, we produce as much as we use in a typical year, for house and two cars. There it is, not your silly calculations. I suggest you look into zero-energy buildings and see how easy it is to do that.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
I am not off grid. I do not have solar panels on my house currently - as it would not be cost effective ... I expect to have solar panels - and an electric car - some time in the next 5 years. Probably wont go off grid
But but the green sociopaths said "solar/wind+batteries" for only 2¢/kWh.
Ask gskam to share his technological technology of converting greenies' lies into perpetual motion to generate electricity for free uninterruptedly.
...Oklahoma has very low electricity rates (5 cents Kwh on smart hours)...
Thanks to cheap gas(fracking) "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
Wrong again, Benni. As I said, we produce as much as we use in a typical year, for house and two cars. There it is, not your silly calculations. I suggest you look into zero-energy buildings and see how easy it is to do that.
.....obviously you haven't done it because you're still on the grid.

Who are you trying to kid that my calculations are "silly"? I used YOUR data & that of the weather service for the NW U.S. What was wrong with it? You won't tell us for some reason, so what are you hiding?

You have a dinky little 4.6kw rated system that never outputs more than 3.9kw for a mere few days out of an entire year. How many watt hours have you metered your system at 3.9kw? Got a printout you'd like to put up for say a one month period other than July or August? How about a one month readout for each of the months in which seasons change as the Sun shifts it's position relative to the equator, you know Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter?

gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
My dinky little system powers my household and the cars. "Figure" all you want. But come by and see the simple system.

Why are you so dense?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
My dinky little system powers my household and the cars. "Figure" all you want. But come by and see the simple system.


I repeat oh dense one:

You have a dinky little 4.6kw rated system that never outputs more than 3.9kw for a mere few days out of an entire year. How many watt hours have you metered your system at 3.9kw? Got a printout you'd like to put up for say a one month period other than July or August? How about a one month readout for each of the months in which seasons change as the Sun shifts it's position relative to the equator, you know Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter?

Why won't you voluntarily put up a metered printout to PROVE what you're jawboning about is true? Of the 2300 ft² under that roof, you must not be heating very much or any of it with electricity.

What do you use for heating? Gas? Or don't you want to tell us? I hope you haven't committed the ultimate greenie crime & snuck a woodstove into your house.

gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
Benni loses and cannot deal with it. I offered pics of the system, but nobody took me up on it.

Benni's insistence on being disconnected from the grid is the kind of assertion I would expect from someone ignorant of how the systems work. I use the grid as my battery, putting energy into it in the daytime, and taking it out at night. This gives me flexibility, and gives the system and my neighbors cheaper power.

Do I have to explain this, too?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
I offered pics of the system, but nobody took me up on it.
...because pics without specifications don't mean shit.

Benni's insistence on being disconnected from the grid is the kind of assertion I would expect from someone ignorant of how the systems work.
......you're the one who implied your 4.6kw system took you off the grid, then I explained why it couldn't forcing you to admit the same, and you're mad at me?

I use the grid as my battery, putting energy into it in the daytime, and taking it out at night. Do I have to explain this, too?
.....you bet, explain the grid as your "battery"? You're trying to redefine the concept of "battery", right? The grid is NOT a "battery", it STORES NOTHING, but you haven't figured this out?

Everything you talk about is complete & total psycho-babble, always implying re-definitions of words to make them imply the exact opposite of their definitions. You are 90% on the grid, not green by any standard of definition.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
I knew you could not understand it.

Yup, I put power into the system at peak when it is most valuable, and take it out at night, when it is cheap, trading my high-value stuff for their low-value stuff, which is okay with me. During the day, I can go to see how much the meter is backing up, sending power into the line. And at night we take it back out. At the end of the year, we add it all up and see if we owe any for that year. One year of three, we owed $200.

Keep on paying for those coal fumes, benni.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
Perhaps I should fess up to Benni as being a former Senior Engineer for Pacific Gas & Electric in Technical Services. I retired as a technical consultant to power companies. Poor Benni does not even understand the difference between power and energy.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
Perhaps I should fess up to Benni as being a former Senior Engineer for Pacific Gas & Electric in Technical Services. I retired as a technical consultant to power companies. Poor Benni does not even understand the difference between power and energy.


Right out of college for two years I worked as a field engineer in the Meter Engineering section at AEP, but so what? The Senior Engineer in that group was one of the biggest assholes I'd ever met & was the reason I quit after he nearly got a couple of us killed & my section head refused to discipline him. By the way he did get killed a few years later for exactly the reasons I complained about him.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2018
Regarding the issue of solar panels, Benni said this -
PVs won't work on cars due to lack of surface area, But you don't believe the same thing about getting the average 1500 square foot house off the grid, are you ridiculously stupid for not knowing such a basic fact as that?


Obviously this is stipulating that you cannot run a 1500 sq ft house on solar panels. But now Benni says he/she never said such a thing. Once again the pinnacle of obfuscation. Say something - and then deny that you said it. You are a complete asshole.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2018
AEP is nukes and coal, . . nasty business. But they are waking up now.

Sorry you did not learn how to work with others.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
Obviously this is stipulating that you cannot run a 1500 sq ft house on solar panels. But now Benni says he/she never said such a thing
......with a 5kw PV system because a 1500ft² house needs 6.5Kw to go off the grid. Will you ever learn reading comprehension? No, probably not.

You'd better get some hard education about using these systems before you dive into buying into them, or you'll discover the same nasty surprise gkam was caught up into, not enough roofspace to install the needed 9.6Kw on his roof that he needed to get off the grid, and you live on an even smaller patch of dirt than he does.

Why do I bother giving idiots like you all this free advice? Simple, more than just you & gkam are reading this, I just don't want to see good people get screwed out of their life savings because some charlatan contractor promised them a bright solar future, and by reading my Comments on the pitfalls they are being forewarned such a future could be very dim.

Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2018
AEP is nukes and coal, . . nasty business. But they are waking up now.

Sorry you did not learn how to work with others.


......and you wanna know something geek, with the last line of your Comment, you just told me a lot about your personal character, that you are an untrustworthy person, that you wished I could have stayed at AEP long enough to suffer this Senior Engineer's later fate that he almost put me & another engineer through a few years earlier & just missing it by the nick of our teeth.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2018
Earth to Benni: My system works. If you cannot understand it, fine. Lots of folk have trouble with electricity. I know, because I taught it to power company engineers.

Math is no good if you do not know how to use it.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2018
Benni idiot
.with a 5kw PV system because a 1500ft² house needs 6.5Kw to go off the grid
So you did say that - and then denied saying it - and now you are again admitting that you said it. See what an asshole you are.
Any ways. - As per the link I already gave - a 250 watt panel measures 65 X 39 inches. That is 17.6 sq feet. A 6.5 Kw system - would require 26 panels. That give you 457 square feet of panel. As I showed you - a 1500 sq ft house will have 2 roof slopes of 825 sq ft each. So one slope would give you almost double the space you would need for your 6.5 Kw. So either way you are wrong. And then this bullshit.
Why do I bother giving idiots like you all this free advice?
Keep your free advice idiot - you don't know a Kw from a Kwh - and you definitely can't do math. Why not ask Captain Stumpy about the size of his panels - he is off grid. Dumb ass.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2018
I am untrustworthy because oppose coal and nukes? How silly.
Ever been in one of either kind? I have, and many others from geothermal to wind to PV to hydro to gas and oil. I did technical analyses in them, Benni.

PG&E was building Diablo Canyon in 1980 when I was hired. They asked me what I thought about it in the interview, and I told them it was a mistake. I was hired.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
Earth to Benni: My system works. If you cannot understand it, fine


Lots of folk have trouble with electricity.
......Yes, you certainly do don't you? You couldn't figure out that you would need five 4590 watt PV systems, of the size of the one you have now to get you off the grid.

And to boot, you've almost run out of roofspace & can't even add one more 4590 system to it, and you need four more systems for bragging rights to be off the grid. In addition you don't have the $100-150k to do it even if the building code allowed you to install it ground level on your 1/2 acre patch of dirt. You're out of options you big phony.

I know, because I taught it to power company engineers.

Math is no good if you do not know how to use it.
......yeah, one of them probably being that asshole Senior Engineer that almost got me & another killed due to his incompetence & did get him killed a couple years after I left AEP.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
Benni, you lost. You thought you were so smart with numbers and all, but do not understand the world enough to represent it in numbers. You do not know how to associate or represent reality with numbers, apparently.

I do not know why you talked yourself into that analysis of my needs and operations, but mine are real, and yours are just erroneous assumptions.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2018
A really interesting point for me - is that the anti solar crowd - have now decided that you have to go off grid, or you are a phony. The realization many of us have made, is that we must get off fossil fuels. They are choking us to death. So the question is - do we take steps to move the world to de-carbonize, or do we do nothing? I pay a little extra each month to be signed up for 100% wind power. Sure it is a bit of a gimmick on O.G.E's part, but the program is incredibly popular, and we are now at around 30% wind in OK. One day we will be at 100% renewables. So baby steps are better than none. Captain Stumpy is off grid, gkam, is still connected. So what? Each step is a step. A journey of a thousand miles.... right? What hard to understand - is why the hate? Why not be happy that gkam has solar panels - which is one step on the journey? I don't get the hate. Maybe some people just hate to see others trying to do something positive.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
...the anti solar crowd...
Nothing against solar and wind, and unlike solar panels and windmills, they are in fact renewable and for free since ancient times(Persians windmills to crush grains), but they are weak and intermittent/unreliable and were replaced by steam engines and other reliable sources of energy. Not even Greenpeace relies on wind/solar to power their ships, they use diesel instead.
https://images.sl...e_13.jpg

The problem is the Green Sociopaths claiming "wind/solar is cheap and replaces fossil fuels" while still connected to fossil-fueled grids to recharge their electric cars because solar and wind are weak/ineffective/expensive at replacing fossil fuels.
Solar and wind at this time, are ancient technologies, a scam to keep mankind ever more stuck on coal/oil/gas/fracking preventing real solutions: fission/fusion/anti-matter.
Green ideology has nothing to do with protecting the environment or reducing emissions.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
@Green
What hard to understand - is why the hate?
because the inevitable will require a change of habits
Being totally off-grid like me is different than tying into the grid
Why not be happy that gkam has solar panels - which is one step on the journey?
His having panels is great... his misrepresentation of his system and of solar power, in general, tends to irritate people

.

.

.

@willie wonky
Green ideology has nothing to do with protecting the environment or reducing emissions
bullsh*t lie
Just because you see idiots on TV doesn't mean we're all that way
- that would be like saying that because you dislike gkam, you're no different than he is because you posted with him in the same thread
... a scam
another blatantly false claim

it's no more a scam than you're a fish with a speech impediment

Green makes a point: every little bit helps
And none of it is preventing or inhibiting fusion research
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
It is hard to justify buying into fusion when we can get wind plus storage at 2.1 cents/kWh.
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2018
It is hard to justify buying into fusion when we can get wind plus storage at 2.1 cents/kWh.
maybe because ya can't use wind turbines in space, ya think?

or did ya miss that day in engineering school?
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
maybe because ya can't use wind turbines in space, ya think?
And also because - maybe one day we will have power from fusion at 1 cents Kwh. Maybe the basic research into fusion - will lead to amazing discoveries, and major technological breakthroughs. Fusion plants may provide the energy density - for us to run massive ocean desalination - and pumping systems to transport clean water around the globe. Isn't 'maybe' the beauty of science.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
Will it be to cheap to meter?

And there is plenty of solar in near space,.. ya think?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
And there is plenty of solar in near space,.. ya think?
only during the day - and depending on how close you are, how efficient your panels, and how big your array. even the ISS has limits

but then again, placement, weather and many other factors also affect the efficiency of solar even during the day *on Earth*

if ya live in a high-rise without roof access then you're not likely going to be able to just pop up an *ssload of panels to make sure you have free energy and can run the A/C we're going to need in the near future... or hadn't you considered that?

in space, your array would be prohibitively expensive at Neptune to have ISS level power

There are limitations with solar, wind and current green tech which is just one reason that idiots like benji are fighting against it - so quit misrepresenting the abilities of solar while being tied to the grid and not actually knowing WTF you're talking about and having no validation or references
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
I don't have any plans to travel to Neptune.

Do you?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2018
I don't have any plans to travel to Neptune
you're not the only person on the planet
Do you?
f*ck yeah

I thought everyone did
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2018
Green ideology has nothing to do with protecting the environment or reducing emissions
"Greenpeace is directly, or indirectly responsible for; German coal mines, by opposing nukes. Also tropical deforestation, by encouraging the EU Biofuel mandate Also, millions dead or blinded, by opposing GMO rice Also, millions dead, by opposing DDT use for malaria"
"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/
"Sierra Club opposes climate-friendly nuclear and hydroelectric energy"
http://www.desmoi...4143001/
https://pbs.twimg...CR_m.jpg
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2018
Greenpeace is directly, or indirectly responsible for; German coal mines
Greenpeace was founded in 1971. I think there were coal mines, and coal power plants in Germany long before that. You really do make dumb statements.
So the problem is the grip that the fossil fuel industries have on our world. That grip is being loosened one solar panel at a time. The divestment movement is building steam - https://www.thegu...e-to-6tn

Blaming Greenpeace for coal mines is about the stupidest thing you have said to date. If you are truly concerned about the problems of pollution, and climate change - stop spreading ignorance and hate on the internet - and become part of the solution yourself - instead of an ignorant little liar - who does not understand the issue of energy.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2018
...Greenpeace was founded in 1971. I think there were coal mines...
Thanks to coal and oil, the faux-greens are not destroying forests and killing whales to power their ships, because wind sails are weak and unreliable as well solar panels both are a joke at producing high quantity of energy to power ships.
"Before petroleum, large cities were lit using whale oil. Coal and oil companies quite literally saved the whales."
https://pbs.twimg...xR_C.jpg
Lesson from Germany's Energiewende: No Nukes = More Coal
https://pbs.twimg...9rWq.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...MrgW.jpg

"Can an entire town run on solar?" Of course not in an ecologically/economically viable way.
https://www.youtu...PjX4rBzM - Nov 2018
Blaming...
"It's amazing how renewables companies blame everyone except their own unreliable product."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2018
Thanks to coal and oil, the faux-greens are not destroying forests and killing whales to power their ship
Well - everyone was using coal powered ships - before there was oil. But see Willie - there is a thing called progress. Oil was better than coal - and electricity is better than oil. So we can power ships with electricity - as we can cars, trains and planes. The transition is in early days Willie - do keep up. https://cleantech...-norway/

renewables companies blame everyone except their own unreliable product
What's to blame? Many countries (including Germany) are on a transition - heading for 100% no carbon fuels. I will be fine if that includes nukes. But countries like France and Germany - who have vast experience with nukes - are choosing renewables over nukes - must be a reason right?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2018
... Oil was better than coal...
and coal/oil is better than wind(sails/windmills) / solar(fossil-addicted parasites).
...transition - heading for 100% no carbon fuels...
"California is aiming for 100% clean energy. But Los Angeles might invest billions in fossil fuels" - Dec 20, 2018
https://www.latim...ory.html
...transition...
So-called "transition" is from coal to gas(fracking), and from carbon-free nuclear energy to fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables).

Intermittent renewables are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere including states with abundant supply of cheap oil/gas/fracking.
"Texas Taxpayers Pay For Political Virtue Signaling With Costly Renewable Energy" - Dec 17, 2018
https://www.forbe...-energy/
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2018
and coal/oil is better than wind
Once again you make stupid statements. Of course a coal mine - and a filthy polluting coal power plant - and vast piles of toxic waste - are not better than a wind farm.
So-called "transition" is from coal to gas
Wrong again - it is from fossil fuels to renewables. I have already shown you the installation graph on renewables. You just don't know the subject matter - https://www.green....e3A_R14
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2018
Wind doesn't replace coal.
Oil/gas/fracking replaces coal.
Wind and solar are just 'decorative facades'.
Each gigawatt of installed-capacity of intermittent renewables needs to be paired with a gigawatt from coal/oil/gas to keep lights on at night or on cloudy/snowy/windless days.
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas/fracking
"The less you know about math, the more you tend to like "renewables." "
"That's the truth! and the more you know about math, the more you tend to like nuclear."

Destroying the environment to save it.
"Nevada May Be Too Small to Produce 50 percent of its Own Renewable Energy as Mandated by Question 6" - Dec 2018
http://nevadacapi...stion-6/

"German consumers and taxpayers spent $181 billion on wind and solar to achieve no net reduction in emissions." - Dec 2018
http://www.wsj.co...45690197
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2018
Wind doesn't replace coal
Yes it does.
Under Xcel's Colorado Clean Energy Plan (CEP), the Comanche coal units will be replaced with a $2.5 billion investment in renewables and battery storage — including of 1,131 megawatts of wind, 707 megawatts of solar PV, and 275 megawatts of battery storage
So if you don't understand the basics of the subject - why do you keep posting?

https://www.green....ZnLyXaQ
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
Wind doesn't replace coal
"So instead of going underground for coal, Germany scrapes away the earth for lignite (low-grade coal), using one of the largest machines on earth. [Find the people, for scale.]"
https://www.popsc...88-facts

"Colorado has the sixth largest natural gas reserves, and 11 of the nation's 100 biggest natural gas fields are located in the state."
https://uploads.d...0110.png
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=CO

"Last year, coal was the main source of electricity generation for 18 states, down from 32 states in 2001. But experts warn that a shift to natural gas alone won't be enough to curb emissions and avoid dangerous global warming."
"How the United States generated electricity from 2001 to 2017" - Dec 24, 2018
https://www.nytim...ate.html
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2018
Renewables are clearly in the fast lane, while the contribution of conventional energy sources to cover gross electricity consumption is steadily declining
But this year, partially because of renewables' sharp increase, Germany's CO2 emissions are on course for their largest drop since the 2009 recession
Guess you don't know what you are talking about Willie. Still waiting for that cost curve on nukes. Are you a bot - or you just know how stupid it would make you look....
https://energytra...germany/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
"In fact, "alternative energy" systems harm the environment and worse than "fossil fuels".
Converting wind energy to electricity takes away some ability of wind to do work. And wind does a great deal. It distributes seed, moves topsoil and moderates temperatures. Already, areas downwind of windmill farms are found to be abnormally warm.
With their large areas of shiny reflective surfaces, solar farms prevent clouds from forming, superheat dust overhead and create massive disparities between the temperatures of the air and the ground. Already, solar farms are said to be causing city like "heat island" effects.
If it wasn't for the claims about "fossil fuels", "alternative energy" systems wouldn't be allowed to be built, and those who invested in them would lose their investments."

Intermittent renewables are causing more ecological impacts than reducing emissions.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
In fact, "alternative energy" systems harm the environment and worse than "fossil fuels
No they don't. Building a solar panel - and putting it on your roof - does not harm the environment more than this - you talk out of your ass - and don't understand scale.
https://www.googl...;bih=758
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
"For the systems to actually reduce greenhouse gasses, utilities need to change their tariff structures substantially to account for emissions from different power source. They would need to make energy cheaper for consumers when the grid is generating low-carbon electricity, researchers said."

Yeah like that's gonna happen. No, they need to make energy more expensive for consumers when the grid is generating high-carbon electricity.

After all, pg&e has expensive forest fire settlements to pay.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
"Under current policies, residential batteries increase emissions in most cases" - Dec 28, 2018
https://arstechni...issions/
Solar/wind+batteries aren't solution to Climate Change. In a world of limited hydro, carbon-free nuclear is the only scalable way.

"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that's available 24 hours a day."

"Although Germany has been a global leader in moving to decarbonize its massive economy, the country's ambitious clean-energy transformation is faltering."
https://e360.yale...ansition

"Energy density determines environmental impact."
https://youtu.be/SCaEUne9ffQ

"Wind and solar will be viewed as little more than museum artifacts in another 10 years. Simply not economically viable in many places on earth."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
Wind and solar will be viewed as little more than museum artifacts in another 10 years
Pretty ballsy prediction from liar Willie.
wind and solar to "dominate" the future of electricity by 2040, making up 48% of the world's installed capacity and 34% of electricity generation
Where is that cost curve on nukes Willie. It would go a long way to shore up your pathetic predictions.

Read what Bloomberg thinks - oh right - you know more than everyone - about everything.
https://www.pv-te...-by-2040
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019
...wind and solar to "dominate" the future of electricity by 2040...
In less than 15 years, most of installed-capacity of solar/wind will be just a bunch of junkyards that costed trillions of dollars with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions.
"Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study"
"...wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study..."
https://www.teleg...udy.html
...making up 48% of the world's installed capacity...
The current installed-capacity is around a terawatt(1000GW) at cost of trillions of dollars with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions, there is no reason to continue spending taxpayers' money on useless placebos just to please a bunch of psychotics/schizophrenics brainwashed by sociopaths with vested interests.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019
In less than 15 years, most of installed-capacity of solar/wind will be just a bunch of junkyards
You make predictions - based on nothing more than your personal hatred of renewables. Bloomberg makes predictions - based on research. Mmmmm - who to believe??? Guess we shall have to wait and see who knows what they are talking about.

Wind turbines are performing just fine. The technology is evolving - so life expectancy is going to continue to increase. You criticize me for using renewable energy sites for source material - then you use the anti progress Telegraph for yours. Hypocrite much.

https://www.aweab...nd-life/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
Where is that cost curve on nukes Willie
Ever notice when trolls ask you to answer one of their inane and irrelevant questions which obviously dont need answering, and then keep asking it over and over again as if not answering means you dont know anything about the subject?

I bet this is in a list on a troll site somewhere. lessseeeee... yeah here it is

"—SEA-LIONING
"Repeated and relentless questioning, often times after the question has been explained in detail multiple times. The sea lion will insist they are acting perfectly civilly, but they are really just trying to delay you as long as possible and derail the conversion. The name comes from a webcomic frame (see below)"

-Dont you wish you was original greengotts?
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2019
Repeated and relentless questioning, often times after the question has been explained in detail multiple times
But the question has not been explained multiple times. The point is that Willie is a lying little jerk - who cuts and pastes the same bullshit over and over. The fact is that nuclear power is outrageously expensive compared to renewables. THAT point has been made over and over. But Willie Liar keeps cut and pasting the same bullshit - despite being presented with facts that contradict the little jerks bullshit. So I am happy to keep making the same point about the cost of nukes - as long as Willie keeps cutting and pasting the same bullshit lies - no matter how many times they are shown to be lies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
cuts and pastes
You mean posting valid refs to back up his side? Since when is that a bad thing?

You're not denigrating willie, you're denigrating people like this

"Bill Gates And Other Billionaires Backing A Nuclear Renaissance"
"Uranium-fueled power is obscenely greener than fossil fuels. It's also cheaper and, perhaps surprisingly for many, it is actually lower in carbon emissions than solar and biomass. This means that the construction of a nuclear plant, including materials used and the work itself plus the operation of the plant over its lifecycle, produces fewer greenhouse gases than... a solar farm."

"Bill Gates' TerraPower, for instance, has designed a traveling wave reactor, which utilizes nuclear waste. Another design, by two MIT researchers, again uses waste, mixed into molten salt. In short, the nuclear reactors of the future will utilize not just regular uranium but will take care of the waste as well"

-who prefer facts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
-And you troll him by asking the same old questions and citing the same old bankrupt data from obsolete technologies.

""It's impossible to find another natural resource that is so fundamentally necessary to our future," says Zadar's Gray. "This will be the year of the uranium rebound, and nuclear energy's next-generation safeguards will rewrite the global energy map once again.""

-Due in no small part to its essential use in strategic roles and for establishing self-sustaining offworld colonies.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2019
You mean posting valid refs to back up his side?
Yeah - like the Daily Mail, Breitbart, the Daily Caller etc.

But I understand your need to defend liars. You yourself are a proponent of e-cat, and hydrinos. Showing you have no ability to recognize bullshit from truth.

Funny thing. As a technology - I am on record repeatedly - as supporting nukes. I hope that fusion becomes a reality one day. I think that we may have to eat the cost of nukes - just for the benefits they can bring us. France is a good example. I would never have closed the nukes - if I was King of Germany. BUT - lying about the costs is wrong. Hinkley Point is screwing the U.K. tax payers for 12.5 c. Kwh. Where are the conservatives when you need one? So Bill Gates has $100 billion. Let him build a nuke - and prove how cheap they are.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2019
RE charlatans say solar and wind is cheaper, but are unable to cite at least a small region(>10,000 inhabitants, off-the-grid) where solar/wind provide steadily more than a third (>1/3) to the grid annually and the remaining (<2/3) is hydro instead of coal/oil/gas/fracking, in an economically affordable way without any external big money support with vested interests.
Also are unable to cite a country/state where the electricity is cheap NOT thanks to cheap coal or gas/fracking.

...12.5 c. Kwh...
Including batteries, wind and solar are ~20x costlier than nuclear.
"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/
The expected cost of the 3.2GW of reactors at Hinkley C is €22bn.
Germany's spending ~1.5×€22bn a year on bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers for nothing.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2019
RE charlatans say solar and wind is cheaper, but are unable to cite at least a small region...
See Otto - Willie keeps throwing down the same red line - and no matter how many times you answer it - Willie says the same thing on the next article. That red line is bogus. It is like saying "electric cars cannot be cheaper to run than gas cars - because there are still gas cars on the road." It is a stupid red line. Renewables are cheaper. They are in the process of displacing a legacy power system. Just because they have not fully displaced that power system - does not mean they cannot, or will not.
Here Otto - a reference to support my claim that renewables are cheaper - and it is not from Breitbart. - https://energyinn...lunging/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
I am on record repeatedly - as supporting nukes
Trolls will often play both sides. So?

This is interesting:

"In late December 2018, a bill titled Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), was passed by both houses of the US Congress, and sent to the president for his signature.

"One major purpose of the bill is to encourage innovation in nuclear energy technology and make it less burdensome to bring new types of reactors to market.

"Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) stated: "Our bipartisan legislation will help create jobs, reduce carbon emissions, and maintain America's leadership in nuclear innovation."

"The amount of support for this bill in the US Congress is quite a contrast to the often fiercely partisan positions in many other areas of politics. The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a margin of 361 to 10, and by voice vote in the Senate."
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
This situation reminds me of when nixon and the war filled up the media for a few years and then we turned around and nuke reactors were suddenly everywhere. And the diversion ended just when we had enough nukes, and the industry was turned into a similar political issue. Suddenly all the libs were protesting nukes, and got future projects loaded down with oppressive and unnecessary regs that effectively ended new construction.

Like I say, just when we had built enough of them.

So now trump fills up the newsfeeds and if we look closely we see odd things like bipartisan nuke bills whizzing through congress, unchallenged. And we see billionaires pouring billions into new nuke tech which can easily be applied to off-world megaprojects.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
-which all reminds me of this:

"In 1940, Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to the naval base at Pearl Harbor [from san diego] as a show of American power [ostensibly]..."

-Yeah. He moved all those obsolete ships further west and within range of an attack by nipponese naval forces, thereby giving the US a credible reason to join the war and build a new state of the art navy, which it would need for strategic ops after the war was over.

And what do they have in common? Theyre contrived.

Humans. We Plan. Its what we do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
More good news

"Two third-generation nuclear power reactors are slated to begin operation this year in Finland and France, after years of delays and budget overruns, S&P Platts' Henry Edwardes-Evans reports.

The Finnish project is the Olkiluoto-3 reactor, which will bring the country's total nuclear reactor capacity to five, and will add 1.6 GW to the national nuclear power generation capacity"
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2019
"...Renewable Electricity Levelized Cost Of Energy Already Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels..."
https://energyinn...lunging/
If it were true that intermittent renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, then it wouldn't be necessary mandates/massive mass media propaganda/subsidies/tax incentives/authoritarian laws to force people to use solar/wind instead of fossil fuels.

"The cost of nuclear energy by country, against renewables wind solar gas by Investment Bank Credit Suisse ($800b of Assets)!" - Dec 24, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear energy is extraordinarily cheaper in relation to wind and solar even not including batteries.
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

RE "snake oil salesmen":
"We are making too much money to give a fuck about the truth now"
https://pbs.twimg...GM-5.jpg
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2019
If it were true that intermittent renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, then it wouldn't be necessary mandates/massive mass media propaganda/subsidies/tax incentives/authoritarian laws to force people to use solar/wind instead of fossil fuels
Well of course you're right willie.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2019
Well of course you're right willie
No he is not. And we have been around and around with this many times. Every energy source gets government supports. Energy is not in any way a free market. That shows how little you guys understand the situation. https://www.vox.c...ubsidies

So as I have said over and over - take all the subsidies and supports off all energy sources - then we will see clearly that renewables are the cheapest.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2019
Otto
Trolls will often play both sides. So?
I don't play both sides - liar. I support a switch to low carbon fuels. That is my consistent position. The fact is that renewables are cheaper. Let's build your nukes in Finland - and get some real numbers on the cost.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2019
Willie
Carbon-free nuclear energy is extraordinarily cheaper
Bullshit. Show us your cost curve on nukes - we keep asking you. We have shown you cost curves on wind and solar. They are the cheapest new build energy source - and keep going down. We can show you real world numbers for new build. 12.5 cents from Hinkley Point - or 3 cents from wind and solar bids all over the world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2019
renewables are cheaper. Let's build your nukes in Finland - and get some real numbers on the cost
Like I said, burdensome and unnecessary regs and approval processes passed by lunatic luddites like yourself have made nukes far more expensive than they need to be. But cost is not the point. They are a vital strategic necessity both now and in the future. And you cant use present and past costs as a means of stopping new reactors with advanced tech such as what Bill Gates is producing.

Past and present costs, including accident remediation, are irrelevant to future reactors.

"Gates, "Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that's available 24 hours a day."...US needs to "commit new funding, update regulations, and show investors that it's serious," wrote Gates.

"He believes this renewed commitment will allow the nation to overcome the limitations of existing nuclear technology..."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2019
burdensome and unnecessary regs and approval processes passed by lunatic luddites like yourself have made nukes far more expensive than they need to be
Perhaps. You would surely agree that we need regs - in order to prevent another Chrenobyl. Or do you propose a regulation free world? Burdensome regulations passed by lunatic asshole racist luddites like yourself - also make solar far more expensive than it needs to be - https://www.green...7AB1zawx
If you read my posts - you would know that I am the opposite of a luddite. I support the use of nukes - but also a willingness to be honest about the costs.
We have a world with subsidies/supports on all energy sources, and regulations making them all more expensive - and some how we have to sort out which is cheaper/better. A difficult task. I believe renewables are the smart option - but I hope nukes are part of our future too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2019
Perhaps. You would surely agree that we need regs - in order to prevent another Chrenobyl
No we need more advanced tech to prevent disasters, which is what Gates is saying.
Or do you propose a regulation free world?
As usual, typical troll bullshit extremism.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2019
As usual, typical troll bullshit extremism
Very sophisticated response for Otto. I believe that nuclear can be done safely - and I would love to see us advance the technology - so that it becomes a safe, cheap part of our power system. I hope one day we have fusion - and I support continuing that research.
Unlike you - I am not naïve. I have done some reading on Fukushima, and Chernobyl. I believe that it is a valid role for government to provide oversight to an industry that carries so much risk. Tepco is a great case in point - www.spiegel.de/in...704.html
The U.S. has never had a Fukushima scale disaster - and I believe that is thanks to government oversight of the industry.
which is what Gates is saying.
He has a $100 b dollars. Let him spend a little of it - and prove his point. $10 billion should do it....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2019
...3 cents from wind and solar bids all over the world...
"Batteries not included" neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.
Low-quality products are usually cheap, because no one in fact wants them; not even faux-green organizations use these useless placebos to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats across the oceans.

Green movement has nothing to do with protecting the environment and reducing emissions. It's a ideological imposition, it has more to do with government power grab(communism).
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal has nothing to do with saving the planet and going green. It's a government power grab and redistribution of wealth."
http://i2.wp.com/...reen.jpg
http://www.youtub...Q3-s9MC8

Fukushima: zero deaths from radiation exposure;
Chernobyl: now a tourist zone.
Antinuclear faux-greens now have to lie like there's no tomorrow.
montanaclass
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2019
I don't have any plans to travel to Neptune.
Elections have consequences. Who said that?
montanaclass
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2019
I have a pair of PowerWall II batteries because I live in earthquake country, but have already been used for short power outages. They are charged by the PV system, and come with cool software.

The thing I learned about alternative energy systems back in the days was they have their most effectiveness when integrated with other systems, preferably newer ones. My thesis in 1980 used anaerobic digestion to rid a large diary of manure problems and power the entire diary and a large ethanol plant with the technology of the time.

The PV system works best with the electric cars, giving us our own source of transportation in uncertain times. Wind and batteries are winners together. But the biggest factor is this:
Alternative energy is not just possible, not just practical, but is now PROFITABLE!


Endlessly repeating the same lie only works on Democrats.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2019
@Forum.

Looks like the Russian/GOP/Fossil lobbies/troll factories have a new 'employee' troll; going by the username @montanaclass. One liner 'propaganda memes' and posts without any attempt at reasoning the fuller complex scientific/social issues involved is telling. What some people will do for their 'thirty pieces of silver' blood money; even going to the extent of mindlessly selling out themselves, their family, friends and future generations of others who will suffer because of the greed and stupidity of such tragic humans in this dangerous AGW-induced transition period in global climate patterns/dynamics. Sad.

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.