More conservative epic self owns

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

Not one of those links has to do with the viability of solar and wind power as commercial sources. I don't give a shit that "97 percent of climate scientists agree on anything. That has NOTHING to do with the viability of solar and wind as commercial sources.

If, on the other hand, you are using that page as an argument to go to wind and solar as energy sources because of that, then you are a fool and an idiot in that respect too. It is clear that nuclear and natural gas would reach the needed goal and produce cheap, clean, reliable, and plentiful power and are the logical choices. I assume you are against them because you think in lockstep with the anti-scientific radical leftist greentard religious front.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Not one of those links has to do with the viability of solar and wind power as commercial sources. I don't give a shit that "97 percent of climate scientists agree on anything. That has NOTHING to do with the viability of solar and wind as commercial sources.

If, on the other hand, you are using that page as an argument to go to wind and solar as energy sources because of that, then you are a fool and an idiot in that respect too. It is clear that nuclear and natural gas would reach the needed goal and produce cheap, clean, reliable, and plentiful power and are the logical choices. I assume you are against them because you think in lockstep with the anti-scientific radical leftist greentard religious front.

Not to mention that is a bold lie, it is manufactured fake agreement just as we saw in COVID. Science has been ruined by an Anti-Human cult that hates science because it proves that they are liars, how convenient.

Buckle Up, this son of a bitch is going down....HARD. .

 

[Hawkeye10]

"We must all say the same thing, loudly, and beat up anyone who says different, least the rubes get the idea that we are lying!"

 

[Hawkeye10]

"Say what you are told to say or else you get hurt!"

 

[Hawkeye10]

"There will be no disturbance of the solidarity....OR ELSE!"

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

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

Sir, the problem is, you cannot see the sunshine, because your world is clouded up with Political hatred!

But let me remind you friend- The sun still shines above even the clouds! [Geeko Sportivo]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.

Not one of those links has to do with the viability of solar and wind power as commercial sources. I don't give a shit that "97 percent of climate scientists agree on anything. That has NOTHING to do with the viability of solar and wind as commercial sources.

If, on the other hand, you are using that page as an argument to go to wind and solar as energy sources because of that, then you are a fool and an idiot in that respect too. It is clear that nuclear and natural gas would reach the needed goal and produce cheap, clean, reliable, and plentiful power and are the logical choices. I assume you are against them because you think in lockstep with the anti-scientific radical leftist greentard religious front.

Nice try, but you myopic dodge won't change the FACT that YOU have stated time and again that the danger of climate change is NOT what the consensus of scientist state. I gave you ample proof to the contrary, but instead of being an adult and conceding a point, you switch the topic.

That you STATE WITH PROUD IGNORANCE that 97% of reputable, pedigreed scientist consensus means nothing to you while you consistently resort to any and all scientific material that supports your stance is pathetic, but not unexpected.

Whenever you can't logically or rationally cannot defend or support your position, you just balk foolishly while running down another detour. Sorry to burst your bubble, toodles, but all your side bars were previously addressed, corrected or debunked in the chronology of the posts by others and myself. All you do now is the usual MAGA troll shuffle....regurgitate the SOS. You're done.

 

[ptif219]

You expect me to reply to you seriously?

Where is my post wrong?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

I do love your 1950 numbers when it comes to constructing power generation. Too bad we are living in 2023.
The levelized cost uses the expected production (capacity factor). You are the one that can't seem to understand simple things. A solar array is not producing power 20% of the time. It is producing power for anywhere from 8-16 hours a day. The total power it produces is 20-30% of what it can produce at noon on a given day. The time of day when electricity demand is highest is during the afternoon. I wonder what that bright thing is in the sky in the afternoon that is the cause of the need for more air conditioning. Perhaps you can tell us since you live in Arizona.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

We have millions of years of solar power no matter what rate of usage we use.
We have millions of years of wind no matter what rate of usage we use.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I showed what that costs. Right now storage costs an average of $225 per KWH.

Interesting that you say it costs $225 per KWH and EIA says its current levelized cost is $124 per MWH.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Why would you think it costs 2000 times more than the EIA says it costs? Are you shitting out the lithium?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Interesting that you say it costs $225 per KWH and EIA says its current levelized cost is $124 per MWH.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Why would you think it costs 2000 times more than the EIA says it costs? Are you shitting out the lithium?

Okay, let's go with your number. That's $850 billion for 20 hours as I proposed earlier. It's still totally unaffordable, and totally unnecessary if we were using conventional generation instead. Solar remains expensive, unreliable, and worthless.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

We have millions of years of solar power no matter what rate of usage we use.
We have millions of years of wind no matter what rate of usage we use.

In 1920 oil was the big energy source coming on the scene
In 1820 coal was the big energy source coming on the scene
In 1720 we cut down forests and burned them for energy.
In 2020 we should be using nuclear power, but we have idiots (like you) who are terrified of it even as you know nothing about it.
In 2120, who knows? But I bet it won't be wind and solar powering the world

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Okay, let's go with your number. That's $850 billion for 20 hours as I proposed earlier. It's still totally unaffordable, and totally unnecessary if we were using conventional generation instead. Solar remains expensive, unreliable, and worthless.

ROFLMAO. 20 hours? Why do we need 20 hours of battery? Are you unaware of how the sun and clouds work?
Solar remains about a third of the cost of nuclear per MWH.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

ROFLMAO. 20 hours? Why do we need 20 hours of battery? Are you unaware of how the sun and clouds work?
Solar remains about a third of the cost of nuclear per MWH.

What happens if it's raining and overcast for days? What happens if there are several days in a row of calm weather and no wind? If you have no back up for that, you have no power.

As for cost, as I showed, Solar Star expanded to the same annual output as Vogle Nuclear costs more, $37 billion and change vs. $30 billion and change. Those are actual numbers from actual built plants.

If you expect wind and solar to be the sole sources, you're fooling yourself with a delusion. As Germany has now proven, that concept is a total fail. California is proving it too.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In 1920 oil was the big energy source coming on the scene
In 1820 coal was the big energy source coming on the scene
In 1720 we cut down forests and burned them for energy.
In 2020 we should be using nuclear power, but we have idiots (like you) who are terrified of it even as you know nothing about it.
In 2120, who knows? But I bet it won't be wind and solar powering the world

I guarantee in 2120, the source of power will be the sun because it supplies more energy than humans could ever use. How that solar energy is converted to human use, we don't know. It may be solar arrays. It may be wind. It may be humidity generation.

It's funny that you post pictures of wind turbines being buried but seem to think Chernobyl and Fukashima never happened. Nuclear accidents have killed more people and made more land uninhabitable than buried wind turbines. (I have never said we shouldn't use nuclear power. I have only pointed out it has risks and isn't as cheap as many other sources.)

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I guarantee in 2120, the source of power will be the sun because it supplies more energy than humans could ever use. How that solar energy is converted to human use, we don't know. It may be solar arrays. It may be wind. It may be humidity generation.

It's funny that you post pictures of wind turbines being buried but seem to think Chernobyl and Fukashima never happened. Nuclear accidents have killed more people and made more land uninhabitable than buried wind turbines. (I have never said we shouldn't use nuclear power. I have only pointed out it has risks and isn't as cheap as many other sources.)

I pointed out the fallacy of using Chernobyl as an example. On the other hand, Fukushima makes an excellent argument for nuclear power being viable. The plant was overwhelmed by the tsunami. It suffered three reactors melting down. The original design was not sufficiently safe. Yet, nobody died directly as a result of that plant melting down. The evacuations, as with TMI were precautionary.

The risks with nuclear are low. Substantially lower than coal for example. Did you know that coal plants spew more radiation over time than all of that released at Fukushima by far? Coal contains radioactive isotopes, like Carbon 14, among many others. There is no control on its emission nor is there any monitoring of it.

In Arizona, the largest environmental fine ever levied against a company goes to Solana Solar in Gila Bend. They got hit with a $1.5 million fine.

Solana solar plant to pay $1.5 million in air-quality fines
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...olana-solar-plant-air-quality-fines/91135450/

That same plant also got hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back, wiping out half the array...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What happens if it's raining and overcast for days? What happens if there are several days in a row of calm weather and no wind? If you have no back up for that, you have no power.

As for cost, as I showed, Solar Star expanded to the same annual output as Vogle Nuclear costs more, $37 billion and change vs. $30 billion and change. Those are actual numbers from actual built plants.

If you expect wind and solar to be the sole sources, you're fooling yourself with a delusion. As Germany has now proven, that concept is a total fail. California is proving it too.

How dark do you think rainy days are? Do you somehow think we put solar in places that are rainy for days on end?

Let's play a silly game. Give us the name of the city in Arizona where it has ever rained nonstop for three days. Then tell us when that actually occurred. In order for the cloud cover to be so heavy that it reduces the solar panels to less than 20% of a sunny day the rainfall rate would need to be about 1/4" per hour.

Then tell us when there were 3 calm days in a row in South Dakota or Iowa with wind speeds less than 10 mph.

Finally, you can tell us when and where there were 3 days north of the tropic of cancer with constant rain and no wind anywhere in the world.

You used OLD data for your argument which shows you aren't being honest. You are using bullshit and pretending it is the current costs.
Nothing like Solar Star will ever be built again because it didn't try to keep the costs down.

"But Solar Star is also a ghost of U.S. solar's past, in that the project is part of a waning breed of facilities procured to meet RPS obligations rather than being based on cost-competitiveness.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...t-PV-Power-Plant-in-the-World-Now-Operational

 

[T. A. Gardner]

How dark do you think rainy days are? Do you somehow think we put solar in places that are rainy for days on end?

Let's play a silly game. Give us the name of the city in Arizona where it has ever rained nonstop for three days. Then tell us when that actually occurred. In order for the cloud cover to be so heavy that it reduces the solar panels to less than 20% of a sunny day the rainfall rate would need to be about 1/4" per hour.

Then tell us when there were 3 calm days in a row in South Dakota or Iowa with wind speeds less than 10 mph.

Finally, you can tell us when and where there were 3 days north of the tropic of cancer with constant rain and no wind anywhere in the world.

You used OLD data for your argument which shows you aren't being honest. You are using bullshit and pretending it is the current costs.
Nothing like Solar Star will ever be built again because it didn't try to keep the costs down.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...t-PV-Power-Plant-in-the-World-Now-Operational

Valley expected to see rainfall totals approach 2 inches this week
If you have any outdoor activities this week, plan accordingly. Rain chances are in the Phoenix forecast through Friday.

https://www.12news.com/article/weat...-week/75-63e56f99-a124-4bb7-8c9f-f9adddca0d16

There are calm days in S. Dakota. There are also days... a lot more, where the wind speed is over 35 mph and necessitates curtailing wind turbine generation due to the high wind speed.

The point is, if you need days on end of storage, it becomes prohibitively expensive to use wind and solar.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Valley expected to see rainfall totals approach 2 inches this week
If you have any outdoor activities this week, plan accordingly. Rain chances are in the Phoenix forecast through Friday.

https://www.12news.com/article/weat...-week/75-63e56f99-a124-4bb7-8c9f-f9adddca0d16

There are calm days in S. Dakota. There are also days... a lot more, where the wind speed is over 35 mph and necessitates curtailing wind turbine generation due to the high wind speed.

The point is, if you need days on end of storage, it becomes prohibitively expensive to use wind and solar.

ROFLMAO.. 2" of rain can occur in an hour. It certainly doesn't make it so dark for 12 hours that solar panels don't work. Do you know how thunderstorms work? They pop up in a partly cloudy sky.