Are these tiny, 'inherently safe' nuclear reactors the path to a carbon-free future?

In the six decades since the Shippingport Atomic Power Station near Pittsburgh began operating as the nation's first commercial nuclear reactor, the industry has built ever larger plants to improve the economies of scale. A typical commercial reactor now produces about 20 times as much electricity as the first Shippingport unit in 1958.

So it may seem counterintuitive that the industry sees the future not in building gargantuan plants, but in small modular reactors, or SMRs—factory-built units with fewer parts, designed to be installed underground with passive cooling systems that the industry says are "inherently safe."

Unlike large nuclear units, which are designed to operate full-tilt all year, SMR designers say the small units are flexible enough to be cranked up as needed to fill gaps in production from wind and solar-powered plants—a critical role as some see as a carbon-free bridge between fossil fuels and . The worldwide market for such reactors is expected to reach $100 billion by 2035, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization based in Paris.

Among U.S. developers, NuScale Power of Corvallis, Ore., has surpassed its competitors—including Holtec International of Camden—to advance its design closer to the finish line. Supported with $275 million in U.S. Energy Department grants, NuScale has invested about $800 million to design a 75-foot-tall cylindrical reactor that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to approve next year. NuScale aims to begin producing at its first plant in 2026.

"There's a good case for SMRs in a lot of markets, both in the U.S. and throughout the world," said John Kotek, vice president of policy development and public affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group.

But not everyone is sold on their promise.

"SMRs seem to be a fad, as far as I can tell," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who wrote a widely cited paper questioning the economics of small reactors. "There's very really little substance to its motivation, other than the private sector can't afford ordinary sized reactors."

'SAFER, COST-EFFECTIVE'

Each NuScale reactor would produce 60 megawatts of power—the same as the original Shippingport reactor, which was decommissioned in 1989. The company says its units can be installed individually, or in groups. The initial plant at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory would contain 12 reactors. Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems is the primary customer.

The smaller reactors will be cost-effective because they can be mass-produced at existing U.S. manufacturing facilities, dramatically reducing onsite construction costs and times, said Tom Mundy, NuScale's chief commercial officer.

SMR designers say the plants will need fewer operators, and because the design is safer, they have also asked the NRC to reduce the 10-mile emergency planning zones now required for larger commercial reactors to an area confined to the plant site. Critics such as the Union of Concerned Scientists have opposed the request, saying the plants and their accumulated on-site spent fuel still pose a significant risk.

"They argue the reactors are so safe that terrorists won't be able to effectively cause a massive radiological contamination event, and I beg to differ," said Lyman.

The initial markets for SMRs are expected to be primarily overseas, where electricity costs are higher and nuclear energy can compete, NuScale says. Some water-starved Middle Eastern countries have expressed interest because some units can be configured to produce steam, rather than electricity, to power a nearby water desalinization plant.

ANTIDOTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

The industry is also positioning carbon-free nuclear plants as an antidote to climate change. They cite a recent study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology that found that it would cost less to deploy nuclear power along with renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions, than it would to rely solely upon wind, solar and battery storage to cut emissions.

"Both domestically and internationally, there's a realization by many that in order to achieve carbon climate objectives that are being set, nuclear has to be part of the equation," said Mundy, who worked for Exelon Generation in Kennett Square before joining NuScale in 2012. He lives in Chester County.

Despite the climate benefits, many environmental advocates fiercely oppose any expansion of nuclear energy's role, including skeptics who cite safety issues exposed by the accident 40 years ago this month at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in Pennsylvania, which put the brakes on the industry's growth in the 1980s. In the last 20 years, just one new commercial plant has begun operations in the United States, and only two are currently under construction.

Lyman said the industry would need to produce "hundreds or thousands" of units in order to cut costs and reduce the need for government assistance.

But NuScale says it will need to produce only 12 reactor units, and build three power plants, to develop the experience needed to bring down costs. "Clearly, we're not talking about hundreds, and clearly not thousands," said Mundy. "There's nothing complicated about its construction, compared to large gigawatt plants."

Nuclear power's cost is at the heart of a debate that officially launched in Pennsylvania last week with the introduction of a proposal to give the nuclear industry $500 million in annual subsidies, paid by electric customers. Nuclear operators have threatened to shut down several Pennsylvania reactors because they are unable to compete in low-price electricity markets awash in cheap power from natural gas plants.

Exelon Generation says it will shut down Three Mile Island Unit 2, located next to the partly dismantled Unit 1, unless state lawmakers come to the rescue by June. TMI employs 675 people and produces more carbon-free power than all the state's solar, wind, and hydroelectric plants combined. First Energy Corp., which operates two reactors at the Beaver Valley Power Station in Western Pennsylvania, has also announced plans to retire the reactors in 2021.

While the industry is contracting, hope springs eternal among nuclear advocates, whose true believers are driven by the promise of harnessing the vast amount of energy locked in radioactive fuel.

LOCAL CONNECTIONS

Dozens of companies are working to develop new nuclear reactors, including so-called Generation IV reactors that are cooled with such materials as molten salts, inert gases, or even liquid metals.

Several companies have focused on developing SMR designs. Holtec International, a private company in Camden whose core business is managing spent fuel at nuclear reactors and decommissioning old reactors, has developed a 160-megawatt reactor design it calls the SMR-160. The project's status is unclear, and Holtec did not respond to written questions.

"I haven't seen evidence of it really advancing," said Lyman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Westinghouse and BWX Technologies Inc., which both have long histories of building reactors, abandoned their SMR projects.

NuScale in September chose BWXT to build its SMR. BWXT, which built many of the small reactors used to power U.S. Navy ships and submarines, plans to subcontract component manufacturing to Precision Custom Components of York, Pa.

Mundy said by outsourcing the manufacturing to existing plants, NuScale can keep costs down compared with building a new factory. NuScale's majority owner is the giant contractor Fluor Corp.

Mundy says the NuScale design is not a smaller version of a larger reactor.

"We have features that are different, that you're not going to find in the competition, and we have very strong customer interest in our technology," he said.

DISASTER-PROOF DESIGN

Each reactor vessel is surrounded by its own high-pressure steel containment, and immersed in an eight-million-gallon pool of water, so there is no need for a hardened containment building.

The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan was triggered when the six plants lost off-site power after an earthquake, and the on-site emergency generators that powered the plant's cooling water pumps failed because they had been inundated by a tsunami. The operators were unable to restore cooling water before four reactors melted down, spewing radioactive contamination over the countryside.

"Our technology doesn't require the need for offsite power," Mundy said. "In an event where the station loses all power, our reactors will automatically shut down, and they will self-cool for an indefinite period of time without the need to add any water, without the need to have the operators take any additional action, or for the need to restore AC or DC power."

Lyman said that he is worried that multiple modular reactors would fail in NuScale plant, but that the NRC will accept more risk because it is under pressure to not impede the licensing process.

"If everything works just right, the will be safely cooled," he said. "There are a number of ways that picture could end up not so pretty."


Explore further

The nuclear industry is making a big bet on small power plants

©2019 Philly.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Citation: Are these tiny, 'inherently safe' nuclear reactors the path to a carbon-free future? (2019, March 22) retrieved 26 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-tiny-inherently-safe-nuclear-reactors.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
242 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 22, 2019
The UCS appears to be making an argument out of bad faith, because they also campaign for renewable energy standards with the explicit point of forcing utilities to buy and implement renewable power.

In other words, this is really about money. The idea is: if SMRs are't viable, then the industries that the UCS affiliates with become incredibly rich because the governments have to continue subsidizing wind, solar, and other REs that can't compete according to normal market principles. Without competition, prices and profits stay high - it's a legal cartel.

If SMRs are viable, then the bottom for the subsidy market falls out.

The UCS accepts nuclear power as a solution in principle, but they maintain it must become safer. They are then denying that any particular example of nuclear power is or can be safer in order to maintain the argument for the renewable energy standards. They're playing lip service to the idea, but they're actually categorically denying nuclear power.

Mar 22, 2019
It seems like it would be hard to contain if a mishap happens underground if say an earthquake or terrorist compromises the water container's outer wall. How do you keep that water in, do you try to keep it in, or do you pump in more water while repairs are hopefully implemented. Could you repair it, how, with what, and to what degree of damage inflicted would you be successful. There's many things to consider here. Take for instance what we learned from Lake Karachay.

Mar 22, 2019
...terrorists...
"The only terrorists who have ever attacked nuclear plants were anti-nuclear activists like the ones leading Germany's efforts to incite a continent-wide panic."
https://www.forbe...r-power/
"This is a terrorist cell operating in international waters":
https://pbs.twimg...ugBf.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...0frv.jpg
"Greenpeace is a ecofascist, neo-malthusian, neo-luddite terror organization responsible for millions of deaths worldwide"
"I call them ecoterrorists, because they do more harm than good to the environment."

"Fear-mongers are more dangerous than terrorists"
http://www.bbc.co...p04z2b7c
Eco-vandals Eco-terrorists attacking a reliable source of carbon-free energy to favor the combo(intermittent renewables backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking):
https://youtu.be/LEGH3GnMrEo

Mar 22, 2019
It seems like it would be hard to contain if a mishap happens underground if say an earthquake or terrorist compromises the water container's outer wall.


The water in the pool isn't contaminated -- it's just for cooling purposes. They will also be situated near a body of water, like a river, to provide the cooling for the generators and to fill/drain the pool. If they're level, a breach in the wall just lets more water in.

The point is that each reactor module is a self-contained unit in a pressure shell, small enough to withstand a full meltdown without melting through the shell - like nuclear submarine reactors. In a shutdown condition, they dump the residual reaction heat into the surrounding pool, so they don't require active backup generators to run pumps. In an earthquake, the pool protects them from seismic waves, and being submerged in water they're also shielded from falling airplanes etc.

Mar 22, 2019
This is also a great way to achieve distributed generation and take the strain off of the grid. Of course the UCS would be against it since it might help postpone the collapse of Western capitalism and delay the progressive goal of a One World Government. That is the point of the AGW scare isn't it?

Mar 22, 2019
coming from blatantly treasonous fascist quislings such as you WeeWart & ms666?

adds credence to the anti-nukes movement.

Your capacity for mendacious agitprop proceeds you both,
Like the stench of a honey-wagon.

To warn people that you have intellect of vermin & the morals of bubonic plague!

Mar 22, 2019
Take for instance what we learned from Lake Karachay.

The water in the pool isn't contaminated -- it's just for cooling purposes. They will also be situated near a body of water, like a river, to provide the cooling for the generators and to fill/drain the pool. If they're level, a breach in the wall just lets more water in.


I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between directly polluted water and contained water cooling reservoirs which act as protective shielding and passive cooling. What I was trying to draw attention to is the way radioactive pollution has a way of propagating through a water table and affecting the surrounding land. Such a worst case scenario has came to fruition before. *****

Mar 22, 2019
*****

But, if we can eliminate the risks then such an idea has merit. However, I don't see enough redundancy in risk mitigation here, especially when we're talking about underground installations. Can a solution be engineered? I'm not saying it can't be, just that more ideas need to be developed before actual real world experimentation takes place.

Mar 22, 2019
@Eikka.
UCS appears to be making an argument out of bad faith, ... if SMRs are't viable, then the industries that the UCS affiliates with become incredibly rich because the governments have to continue subsidizing wind, solar, and other REs that can't compete according to normal market principles.
Speaking of "bad faith", mate, read this:
proposal to give the nuclear industry $500 million in annual subsidies, paid by electric customers. Nuclear operators have threatened to shut down several Pennsylvania reactors because they are unable to compete in low-price electricity markets awash in cheap power from natural gas plants
A TRIPLE-WHAMMY of BAD FAITH from those nuclear proponents:
1) they complain about subsidies for renewables WHILE ASKING FOR SUBSIDIES themselves!
2) they demonise renewables etc for being 'anti-market principle' BECAUSE THEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH CHEAPER renewables!
3) NO MENTION of WHO PAYS for DANGEROUS/ LONGTERM WASTE/DECOMMISSIONING.

Bad.

Mar 22, 2019
*****

But, if we can eliminate the risks then such an idea has merit. However, I don't see enough redundancy in risk mitigation here, especially when we're talking about underground installations. Can a solution be engineered? I'm not saying it can't be, just that more ideas need to be developed before actual real world experimentation takes place.

I think Mitsubishi had an in ground reactor unit they were developing...

Mar 22, 2019
A TRIPLE-WHAMMY of BAD FAITH from those nuclear proponents:
1) they complain about subsidies for renewables WHILE ASKING FOR SUBSIDIES themselves!
2) they demonise renewables etc for being 'anti-market principle' BECAUSE THEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH CHEAPER renewables!
3) NO MENTION of WHO PAYS for DANGEROUS/ LONGTERM WASTE/DECOMMISSIONING.


1) All forms of energy are being subsididized in some respects. $500 million is peanuts in comparison, and rather "If they're getting it, we should too".
2) Nuclear energy is being suppressed by massive red tape and public propaganda campaigns against. The greatest costs are political, eg. huge reactor sizes because the bureaucracy takes a decade and you have to build big
3) The nuclear industry itself is paying for it, and the government is squandering the money. The industry has/is actually paying a tax towards the decommissioning, tens of billions of dollars, but the government is refusing to use the money for the purpose

Mar 22, 2019
1) they complain about subsidies for renewables WHILE ASKING FOR SUBSIDIES themselves!


There was a recent EIA report that pointed out nuclear energy is subsidized on the order of $2 per megawatt-hour while a thing like solar energy gets over $250 per megawatt-hour in total subsidies. The report was a few years old, so I expect the situation is a bit different now, but not much - renewables are still being subsidized to the point of costing the public more than the actual value of the energy, while nuclear power is taxed more or less the amount it is subsidized.

Why? Because the government doesn't really know what it's doing, so the left hand of the government ends up giving money while the right hand takes it away.

Mar 22, 2019
When accountants for nuclear facilities face prison or execution for trying to eke cents per dollar out of safety budgets, then this will change.

Mar 22, 2019
Eikka
renewables are still being subsidized to the point of costing the public more than the actual value of the energy
Do you have a source for that assertion?
The issue of subsidies is incredibly complex. Subsidies in the U.S. are being phased out on wind and solar. It is almost impossible to do a fair comparison between different energy sources - as everything is so complex, and so fluid. One example of the complexity - https://www.taxpa...present/

Clearly the pro nuclear lobby - is willing to lambast renewables for daring to get subsidies - but when it is pointed out that nukes also get subsidies - then it becomes a "well they get more than we do" game.

Traditional nukes are clearly not competitive in a world of falling energy prices. Let's let SMR's have a swing at bat. I hope they can compete. Just quit the hypocrisy.

Mar 23, 2019
Because the government doesn't really know what it's doing
Agreed. But! Perhaps it is really more that human beings really don't know what we are doing. Is private industry so blameless? Look at the mess in Houston right now. https://www.cnn.c...dex.html

Is it fair to blame San onofre totally on the guberming? -
that assigned ratepayers the lion's share of the multibillion-dollar cost for premature shutdown of the failed San Onofre nuclear power plant


https://www.sandi...ory.html

Maybe we are just playing with forces that are too big for us to handle.

Mar 23, 2019
The inherently safe designs are pebble bed and TWR. It sounds like these are PWRs which aren't inherently safe.

Mar 23, 2019
And BTW San Onofre wasn't a government problem. Southern California Edison shortcut the engineering of the cooling system and bought pumps that promptly degraded the cooling pipes in the reactors. Guess who did that? Yep, that's right- the accountants.

And there you have it.

The hell with the lawyers; what do you call a million accountants at the bottom of the sea?

A good start.

I seen more good engineering fucked up by accountants than I can shake a stick at. If this accounting stuff has consequences, they should pay for it. The operative question is, if it fails because you pinched pennies, will you pay?

Mar 23, 2019
i wouldn't be worried so much about the 'inherently safe' aspect but about the neccessary ubiquity of these SMRs dottetd around the landscape. Just burying stuff doesn't make it secure from access by third parties. And I could list quite a few third parties who would love to get their hands on highly radioactive materials.

That said: if they are so "super safe" - why the need to bury them?
Aaaah...maybe because they're not so super safe, are they?

and they will self-cool for an indefinite period of time

They seem to have discovered some new physics?

Mar 23, 2019
...renewables are still being subsidized to the point of costing the public more than the actual value of the energy...
Wind and solar(bird-choppers/land-intensive monstrosities backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies) seem only to exist to steal taxpayers' money(through subsidies/tax incentives) and to the favor fossil fuel industry over hydro and carbon-free nuclear, the only two technologies proven effective at decarbonizing modern grids.

"It's Cheaper To Buy Every American A Ferrari Than Fund The Green New Deal"
https://thelibert...ew-deal/
https://dailycall...erraris/

Mar 23, 2019
We have already contaminated out water tables with other pollutants, why not radioactive contaminants?

Do you want to live forever?

Mar 23, 2019
seem only to exist to steal taxpayers' money
Or maybe they are a viable source of energy - and the power structure that you represent - and want to continue for ever - despite the fact that it supports the death of millions of people every year through poverty - https://www.dosom...-poverty

But the scales are tipping - and pimp Willie and his masters in the legacy system are terrified - and troll the internet with lies. Give up Willie - the tide is coming in. https://cleantech...s-money/
As renewable energy technologies and access to distributed generation like residential solar panels improve, consumer costs for electricity decrease

Mar 23, 2019
hey now! weaselwillowwhisp is willing to parrot all the gibberish his master scripts for him/her/it.

Yngortubately for the poor dear denierbot, the saufi agents runnin g that black web ops are spending most of their duty hours toking hashish.
don't Bogart that joint. my friend!

Mar 23, 2019
Seen the news from Fukushima, the other nuclear technology which was going to "save" us?

Mar 24, 2019
..Or maybe they are a viable source of energy..
Intermittent renewables are "a viable source of energy" to keep mankind stuck on coal/oil/gas/fracking, it's why fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in solar and wind and funding faux-green organizations to fight against Hydro and carbon-free nuclear.
"..any definition of renewable energy must also exclude...large scale hydro.."
http://uploads.di...c4a2.jpg
http://foe.org/wp...er-2.pdf

"Power To The People!" - CleanTechnica(biased articles written by green sociopaths)
It wouldn't be necessary massive media propaganda to convince people to buy and install solar panels/windmills(useless placebos) if it were indeed cheap and good at producing energy; in the same way, it wasn't needed propaganda to incentive people to use fossil fuels to prevent their children from freezing in the dark.

Mar 24, 2019
Until cheap LONG TERM, not days, backup systems are developed every 1 MWH of wind or solar constructed needs 1 MWH of backup gas plant and the costs associated with this plant need to be added to the cost of renewables. Thus all that renewables save is the cost of 1 MWH of fuel which in the case of gas is about 2.7 cents/KWH. You still have to pay for the plant and the cost of running it.


Mar 24, 2019
it's why fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in solar and wind
They are investing in renewables - cuz the writing is on the wall - and they can do math better than you can. You obviously don't like stories like this - https://www.thegu...loration The largest wealth fund - that was created to invest in North Sea oil - is divesting from oil and gas.
Climate change may have inspired the clean-energy revolution, but price has made it inevitable, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said
That's why only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - but 100% have renewables - and renewables are getting cheaper - and accelerating. Can you show us any country on track to 100% nukes Willie?
https://www.forbe...099c3a8b

Mar 24, 2019
MR
Until cheap LONG TERM, not days, backup systems are developed every 1 MWH of wind or solar constructed needs 1 MWH of backup gas plant and the costs associated with this plant need to be added to the cost of renewables
Recent comment on the same topic - you said 1 MW needed 7 MW of gas. You just make up numbers don't you?
There is a great deal of research going on in the field of storage - and experts calculate we would need around 10% of base load - not 100% - liar.
For future theoretical storage in Denmark, the technical university DTU has identified storage needs of 10% of 1.4 GW baseload in 2035
https://cleantech...r-hours/ We do understand your need to lie - to support the oil and gas status quo. Change is scary for those in power.

Mar 24, 2019
Nukes are SO 20th Century!!

Along with Hitler AIDS, and Nixon.

Mar 24, 2019
"Recent comment on the same topic - you said 1 MW needed 7 MW of gas."

Onions you got that opposite. I said that each MWH of renewable supply would have to be backed up by at least 7x MWH of battery supply in order to provide 24/7 power. Whereas gas plants have and infinite number of MWH available to them in the form of Nat Gas.

Mar 24, 2019
How much renewable power do you have? How much additional power did the power company have to put online in case you did not produce?

NONE? In fact it reduced the pollution of the fossil plants?? Oh, . . . . .

Mar 24, 2019
How much renewable power do you have? How much additional power did the power company have to put online in case you did not produce?

NONE? In fact it reduced the pollution of the fossil plants?? Oh, . . . . .


So if the grid went down your system would be able to supply all of your needs indefinably right?

Mar 24, 2019
That was not the issue, so why are you changing the subject?

I can last two days with my batteries, if not powered by the PV system. I configured it that way, to take advantage of grid connection, which is beneficial to all.

And when I produce, it UNLOADS the fossil plants, doesn't it?

Mar 24, 2019
It is a common misunderstanding that renewables need backups. No, they do not need any more than we already have with the existing, but now-second-rate fossil fuel plants.
Filthy fuels are now relegated to backup power.

Mar 24, 2019
"It is a common misunderstanding that renewables need backups."

"I can last two days with my batteries,"

DUH?

Gkam for every KWH that you sell to the grid you save them about 2.7 cents in gas. How much do the ratepayers pay you for that KWH you are selling?


Mar 24, 2019
MR
I said that each MWH of renewable supply would have to be backed up by at least 7x MWH of battery supply
And I asked you where you got that 1 to 7 ratio from. The answer being you pulled it out your ass. So I am very interested in why the need on a number of folks part - to denigrate, and lie about renewables. I am starting to see what is behind the curtain. If you look at the last 100 years of geo politics - you see the issue of oil everywhere. Rivers of blood have been fought over it. You as a conservative - use to rail about crony capitalism. Well do some reading on Venezuela - to begin to get your mind around the scale of crony capitalism that has marked the oil industry. So of course - fake conservatives like yourself - rail against Solyndra - but have no problem with the crony capitalism of oil and gas. You are defending the status quo. Renewable energy poses an existential threat to your world view.

Mar 24, 2019
Onions you are building a hospital on island near the equator and powering it with solar power. It uses 100KWH of energy each and every day. How many KWH of battery backup would be needed to keep it functioning?

Mar 24, 2019
While you are at it Onion's how many KW solar panel array would be needed to generate the energy?

Mar 24, 2019
I'm not like all stoked that putting nuclear reactors into the groundwater layers is a super great idea.

What's the game here, to argue no one can say where the radioactive contaminants came from?

Let's be blunt. They're working to make sure they can contaminate your ground water and you can't prove in court it was them. Considering fracking this seems to be ubiquitous. The accountants don't care if you die; they just want to make sure your survivors can't sue them.

Just askin'.

Mar 24, 2019
166, I have said several times . . I DO NOT SELL TO THE GRID!

And why should anyone try to answer your fishing questions? YOu are looking for something to exploit, since you have no case.

Mar 24, 2019
Gkam my apologies. I made some incorrect assumptions.

Mar 24, 2019
@MR166.

I see your subtle selective and straw man gambits. For the umpteenth time, mate, backup for SOALR can be from WIND; as well as BATTERY; as well as GRID (which may include SOME gas power plants). Ok?

So all your attempts to 'constrain' the already available backups for SOLAR per se are MOOT.

Moreover, your/others' 'spruiking' for NUCLEAR power plants IGNORES nuclear WASTE ***and*** nuclear PROLIFERATION of materials which can be used for weapons and may be attacked by terrorists to cause chaos for political/religious causes'. Pls get real, understand the evolution trajectory of sustainable, distributed, safe, cheaper, cleaner, more job-sustaining renewables industry....backed up with gas as/where necessary. Thanks. :)

Mar 24, 2019
RC the point of my old posts was that batteries are not a long term backup solution. Can they supply useful power during times of peak demand, for sure. But the basic point is that in order to have foolproof and reliable 24/7 power each KWH produced by renewables on a daily basis has to have gas backup waiting as an emergency reserve and that costs money that must be added to renewable costs.

Mar 24, 2019
MR - here is exactly what you said -
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity
And I asked you to show support for your 1 to 7 ratio. You showed none. The link I provided earlier - showed that experts in the field - who are designing grid scale systems - say that you would need around 10% of base load - as storage capacity. But of course - each situation is highly individual. Costa Rica, Scotland etc. are getting very close to 100% renewables - cuz they have a lot of hydro for storage. Intermittency is being dealt with in different ways - such as balancing resources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, storage, nukes etc.) Also demand control, and transmission. So again - show us where you got your 1 to 7 ratio.

Mar 24, 2019
Remember when all the gas stations had to be dug up? The soil decontaminated & the storage tanks replaced?
Cause it was such a "clever" (i,e. profitable) idea to use metal tanks, to store corrosive toxic gasoline in water-bearing soil, underneath constant traffic weights & vibration.

Then, just a few years later?
The still operating service stations had to do it all over again!
A litany of very profitable poor quality tanks, corroded O-rings & other over-priced shoddy products deteriorating at frightening speed.

Now the atomic priesthood want to re-create that National Nightmare with small nuclear power plants.
Cause the executives selling this insanity are assured that American's honest enough to pay taxes, carry their share if the Civic Burden?
The corporate bureaucrats are convinced we are all so gosh-darn stupid we will meekly accept the abuse of paying for corporate errors, missed judgements & corruption.

Making
America
Glow
Acitinides
Suicides

Mar 24, 2019
What is the matter Onions, design the island power system with battery backup and then tell me what happens when the grid is 50% powered by intermittents.

Mar 24, 2019
The truth is that solar and wind are not possible without gas backup. They might reduce gas consumption but they do not replace or close gas fired plants. That is why real costs to the ratepayer will not go down.

Mar 24, 2019
Fossil fuels are now relegated to backup status, and that makes some folk angry.

Mar 24, 2019
design the island power system...
No. You came up with the 1 to 7 ratio - now show us where you got it. Not some hypothetical thought exercise - but a link - with real world information.

The truth is that solar and wind are not possible without gas backup
Then how is Costa Rica doing it? Australia has enough wind and solar in their pipeline - that they will be at 100% renewables - by 2030. What are you going to say then MR? What numbers will you pull out of your ass - to prove that what is happening - cannot be happening?
https://renewecon...s-81953/
But it is interesting to see how you are all free market, and all about competition, and anti crony capitalsism - until it comes to hating on renewable energy. My interpretation of that - is that you really don't have a base of convictions - but blow in the wind.

Mar 24, 2019
Remember when all the gas stations had to be dug up?

Watcha talkin' bout wills?
Remember when you stopped using power from fossil fuels?
Perhaps, you could share, with the rest of us, when and how you accomplished this?

Mar 24, 2019
No gasoline for us or motor oil, either. Do you still go gas up? Get oil changes? Emissions checks? Tune-ups? Transmission or muffler work? Know the name of your mechanic?

We plug in and extract some of the power we put into the line earlier in the day.

Don't forget to open the garage door when you have to warm up your ICE, so it does not kill you.

Mar 25, 2019
Since Onions refuses to calculate the backup battery needed for my solar powered 100KWH/day hospital I will. First of all it will need a 100/8 kw solar panel or 12.5 kw unit for daily use plus say 10% more to recharge the backup battery or 13.75kw unit. The battery backup for 7 days of minimal sun would need to supply 700KWH. Now a Lion battery should only be charged to 80% of capacity thus a 875KWH unit is needed. If one was using a fossil fuel backup generator to backup the solar panel would only need to be a 4.1 kw unit and the generator would only need to a 4.1 kw unit.

Thus it takes 700KWH of battery backup to replace a 4.1 kw generator. BTW it is not unreasonable to expect backup power to supply a weeks worth of power in critical applications if no other power is available.


Mar 25, 2019
@g
166, I have said several times . . I DO NOT SELL TO THE GRID!
sigh
per your own power company and the fact that you admit you're hooked to the grid: yes, you

moreover, it's already been explained to you multiple times with links to your own power company

http://phys.org/n...car.html

http://phys.org/n...wer.html

.

.

@mr
The truth is that solar and wind are not possible without gas backup
personal or commercial?

I have solar, wind and hydro with a generator backup

I've used the generator only once for power in the 13 years I've had it and that was when it was installed as an emergency backup to test its if it would function

Mar 25, 2019
Commercial of course Capt. BTW backup requirements are a lot less stringent for rural communities since they are a LOT more self sufficient. In the country if there is a blackout people band together to see how they can help. In our big cities they band together to see what they can help themselves to.

Mar 25, 2019
@mr
BTW backup requirements are a lot less stringent for rural communities since they are a LOT more self sufficient
I liked the comment but have to challenge this: it depends on where you are (WRT stringency)

a private residence in the county doesn't always mean a lack of regulation, depending on state (or county within the state), land (size of the lot or parcel being used), water and other rights (as well as other factors)

disregarding your latter examples, which I agree with, in some rural communities (like around us) there are considerable protections for the environs including, but not limited to: water protection, ecological protection, livestock and domestic animal protections (which may include livestock feeds as well as human agriculture), game and fish regulations, logging protections, etc

Mar 25, 2019
No, I do not sell to the grid. Backing up the meter is all we do. At the end of a year, we account for all the power generated and all the power used. If we generate more than we use, we do not get paid for it. If we use more than we generate we pay for it.

Furthermore, my power is generated at peak, when it is most needed and costly, but taken out off-peak, when the power company has too much. Both of us benefit from the situation.

Mar 25, 2019
Capt. real farm communities could adapt to a prolonged blackout pretty easily since most farms have extra fuel and generators for refrigeration. Cities would be a total mess without elevators, food, street lights and even water in some tall buildings. Even fuel would be in short supply without electricity to keep the gas stations open.

In addition 100s of thousands of melting snowflakes with dead cellphones would overload our hospital emergency rooms.

Mar 25, 2019
@mr
real farm communities could adapt to a prolonged blackout pretty easily since most farms have extra fuel and generators for refrigeration
depends on the type of farm (a sustenance farm or a mixed small farm or a commercial operation? ignoring other types of farms)

I understand what you're saying

I'm just saying that rural and/or farm communities are as diverse as cities
example: not all cities have a subway, or an El, etc

.

@g
No, I do not sell to the grid
it doesn't matter what you believe your contract states, the above links demonstrate you're wrong per your own PG&E

feel free to argue, but I refer to the evidence which can be validated, and that isn't your claims as the evidence directly refutes those (repeatedly)

Mar 25, 2019
ahh, missy666 & auntieoral make such a gaily prancing couple of demiertwats.

With all that flatulence ejaculating out of their cranialanuses?
They are a major contribution as to why the market prices of natural gas are so erratic!

Mar 25, 2019
"it doesn't matter what you believe your contract states, the above links demonstrate you're wrong per your own PG&E"

Uh, . . . no.

You are reading from the wrong rate sheet.

Mar 25, 2019
RR try posting when you are not so incoherent.

Mar 25, 2019
Again MR - i remind you of your original comment
If you are going to use batteries to replace 1KWH of gas fired backup capacity you need at least 7KWH of capacity


I took issue with your use of units - and now you jumble up the whole thing with this -

Thus it takes 700KWH of battery backup to replace a 4.1 kw generator


But anyhow - you clarify for us that you just pull numbers out of your ass - as shown by the 1Kwh to 7 Kwh mumbo jumbo - that you cannot provide any support for.

The truth is that solar and wind are not possible without gas backup
Captain just shredded that nonsense with one example. Scotland or Costa Rica could offer you a larger scale example.


Mar 25, 2019
Truth is, if we want 24/7 uninterruptable power, we're prob'ly gonna need 'em all...

Mar 25, 2019
oh, auntieoral, it's been half a century since you last crawled out from under your ,mother's bed? Been a few changes.

You're like the description of an astrologer. As someone who has refused to go outside after dark, for the last four thousand years.

Mar 25, 2019
missy666, you have a deep lack of personal knowledge & experience inhabiting a "real farning community". No visiting the kiddie's zoo on your birthday does not count.

Lemme guess? You get all your fantasies about rural life from altright fairytales apocalyptic comicbooks & sad puppy nonscience fiction...

Talk to a real heavy machinery mechanic.
Ask him how long the farmers v& ranchers can survive without regular supplies & new parts from the big cities?
How long do you believe ammo & fuels & medicines stay stable?
Without needing regular replacements?

Self-sufficiency is a mindless political slogan used to swindle city-slickers into purchasing worthless farmlands.

20-22 ears ago? Friends of me & my wife, who owned a twin prop whatever?
Flew us across at least half the middle of the US.
Very different than a highflying jet.
I could see mile after mile of abandoned farms, ranches mines, towns, RR junctions.

Time to wake up & smell the stench of failure, missy!

Mar 25, 2019
@g
... wrong rate sheet
it's not about the rate

per your own PG&E
you are using net metering (pg 84 & 159 - https://www.pge.c...sics.pdf )

you feed power to the grid during the day, when you may be producing excess energy, and to use the grid supply at night. Net metering is a billing process that credits the owners of grid-tied systems when they produce more energy than the home needs

Because grid-tied homes are usually net-metered, the power meter tracks this exchange between your solar system and the grid. Excess energy generation leads to your power meter spinning backward rather than forward, thus giving you a credit. The credit can be used to offset payments for future power usage

net metering for PG&E starts on pg 159

on pg 166, your pricing example per PG&E
even the feed-in tariff system abides by the CPUC rule

the rate plan (or tier) is about how to bill & comp

Mar 25, 2019
@g cont'd
referencing PG&E - https://www.pge.c...sics.pdf

please note that per tiered rate plans, starting on pg 181, the graphics indicate "cents per kWh"

it continues and explains how you get comp'ed (like on pg 188 - 200)
in order for metering to work for you, it must be comp'ed at least on paper so that the company can know how to charge or refund you when it does (see also: Pg 221 - 223 and on)

when you have time, you should also review CPUC rule 21 - http://www.cpuc.ca.gov as well as the above link explaining the connectivity you have to the grid, your tier, and how you may be metered, including the addition of a smart meter

.

I would have thought an engineer would be conversant with the practices, especially having worked for the company

Mar 26, 2019
it's why fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in solar and wind
They are investing in renewables...
Intermittent renewables = more gas. It's no surprise oil/gas companies are investing heavily in wind/solar(fossil-addicted parasites).
"ALL-TIME HIGH: Last year, U.S. natural gas consumption set a new record due to increases in power sector demand."
http://pbs.twimg...._HZp.png
http://www.eia.go...id=38812

...are SO 20th Century!!
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".
http://uploads.di...97b6.jpg
Green sociopaths are creative in promoting:
- old technologies as they were new;
- land-intensive bird-choppers/landscape-intensive monstrosities as they were Eco-friendly;
- dirty toxic solar/wind manufacturing processes as they were clean;
- expensive energy as it were cheap.

Mar 26, 2019
Rumpy does not understand utility verbiage. I do not sell. He even said it himself above. I only turn my meter backward.

He just LOST the argument.

In order to sell you must have a Power Purchase Agreement, which I do NOT have!!
Stop pretending to understand this.

Mar 26, 2019
Gkam if you are taking power from the grid and then "turning back your meter" you are selling power to the local supplier. The problem with that is you are selling it to them at a much higher price than they pay wholesale. You are being subsidized by your neighbors who are paying the for the maintenance of the local system which you are still utilizing.

Mar 26, 2019
@g
quit misrepresenting solar and "Stop pretending to understand this"
does not understand
He just LOST
then by all means, show everyone where it states this in *your own PG&E* data linked above

...you know, like I just did with your own company literature which stated not only do you "sell" the energy created based upon time of use, but that this is how they actually determine if you have to pay extra at the end of the year
In order to sell you must have a Power Purchase Agreement, which I do NOT have
except that a PPA is typically commercial

See also:
16 U.S.C. 796
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC]
CPUC (Ca.gov - linked above)
PG&E solar basics PDF (linked above)

in order to establish what you do and don't pay, per your own co. link above, you have to establish when you use and how much, *per your own PG&E*

since you can't actually show where I'm wrong using the link, that makes you the loser, not I
links/ref's or STFU

Mar 26, 2019
@mr
The problem with that is you are selling it to them at a much higher price than they pay wholesale
no
in the above link to g, it shows where the "sell back" is wholesale pricing - a commercial provider can't make a profit if they sell at premium (or retail) rates

they are essentially a co-op of solar power users helping augment the grid with solar and, as a collective, there is probably a link or reference in his bill (or contract) where they have a PPA collectively (regulated per 16 USC, FERC and CPUC)
You are being subsidized by your neighbors who are paying the for the maintenance of the local system which you are still utilizing
no
if you're hooked to the grid you have to pay the maintenance fees as well

check out the PDF linked to g above
it explains everything you need from PG&E and is pretty standard for the US in general

Mar 26, 2019
@mr166
if you are interested in learning about solar (detailed data, links and references, and a means to contact *actual engineers* who work in the field) then consider the Solar Living Sourcebook from RealGoods
https://realgoods...-edition

This is a great Solar "bible" for off-grid or even grid-tied living

plus, it's an invaluable resource that is regularly updated and allows you to learn the positives *as well as the limitations* of solar power

I highly recommend it as I've not personally seen a resource that is better suited to the layman. it also explains the whole "net metering" system as well as provides resources for all US states

.

@g
downrating because you can't actually provide evidence for your claims?
even from your own company data?

LMFAO

reported for being an idiot

Mar 26, 2019
Neither of you understand the system since you are on the sidelines You confuse legal verbiage with your own usage. They ain't the same.

I produce power at peak, and trade it for lower-cost power off-peak. The utility loves that. I accept it. I get no money from the utility, which I would if I sold my power.

Mar 26, 2019
@g
Neither of you understand the system since you are on the sidelines
I'm not "on the sidelines"
Not only do I have a PV system, I've recently contacted the local for info on being tied to the grid

also note: I have family in your area who use PG&E, hence my knowledge of your company system as they *also* have solar and are tied to the grid

moreover, if you were able to, you would provide evidence from your own PG&E data above *or* you would link reference material showing otherwise

you can't because you don't know WTF you're talking about
I get no money from the utility, which I would if I sold my power
I didn't say they paid you anything, and no, they don't have to pay you money depending on the rate plan

but that doesn't mean you don't sell to the grid depending on time produced, *per your own PG&E as demonstrated above

Mar 26, 2019
Does your "family" which has solar own their system? Do they have a Solar City or other company give them a rate? It is not as simple as you assume.

You said I sold power and I showed you I do not. I can only do cost avoidance, not income.

Mar 26, 2019
@g
Does your "family" which has solar own their system?
yes
Do they have a Solar City or other company give them a rate?
yes
they have the same company you do and they actually read the fine print as well as the above PDF that is accessible to the users (and public)

That is how I got the link
of course, it's also how I got the specific information for PG&E since you still refuse to actually validate your claims with PG&E references
It is not as simple as you assume
1- I didn't assume
I am using *your own PG&E documentation*

2- I never claimed it was simple, hence my linking to *your own PG&E documentation*
You said I sold power and I showed you I do not
no, you *showed* nothing
you *told* me you do not

and I *showed* you that you do

Nowhere does it state you get *paid*, however, you do get comp'ed per your own admission (here)
and trade it
Moreover, on order for fair *trade* there must be an assignment of value, which I showed

2Bcont'd

Mar 26, 2019
@g cont'd
and I showed you I do not
this is where you've always had your biggest problem: you make the claim of self-perceived authority even when the evidence directly contradicts your claims

you state "I showed you" and yet there isn't a single link or reference you've ever provided in any thread that is evidence that *you*, specifically, provided the evidence that refutes the above evidence *from your own company*

this isn't about "winning" or "losing" - it's about your claims that are directly contradicted by the evidence (also known as a *false claim*, see link below)

provide evidence (not claims, but evidence) - IOW, provide links and references that validate your claim... you know, like I did
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Mar 26, 2019
I definitely come down on the side of seeing that net metering is in effect selling power to the utility. Even if you are paid in what is effectively a credit - used to offset your bill - that to me - is still selling power you generate - to the utility. If as you say - you can generate at peak rate times, and get credit for Kwh's at off peak rate times - then I can see the arrangement as being mutually beneficial. PG and E perhaps avoids having to build out peaker plants - and meet peak load - with lower cost power. Win win.
The bottom line in all of this for me - is that solar and wind are viable energy sources - and it is just ignoring the reality of what is happening in our world. Every day I read multiple articles like this one - https://cleantech...r-mecca/

The transition is happening - despite the protestations of the fossil fuel fan boys.


Mar 26, 2019
Willie liar
Intermittent renewables = more gas.
But I keep giving you one excellent example of how this is not true. In UK of the past 10 years - gas/coal use has gone down - and renewables has gone up. They continue to go up - and the cost keeps going down - so that process will of course accelerate. Keep howling at the tide Willie - it's coming in any way.

Mar 26, 2019
GO, if I sold power to the utilities, I would have money instead of credit, and would get paid for overages. As a former utility engineer, I tell you it is not considered to be selling anything. It offsets my use only.

But you would allow nukes to drive us into poverty and a radioactive future, so I guess, . . .

That was with a smile, . .

Mar 26, 2019
But you would allow nukes to drive us into poverty
I am on record a million times over - hammering away at Willie - about the cost of nukes. I do feel that nukes can be done safely - and if you look at the overall track record of the industry - it has been remarkably safe. The facts support the understanding that renewables give us the best hope of a carbon free, cheap, advanced technology energy system. I am reading about the history of oil right now - and it is staggering how central it has been in creating the broken world we live in. Home grown renewables should be embraced - except that idiots like Willie and MR - are threatened by progress. As for the selling issue - I think we have beaten that horse to death - and we do both agree that putting solar on your house is a great way to participate in the energy system of the future. We plan to get ours done some time in the next few years.

Mar 26, 2019
@Green
I definitely come down on the side of seeing that net metering is in effect selling power to the utility
Thank you. it's because it is

by all means, please tell me if you see anything in the above PG&E links (or the state/federal references) that indicate otherwise

it's painfully apparent that certain people have not actually read the data at all...

.

.

@g

still no references?

what you're saying is: you can't actually validate your claims so you will reiterate them ad nauseum until we believe it as much as you

thank you for proving, in your own words, that you're making false claims knowingly, especially since you've had at least 2.5 years to actually find the data


Mar 27, 2019
...In UK of the past 10 years - gas/coal use has gone down - ...
And demand has dropped thanks to expensive renewables.

Intermittent renewables are like socialism, they fool the public and destroy economies.
"$535 million"
"Remember Solyndra? Loss of taxpayer millions now seems forgotten, expert says"
https://www.foxne...ert-says

"RE is cheaper"?
German industry: "The electricity costs borne by energy-intensive industries in this country must not climb any further. Otherwise it will be impossible to produce anything in Germany at an internationally-competitive level."
https://www.thegw...o-warns/
https://www.icis....ker-ceo/

...liar...
True liars love to call other liars.

Mar 27, 2019
Rumpy is arguing my point now, but calling it something else, because that is how he started blabbing.

I do cost avoidance. I do not sell, and those of you who think so are not in the field. Your use of the terms is wrong, done so to save your silly little ego.

Mar 27, 2019
LMFAO
... is arguing my point now, but calling it something else
still lying, eh?
I do cost avoidance. I do not sell, and those of you who think so are not in the field. Your use of the terms is wrong, done so to save your silly little ego.
still no references?
Still can't actually prove your point with your own PG&E link that I sent to you?

what you're saying is: you can't actually validate your claims so you will reiterate your beliefs ad nauseum until perhaps we believe it?

thank you for proving, in your own words, that you're making false claims knowingly, especially since you've had at least 2.5 years to actually find the data

I'm just going to report the rest of your bullsh*t since I know you can't prove your lie

Mar 27, 2019
All I know is...
Decentralization of the power grid is the best option to rising power requirements...

Mar 27, 2019
Stumpy, your problem is emotional. I irritated you somehow years ago, and you went completely nuts. Mad, screaming nuts.

Then, when I proved who I was and what I did, you went even more nuts.

Outgrow it.

Mar 27, 2019
True Conservatives would mandate efficiency.
Efficient power consumption.
Efficient pollutants suppression.
Efficient trchnology,
distribution of declining resources
& replacement with plentiful substitutes.

Industries that pollute are a sign of corporate mismanagement & engineering incompetency, political corruption, civic abandonment &
the deterioration of society.

What the fakepatriots &
fraudulentconservatives seek is a fascist police state of all authority corrupted to despotism.
Only nuclear energy will be legal in a centralized tyranny their domination.

They will outlaw renewable energy collection & distribution as "unfair" competition.
The New Order gouging consumers with extreme price hikes.

Don't complain!
The atomic priesthood is listening.
Their delicate soft hands are not going to endanger their fat pink asses with labor.
Dissidents & protestors will find yourselves & your families sent to work the uranium mines & be sacrificed in the waste pits.

Mar 27, 2019
@g
your problem is emotional. I irritated you somehow
so, because you can't actually validate your claims with evidence, it's my problem and I'm just "emotional"?
how does that work?
Your use of the terms is wrong, done so to save your silly little ego
except that I am quoting directly from either:
your own PG&E information, written by *actual* engineers
the state law & regulations
federal law & regulations
actual engineers
(references above)

this is an example of an emotional argumet
I showed you I do not
(this was proven to be blatantly false, for the record)
He just LOST the argument
Stop pretending to understand this
...does not understand utility verbiage
these are all also false claims

http://www.auburn...ion.html

nothing nuts above, just proof positive that you're lying and misrepresenting facts

you will respond, but unless it's facts with verifiable references, I'm reporting your posts

Mar 27, 2019
Aren't you the silly boy who asserted I could not have been a Senior Energy Services Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E because I had no professional license?

Those of you on the outside do not know how the world works.

Mar 27, 2019
Willie Liar
And demand has dropped thanks to expensive renewables
Prove that the cause for demand drop is expensive renewables.
Total electricity generation in the UK reached a 25-year low last year, because of economic restructuring and more energy efficient appliances and lighting
The lower demand was as a result of efficiency improvements in appliances and lighting, for both residential and industrial consumers
So hey - the UK is on the right track. More and more renewables - with the price falling fast. Less and less fossil fuels. Less and less emissions. In other words - they prove you are a liar on many fronts. https://www.ft.co...761d2745

Mar 27, 2019
OK Capt. I read the PG&E pdf about net metering and although users are not "selling" their power to the local grid they are using the Local grid as a bank and not paying a delivery fee for each KWH they consume at night unless they "overdraw" their account. For all intents and purposes this is selling your power to the grid at full residential prices. Their neighbors are subsidizing them by paying full rates for the upkeep of the local delivery system while they are using it as a backup system for free.

Mar 27, 2019
To make matters worse the solar users then virtue signal their greeness while denying that they are picking the pockets of their neighbors. Now if these same people were to have their own battery backup and pay full price for the gird power that they did use them I will gladly give them my kudos.

Mar 27, 2019
Now I can hear the green howls now about how net metering does not cost others any money. Well let's go back to my island where everyone has solar power on their roofs and pay nothing but a monthly connection fee to the grid but have no usage fee for KWHs consumed. Their power utility still has to maintain the grid and run the gas generators during the nighttime hours. Yet they cannot bill for the KWHs used. In other words in a large scale the net metering system does not make financial sense or cents either.

Mar 27, 2019
@MR166.

Again you leave out important subtle factors to make your pre-biased disparaging comments about people using the grid as described. What you left out is that the power which goes back to the grid is used by the electric company to level out the demand/generating factors which in turn are to the generators advantage and also to the other customers they serve. It's not just about money in/money out, it's about overall WIN-WIN for both the solar powered customer and the electric company whose grid they are on; not to mention the solar powered customer can also provide excess power to their neighbours at peak times so the electric company doesn't have to route dearer power from their own overwhelmed generators or from further away. Variations to the arrangements are there, and are used here in OZ to the benefit of all parties...in some cases without necessarily 'selling' excess rooftop power. Get all the factors to avoid disparaging what you don't understand, mate. :)

Mar 27, 2019
@mr
Their neighbors are subsidizing them by paying full rates for the upkeep of the local delivery system while they are using it as a backup system for free
not quite

the solar users are still required to pay for the upkeep of the system, including being charged for maintenance, just like regular users

the difference between solar users and regular users is that the solar users put energy into the grid augmenting the existing production (of which there are different charges [rates] for users depending on time of use). that is a key point and relevant not only to them "selling" to the grid but also for the company profit margin (in order to track value for the "bank" you mentioned, the company *must* know kWh and time of use to ensure the company still makes a profit)

what PV users then become are something like a co-op augmenting the grid, but still paying the company to use and maintain the grid

check out the CA and fed references


Mar 28, 2019
"the solar users are still required to pay for the upkeep of the system, including being charged for maintenance, just like regular users"

Capt if you are talking about the basic monthly service fee that is a pittance. It is the delivery fee on each KWH that supports the maintenance. Net metering appears to eliminate that fee for the energy used during the night if one has enough solar power.

Mar 28, 2019
RC there is no win-win since the power companies still have to keep the same number of gas plants running just in case there is a reduction of solar output. As I said, each KWH added to the grid by solar only saves the utility 2.7 cents while they lose the much higher distribution fees at night. The other ratepayers pay for this loss in the form of a higher KWH delivery fee.

Mar 28, 2019
@mr
Net metering appears to eliminate that fee for the energy used during the night if one has enough solar power
appears to and *does* are two different things
there is no such thing as a free lunch

there is a considerable higher demand for power during the day, so it's beneficial for all parties to augment the grid whenever possible, especially with green technology

at night there is a considerably lower demand for power

regardless of either, the PV user still is required to pay for use of the grid and the power supplied by the grid *at retail rates* - their trade of solar is sold to the grid at wholesale rates

IOW - capitalism

the user with PV has a bargaining chip, individually and collectively, that the non-PV user doesn't have, so the PV users utilise it as a means for capital by way of trade, compensation or negation of excess financial output, which is why the company *must* track kWh and time of input

risk and reward for the PV user

Mar 28, 2019
@mr
while they lose the much higher distribution fees at night. The other ratepayers pay for this loss in the form of a higher KWH delivery fee
what loss?
The grid hasn't changed, and there are the same number of running plants at night regardless of the number of PV users

the PV users still "buy" power at the same price at night
the difference is that the PV user took a financial risk in the purchase of new green technology to augment the grid during the day

as a result, they utilise the output and sell the power to the grid wholesale

this would be essentially the same as a power company choosing to purchase power from [x] solar array or similar co-op to augment the grid, except the power company doesn't have to provide for a centralised feed to a specific commercial organization

the power company isn't losing anything and neither is the grid users without PV, they just don't provide an additional service like PV users do

Mar 28, 2019
@mr
honest question: where does the following come from?
The other ratepayers pay for this loss in the form of a higher KWH delivery fee.
where has anything changed from the typical user without PV?

rates are going to increase regardless because of the cost of living, increase in wages, inflation, increasing production costs, maintenance, etc (ad nauseum)

so in light of the profits of utilities in the US, where are you getting that "The other ratepayers pay for this loss in the form of a higher KWH delivery fee"?


Mar 28, 2019
Go back to my island where everyone is net metered Capt and tell me how that system would work. The only reason there is no obvious problem now is so few homes are net metered that the losses are well hidden.

Mar 28, 2019
@mr
The only reason there is no obvious problem now is so few homes are net metered that the losses are well hidden.
no, they're not... they *literally* can't be
(only a temporary loss can be hidden, and then only temporarily, especially to those with a vested interest in knowing the financial status of a company)

take any local power company and show me in their profit/loss where there is a loss

This isn't about hypothetical anything: I'm asking you to show me where there is a loss

I am asking because if this *was* a loss, you would see a considerable spike in power company losses when there were no natural disasters or other types of major impacts to the economy that would influence their profits

a company doesn't stay in business by taking a loss unless there is another company (or gov't) willing to bail them out at no cost, but that will only defer the collapse unless said company begins to show a profit

Mar 28, 2019
Captain the scientist in you understands exactly what I am saying.

Mar 28, 2019
@mr
Captain the scientist in you understands exactly what I am saying
no, it doesn't, because there is no logic or evidence (see below)

and my first course of study wasn't in science, it was in Business Management, hence my questions about the loss

.

.

in point of fact, it could be considered a false claim considering the evidence directly refutes the claims made, which is where I am at a loss to understand ( http://www.auburn...ion.html )

this is why I am asking and why I want you to show me

Mar 28, 2019
Stumpy, your problem is emotional. I irritated you somehow years ago, and you went completely nuts. Mad, screaming nuts.

Then, when I proved who I was and what I did, you went even more nuts.

Outgrow it.
says gkam

LOL So true. I read your posts of that time. I'm glad you stayed in physorg.

Mar 28, 2019
MR166.
RC there is no win-win since the power companies still have to keep the same number of gas plants running...
Yet again you miss the subtle factors which make your limited analysis misleading, mate. Consider: The GRID is bigger than the 'local grid' from any one power plant. And the power company generates power as needed BETTER because in the first place the GAS TURBINE plants are 'quick startup/shutdown' and 'quick decrease/increase in power generated' according to NORMAL load/demand variations. And on top of that 'stand-alone' flexibility there is solar/wind available for further GRID/LOCAL balancing during peak/emergencies/disasters); AND finally the electric company has the last-resort (dearer option) of IMPORTING from the WIDER GRID...which it will have to do less often when local solar/wind from homes/commercial premises can supply local/cheaper power that the company doesn't have to import at greater cost.

It's WIN-WIN-WIN, mate; if it's done right. :)

Mar 29, 2019
...More and more renewables...Less and less fossil fuels...
Trillions of dollars spent on intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/land-intensive monstrosities) to achieve almost nothing at reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.
"Carbon Emissions Hit a Record High" - Mar 25, 2019
https://www.bloom...n-decade

Green sociopaths(maniac compulsive pathological liars) have not option except to continue lying like there's no tomorrow and calling liar who debunks their lies.

Mar 29, 2019
I would LOVE to see a real solution for the shortcomings of renewables be invented. There are lots of possibilities like flow batteries or power to fuel plants. What I dislike about renewables is the push to end nukes and coal in order to make renewables more feasible.

Oil and natural gas are finite and too valuable as transportation fuels to waste as fuel for electrical generation. Clean coal should be encouraged instead of being vilified.

Net metering is a prime example of the green establishment lying to the public about the financial viability of renewables. The true economic costs of backing them up are well hidden in order to make them appear to be viable. In particular Australia's plan to become 100% renewable by 2030 would be laughable if the consequences of such a inane decision were not so horrid.

Mar 29, 2019
Willie
Trillions of dollars spent on intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/land-intensive monstrosities) to achieve almost nothing at reducing emissions
Plenty to show in terms of emissions reductions - shown you that a thousand times Willie Liar.

Good thing - being that only 15% of countries in the world have nukes - but 100% have renewables.

Mar 29, 2019
MR
Clean coal should be encouraged instead of being vilified
Well - that is an opinion - albeit a very ignorant one.
wind and solar, even backed by hours of storage and fully dispatchable, still beat the fossil fuel generators
But hey MR - you and Willie keep screaming at the tide to stop coming in - maybe the tide will hear you!!!!!
https://renewecon...y-60383/

Mar 30, 2019
@mr
What I dislike about renewables is the push to end nukes...
nukes aren't going away
we will need it, especially if we get a fusion reactor going
Net metering is a prime example of the green establishment lying to the public about the financial viability of renewables. The true economic costs of backing them up are well hidden in order to make them appear to be viable
and I ask again: show me the evidence

don't make up a story about an island that is not applicable; don't make a claim about some grand conspiracy with hidden costs that only you can see

there are links above to net metering in CA that also explain their setup, so pick the parts out of the PDF I linked

Mar 31, 2019
"{and I ask again: show me the evidence"

Capt lets say I own an egg farm and deliver eggs to my customers. You on the other hand own 2 chickens that lay 2 eggs in the morning. You eat one egg in the morning and one egg at night. However the eggs will not keep until night and you require me to pick up your egg in the morning and deliver an egg back to you at night. Your premise is that since you have not drawn any eggs from my egg supply that we are even and you owe me nothing.

Mar 31, 2019
You further assume that if all of my customers were to raise their own chickens and insist on the same arrangement that I would still make a profit and stay in business.

Mar 31, 2019
Oh yea, I forgot to add this point. If you and your neighbors chickens get sick and do not lay any eggs for a week I am still required to deliver all of the eggs that they require so I must still keep the egg farm going.

Mar 31, 2019
Solar and wind are a fraud.
Fossil fuels love intermittent renewables.

"The Dirty Secret Of Renewables Advocates Is That They Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate" - Mar 28, 2019
"But if solar and wind are substitutes for fossil fuels, why are the world's biggest oil and gas firms promoting them?"
"Over the last three years, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables and other climate-related ventures."
"All of which raises the question: why, if renewable energy advocates like Greenpeace, AOC and Thunberg are such defenders of the climate, are they advocating the replacement of zero-pollution nuclear plants, which will require burning more fossil fuels?"
https://www.forbe...climate/

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
You further assume that
first off, I assume nothing
I have, however, provided ample evidence to support my claims while you've talked about islands and chicken farms

the real question is: where is your evidence?
where are the failed power companies and regular customers destitute b/c they pay all the fees? (per your example)

secondly
since you have not drawn any eggs from my egg supply that we are even and you owe me nothing
you're forgetting that there are a sh*tload of non-chicken owners requiring eggs during the day being demanded from the chicken farms (though mostly during the day, which is where the second farmer sends his eggs)
Your premise is... I forgot to add this point
your points are not applicable, nor is your assumption of the premise

in barter and trade or capitalism, the price is set by supply vs demand, not ownership

Mar 31, 2019
ct'd @mr
using your example
lets say I own an egg farm and deliver eggs to my customers
this makes you the power company, therefore the supplier
You on the other hand own 2 chickens that lay 2 eggs in the morning. You eat one egg in the morning and one egg at night
this makes me a consumer and small producer
However the eggs will not keep until night and you require me to pick up your egg in the morning and deliver an egg back to you at night
this is the failure of your premise
when you receive the egg, you only promise an egg in return, however, you then sell the egg (to other customers) at a premium rate, which is the standard you've always been selling your eggs

this makes you a supplier who subcontracts production to smaller producers
even with you returning *an* egg at night, you're still making a profit off of your egg *and the egg provided that morning by me*

plus you will still charge me a fee for the night egg meaning that I lose $ regardless

Mar 31, 2019
"I have, however, provided ample evidence to support my claims while you've talked about islands and chicken farms"

Capt. I must have missed something. Please provide a link that shows how much each net metering customer pays to support generation and delivery systems for each KWH used at night verses a regular customer's KWH used at night.

Mar 31, 2019
ct'd @mr
...since you have not drawn any eggs from my egg supply that we are even and you owe me nothing
which makes your premise false, as the link above demonstrates that the power producer makes a profit off *all* the sold power

you've assumed that the night withdrawal is somehow banking power until later use, mostly because of the terminology and the promotion of false claims - that is *not* what happens; there is no such thing as a free lunch

solar users who are tied to the grid are an unconsolidated co-op of producers selling to the local power company, no different than if the power company were to buy wholesale from, say, Duke Energy Florida, except the power company can underpay the solar user for several reasons, not least being lack of legal representation or incorporation

only users with batteries can *bank* power for later use, and even that costs

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
I must have missed something. Please provide a link that shows how much each net metering customer pays to support generation and delivery systems for each KWH used at night verses a regular customer's KWH used at night
its in the PDF above

they pay exactly the same price for power as everyone else

the only difference is that they also sell power wholesale

if you will note in the PDF from PG&E, as well as state and federal references, all users withdrawing power from the grid have to pay for the power, upkeep and maintenance

the only difference between you, the basic user, and someone using PV is that the PV user, who took the *risk* with a purchase of equipment to produce power also gets to sell that excess power during times of high use

this is why I linked the above and I keep telling gkam to read it - it's not a "bank": that is terminology that lets the PV user feel good about their purchase. it's also misleading unless you read the contracts

Mar 31, 2019
Capt. humor me and re-post the link that explains the rates that net metering customers get when they buy and sell power.

Thanks,

166

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
Capt. humor me and re-post the link that explains the rates that net metering customers get when they buy and sell power.

Thanks,

166
OK
https://www.pge.c...sics.pdf

fyi - if you use ctrl+f and search this article for "pdf" it was the second link I ran into

search for any of these lines too
net metering (pg 84 & 159 )
on pg 166, your pricing example per PG&E
even the feed-in tariff system abides by the CPUC rule

the rate plan (or tier) is about how to bill & comp
starting on pg 181, the graphics indicate "cents per kWh"

it continues and explains how you get comp'ed (like on pg 188 - 200)[q/]

Mar 31, 2019
also note, the PDF provides other links and references you can peer through explaining the solar-grid system and there is also a contact person and address/e-mail if you have questions
Thanks,

166
you're welcome

back in 20m

Mar 31, 2019
Thanks Capt. from the pdf.....

"•
CPUC rule—PG&E must comply

The "full retail" rate that PV owners get paid for their power includes a subsidy (markup) that comes from all rate payers.

The CPUC determined that this full subsidy would only be allowed to cover your usage, not for you to go into the power-generation business.

For over-production, compensation will be at a lower rate, to be determined."

In other words no bill and no payment towards maintenance if your production equals your usage over the year.

This is EXACTLY what I had claimed. You are just trading eggs and others are paying the bills!

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
This is EXACTLY what I had claimed. You are just trading eggs and others are paying the bills!
and again, the wording is important:
The CPUC determined that this full subsidy would only be allowed to cover your usage, not for you to go into the power-generation business

For over-production, compensation will be at a lower rate, to be determined
this means that you can't make money off of the power you generate, you can only cover the cost of what you generate vs what you use

this isn't "no bill and no payment towards maintenance" - this is no bill for *use* because you produced as much as you used (likely over, which case you get squat)

you still pay for hookup, maintenance and other fees per state law (See: CPUC) as well as federal mandate

IOW - as I stated: it's like a decentralised co-op
capitalism at work

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
and others are paying the bills!
from CPUC
The CPUC approves the amount that each electric utility can collect from its customers. This is a utility's "revenue requirement" and it is based on the cost of operating, maintaining, and financing the infrastructure used to run the utility; and on the cost of its procured fuel and power. The revenue requirement forms the basis for how electric rates get determined for each customer class
http://www.cpuc.c...s_Rates/

see also: section 451 (Public util. code)
http://www.cpuc.c...?id=6043

Pay non-bypassable charges. Customer-generators, similar to other utility customers, will pay small charges on each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity they consume from the grid. These charges fund important programs such as low-income and energy efficiency programs.

http://www.cpuc.c...?id=3800


Mar 31, 2019
Willie liar
But if solar and wind are substitutes for fossil fuels, why are the world's biggest oil and gas firms promoting them
Because they are energy companies - and they see the writing on the wall. They understand that if they don't move with the times - they will be left out of the game. So Shell now asserts that it will be the largest electricity supplier in the world - within 10 years. https://renewecon...n-70440/
It would be a bit like horse and carriage makers - not changing over to becoming auto makers. You can't stop progress Willie - you can just lie about it - and lay at night worrying about it - cuz your day is ending - and a new one is dawning. https://www.forbe...7b833a8b

Mar 31, 2019
"this isn't "no bill and no payment towards maintenance" - this is no bill for *use* because you produced as much as you used (likely over, which case you get squat)"

You are still trading eggs Capt.

Since you are a business major I am really surprised that we are even having this discussion.

Mar 31, 2019
To tell you the truth Capt. this discussion just proves my theory that the whole green movement is closer to a religion than to a science.

Mar 31, 2019
@mr last
In other words
as you can see, there is a wording play being done from PG&E
this is because it wants the customer, the primary reader of the PDF, to feel like they're getting something for nothing

it works - see all of georgina's history

if you read the PDF and compare it to the CPUC regulatory commission, state and federal law you will see that *all* users pay maintenance and grid fees as well as the same price for power

the difference is that PV users make a financial risk that generates power as a decentralised co-op allowing them to sell their power when it's needed (assisting the power company)

capitalism: they take the financial risk and they provide a service

Overall, they save money, but the initial costs are high (including interest charges on loans/in programs)

there are pro's and con's to it, but nowhere is anyone getting anything for free, nor requiring others to foot their bill

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
You are still trading eggs Capt
no, it's not
to "trade eggs", both parties must be on equal footing (the PV user is not equivalent to the power company)

if you want to talk about trading eggs, it should be thus:
PG&E has an egg farm (10K eggs a month); you're a user; I'm a user with chickens

you buy 10 eggs - you pay for 10 eggs plus tax, etc

I buy 10 eggs, I pay for 10 eggs plus tax, etc
I sell back 5 eggs so that PG&E can sell those eggs to bakeries, restaurants, etc
I get compensated for the sold eggs

end of story

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
Since you are a business major I am really surprised that we are even having this discussion.
since you're arguing from republican capitalistic beliefs, I am really surprised that you don't comprehend how selling [x] for profit is sensible?

I don't care what your political affiliation is - I have none and I hate them all equally

however, your arguments come straight out of the repub handbook, media and other sources, which I'm familiar with as I have family that send me their stuff

how is it that you don't comprehend this basic trade agreement?

especially as it's spelt out in a PDF, on the CPUC references and in federal regulations?

I mean, this isn't a secret in any way... this is business 101
you take a risk, you produce, you get $$, you win

nothing in there about not paying for services rendered in any way, bro

Mar 31, 2019
Well Capt. we all seem to be having great fun so I will continue with the discussion.

From your pdf........

"The "full retail" rate that PV owners get paid for their power includes a subsidy (markup) that comes from all rate payers."

In this case the subsidy is 6 cents?KWH per the pdf.

This is not business 101 as you claim but but reverse socialism where the poor subsidize the wealthy homeowners.

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
This is not business 101 as you claim but but reverse socialism where the poor subsidize the wealthy homeowners
ah... not quite
the above is just payment for service rendered (IOW - business 101)
PV user has produced [x] amount of electricity and got paid for that amount

socialism would be something like this from CPUC
Pay non-bypassable charges. Customer-generators, similar to other utility customers, will pay small charges on each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity they consume from the grid. These charges fund important programs such as low-income and energy efficiency programs
does PV benefit those willing to take the risk? yes
is it "the poor subsidize the wealthy"? not in any way

the poor aren't paying anything different than the rich, unless you're below a certain level, and then they likely pay *far less* per the above CPUC quote

Mar 31, 2019
@mr
In this case the subsidy is 6 cents?KWH per the pdf
don't forget about the other part which is relevant in context
The CPUC determined that this full subsidy would only be allowed to cover your usage, not for you to go into the power-generation business

For over-production, compensation will be at a lower rate, to be determined
this is the "fine print" that georgina ignored and you seem to be forgetting (or ignoring?)
where the poor subsidize the wealthy homeowners
quick question: why is there still a charge to the gid connected to "fund important programs such as low-income and energy efficiency programs"?

that means, regardless of what you produce, you still "fund important programs such as low-income and energy efficiency programs" per the state

doesn't sound like your "reverse socialism", does it?

Apr 02, 2019
They understand that if they don't move with the times - they will be left out of the game.
Hilarious to see the faux-greens(maniac compulsive pathological liars) openly defending the fossil fuel companies because intermittent renewables only exist to serve as 'decorative facades' for coal/oil/gas/fracking in a promiscuous symbiotic relationship to face Hydro and carbon-free nuclear.

Ban fossil fuels and solar/wind dies.
Ban subsidies and solar/wind dies.
Ban solar/wind and no one will never notice the difference except in the electricity bills that will become cheaper without these useless placebos, fossil-addicted parasites.

"Per unit of energy produced, wind & solar get mega-subsidies. A study by the U. 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."
https://www.forbe...s-or-no/

Apr 02, 2019
@willie
Ban subsidies and solar/wind dies.
you do realise that fossil fuels are also heavily subsidised, right?

even Forbes states
In addition to the $18.5 billion in [US Federal] "subsidies" states also grant an additional $3 billion in tax breaks to the oil & gas sector that can be considered subsides

Apr 02, 2019
Well Capt. tell me what the subsidies are, in the form of cents/MWH produced, for solar, wind, fossil and nuclear and then we will see where the bargains are.

Apr 02, 2019
Then of course renewables get subsidies in the form of government grants i.e. real taxpayer $$$ whereas fossil just gets tax breaks i.e. lower rates. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

Apr 02, 2019
Ban subsidies and solar/wind dies
Nukes are already dying - and begging governments around the world for subsidies to keep their uneconomic megaliths running.

While subsidies for wind are set to phase out in 2020 and those for solar by 2022, there's no end in sight for annual subsidies flowing to the fossil fuel industry


https://www.conco...24461403

Interesting how free market fan boys like MR above - just hate gubermint supports - unless it is for their own pet industries - then they are all in love with crony capitalism.

Apr 02, 2019
Onions they spent 2 TRILLION on solar and wind power and have very little to show for it.

The $20 billion fossil subsidies, if that number is even correct, that the article quoted includes tax breaks that ALL companies get like depreciation and the like. When you can produce real numbers that itemize each deduction and their applicability to other industries ( or not ) please post the numbers and then we can talk.

Apr 02, 2019
Onions they spent 2 TRILLION on solar and wind power and have very little to show for it
MR - how much have we spent on nukes? Read up on the history of oil. Show us where you got your 2 trillion number - and show us how this compares to our spending on oil. Here is one reference that calculates the world spends $400 billion a year on fossil fuels. That is $4 trillion over 10 years.
But you cannot understand the point. We must stop using fossil fuels. 2 reasons. 1 - they are destroying our ability to survive. 2 - they are finite. So an investment in renewable energy makes sense.
You miss the point. You pro free market hypocrites - are fine with gubermint supports for your favored industries. But scream like a stuck pig when it is renewables. You love crony capitalism - until you don't. You are hypocrites. Renewables are the future - so deal with it - or don't - cuz the universe does not care what you or I think.

Apr 02, 2019
"Here is one reference that calculates the world spends $400 billion a year on fossil fuels."

Yup and it feed us, keeps us warm, gets us to work, gives us a job, reduces manual labor 200x, ends millions of TONS of horse manure in our streets and makes our medicine. Sounds like a great bargain to me.

Apr 02, 2019
Yup and it feed us....Sounds like a great bargain to me
And developing renewable energy sounds like a great bargain to me. Developing the energy grid of the future - so that we can have all of the advances you speak of. It is called progress. You just can't understand what a hypocrite you are - loving crony capitalism for one industry - but hating on it for another. Because of the development money spent on renewables - they are now at cost parity with fossil fuels - and the cost keeps falling. So now they are ready to stand without subsidies - which you certainly can't say about nukes. https://www.washi...158afc14
whereas supports for nuclear are perpetual and now increasing
But hypocrites like you love crony capitalism - until you don't.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
Then of course renewables get subsidies in the form of government grants i.e. real taxpayer $$$ whereas fossil just gets tax breaks i.e. lower rates
ya know, if you're going to talk sh*t, you should look it up first

from Forbes
...let's first define subsidy. According to Dictionary.com subsidy can be defined four ways:

a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
a grant or contribution of money.
money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

The definition does not claim that a subsidy is defined as not paying a certain amount in taxes.
care to try again on that?

Apr 03, 2019
OK Capt. I'll bite. Please show me where fossil companies get 20 billion a year in subsidies as Onion's link claimed. Remember tax breaks do not count.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
Please show me where fossil companies get 20 billion a year in subsidies as Onion's link claimed. Remember tax breaks do not count
ya know, a google search of Forbes will get you exactly the information you seek, especially since I've referenced Forbes above...

in fact, they have a great article about debunking myths about Federal oil & gas subsidies written in 2016 by Len Tesoro from Drillinginfo, which "is the leading SaaS and data analytics company for energy exploration decision support, helping the oil and gas industry achieve better, faster results"

they mention both low end and high end mentioned subsidy amounts, which are between $10 billion to $52 billion. I chose the high end of the lower grouping of the $10-$18.5 billion estimates in their article, still well below the $52 billion mark

Also - I didn't take data from Onion's link
I specifically chose a conservative pro-oil link that you would be more inclined to accept that directly refuted your claims

Apr 03, 2019

Capt. you are still not showing me a breakdown of the supposed 20 billion in "subsidies" and you won't be able to because no one has bothered to disclose where this magic number came from.

Apr 03, 2019
I love the way that greenies throw out figures as the truth with little or no detail as to how they were derived. Capt. let's take your max figure of $52 billion in subsidies as gospel.

I will use double Onions figure of 400 billion and call world consumption 800 billion of oil a year. The US uses 20% of than or $160 billion a year. Now does anyone expect me to believe that there is a $52 billion US subsidy on a $160 billion product. Without details the $52 billion figure is meaningless.


Apr 03, 2019
There is a complete lack of sunlight in the solar and wind industry. Lot's of subsidies and very little publicity reporting the amounts of power generated by a project and how this number compares to original estimates. I have never seen any financial statements showing how cost effective a project is using real operating figures. I am sure that it is available but it is not really offered as news.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
Capt. you are still not showing me a breakdown of the supposed 20 billion in "subsidies" and you won't be able to because no one has bothered to disclose where this magic number came from.
besides having to consolidate between GAO, OMD, Congressional budgets, state and federal Energy offices, it's not easily done and referenced

however, in the Forbes reference I gave above, they gleaned some data from the following: http://priceofoil...2017.pdf

so there are consolidated sources, but you will immediately dismiss them
I love the way that greenies throw out figures as the truth with little or no detail as to how they were derived
how ironic - I love how deniers make grandiose claims of conspiracy, fraud and false science when there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate their claims

I've provided substantiating references - you haven't

what does that say about your argument?

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
correction: OMD above should read OMB
let's take your max figure of $52 billion in subsidies as gospel
ah, the ol' strawman scare tactic
No - I used the $18.5 billion for a reason: it's moderately low, it's supported by evidence (OMB, DoE, https://www.treasury.gov , plus above references), and it's likely the most realistic number all things considered while still being considerably lower than the liberal statements of $50billion
There is a complete lack of sunlight in the solar and wind industry
do not, under any circumstances, assume that I am advocating for solar/wind exclusively, or for immediate shutdown of all power generating plants and swapping to solar - I live on renewables: I *know* their limitations

I'm not so ignorant that I don't see a need for additional power sources like Fusion/Fission

I am just knowledgable enough to know that continued emissions of carbon are dangerous and really, really f*cking stupid, considering the *evidence*

Apr 03, 2019
Capt. you referenced a pdf where the title was"DIRTY ENERGY DOMINANCE: DEPENDENT ON DENIAL".

There was little or no improvement from there on.

You statement that valid subsidy figures require lots of work across many fields of expertise is very true. Yet, these subsidy figures are brandied about at will with little proof by biased "experts". This just makes my case that they are not credible more powerful.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
Capt. you referenced a pdf where the title was"DIRTY ENERGY DOMINANCE: DEPENDENT ON DENIAL".

There was little or no improvement from there on
didn't I even predict you would dismiss it?
wait... what did I state?
so there are consolidated sources, but you will immediately dismiss them
so the question is: did you bother to parse out the references and read them?

nope
you didn't

I know this because you posted:
1- far too quickly, considering the volume of reference material
2- missed the references to OMB, Finance etc
...these subsidy figures are brandied about at will with little proof by biased "experts"
and yet, when provided with empirical evidence validating the claims of those "experts" that is supported by references from original sources, you chose to ignore it based on the title and authors alone, ignoring the actual evidence

this is why I chose the conservative link and Forbes above - because you *do not* look at the evidence

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
This just makes my case that they are not credible more powerful.
I left this for last
if you were unbiased, you might have an argument there

however, you chose to present a biased, conservative republican political talking point, then chose to strawman and fearmonger with inflated data, and then you chose to ignore the source material that validated the claims made by the linked source

the linked information isn't false: I double checked the data when I first run across the article in 2016, and I try to keep up with some of it, mostly because I know people like you IRL who want references

point being: you've chosen to specifically ignore factually correct data because of the title and author rather than actually check facts

I hate all political parties, and I'm neither conservative nor liberal, though I have aspects of both

ask yourself this (honestly): if I can take the time to look at both sides and *follow the evidence*, why can't you?

Apr 03, 2019
From your post

"a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
a grant or contribution of money.
money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

The definition does not claim that a subsidy is defined as not paying a certain amount in taxes. "

Page 11 of YOUR PDF calls tax deductions SUBSIDIES!!! Come on Capt. at least be consistent.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
...at least be consistent
let us talk about consistency a moment:

the PDF was offered for the reference material because you asked for, and I'll quote from the second request
a breakdown of the supposed 20 billion in "subsidies" and you won't be able to because no one has bothered to disclose where this magic number came from
so, I provide you with not only the breakdown but also the references listed (debunking you)

above, I specifically noted that Forbes excluded taxes and gave their quote, to which you requested a breakdown

now, if the PDF included the taxes, that is on the PDF, not me, because I specifically wasn't including them (and neither was Forbes in their conservative, pro-oil article, which I quoted)

now you want to call out inconsistency when the sole purpose for the PDF was to provide you with specific information and a breakdown as requested?

what's next? calling my mom fat? (she is. don't bother)

Apr 03, 2019
Capt. A few posts back you bothered define subsidies thus claiming that any subsidies figure attributed to big oil did not include tax deductions. Then I asked you to show the breakdown of these subsides and you reference a pdf that claims that tax deductions are subsidies.

K?

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
A few posts back you bothered define subsidies thus claiming that any subsidies figure attributed to big oil did not include tax deductions
yep
and I stated it was Forbes, so my source was Forbes, meaning, specifically, that Forbes was the reference
Then I asked you to show the breakdown of these subsides and you reference a pdf that claims that tax deductions are subsidies
yep
and Forbes got that breakdown *not only* from the PDF mentioned (as I stated above) but also from the reference material that is also in the aforementioned PDF

I also checked the data in Forbes, the PDF and the reference material

I never stated that the PDF was my source for my claims: I said Forbes was (for the quotes) and I provided Forbes *and some of their sources* which are also included in the PDF

you made an assumption - it was wrong

got it yet?

Apr 03, 2019
"got it yet?"

Yup I got it. I could argue but I will let the posts speak for themselves.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
Then I asked you to show the breakdown of these subsides
here is just one more thing that is so annoying about these discussions: I specifically chose a conservative republican media outlet linking to a pro-oil article *specifically for you* so you couldn't complain about bias

instead of actually reading the article and checking their references you chose to argue that there are no consolidated sources for [x] data and that I am not consistent

so... Forbes published a pro-oil article (mentioned) breaking down oil etc subsidies for the 2016 election, provides resources and references, and offers the pro-oil take which is surprisingly middle-ground because of those pesky things called "facts", while using a "greenie" source with consolidated information gleaned from gov't sources, but it's my fault?

and you don't see the problem?


Apr 03, 2019
@mr
I could argue but I will let the posts speak for themselves
as I just explained (and we posted at the same time), the posts do speak for themselves

you're so anti-AGW that you won't even take your own conservative source material, even when it's your own conservative oil company writers using green PDF's, simply because a person who argues against your beliefs posted it to you

that is the very problem with the denier movement: you won't even take *your own evidence* just because someone you dislike posts it

LMFAO

thanks for the demonstration though

Apr 03, 2019
I read the pdf and just as I suspected many of the so called oil subsidies were just tax deductions for expenses that oil companies incur. Yes some were unique to the energy industry but face it the oil industry is not Walmart or Apple. They have their own special expenses.

The pdf was very anti fossil energy and as such was prone to classify everything that it could as a subsidy. On page 22 it even included contributions to the highway trust fund as an oil subsidy!

As I said the quoted figures are usually very biased.

Apr 03, 2019
Capt.'s link was so biased that it is worth another post.

http://priceofoil...2017.pdf

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
As I said the quoted figures are usually very biased
misdirection/false claim

the PDF wasn't my source: Forbes was

so show me, in the *original source material referenced* where the information I gave is wrong
(remember: I didn't use taxes)

this is demonstrative of the denier problem, especially with you
MY source was Forbes, but you're arguing the PDF, not Forbes or the *original* sources
if you will note, even the PDF gleans information from original gov't sources

Forbes (and I) took information *from* the PDF, but the PDF is simply *a* source (one that happened to have consolidated information *including taxes* ...as well as references)

what you have done is misattributed my source, assumed that the PDF is wrong because it's authorship (without evidence), assumed my source and PDF are wrong despite having original source referenced, built your strawman on this information and concluded bias

Wow! how many fallacies are you going for?

Apr 03, 2019
BTW Capt. re-posting the link was not meant to be a negative reflection on you. I was glad that you posted it. The link clearly illustrates how fraudulent figures are compiled and published.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr PS
The pdf was very anti fossil energy and as such was prone to classify everything that it could as a subsidy. On page 22 it even included contributions to the highway trust fund as an oil subsidy!
this is actually hilarious when you think about it

what you are demonstrating is your own bias, not mine (or the PDF, mind)

Yes, the PDF has a bias
of course, the Forbes article author has the opposite bias

so what do you do?
you demonstrate your own bias by attacking the Forbes article pro-oil author who was whittling down the anti-oil PDF simply because I posted both articles to you and you didn't bother to read a single reference listed

again, thank you for the demonstration of not only your bias and beliefs but for validating this: http://journals.p...rintable


Apr 03, 2019
@mr
BTW Capt. re-posting the link was not meant to be a negative reflection on you
I didn't assume it was
I was glad that you posted it. The link clearly illustrates how fraudulent figures are compiled and published
it also demonstrates how you can completely ignore content for the sake of your beliefs

mind, *my* reference was the Forbes article (pro-oil) who was attempting to discredit the higher $$ assumptions of the PDF with information

you're the one who chose to make the PDF the focus

all while ignoring the references *in* the PDF which can be used to state both cases, conservative and liberal alike

there is a middle ground

Apr 03, 2019
And Capt. as far as being published in Forbes goes I don't care if it came out in a Papal Encyclical it is still BS.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
And Capt. as far as being published in Forbes goes I don't care if it came out in a Papal Encyclical it is still BS.
ok

prove it
the original gov't sources are included in the PDF (ignore the PDF and it's conclusions)

show me in those original sources where the Forbes article is wrong
I've provided specifically what you asked for and gave you references as well as provided original sources that can be checked

your claim; your responsibility

Apr 03, 2019
OK Capt. you have my permission to call me a Bozo if the answer is yes.

Did you actually post a link to the Forbes article? I only saw a link to the PDF.

Apr 03, 2019
So after all this argument about the size of subsidies - what is your central point MR?
Here is my central point. The science tells us that for a number of reasons - we need to get off fossil fuels. Knowledge of the geopolitics of oil, would also reinforce that our world will be much better off when each country can generate their own power - and not have to be subject to ups and downs of the global oil markets. So from many perspectives - a government policy that encourages renewables - with subsidies - makes a lot of sense.
You clearly seem to be arguing in favor of the fascist policies of encouraging a very problematic economic/power relationship - between big oil/gas corps, and governments around the world. You are a blatant hypocrite - promoting subsidies for FF, at the same time as condemning subsidies for renewables.
Again - what is your central point. You seem to me to be promoting fascism, and hypocrisy.

Apr 03, 2019
@mr
Did you actually post a link to the Forbes article? I only saw a link to the PDF
No, but I provided the title of the article, quotes and the author's name (plus affiliation)

I know it's hard to copy-pasta into a search bar, but give it a try! You'll be surprised that you can actually find things that way
(no sh*t! try it!)
you have my permission to call me a Bozo if the answer is yes
how magnanimous [sarc]

except, if you read the above, I don't need to call you anything

Apr 04, 2019
"Here is my central point. The science tells us that for a number of reasons - we need to get off fossil fuels. "

Well at least we agree on the final goal. But we do not agree on the timing. I am not a big fan of wind due to the bird and bat kills. I do like solar however but do not think that Lion backup can be scaled up enough at reasonable economic and ecological cost to provide the 24/7 electricity we need. Lets face it it is very easy to store 3 months worth of electric power in the form of hydrocarbons. Now if solar can be used to charge a flow battery or create a storable liquid fuel the problem is solved.

Apr 04, 2019
Battery powered vehicles are fine but limited in comparison to liquid fueled vehicles. Creating a battery with all of safety, capacity, cold weather performance and quick charge ability is many years away yet. Thus solar to liquid fuel would solve a lot of problems. One problem with that is it takes 3 gallons of fresh water to produce the H2 in one gallon of gas. Ocean water could be used but there are still problems with that.

Apr 04, 2019
Finally Onions let's go back to my solar powered island. If we were to use the least amount of fossil power possible and still have uninterrupted guaranteed 24/7 power we would need say 24 hours worth of battery backup and a natural gas backup generator with gas storage tanks. This is all doable but very expensive/KWH.
The goal of 100% renewable energy is a just pipe dream and those politicians that are advocating it are just pandering to the crowd.

Apr 04, 2019
While they are claiming that fossil and nuclear are killing people and that Trillions in healthcare could be save by banning them this is the real truth.

https://medicalxp...ars.html

Apr 04, 2019
@mr
I am not a big fan of wind due to the bird and bat kills
do you have a cat?
are you a fan of cats?
they kill far, far more birds and bats than any wind turbine anywhere in the world, so your argument is nonsensical and based upon no scientific information
I do like solar however but do not think that Lion backup can be scaled up enough
not a good argument either: battery tech is growing *because* of the need to get off of fossil fuels, not because of the need for EV's (though the latter is definitely going to benefit)
Battery powered vehicles are fine but limited in comparison to liquid fueled vehicles
again, not a good argument and essentially mimicking the arguments against ICE's circa 1900 (IOW - assuming that we can't engineer [x] because we haven't yet)
But we do not agree on the timing
how do you know? I've never once made any statement or claim about timing

Apr 04, 2019
@mr
While they are claiming that fossil and nuclear are killing people and that Trillions in healthcare could be save by banning them this is the real truth.

https://medicalxp...ars.html
sorry - not the same thing and had you read the article you would know it is about access to and advancements in medicine

it's also a "global" average from statistics, which I'm wondering why you're not challenging given your distaste for the "global" average in temperature... the temperature is far more accurate a measurement than the health statistics, a great number of which are *assumed* using statistical methods in an area (see: NIH or CDC methods of determining health statistics, especially for underreported occurrences)

Apr 04, 2019
"sorry - not the same thing and had you read the article you would know it is about access to and advancements in medicine"

Capt. I can think of no better way to increase lifespan and access to medical care than to fight poverty. A linchpin of this fight is cheap energy i.e. fossil.

Apr 04, 2019
Yet paper after peer reviewed paper claim that fossil fuels kill millions every year.

Apr 04, 2019
@mr
I can think of no better way to increase lifespan and access to medical care than to fight poverty
offered IMHO - I'm not sure poverty is a core problem, so I can't necessarily agree, especially given that in most modern first world nations poverty seems to be a symptom
A linchpin of this fight is cheap energy i.e. fossil
I disagree with this wholeheartedly given there is no supporting evidence to the claim

I can agree that cheap energy will help, but there are better ways to get cheap energy than fossil fuels
Yet paper after peer reviewed paper claim that fossil fuels kill millions every year
without a specific paper to discuss I guess it's back to generalisation

there are problems that can be directly linked to the use of fossil fuels

in this regard, it's no different than the links between TEL, particulates or carcinogens and human (or societal) health - those studies you mention are laying the groundwork for further science

Apr 04, 2019
MR - I purposely asked for your central point - and I am assuming that this is it -
The goal of 100% renewable energy is a just pipe dream
Well - 2 points here. I am arguing that we must end our use of fossil fuels - for a number of reasons. One reason here - https://www.forbe...2a3f707a
I think we have as a collective - agreed that we should address this problem - as well as that of climate change. You respond with stupid rubbish like
he goal of 100% renewable energy is a just pipe dream
A. No it is not. Many countries around the world - are working on a plan to achieve exactly that. B. So what if 100% is not possible. Surely 50% renewables, and 50% nukes would be good too?
You advocate for increasing life expectancy by promoting cheap energy? https://cleantech...-record/

Apr 05, 2019
Onions my point was that I like you think that we need to ween off fossil but only due to the fact that these fuels are a finite resource. I feel that Co2 does not cause warming and therefore we have time to find cost effective solutions. I also feel that we should use the fuels that are best suited for each application and not burn natural gas where the more abundant coal will work. Yes fossils pollute but they are cost effective and cheap energy saves more lives than the pollution takes away.

Apr 05, 2019
I also feel that earth's climate is self correcting and not prone to so called "Tipping Points". As far as out of the ordinary weather events go history proves that these are very common and there are many theories that things external to the earth have a big influence on their occurrence.

Apr 05, 2019
Lets face it the Little Ice Age just ended 150 years ago or just yesterday in geological terms. Change is a natural part of earth's history and it has survived Co2 levels of 4000 ppm without self destructing.

Apr 05, 2019
In general, fossil fuels are highly TAXED.
In the Electric Sector, they are slightly subsidized to prevent poor families from freezing in the dark.
Solar & wind are highly SUBSIDIZED even though they don't prevent children from freezing to death, mainly during the Winter.
https://pbs.twimg...4zjh.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...fzwV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...9sBc.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Ui8Y.jpg

Apr 05, 2019
"...140 Gigawatts of Solar and Wind Capacity Installed Globally in 2018..."
at cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show at reducing emissions.
"Global carbon emissions hit record high in 2018, International Energy Agency says"
https://www.abc.n...10941378

Wise words: "If you have interests in the coal / natural gas industry then by all accounts promote solar panels / wind turbines."
"Shell New Energies Director on Investing in Clean Energy: 'It's About Survival'"
https://www.green...n-energy
"The Dirty Secret Of Renewables Advocates Is That They Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate"
https://www.forbe...climate/

Apr 05, 2019
Willie
Solar & wind are highly SUBSIDIZED
So are nukes - and they are now proving so expensive - that the subsidies are having to be paid - just to help them compete with fossil fuels. On the other hand - renewables are now cost competitive with ff, and the costs keep coming down. So what's your point Willie?https://www.taxpa...present/

Apr 05, 2019
Willie
In general, fossil fuels are highly TAXED
So are renewables. They feed onto the electric grid - which makes them taxed just the same as coal, and gas. FF are also subsidized - so we just keep going around and around the same topic. https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8
Point is - that we need to get off FF - for the reasons specified above. Nukes are too damn expensive. Renewables are by far the best option at this point.

Apr 05, 2019
MR
I feel that Co2 does not cause warming
Despite the mountain of scientific data that says that it does cause warming - as well as the scientific consensus on the subject. But of course - you know better than all the science, and the scientists on this topic. Tell us again what your credentials are for having such a lofty opinion of your personal/ignorant opinion.

Just as a follow up. Do you 'feel' that the earth is warming? The scientific evidence says that it is - but of course it is always better to listen to MR's feelings on subjects. If you do 'feel' that the earth is warming. What do you 'feel' is the driver of that warming?

Apr 05, 2019
MR
fossils pollute but they are cost effective and cheap energy saves more lives than the pollution takes away
But renewables are also cheap - with the nice added benefit that they do not pollute.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-smashed-records-in-2018-says-report-and-truly-trumped-coal-on-cost-83736/

Apr 06, 2019
Solar & wind are highly SUBSIDIZED
"Wind and solar power receive at least 5x more in subsidies than coal and nuclear."
http://www1.cbn.c...dv_0.jpg
"Per unit of energy produced, wind & solar get mega-subsidies. A study by the U. 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."
http://www.forbes...es-or-no

"Who can explain to me why, after 30 years of mega subsidies, there is not a country in the world that has reached a correct figure (120g or less) of CO2 emissions per kWh thanks to the intensive development of intermittent wind and solar power renewables ? NOT ONE !"
http://pbs.twimg....rwBz.jpg
"Carbon emissions per kWh in Germany: ~450g, for France: ~80g. Germany spent €400Bn on wind & solar, France has nuclear."

Apr 06, 2019
Be like France
"France produces unlimited amounts of zero-carbon electricity at a cost of less than 0,5 ct/kWh because it has built a fleet of nuclear power stations. This is allowing France to commence the production of unlimited amounts of cheap zero-carbon hydrogen."
http://www.world-...n-market

If solar and wind had good ERoI, they would already have been used to produce hydrogen and other synfuels to help to decarbonize the Transportation Sector.
But of course not; in practice they are a joke, they only exist to steal taxpayers' money(through subsidies/tax incentives) and to serve as 'decorative facades' for the coal/oil/gas/fracking industries to face their true rivals: Hydro and carbon-free nuclear.


Apr 06, 2019
Wind and solar power receive at least 5x more in subsidies than coal and nuclear
So what? The subsidies are being phased out around the world - as their job has now been accomplished - namely getting wind and solar a foot hold in the established energy sector - and bringing the price down to parity. I love it when a good plan comes together.
in practice they are a joke
No they are not - you just can't do math. EROI of fuels is very complex - and certainly only one aspect of an incredibly complex topic. I will take the lower EROI of wind - over the higher EROI of coal any day - due to pollution issues. If you can bring the cost of nukes down Willie - go for it - show us the numbers. We can show you 12.5 cents on Hinkley point - and wind and solar coming in between 2 and 3 cents Kwh.
https://cleantech...-record/

Apr 06, 2019
@MR166
@Willie Ward.

There are two other very significant advantages/benefits from green renewables/storage solutions; namely:

1) ENERGY INDEPENDENCE from Oil/Coal/Gas MONOPOLY countries so that nations can avoid not only the COSTS/POLLUTION but also minimise global conflicts over the control of FF resources.

2) NON-PROLIFERATION of weapons grade fissile material (and also non-fissile 'dirty bomb' material) because new nuclear power plants built located all over the place (as suggested by above article) NEED NOT BE built at all.

Add those advantages/benefits to all the others already listed in many threads for you, and you will have to admit your 'rearguard denialist campaign' is just LAME falsified propaganda 'spiels' which you and your fellow Russian/GOP/Fossil/Nuclear troll-factory have been 'primed' with so as to 'weaponise stupids' in America/globally for Putin's fossil/nuclear exports etc profits. Wise up, you two; as your friends/family are 'not amused' anymore!

Apr 07, 2019
1) ENERGY INDEPENDENCE from Oil/Coal/Gas MONOPOLY countries so that nations can avoid not only the COSTS/POLLUTION but also minimise global conflicts over the control of FF resources
The Trump admin - currently has sanctions against Venezuela - forbidding them from selling oil to Cuba. How weird - that under international law - Trump can dictate - who gets to buy and sell oil to who. Renewables certainly threaten this ability to be a school yard bully.
https://www.nytim...uba.html

Apr 07, 2019
Onions I understand and agree with your renewable objectives. In theory they can reduce fossil dependence. We differ in practice. As far as I can see renewables do not have a workable backup plan without fossil at this point in time. They always require a redundant system for longer term backup which costs just as much as if the renewables did not exist. The only savings would be fuel costs but construction and operating costs of the backup system would still be the same.

Personally I think that fusion or better nuclear will happen before we learn how to store energy in the quantities needed to power our grid and transportation system.

Apr 07, 2019
MR
They always require a redundant system for longer term backup which costs just as much as if the renewables did not exist
Oklahoma gets 1/3 of it's electricity from the wind. Oklahoma has some of the cheapest electricity in the world. This is just one example of many. The FACTS contradict your made up assertions. Here is a recent example - of wind and solar - costing less than 3 cents a Kwh.
https://cleantech...-record/
Hinkley point will be costing 12.5 cents a Kwh. The cost of wind and solar WILL continue to fall. It is a technology (like computers) and therefore not subject to the ups and downs of a resource like oil, but controlled more by competition, and progress. It is so weird - listening to you fan boys of free markets, suddenly becoming fascists - and rooting for large scale - crony capitalism

Apr 07, 2019
@greenonions1
@MR166.

This is an example of how renewables (in this case wind) is going from strength to strength:

https://www.abc.n...10976378

Note how the farmer is then able to still use his property for beef cattle pasturing year round. And I also long pointed out that solar farms can put the land to good use for pasture and also for 'growing food in normally harsh environment which the 'cover' from solar panels makes tolerable for food cultivating due to less evaporation from previously direct insolation and slower winds. I long pointed out these advantages to AGW denier trolls (Putin's stooges) whenever they tout the air/noise-polluting and land/water-poisoning that fossil fuel mining/transport/storage and burning causes which renewables don't.

ps: Understand the real effective/financial/social etc etc differences yet, @MR166?

Apr 08, 2019