Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

I read it and it's obvious you didn't. The whole report is a forecast on what they see energy needs will be in the next few years. It is heavy with cheering on Gorebal Warming reduction in the usual Leftist methods while ignoring everything else or painting it in the worst possible light.

So it does exactly what it's setting out to do...predict the energy market for the next couple decades using current and past data to inform its conclusions.


You can only make solar power when the sun shines.

Right, but you can store that energy in batteries.


Thus, you end up needing an array five times larger than planned usage and a storage capacity of 3.5 times the planned usage. When you look at that, solar becomes an instant horribly expensive loser as an energy generator.

Only if you completely disregard batteries and storing surplus energy.

And only if you completely disregard other renewable energy sources like wind, water turbines, and geothermal.

No one has ever said solar itself is the only means of energy production...it just happens to be the most popular and the cheapest, according to the IAEA.

You have this nasty habit of just completely disregarding any information or data that runs counter to your horrible, ill-informed conclusions.
 
There is no use trying to explain energy density and engineering to these dumb fucks. They think because they can have a solar LED light in their yard the entire world can be powered that way. Yes, they are they fucking stupid.

As opposed to you, someone who was so fucking stupid a reality TV show conned you into toiling his baggage and normalizing a pandemic.

So you'll understand that when it comes to your personal judgment, no one can really place any trust in it.
 
LV rushes in to prove my point about being fucking stupid. He is on ignore. He knows it. He still tries and answers. And you expect an utter moron like this to understand energy or anything else? LMAO!
 
To get 1 kilowatt day of power out of a solar array you need approximately 5 kw of installed generation along with about 3.5 kw of installed storage capacity. With conventional generation you need just 1 KW of installed capacity.

Right, but the cost of the "conventional generation" (re: carbon pollution) is much more expensive in the long run, as we are seeing right now.

That's why so many fracking companies are going bankrupt (far more than any renewables).

Over the last decade, no less than 42 major natural gas companies, including Chesapeake, have gone under.

Bankruptcies among fracking-focused exploration and production companies covered $26 billion in debt held by 42 firms last year. That doubled the $13 billion in debt a year earlier, according to law firm Hayes & Boone.
https://www.investors.com/news/us-s...focused exploration,to law firm Hayes & Boone.

Plus, there's the pollution and waste that comes from fossil fuel energy...those have costs, both monetary and environmental that we pay for down the line (oil spills, pipeline bursts, earthquakes, fires).

Those costs are not there for renewable energy. Never heard of a "sun spill".
 
Last edited:
LV rushes in to prove my point about being fucking stupid. He is on ignore. He knows it. He still tries and answers. And you expect an utter moron like this to understand energy or anything else? LMAO!

Can't spell "ignorance" without "ignore".
 
I own Trumpet. He/she/it is my bitch. Follows me around like a puppy. Here Trumpet! Here bitch! Now sit. Good it. Come!
 
They can, they have, and they do.

And now the IAEA is saying solar is the cheapest form of energy in history.

You really are incredibly fucking stupid!

A recent study from Synapse Energy Economics (commissioned by the Sierra Club) claims that replacing the J.K. Spruce coal-fired power plant units owned by CPS Energy — San Antonio’s municipal utility — with wind and solar power “could benefit rate payers an average of $85 million each year from 2026-2040.”

Unfortunately, the Sierra Club and the press coverage surrounding the report fail to acknowledge a critical gap in the assumptions underlying the flawed narrative that wind and solar are rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation.

When the report says that the levelized cost of wind is $17 per megawatt-hour and solar is $25 per MWh, it is only counting the cost to build the wind turbines and solar panels and hook them up to the grid. In reality, when we add wind and solar to our grid, we are paying for two systems: the renewable resources themselves, and the cost to firm them up — to provide backup power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and to cut production when there is too much wind or sun.

Until recently, the costs of this “second system” have been hidden because wind and solar have comprised less than 20 percent of Texas’ electricity production and the state has had ample reserves. But these costs will rise dramatically as we add more wind and solar to the Texas grid.

In other words, the more renewables we have, the less value they add because we are having to pay more for the second system behind them.

We already have evidence of this problem up Interstate 35 in Georgetown, which decided about five years ago to purchase enough wind and solar energy to classify itself as “100 percent renewable.” The city claimed it was going to save money by doing so but is losing millions of dollars and has raised electricity rates twice in the past five months. What happened?

What Georgetown failed to consider was the cost of the second system. First, because of the variability of wind and solar resources, the city has been forced to maintain a natural gas contract to provide energy during expensive peak load hours, when solar and wind output cannot cover its electricity demand.

But it is really getting hammered by the low or even negative nighttime prices caused by excess amounts of wind energy in the regions where its wind farms are located. The city bought fixed-price contracts — betting on stable or rising prices — and are now having to sell excess wind at night for huge losses.

Aside from using backup power to handle this variability, another way San Antonio could solve these second-system needs is to use energy storage, which is strongly supported by renewable energy advocates. However, the cost of storage could be billions.

Georgetown is, in a sense, fortunate that it can pay the market to supply extra electricity or absorb excess electricity and doesn’t have to rely on energy storage. CPS Energy, which provides almost 50 times the amount of electricity as Georgetown, cannot lean on the market to this extent and will have to procure an enormous amount of energy storage to make 100 percent renewable a reality.

Scale this problem up to the entire state, and you can see why 100 percent renewable is not doable, or at the very least would be unimaginably expensive.

Local leaders in San Antonio are considering a plan, known as the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, or CAAP, which in part would retire the city’s coal- and natural gas-fired power plants and force residents to become more dependent on renewables. But the experiment in Georgetown did not work out well for ratepayers there, and San Antonio has more than 20 times the people who need access to reliable, affordable energy.

San Antonio officials and residents need to recognize the extreme cost of turning renewable energy into reliable energy and see through the false narrative being peddled by the Sierra Club.

https://www.texaspolicy.com/whats-the-true-cost-of-renewables/
 
Last edited:
Simplified:

Palo Verde Nuclear in Arizona cost $11.5 billion in 2016 dollars to build. Ivanpah solar, the largest array in the US currently, cost $2.5 billion in 2016 dollars. Palo Verde cranks out 32,300 GW (gigawatts) a year. Ivanpah turns out 940 GW a year.

giphy.gif


In order for Ivanpah sized solar plants to match Palo Verde's output you need an array approximately 75 miles on a side at a rough cost of $85 billion dollars (2016 dollars). That is how inefficient and costly solar is.
 
Last edited:
Simplified:

Palo Verde Nuclear in Arizona cost $11.5 billion in 2016 dollars to build. Ivanpah solar, the largest array in the US currently, cost $2.5 billion in 2016 dollars. Palo Verde cranks out 32,300 GW (gigawatts) a year. Ivanpah turns out 940 GW a year.

In order for Ivanpah sized solar plants to match Palo Verde's output you need an array approximately 75 miles on a side at a rough cost of $85 billion dollars (2016 dollars). That is how inefficient and costly solar is.

Crescent Dunes has gone tits up and Ivanpah is rapidly going the same way.
 
Crescent Dunes has gone tits up and Ivanpah is rapidly going the same way.

As a fun side note: Solana solar, Arizona's largest solar array, got hit with a record $1.5 million dollar environmental fine for pollution, the largest ever levied against a company in Arizona. So much for solar being environmentally friendly...

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...rgest-fine-ever-imposed-by-arizona-air-regula
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...but-pollution-is-expected-to-continue-8693310
 
Alternative energy gets better all the time. It was stupid to put a date in that, but as a goal that is a good idea. Fossil fuel is the energy of that past. it is very expensive when you add in the pollution and healthcare costs. They pass those external costs on to us.
 
Trump understands that the Left is full of shit, and there are far more important things to deal with than what you tree huggers want.
Donald Trump is too stupid and ineffective to understand or deal with either a deadly virus, or global climate change.

Without descisive action to mitigate it, human induced global climate change will continue for the foreseeable future, irrespective of how much you hate Al Gore.

It has been experimentally determined that CO2 and other greenhouse gases traps heat radiation. Releasing hundreds of billions of tons of heat trapping GHGs into the atmosphere every year, if unabated, will have environmental consequences both predictable and avoidable.
 
As a fun side note: Solana solar, Arizona's largest solar array, got hit with a record $1.5 million dollar environmental fine for pollution, the largest ever levied against a company in Arizona. So much for solar being environmentally friendly...

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...rgest-fine-ever-imposed-by-arizona-air-regula
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...but-pollution-is-expected-to-continue-8693310

Solar panels are always being touted by the Left as pollution free and cheap as well. All bullshit if course but as Mark Twain said, it's easier to fool people that to convince them that they've been fooled.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?


The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:
The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”
“The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”
“Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”
Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?

None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.

With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.

“I’ve been working in solar since 1976 and that’s part of my guilt,” the veteran solar developer told Solar Power World last year. “I’ve been involved with millions of solar panels going into the field, and now they’re getting old.”

The Trouble With Solar Waste

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”

Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel “disposal in “regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil” and so “disposal is potentially a major issue.”

California is in the process of determining how to divert solar panels from landfills, which is where they currently go, at the end of their life.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which is implementing the new regulations, held a meeting last August with solar and waste industry representatives to discuss how to deal with the issue of solar waste. At the meeting, the representatives from industry and DTSC all acknowledged how difficult it would be to test to determine whether a solar panel being removed would be classified as hazardous waste or not.

The DTSC described building a database where solar panels and their toxicity could be tracked by their model numbers, but it’s not clear DTSC will do this.

“The theory behind the regulations is to make [disposal] less burdensome,” explained Rick Brausch of DTSC. “Putting it as universal waste eliminates the testing requirement.”

The fact that cadmium can be washed out of solar modules by rainwater is increasingly a concern for local environmentalists like the Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake in Virginia, where a 6,350 acre solar farm to partly power Microsoft data centers is being proposed.

“We estimate there are 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels,” Sean Fogarty of the group told me. “Leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events — hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. — and at decommissioning is a big concern.”

There is real-world precedent for this concern. A tornado in 2015 broke 200,000 solar modules at southern California solar farm Desert Sunlight.

“Any modules that were broken into small bits of glass had to be swept from the ground,” Mulvaney explained, “so lots of rocks and dirt got mixed in that would not work in recycling plants that are designed to take modules. These were the cadmium-based modules that failed [hazardous] waste tests, so were treated at a [hazardous] waste facility. But about 70 percent of the modules were actually sent to recycling, and the recycled metals are in new panels today.”

And when Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico last September, the nation’s second largest solar farm, responsible for 40 percent of the island’s solar energy, lost a majority of its panels.

Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...hey-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#664a4e88121c
 
“Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”
Net zero emissions is going to kill the economy AND the planet
 
Donald Trump is too stupid and ineffective to understand or deal with either a deadly virus, or global climate change.

Without descisive action to mitigate it, human induced global climate change will continue for the foreseeable future, irrespective of how much you hate Al Gore.

It has been experimentally determined that CO2 and other greenhouse gases traps heat radiation. Releasing hundreds of billions of tons of heat trapping GHGs into the atmosphere every year, if unabated, will have environmental consequences both predictable and avoidable.

Do tell us more about the Hockey Stick and that fat fuck Michael Mann, you seem to have gone very quiet about that lately. Why don't you ever target the real culprits like China and India? The US has reduced CO2 emissions back to 1991 levels, due largely to fracked natural gas so stop lying.
 
More ignorance. Fracking removes the oil between the plates, or rocks, and thus there is no barrier there to prevent an earthquake. Similar activities happen when the ground water is removed causing sink holes.
ROFL.. so which is it "oil" or "rocks"? :rolleyes:

you have no freaking idea of plate tectonics. they ride on the mantle (molton rock)

Oceanic and continental plates come together, spread apart, and interact at boundaries all over the planet.
Fracking has absolutely NO EFFECT on the plate tectonics :palm:

these are massive weights - 50+ miles thick and thousands of miles across
 
Back
Top