More conservative epic self owns

[NiftyNiblick]

[h=1]Brigitte Gabriel is a failed belly dancer from the Mahrajan grape leaves circuit. Just stuff here face with hummus and taboulie, and maybe she'll shut the fuck up.[/h]

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Consuming to much Putin jizz

It does tend to choke off oxygen to their brains. Sad.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Are you retarded? Seriously?

The FACT that a nuclear power plant can produce its generating capacity 95% of the time means that it rarely is offline and not producing. Of course, any power plant has down time. With conventional generation like nuclear, natural gas, coal, etc., that downtime is normally scheduled and expected. The power is made up by other sources also scheduled to do that.

With solar and wind, you cannot predict with certainty when the plant will produce and when it won't, unless you somehow can predict the weather unlike no other human in history. So, what you need is another source of power to make up for that, or massive amounts of storage capacity to get you through the roughly 70 to 80% of the time when the plant is down and not producing.

That means you build say a natural gas plant that runs that 70 to 80% of the time when solar isn't available and sits the 20 to 30% of the time when solar is available. It makes more sense to just ditch the solar and build a slightly bigger natural gas plant and cover the needed capacity with reliable predictability 100% of the time rather than rely on solar.

Care to provide your evidence of solar and wind not producing 70-80% of the time? At this point you are just throwing shit at the wall. A solar array that produces 25% of its rated capacity isn't producing only 25% of the time. You continue to make the same mistake over and over. A solar arrays output is calculated based on the amount it will actually produce over a year. If you can't understand that then you clearly don't have a clue as to anything.

The cost to install solar is about $10 per MWH of its maximum rated capacity and about $33 of its estimated production. The cost to install nuclear is over $80 of its estimated production. At that rate you could install almost 3 times what you need of solar to get the same output as a nuclear plant.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

And, what do you do when solar isn't producing? What's the cost of the alternative to solar generation? That includes batteries, pumped hydro, or another power plant that has the capacity to cover the solar plant being down.

Everywhere solar (and wind) is being heavily used, they're running up against that problem. In Germany, they have resorted to building new "clean" coal generating plants to cover the downtime for solar. Then there's times when solar makes too much electricity so the companies making it have to sell it at a loss to other countries, if they can.

The result is Germany has seen electricity costs skyrocket to some of the highest per KWH prices anywhere.

ROFLMAO. Gee. what do you do when your nuclear plant has no fuel? No one other than idiots like you are claiming we will rely ONLY on solar. If you can't even make a valid argument, why am I talking to you?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Care to provide your evidence of solar and wind not producing 70-80% of the time? At this point you are just throwing shit at the wall. A solar array that produces 25% of its rated capacity isn't producing only 25% of the time. You continue to make the same mistake over and over. A solar arrays output is calculated based on the amount it will actually produce over a year. If you can't understand that then you clearly don't have a clue as to anything.

The cost to install solar is about $10 per MWH of its maximum rated capacity and about $33 of its estimated production. The cost to install nuclear is over $80 of its estimated production. At that rate you could install almost 3 times what you need of solar to get the same output as a nuclear plant.

What the hell do you think "CAPACITY FACTOR" MEANS?

Capacity Factor
The capacity factor is defined as the average consumption, output, or throughput over a period of time of a particular technology or piece of infrastructure, divided by its consumption, output, or throughput if it had operated at full (rated) capacity over that time period.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/capacity-factor

As I already pointed out, for solar the capacity factor is 20 to 30% typically. That means per day, week, month, a solar array is producing power 20 to 30% of the time. Solar produces ZERO output when the sun goes down. That's 50% + of the time. Even when the sun is up, a solar plant in the early morning and late afternoon produces a small fraction of its total output. That should be obvious to even a total moron, like you.

I also already showed that the REAL LIFE, REAL PRODUCTION figures for the largest solar array and newest nuclear plant in the country result in that solar array costing more to build, and producing a fraction of the power per year the nuke plant does. That isn't theoretical, but actual numbers from actual operating plants. Solar is a total loser.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

ROFLMAO. Gee. what do you do when your nuclear plant has no fuel? No one other than idiots like you are claiming we will rely ONLY on solar. If you can't even make a valid argument, why am I talking to you?

The US has over 1000 years of recoverable radioactives for use in nuclear power plants at the current rate of usage in uranium and thorium right now.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The Left doesn't believe in actual science. They're the sort that accepts things like Aryan physics (aka Deutsche Physik), or more recently the anti-GMO movement, Gorebal Warming (aka anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change), astrology ( https://www.exploringtheproblemspac...gy-political-orientation-and-trust-in-science ), and other pseudoscience.

They also tend to ignore that they are anti-scientific, sort of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/

that you are dumb enough to try and support the babbling of a fool with less brain cells than Boebert or Greene is pathetic.

One of the sources your article references: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/american-enterprise-institute

--- Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Right display media bias in ways that moderately align with conservative, traditional, libertarian, or right-wing thought and/or policy agendas. A Lean Right bias is a moderately conservative rating on the political spectrum.

--- The American Enterprise Institute, or AEI for short, is a conservative think tank with research dedicated to political, economical, and social welfare issues. The AEI devotes itself "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate." Even though the AEI describes itself as non-partisan, it is the most prominant neoconservatist think tank. Therefore, the AllSides Bias Rating™for The American Enterprise Institute is far right.

You can repeat your myopic BS with insipid stubbornness, but the VAST majority of valid, reputable scientist from around the world are not going away: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Solar and wind are not affordable. They are expensive and unreliable. That can be seen everywhere the two have been heavily invested in and implemented. What works and is affordable, would be nuclear backed by natural gas. That lowers carbon emissions about as much as possible, and likely less than a grid heavily dependent on solar and wind backed up by fossil fuel sources due to the inherent unreliability of solar and wind.

If our grid were say 75% nuclear, 25% natural gas, we'd have cheap power with a very significant reduction in CO2 without having to pave over paradise with parking lots of miles and miles of solar panels and wind turbines. It's only the anti-science radical greentard Left fighting this issue, but they have the media idiots backing them so the issue is never rationally discussed. Instead, we get fed a diet of bullshit by them on this subject.

Fascinating how you babble opinion, supposition and conjecture as if they're bonafide fact. Then you present "sources" that are not exactly direct proof or support of what you state .... either that or they can be easily disproved or debunked.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Look at you being all stupid and proving you didn't do the math correctly.
If 100% of electricity is being produce by nuclear it would be impossible for it to be working at 95% of capacity.
The average day in July sees a 30% drop in demand from late afternoon to middle of the night.
The peak demand in July to the low demand in October is about a 50% drop in demand.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

Any source of electricity would be working at less than 60% of rated factor over a year based on demand alone if they were the only source.

Bravo!

 

[Taichiliberal]

And, what do you do when solar isn't producing? What's the cost of the alternative to solar generation? That includes batteries, pumped hydro, or another power plant that has the capacity to cover the solar plant being down.

Everywhere solar (and wind) is being heavily used, they're running up against that problem. In Germany, they have resorted to building new "clean" coal generating plants to cover the downtime for solar. Then there's times when solar makes too much electricity so the companies making it have to sell it at a loss to other countries, if they can.

The result is Germany has seen electricity costs skyrocket to some of the highest per KWH prices anywhere.

Storage batteries, you imbecile! The inventors took into account overcast, storms, NIGHT TIME ... that sort of thing. And unlike nuclear or coal, solar & wind don't produce toxic by-products.

As for Germany, https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis I do wish you would stop pulling stuff out of your lower brain and stick to the FACTS. Do some honest research and stop listening to Fox or Clear Channel and the like.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

that you are dumb enough to try and support the babbling of a fool with less brain cells than Boebert or Greene is pathetic.

One of the sources your article references: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/american-enterprise-institute

--- Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Right display media bias in ways that moderately align with conservative, traditional, libertarian, or right-wing thought and/or policy agendas. A Lean Right bias is a moderately conservative rating on the political spectrum.

--- The American Enterprise Institute, or AEI for short, is a conservative think tank with research dedicated to political, economical, and social welfare issues. The AEI devotes itself "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate." Even though the AEI describes itself as non-partisan, it is the most prominant neoconservatist think tank. Therefore, the AllSides Bias Rating™for The American Enterprise Institute is far right.

You can repeat your myopic BS with insipid stubbornness, but the VAST majority of valid, reputable scientist from around the world are not going away: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change.

You're resorting to an irrelevant appeal to authority. It just shows you have no factual counter argument to my position.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
that you are dumb enough to try and support the babbling of a fool with less brain cells than Boebert or Greene is pathetic.

One of the sources your article references: https://www.allsides.com/news-source...rise-institute

--- Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Right display media bias in ways that moderately align with conservative, traditional, libertarian, or right-wing thought and/or policy agendas. A Lean Right bias is a moderately conservative rating on the political spectrum.

--- The American Enterprise Institute, or AEI for short, is a conservative think tank with research dedicated to political, economical, and social welfare issues. The AEI devotes itself "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate." Even though the AEI describes itself as non-partisan, it is the most prominant neoconservatist think tank. Therefore, the AllSides Bias Rating™for The American Enterprise Institute is far right.

You can repeat your myopic BS with insipid stubbornness, but the VAST majority of valid, reputable scientist from around the world are not going away: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...imate change.

You're resorting to an irrelevant appeal to authority. It just shows you have no factual counter argument to my position.

Are you drunk, high or just stupid? Since when is NASA "irrelevant"? And are you REALLY stupid enough to try and paint the AEI as a non-partisan, objective "think tank"?

The OP is bad enough, but it takes a REAL MAGA wonk to try and defend/support it. Sober up, get some sleep, go out in the sun and come back tomorrow evening.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Storage batteries, you imbecile! The inventors took into account overcast, storms, NIGHT TIME ... that sort of thing. And unlike nuclear or coal, solar & wind don't produce toxic by-products.

As for Germany, https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis I do wish you would stop pulling stuff out of your lower brain and stick to the FACTS. Do some honest research and stop listening to Fox or Clear Channel and the like.

I showed what that costs. Right now storage costs an average of $225 per KWH. To store 20 hours of power for 75,000 MWH or a draw of 3750 MW per hour--the nameplate rating of Solar Star--costs $1.7 trillion dollars. Pumped hydro is no less costly as you have to generate more than a kilowatt to pump one kilowatt of stored power. Thus, your array has to more than double in size to provide the power to supply current demand while providing power to pump water into storage. If you wanted 20 hours of stored capacity the cost, like batteries would quickly spiral out of sight. There isn't enough money to buy storage on the level it's needed.

And, yes, Germany has had to resort to "clean coal" building new plants because they stupidly got rid of nuclear and then heavily invested in wind and solar. Energiewinde has proven a massive costly disaster for that nation.

German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

Germany's Energiewende, 20 Years Later Germany's far-reaching program to reduce the share of fossil fuels in energy has achieved almost exactly what the United States achieved, but at greater expense
https://spectrum.ieee.org/germanys-energiewende-20-years-later

Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ Disaster
https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/germanys-energiewende-disaster/

The Tragedy of Germany's Energy Experiment
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html

As for byproducts... Both solar and wind create masses of toxic and non-recyclable materials. They also destroy thousands of square miles of land. Solar creates urban heat islands that affect the weather. Wind massacres bats, and in some cases, birds too.

Nuclear waste is so compact in size that we could fit all of our current waste inside a Super Walmart with room to spare.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Are you drunk, high or just stupid? Since when is NASA "irrelevant"? And are you REALLY stupid enough to try and paint the AEI as a non-partisan, objective "think tank"?

The OP is bad enough, but it takes a REAL MAGA wonk to try and defend/support it. Sober up, get some sleep, go out in the sun and come back tomorrow evening.

Your link comes back "Page not found."

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Because they can't be made affordable. It's that simple.

Dude STOP! You have a problem with progress! You are in denial! You have no vision!

You're problem is, you can't shut up long enough to learn something.

It took a while to figure you out. I once thought you were just politically jaded.

But, I now believe that you are just a hopeless cynic- A person believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity. A person concerned only with one's own self interests and disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.

This is not a problem of lack of education- this is a mental disorder that you should get some professional help with.

People with this disorder, like Donald Trump, could go to one of the best Ivy League Colleges in the world- AND WOULD NOT LEARN A DAMN THING!

Like Donald Trump-
"Only I can fix it"-
"I know more than any General"-
"I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have."-
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do."-
"I know more about courts than any human being on Earth." (November 2015.)
"Who knows more about lawsuits than I do? I'm the king." (January 2016.)
"Nobody knows more about trade than me." (March 2016.)
"Nobody knows the system better than I do." (April 2016.)
"I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." (April 2016.)
"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world." (May 2016.)
"I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me." (June 2016.)
"I understand money better than anybody." (June 2016.)
"Look, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump." (July 2016.)
"I know more about Cory Booker than he knows about himself." (July 2016.)
Trump said in 2016 that Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he was endorsing him for president because "you know more about this stuff than anybody."
"I think I know more about Democrats than almost anybody." (November 2016.)
"Nobody knows more about construction than I do." (May 2018.)
"I think I know about the economy better than [the Federal Reserve]." (October 2018.)
"Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me." (December 2018.)
Drones: "I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have." (January 2019.)
Drone technology: "Having a drone fly overhead — and I think nobody knows much more about technology, this type of technology certainly, than I do." (January 2019.)

DO YOU SEE THE RESEMBLANCE? You say you now despise Trump- BUT YOU HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE JUST LIKE HIM NOW!

GET SOME HELP DUDE!

 

[Taichiliberal]

I showed what that costs. Right now storage costs an average of $225 per KWH. To store 20 hours of power for 75,000 MWH or a draw of 3750 MW per hour--the nameplate rating of Solar Star--costs $1.7 trillion dollars. Pumped hydro is no less costly as you have to generate more than a kilowatt to pump one kilowatt of stored power. Thus, your array has to more than double in size to provide the power to supply current demand while providing power to pump water into storage. If you wanted 20 hours of stored capacity the cost, like batteries would quickly spiral out of sight. There isn't enough money to buy storage on the level it's needed.

And, yes, Germany has had to resort to "clean coal" building new plants because they stupidly got rid of nuclear and then heavily invested in wind and solar. Energiewinde has proven a massive costly disaster for that nation.

German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

Germany's Energiewende, 20 Years Later Germany's far-reaching program to reduce the share of fossil fuels in energy has achieved almost exactly what the United States achieved, but at greater expense
https://spectrum.ieee.org/germanys-energiewende-20-years-later

Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ Disaster
https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/germanys-energiewende-disaster/

The Tragedy of Germany's Energy Experiment
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html

As for byproducts... Both solar and wind create masses of toxic and non-recyclable materials. They also destroy thousands of square miles of land. Solar creates urban heat islands that affect the weather. Wind massacres bats, and in some cases, birds too.

Nuclear waste is so compact in size that we could fit all of our current waste inside a Super Walmart with room to spare.

Your last sentence is just unbelievably ignorant! Do you know what just few ounces of that waste could do if released in the air amid a busy city or town? Do you understand the imminent danger presented by current nuke waste storage facilities in various countries as they wastes deadly radiation exceeds their containers, or the old facilities deteriorate? The daily amount of waste one plant produces in a year? The sheer cost of building new storage facilities, the danger in transport? To ground water? Yeah, they tell dumb toots like you that it's all under control, like the US nuke plant that missed a Fukishima disaster by just a few feet of flood water from an "unprecedented" storm (nature doesn't give a damn about the "experts predictions"). GET EDUCATED, MAN!

As for all your other articles, a few seem to leave out the FACT that a major draw back to conversion for Germany (predicted now to be about 13 years from now, according to one of your links) was the recent cut off of natural gas from Russia (noted in my earlier link). Not perfect by a long shot, but a hell of a lot less dirty than coal or oil.

The rest of your parroting was adequately addressed and rebuked by Poor Richard Saunders....matters of facts and logic regardless of your denial. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Your link comes back "Page not found."

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change


Click this BEFORE you "reply with quote"....the link in that sometimes don't work.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-...majority of,global warming and climate change


Click this BEFORE you "reply with quote"....the link in that sometimes don't work.

What does that page have to do with the cost of solar arrays compared to other means of electric production? Gorebal Warming (aka Climate Change) doesn't warrant using costly and massively stupid means of electrical production. That is, unless you are some radical leftist greentard yourself and a true believer in the Church of Gorebal Warming.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Dude STOP! You have a problem with progress! You are in denial! You have no vision!

You're problem is, you can't shut up long enough to learn something.

It took a while to figure you out. I once thought you were just politically jaded.

But, I now believe that you are just a hopeless cynic- A person believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity. A person concerned only with one's own self interests and disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.

This is not a problem of lack of education- this is a mental disorder that you should get some professional help with.

People with this disorder, like Donald Trump, could go to one of the best Ivy League Colleges in the world- AND WOULD NOT LEARN A DAMN THING!

It isn't progress to destroy people's standard of living or society's economic well being. Solar does that quite nicely.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...imate change


Click this BEFORE you "reply with quote"....the link in that sometimes don't work.

What does that page have to do with the cost of solar arrays compared to other means of electric production? Gorebal Warming (aka Climate Change) doesn't warrant using costly and massively stupid means of electrical production. That is, unless you are some radical leftist greentard yourself and a true believer in the Church of Gorebal Warming.

Okay, judging by the time it took you to respond, you DID NOT follow the instructions on the site to click the internal links AND READ! “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” “The scientific consensus on climate change,” are just some of the links, in addition to the link that gives a list of the organizations that support the reality of the climate change problem.

See, you're a victim of stubborn pride and proud, willful ignorance....a deadly combination. This cause you go blather all types of irrational, ignorant supposition and conjecture....you do this with confidence based on reading information that ONLY confirms your beliefs and ideology. I, on the other hand, READ IT ALL....which is why I can pinpoint the flaws and errors in your source material in relation to what you say.

Belief is wonderful thing.....but I prefer to follow up belief with honest research of ALL THE FACTS. Sadly, you do the opposite. A pity. Carry on.