I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called “A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.” It is worth a read, but I have some problems with it, and felt compelled to rant. No offense intended to David Roberts, but I run into certain malconstructed arguments so often that I feel compelled to promote a more careful thinking out of them, or at least, how they are presented. Roberts' argument is not malconstructed, but the assumptions leading up to his key points include falsehoods.
I’m not going to explicitly disagree with the various elements of the solutions part of this article (the last parts). But the run-up to that discussion, in my opinion, reifies and supports a number of falsehoods, mainly the dramatic (and untrue) dichotomy between the perfect and wonderful large-plant mostly coal and petroleum sources of energy on one hand with alternatives fraught with All The Problems on the other. Since this VOX piece is a "beginner's guide" I would hope we can stick a little more nuance into beginner's thinking.
I choose to Fisk. Thusly:
“Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. “
It decreases the demand for power, overall. Internal combustion engines are inefficient compared to electric, to such a degree that burning huge amounts of petroleum or coal in one place to ultimately power electric vehicles in a reasonable size region is more efficient than distributing burnable material to all those vehicles to run them. Electrification is inherently more efficient and lower maintenance.
“That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,”
Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened. Globally, maybe. That depends on if a “big grid” is the best way to deliver power everywhere. It probably isn’t.
[The grid must become] “more sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable — while it is decarbonizing. ”
This contrasts the improvement of the grid with decarbonizing as though they were opposites, but for most of the expected improvements of the grid, improvements of the grid and decarbonizing are the same actions. They are not in opposition to each other.
“On the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we’re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.”
This is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There is uncertainty here, of course. But let’s try this. Let’s try decarbonizing 50% of our current power without nuclear. At that point we will know whether or not to invest trillions into an unpopular solution (and nuclear is unpopular). If we need to, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we won’t. Maybe something in between. But worrying about this now, and using uncertainty to argue one way or another, is a waste of conversational energy.
“(If you shrug and say, “it’s too early to know,” you’re correct, but you’re no fun to dispute with.)”
LOL. But no. Rather, I’m thinking that it is too early to know and, in contrast, you are hiding a pro-nuclear argument in a blanket of uncertainty! Maybe you are not, but this is what such arguments almost always look like. Beware the nuclear argument wearing sheep's clothing. A greenish tinged sheep, yes, but still a sheep.
“The sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.”
Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.
It does vary in intensity and by region. So does nuclear, by the way. Nuclear plants have to be shut down or slowed down regularly for refueling. When severe storms threaten, nuclear plants are often shut down, and that is not on a schedule. When any big power plant suffers a catastrophe there is a long term and catastrophic break in the grid, as compared to a cloudy day, or even, a broken windmill.
The sun is up during the day, and in may places and for many times, generally everywhere, the demand for power is greater during the day.
Overall, this is a falsehood because it attributes perfection to the traditional sources, especially to Nuclear, and great imperfection to the non-Carbon and non-Nuclear alternatives. That distinction is not nearly as clear and complete as generally stated.
“The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable — the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed.”
Another falsehood. First, you can’t turn a major traditional power plant on or off as needed. Indeed, there are already major storage technologies and variation methodologies at work. There are high demand industries that are asked to increase or decrease their use, on the fly, to meet production variation on large grids. There are pumped storage systems. Etc. The fact is that there is variation and unpredictability in the current big-plant system, it is a problem, and it is a problem that has been quietly addressed. Quietly to the extent that people making comparisons between traditional big-plant electricity and clean energy systems often don’t even know about it.
“As VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. “
Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.
“They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.”
Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.
“And finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.”
Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.
The article mentions the economic problems. I don’t see those as difficult to solve but they are important, but I've got no comments on that at the moment. Read the article.
“The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest”
Absolutely. And, know what? The first 25% will be the easiest. Do that now, and we’ll know a LOT more about the next 25% and maybe it won’t seem so hard after all. Maybe a major technological solution will come along before we get to that last 10%, maybe society will change enough that people will simply agree to having occasional reductions in energy availability. But certainly, the greatest difficulty and uncertainty is linked to that last 10%.
Our goal should be to have that problem soon.
“A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.”
Yes, if by “a great deal” you mean the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Before extolling the virtues of methane, do check into it further. I once thought methane as a bridge was a good idea too, until I learned about what it involves, about leaking methane, etc. No, not really a good idea for the most part.
“Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it’s still a fossil fuel.”
My impression is that every time we learn something new about leakage, it is that the leakage is worse than we previously thought.
“If you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you’re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.”
Well put.
Do read the article, but please, keep in mind that it is unfair (in the context of an argument) to attribute undue perfection to one option while emphasizing uncertain problems with the other. We need to forge ahead into that uncertainty and speed up this whole process. Everybody get to work on this please!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Li D
I think you've nailed it. Wow doesn't share the same goal with the rest of us. We are trying to talk about making decarbonisation work fast enough to avoid the worst climate impacts. Wow's agenda is simply anti-nuclear, full stop. He doesn't really give a shit about decarbonisation. He doesn't get that far.
As always with single-issue obsessive nutters, sensible conversation is impossible.
"Wow’s agenda is simply anti-nuclear, full stop"
And your agenda is anti-renewables full stop. You do not and never have cared about decarbonisation, only as far as it can scare people into helping your pension payouts and additional incomes.
"As always with single-issue obsessive nutters, sensible conversation is impossible."
See, pat, THAT was irony.
As well as part of a post full of bullshit and lies.
When you whine about being anti-nuke, do you want to give a stab at saying why it's bad? After all, I'm anti-racism and anti-child porn too. Are you going to insist these are bad things and you are only concerned that everyone gets to have sex with the thing they prefer, whether it's consenting or not?
But you have failed to convince anyone other than the openly venal and corrupt that your "concerns" are valid. So you're trying to lie about me to get the story rerouted to a different topic that can let your ego regain its breath.
And part of the reason why I can claim with as much confidence in accuracy and truth that you're a pro-nuke anti-renewables shill is because you keep avoiding the questions that would show up your partisan ideology or be concrete claims of a problem with renewables that could be contested in realities and solid evidence rather than "it could", which is 100% the identical BS "method" "Dick" uses to claim that ECS could be under 1.5C per doubling: "It's not doubled yet and it's still not over 1.5C so it might NOT be as high as 1.5!".
Some actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.
Your plan that will work better.
The plan that you are complaining about.
How much untapped interstate power was available?
If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?
When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?
When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?
When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?
When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables and insist it will “cost more”, HOW much more? and how much more than WHAT? Where is this plan you’re crying about and what’s your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?
So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?
Where are the quotes you said you’d bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?
---
Someone not trying to pretend to be not-a-nuke-shill-honest because the crowd is not amenable to shilling for nukes would actually say "Well, if it turns out to be impossible, we'll need nuke power". Only someone who wants to hide their actual agenda because they can't defend that position would avoid being open about it.
Yep, no tension to be seen here, move along now...
Wow,
I realize you haven't addressed all the corruption going on at Westmill Solar, but I am curious, what is the return on your investment at Westmill....6-7%?
Will you be attending the meeting tomorrow?
If I'm creating a lot of tension with such questions, I apologize to all the melting snowflakes...
No, it's anti-bullshit. Whenever I hear bullshit about renewables - or nuclear - I object to it.
You are full of both, so we have a problem.
>Some actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.
Answered at #491. You are engaging is denialist rhetoric and have now doubled down on it. Stupd.
>Your plan that will work better.
Don't throw the nuclear tools out of the box when we will need everything we've got.
>The plan that you are complaining about.
Throwing the nuclear tools out of the box when they will be desperately needed further down the line.
>How much untapped interstate power was available?
No idea, you tell me, but it doesn't matter if there's not enough high-voltage transmission capacity in the form of grid interconnections.
>If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?
There's no high voltage transmission link between Morocco and Germany so one needs to be built before large amounts of electricity can be sent from M to G. If you try to shove 10,000MW across standard transmission lines. They melt. Learn the basics.
>When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?
No crying of fake tears (lies again, Wow), just objections to bullshitters like you and bullshit industry PR that obscures the problems.
>When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?
No crying of fake tears (lies again, Wow).
>When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?
When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables and insist it will “cost more”, HOW much more? and how much more than WHAT? Where is this plan you’re crying about and what’s your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?
No screaming; no fake outrage (more lies, Wow). I object to the 'cheap renewables' meme. It's misleading bullshit and it will backfire eventually as bullshitting the public always does.
>So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?
Dealt with upthread. Learn difference between variable renewables (W&S) and dispatchable renewables (biomass & hydro) and understand which ones are problematic at scale. Learn the basics.
>Where are the quotes you said you’d bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?
Answered upthread and still you bullshit about it.
I have always been clear that nuclear should be included in the toolkit of low carbon technologies. I've said so over and over again, here, at Eli's, at ATTP's and elsewhere. I could not have been more open or consistent if I tried. Your claim is as dishonest as it is nutty.
No, it's anti-renewables, pro-nuke fluffing, full-stop, dumdum.
And another lie from you, dumdum.
Yes, you can't win with the BS you spout and can't stop and can't stop complaining about how you're so put upon by having to not stop because you won't stop. You know, standard "Oh woe is me" self-pity.
Yes, which was that there was no evidence because it hadn't happened yet, but an avoidance of the evidence of the times we lost power and didn't have mass riots and reversion to the previous era of power generation showed your position was made up fairy tales to scare children.
And I'm a grown up. YMMV.
So why were you taking what, 400 posts to say that, dumdum? CLEARLY you thought this was untenable and should not be said.
But here's your problem: nobody says we throw out nuclear IF it turns out to be desperately needed further down the line.
NO BODY.
>How much untapped interstate power was available?
No idea, you tell me,
LIE.
I advocate for a massive build-out of W&S plus the necessary grid architecture upgrade to integrate them
I advocate for a massive build-out of W&S plus the necessary grid architecture upgrade to integrate them
Yes, the nuclear industry is in a mess. No, the future doesn’t look too bright for it at the moment.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/03/29/nuclear-industry-suffers-m…
Mind you, duplicity and hypicrisy isn't uncommon for you.
Like when you said this to Zebra:
"Nobody has to provide you with a detailed policy roadmap – that’s just you trying on a cheap rhetorical trick."
Nuclear Industry Suffers Meltdown #61, April 3
"What you propose won’t get from here to where we need to be so it isn’t much of a plan. "
Why fossil fuel corporations killed us #100, March 31.
(PS there should have been a link rather than a copy of the quote from dumdum, the link is http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/03/28/why-fossil-fuel-corporatio… )
"Where is this plan you’re crying about and what’s your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?"
Plus you avoided this one too. So we seem to have that you want "nuclear" in your plan. How much, what does it do and how much will it cost? And is that cheaper than the plan without nuclear you think so bad, especially since you continue to claim it needs more storage and HVDC than is in that plan.
And when you say in 491, which is no argument FOR your claim, only against having to defend it:
"Just as deniers say ‘where’s the catastrophe then?’ when the actual argument is that current behaviour will lead to increasingly negative impacts in the future."
And just like deniers who claim that if we try to apply a carbon tax or replace fossil fuels with renewable energy that abandonment of fossil fuels will lead to increasingly negative impacts in the future.
Yet when they are asked for evidence that supports their claims of catastrophe if we avoid AGW by acting now, they whine about how they don't have to.
The fact that I can mirror your stupidity to puncture your claims is why so many of these arguments you use are inadequate even though you believe with all your heart (certainly your head isn't in on the deal) that they are knock-down, drag-out argument winners.
Your Gish Gallop is answered, Wow. Yards of word salad from you = yawn.
Except you don't.
Ah, right, so when you answer questions but they don't work, you proclaim them invalid as a gish gallop, indicating both your inability to argue the point AND that you don't know what the term means.
Which is yet more proof your whining is invalid and your claims busted.
Sorry,poopsie, you lose.
Dumdum paraphrased: Don't counter all my points or I'll claim it's a gish gallop! And don't you DARE reply in detail because I'll claim it a yawn fest!
(and earlier complained that others hadn't supplied any detail...)
>You do not and never have cared about decarbonisation,
I think he uses the nick because that is people's reaction to his idiotic comments.
Has Wow labeled Greg Laden a denier yet?
Pretty much done with this crap, but let's skewer another Wow lie before curtains:
From #7, my first comment on this thread, emphasis added:
This thread illustrates how Wow renders functional discussion impossible by flinging shit and making everything about his own anti-nuclear agenda. Absent moderation, he gets away with it.
“I have always been clear that nuclear should be included in the toolkit of low carbon technologies”
LIE.
I don't even see a purpose beyond declaring people liars. Wasn't his whole point that you promote nuclear? Now he says it's a lie for you to say that you promote nuclear.
Which does not refute your lie here:
I advocate for a massive build-out of W&S plus the necessary grid architecture upgrade to integrate them
from here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/03/28/why-fossil-fuel-corporatio…
"skewered"???? Like hell, dumdum.
This thread demonstrates ow you are on a crusade to paint renewables in as bad a light as you think you can get away with and have absolutely no care about anything that gets in the way of that, such as honesty, truth or even sanity.
"I don’t even see a purpose beyond declaring people liars."
Oh, you do, but you get hit by it too often to like it "mike".
"Wasn’t his whole point that you promote nuclear? Now he says it’s a lie for you to say that you promote nuclear."
No, "mike", but comprehension of English was never your strong point. The point is that his claim to have always been clear he supported nuclear is a lie. You know, the bit I quoted was an untruth. You know what they are very well indeed.
And you are still getting a pass on assuming "he" is the right gender because apparently you can't ever learn. Don't care to, it appears.
April 7, 2017
All you nuke fluffers get when you BS about nukes is so devastating to your desires that you have to complain about it being “anti-nuke” rather than pro-reality.
Should be any moment now that Li D will tell us about the great "advancement of science" that has taken place within the last 15 or so comments.
Very enlightening.
Wow,
Just wondering, what do you do with your share of the profits from Westmill Solar?
Do you feel guilty?
"Wow" @500..."PS oi, patwanker, before you were enraged at my posts but now you’re claiming them entertaining? Get your story to silence me straight, moron."
Where to start? What is it with the 3rd grade name calling/changing I wonder? I would ask but I'm certain I will get no answer. But it's pathological and an interesting trait. Then, there's the obvious inability for honesty in reading. Or just confusion since I have never even remotely been "enraged" much less even angry or bothered. Always amused and genuinely intrigued by the state of mind shown by "Madam Wow", the most super omnipotent blogger commentator of all time. Or a disturbed and, unhinged--clearly female--individual. Could be both? Who knows?
Frankly, I'm shocked more by your host and his allowance of terms like "retard", used at length--and by at length I mean several hundred times in this thread alone--when that particular term is beyond offensive. And you are the sole user of that word. I would think Greg would have friends if not family for whom mental retardation is no joke. Perhaps not.
But, of course, you don't care "Wow", do you? A "lady" like yourself knows better than to use such language lightly after all. You must have a reason and no doubt it's the best reason ever. It must be. After all, it's your reason. And your reasons are always the best.
So more from someone who says they don't care....
Right.
One idea for Australia to export energy.
https://www.theguardian.com/discussion/p/6fvjp
Hell, the change could be that manufacturing industry goes where the sunlight is rather than as it did in the early days where the water was and then where the coal was after that.
No need to piss about exporting energy when the bits that need the most energy are nearby.
Wow - "the change could be that manufacturing industry goes where the sunlight is"
Looks like someone is pushing for the profits of Solar...
Are you going to the Westmill Solar meeting today Wow?....they will be discussing the distribution of profits to the shareholders.
What do you think the return on your investment will be?
And that indeed is one of the things that
may need to happen. A movement of some manufacturing.
Cant quite see that happening in Australia cuz we are so
small by population and far away from lots of people.
Although very close to enormous Indonesia.
I dont like the ineffeciencies in the liquid hydogen idea
for moving energy around. But at least people are thinking
about it.
Uh, robots. Almost all jobs in the USA are doomed under trump's promises NOT because they're idiotic or merely rhetoric for public consumption but because most of the jobs that he's preaching about are automated away.
Aluminium smelting uses a shit-ton of enectricity. It uses almost nobody to do it. Not many people can hold and mould molten aluminium..!
So the number of people is increasingly pointless in the first world and in the third world, they have such a low standard of living that it is only currently cheaper to "employ" in sweatshop conditions people to do work that could have been automated.
The number of people really is disappearing as much as when the farming revolution made 99.8% of farm workers unemployed but produced more and yet more food.
Yeah, they bought big machines and chemicals and that employed some more people, but it was a lot less than were chucked aside and those jobs are disappearing too as it becomes cheaper to automate and use AI to replace them.
Bauxite ore + Power + robotic lathes = Aluminium machined parts for export.
Hydrogen fuel cells and synthfuel and even just "not burning stuff elsewhere" are all "storage" solutions that are ignored in the crusade against renewables. And if it costs zero to produce 100GWh excess it doesn't matter if it's only 10% efficient to make it into some fuel cells and turn back into power, it's still 10GWh of power you were not expecting,not relying on, didn't need and cost you nothing.
There will be more automation as people raise the minimum wage.
There will be more automation as politicians at the behest of the wealthy remove the minimum wage. Why bother hiring people when getting a tax break from the government nets more profits without trying?
Heard recently that if the USA had kept up with inflation, the minimum wage would be over $20/hr. That it is less than that hasn't stopped automation.
Wow - "Heard recently that if the USA had kept up with inflation, the minimum wage would be over $20/hr"
Now that would depend on the base year, wouldn't it genius?
Wow - "That it is less than that hasn’t stopped automation"
I see, but according to you, getting rid of it would increase automation...
Stick to your Westmill Solar profits Wow, they will let you know what your "corrupt" distribution payment will be during todays meeting...
The problem with paying only a "minimum wage" is that if you steal from your workers like that, you only steal from yourself.
If you don't pay your workers enough, they can't buy as much food, so the farmers can't sell as much food and they can't afford the machine parts you sell and don't need it as often either, since there's less wear and tear on their equipment.
So when you short-change your workers, you only cut your own profit.
And it is weird when someone proclaims the fucking obvious.
Yes, it depends on the starting point. And the rate of inflation. What measure of inlfation you use, state or federal law, along with the current year too.
It's what the entire statement of "that if the USA had kept up with inflation, the minimum wage would be over $20/hr" says.
It's just ignorance to think that it was somehow meaningful to ask that shit.
"The total depends on the numbers you add up to get the figure1!!!!11!!"
?
I do recall that BBD has always said nuclear should be part of the solution. BBD is also pro-wind and solar (at least that is my understanding). What BBD has done is to point out that the current grid cannot handle to much intermittent power (which wind and solar are).
My grade:
BBD A.
Wow D-
Wow does make conversation difficult.
And the name calling is so tedious, I find myself just skipping over most Wow posts.
And it is exactly correct.
What lie? I stand by every word. This isn't incompatible with arguing that nuclear should also be part of the future energy mix. Are you desperate or something?
Desperate it is, then.
Desperate and insane.
Wow - "statutory minimum wages were first introduced nationally in 1938."
Wow - "Yes, it depends on the starting point. And the rate of inflation"
Only the starting point you use to reach a $20 figure is 1968...so not only are you a lying sniveling hypocrite, but now we can add disingenuous to the list.
Speaking of your hypocrisy.... did Westmill Solar announce your "corrupt" profit sharing distribution today? You are awfully quite on this subject.
Guilt? Embarrassment? Hiding?
I can still see you.
"I do recall that BBD has always said nuclear should be part of the solution"
Irrelevant. The claim was he always made it clear yet he spent that post trying to pretend he only wanted wind and solar, making the claim a lie. "All swans are white" is wrong even if 99 out of 100 swans were white.
Moreover he tried for 20 posts to avoid saying what HIS plan was, yet again to pretend he was pro-renewables therefore his complaints were fake even-handedness.
"And it is exactly correct."
But you still lied in your claim, and I pointed it out and called it the lie it is.
ESPECIALLY from a retard who cried "MISLEADING" when a headline didn't include the entire body of the text therefore leaving out some of what the situation as described in the body unsaid.
Which is complete bullshit.
"Desperate it is, then."
Irrelevant bollocks from you, then.
"What lie? I stand by every word"
So you claim
is proven a lie.
"Desperate and insane."
Yes, you clearly are both, dumdum.
Reading comprehension problems again, Wow. Plus desperation and insanity.
You carry on arguing with an imaginary version of me if you like. Everybody else can read and understand what I actually wrote, so you are ranting in the mirror again.
Your reading comprehension is embarrassing.
"I advocate for a massive build-out of W&S plus the necessary grid architecture upgrade to integrate them"
No 'lie' here, except in your fevered imaginings. This statement isfully compatible with arguing that nuclear should also be part of the future energy mix.
But hey, when skewered, just keep on flinging shit.
Rubbish. See #7 and again at # 521
The problem is *you*. In a failed and probably naive attemtp to avoid your lunatic anti-nuclear raving I tried to steer clear of any discussion of nukes - because it triggers your shitflinging and raving, which are bad enough as it is.
But like all single-issue obsessive nutters, you forced your rant back into the conversation anyway, proving that you don't care about decarbonisation at all. For you, anti-nuclear raving is the beginning, middle and end.
"Reading comprehension problems again,"
Well I can't put it any simpler for you, dumdum. Your claim you always made it clear was a lie because you didn't.
"No ‘lie’ here, except in your fevered imaginings."
See, THERE is your reading comprehension fail dumfuck, and you're doing the same bullshit that every denier on the planet resorts to.
The lie was " I have always been clear that nuclear should be included in the toolkit of low carbon technologies", and you quotemine to pretend you're not insane and lying your little weasel arse off.
"Rubbish. See #7 and again at # 521"
Bullshit. See the entire thread.
"I tried to steer clear of any discussion of nukes "
So AGAIN you prove yourself that your claim was a lie. But you can't steer clear because it's part of your "plan" and avoiding it merely misleads.
Remember that word, arse-lick?
"But like all single-issue obsessive nutters"
Projection again, you nuke fluffing moron. But you gotta protect your pension and your investments. Hard to do that if the cash doesn't funnel to nukes, though.
"You carry on arguing with an imaginary version of me"
Nope, I'm arguing with the real version of you, not the fake front you put on.
And you carry on arguing with strawmen constructed from quotemines, dumdum. It won't work, but it'll make you "feel" like you're winning.
So to sum up, the headline wasn't misleading
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…
There's no plan that works better.
There's no plan that is cheaper.
There's no plan that is easier.
There's no plan that isn't challenging.
I can't stand social promotion.
The real minimum wage is zero. Companies are not forced to hire, and automation makes it even easier to not hire. Once McDonalds puts in those ordering kiosks and machines that make hundreds of burgers per hour, they are not going back.
Wow - "So to sum up, the headline wasn’t misleading"
It's not misleading if you're a fucking retard, however, anyone with a brain can see how misleading it is...
Headline you linked - "Germany Sets New National Record With 85 Percent of Its Electricity Sourced From Renewables "
Article - "Germany was able to set a new national record for the last weekend of April"
Seems the "Headline" somehow forgot to mention the word "weekend"
Also from the article - "However, while the end-of-April weekend was an aberration"
An aberration Wow.... like your brain.
"I can’t stand social promotion."
Don't get promoted, then.
"The real minimum wage is zero."
Wrong.
"Once McDonalds puts in those ordering kiosks and machines that make hundreds of burgers per hour, they are not going back."
So you agree your claim in #538 was bollocks, then.
Betula, BBD is saying it's even the whole weekend, but a few hours on Sunday.
The link says it's a few hours on sunday.
"Usain Bolt breaks the world record for the 100m sprint" is not misleading because he didn't break it on the walk to the starting line.
Can anyone find information on the amount of "corrupt" profit to be distributed to Wow and other shareholders of Westmill Solar?
They had a meeting today, but currently, there is no update..
Wow, you hear anything yet?
We're gonna need a bigger irony meter.
There's no such thing as an irony meter. Do you mean a steel ruler?
Oh, and stop with the BS claptrap of quotemining and misleading people. ESPECIALLY the BSing about you hating misleading statements you two-faced idiot.
Live readout of Australian generation sources.
I find it interesting.
http://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-efficiency/australian-electricit…
Storage ideas. Lets hear em!
>no such thing as an irony meter.
There are irony meters, iridiumy meters, and more.
Pumped hydro makes alot of sense.
Bearing in mind how flat Australia is too.
http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/hydro-storage-can-secure-100-renewa…
The end is coming you coal mining arseholes.
No, mike, they're all, like your claims about Mann and the IPCC, figments of your idiocy.
Hydro is usually used as storage for cold backup, Lid, especially for quick-failing large sources such as nuclear, and as such really only needs a large drop.
That drop doesn't have to be down the middle of a mountain, however.
And compressed gas storage is usually done in underground chambers.
And with a million tons of rock around them, flywheels are a lot safer if they fail.
Before electric lighting we used to work to the rhythms of life, so we worked long hours when it was summer and there was plenty of sunshine and worked less in winter when there was little light.
So another way to do "storage" is to do more of the work when there's power and use the results when there's not enough.
"So another way to do “storage” is to do more of the work when there’s power and use the results when there’s not enough."
Yes indeed. Thats another way to look at things that
has validity and something for policy makers to consider.
"Before electric lighting we used to work to the rhythms of life"
Yes. Very much political work towards Federation in Australia
was held at meetings around full moon time because
travel after the meetings by horseback was made
possible by the moonlight. Or so i have read.
" ... worked long hours ... "
Just seen this. Spose it could work 24 hours a day.
Probably for a few litres of diesel powering it.
https://youtu.be/UaL3UxUclKY
Li D
It's actually the only existing technology capable of the storage capacity necessary to back up large-scale renewables.
But it is the scale that people generally don't appreciate. A q
[cont] A quick example: a UK wind fleet with 33GW nameplate capacity delivering ~10GW (capacity factor 30%) would need 1200GWh of backup capacity to cope with a 5 day lull such as occurs from time to time during winter anticyclonic conditions:
10GW x (5 x 24h) = 1200GWh
The UK's largest pumped hydro installation at Dinorwig in Wales has a 9GWh capacity. So to back up 33GW of wind (and or solar) we would need to build 130 Dinorwigs. That is a gargantuan engineering project indeed. I'm not saying that it's impossible but it would be very, very expensive, it would take decades to build, it would be very ecologically damaging to the upland wildnerness in Scotland and or N Wales where the terrain is suitable for building it and... nobody ever talks about such things. They don't suit the narrative of 'cheap renewables' and a 'just keep adding more W&S and bob's your energy transition' etc.
"It’s actually the only existing technology capable of the storage capacity necessary to back up large-scale renewables. "
Vapid bullshit backed up by fuck all.
"A quick example: a UK wind fleet with 33GW nameplate capacity..."
So your plan is shit. All you're proving is you're crap at planning when it comes to rolling out power.
"would need 1200GWh of backup capacity "
Nope, absolutely false. that is merely one way and the only way YOU can consider doing it because you want to amp up and crash out renewables because you love nukes.
But the problem with them is they're fucking dangerous:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/21/0046230/possible-radioacti…
And when Dungeness B22 went down for 4.5 months, it required 1.8TWh backup.
It wasn't the only outage:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-edf-nuclear-idUKL6E7NC10M20111212
Actually, off by three orders of magnitude:
1,800 TWh.
Forgot I used Dungeoness in TW.
An 400GW nuclear facility could be out of action for five years if there is a flaw found in the critical safety systems. That would require about 18,000,000GWh of backup. That would be 2MILLION Dinworigs!!!!
Not impossible, but we'd have to flood the entirety of scotland and scandanavia.
Not forgetting that Germany manages to export nearly 10GW when they produce "no W&S" according to dumdum. 10GW being what you claim the shortfall is.
Germany could have manged it just fine.
We already have 2GW with france and another 1.4GW with Norway and plans to double that with the Hinckley C plant plans to cover it having to be turned off or going offline unexpectedly.
And we still have all the other renewables and sunlight and hydro and tide and biomass and so forth.
Feel free to list the storage technologies capable of matching pumped hydro for capacity and ramp-up times.
Where is the error in the calculation?
10GW x (5 x 24h) = 1200GWh
And you are continuing to thump your anti-nuclear tub, demonstrating (redundantly at this point) that you are a single issue nutter.
Export from fossil fuel generation, not renewables, which were very low in week 3.
Germany did manage just fine - by burning lots of FFs.
The point of these exchanges is (supposed to be): what happens when FF plant is phased out? *That's* the issue that needs a light shone on it and that's the issue that you refuse to allow to be discussed.
"and ramp-up times. "
Yeah, we don't have any power stations that can ramp up over 5 days, that's just impossible for anything other than hydro.
Fuckwit.
"Feel free to list the storage technologies capable of matching pumped hydro"
Biomass. Fuel cells. Synthfuel. Biodiesel. Everyone else could read me having already said all this, but not you because you're a moron.
"Where is the error in the calculation?"
This bit: “would need 1200GWh of backup capacity", dumbass.
"And you are continuing to thump your anti-nuclear tub"
Hey, YOU started thumping your anti-renewable tub.Just returning the favour, shithead. What? Only YOU allowed to go anti-? Nope, wrong.
"Export from fossil fuel generation"
Who does? Nope, Germany managed to export 10GW while they were producing "so little W&S". So THEY have infrastruture already that manages your scenario WITHOUT storage.
So wrong, so clueless, so anti-renewables, so desperate to fluff up nukes, but only able to do so by FUD..
"Germany did manage just fine "
Yes, because they can import or export 30GW if they need to.
And funnily enough they did it despite not running on 100% renewables. Odd that, Germany already has what you claim is needed only when building 100% renewable power when they're not 100% renewables.
"by burning lots of FFs."
So we could burn fossil fuels for 3 days in the year.
Oh, and interconnected imports would be an alternative to storage, dumdum. You know, just in case you missed that.
"needs storage"????
WRONG.
C'mon Lid, jump in here and tell these two about "exacerbating tension"....you can di it Lid, I have faith in you!
Sigh. See #413 (emphasis added to compensate for poor reading comprehension):
Most favour the 'or both' option, which means that in addition to a significant build-out of pumped hydro, a great deal of new long-distance transmission capacity needs to be added within national grids and between them, in the form of interconnectors. Something you and zebra spent a long thread telling me I was wrong to insist is a fundamental requirement for a successful energy transition.
Betula
Please stop trolling. If you have no substantive contribution to make, then just eat your popcorn.
Literally directly above your comment, I wrote:
"The point of these exchanges is (supposed to be): what happens when FF plant is phased out? *That’s* the issue that needs a light shone on it and that’s the issue that you refuse to allow to be discussed."
Sure BBD, though I did notice how your "substantive" contributions moved you right into the "Fuckwit" category with Wow the hypocrite...
Keep up the good work!
" “needs storage”????
WRONG.
Sigh. See #413 "
Which has you saying you were wrong. So why the big sigh? Worried?
"Most favour the ‘or both’ option,"
But you said it MUST come from storage. So you're saying it TWICE that your claim was wrong, and I'm saying it too. So why the big sigh?
You see, you were MISLEADING people by insisting it had to be "solved" by multiple dinworigs. You were misleading people and you HATE it when anyone else does something you think can be tortured into doing that, but don't care and even sigh about it being pointed out when you do it.
Hypocrite much?
" great deal of new long-distance transmission capacity needs to be added"
WRONG. Germany already has a great deal of long distance transmission capacity. We have lots and will have over 5GW of it in the UK.
Where do you get this unsourced and asinine claim "new" from, dumdum?
"Something you and zebra spent a long thread telling me I was wrong to insist is a fundamental requirement for a successful energy transition."
WRONG AGAIN. Nope, we never said anything like that. Zebra was saying nothing about it since it was orthogonal,but you LOVE to misrepresent anyone who dares not agree with you, don't you? Then play the victim when you can't win.
And I said that you haven't shown we need any new such build for renewables. Only that we need it WHATEVER generation we have. So far all you've done is BS and be wrong about this claim "new install" was needed for renewables.
"Literally directly above your comment, I wrote:"
So what? Literally just above your post of bullcrap I said "So we could burn fossil fuels for 3 days in the year."
But you don't read what you don't want to acknowledge, such as the 2 million dinworigs needed to back up nuclear if 400GW is found to be dangerously bugged in a critical safety feature, for which it could be out for 5 years straight.
"*That’s* the issue that needs a light shone on it "
Biomass, synthfuel, biodiesel, fuel cells. The light is shining on it, you just have your head up your arse.
By they way, what happens when we have coastal flooding therefore have had to shut down and abandon all the nuke power stations?
Why not shine a little light on that?
Other methods:
Economise power use. Instead of demanding 60GW, use 40. Twice what you are arguing is lost made up at a stroke.
Cut back on activity. Instead of doing 100% today, to 70% and you've saved all and more you are crying off about.
EV batteries. Germany's 44 million cars would have 3TWh stored in them if they were current-gen.
Not nearly enough.
Germany already has a great deal of long distance transmission capacity. Care to explain why they dont have a great deal of it?
And not enough for what? They have plenty spare for your scenario to be null and void.
But all you have is doom and gloom and bitching because nukes, frankly, are a dead end for the next two generations of humanity (and that only if we start seriously doing something about AGW).
Oh, that's right, doom and gloom isn't all you have. You also have a shocking lack of reading ability and imagination.
WRONG.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…
Again. Who is this moron you are parroting, dumdum?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/29/french-nuclear-powe…
Maybe if Germany had more solar in the south or more biomass, or more wind build out, they'd not be running out when the north is generating plenty (and sending it to Denmark et al at a profit).
#595
" Economise power use "
Whhhhhaaaatttt!
But but but nooooooo.
I want my V8 wankmobile.
I want my factories making kitchen gadgets and hanggliders
and home gymnasiums and trailbikes and snowmobiles and christmas lights and carpets with
elvis pictures on em. We MUST have power to make these things.
I want to have gas fired heaters outdoors and electric wires on
my steps to melt snow.
I want a clothes dryer cuz string and pegs is just to 3rd world.
What would my neibours think?
I want a great big house with heat and aircon all over cuz i
cant be fucked to wear appropriate clothing.
I want to live waaaay better than Queen Victoria ever did, even
though i see myself as poor.
Waaaaaaaa!
Couldnt give a fuck about the Great Barrier Reef.
I read somewhere 90% of all boats sold in the world
are sold in USA. Made me feel quite bitter...
Mmmmmmm
Big numbers. An interesting read about scope and issues.
https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-…
Its an insightful comment thread under that
last link I put up.
The problem is dumdum's maths is merely mathturbation. It's why the counter claimthat nukes need 2 million Dinworigs was ignored, it was showing how little 130 Dinworigs were and shows up how the maths was in a scenario just to get that figure.
And if there's not enough generation, not enough distribution, not enough imports, not enough generation, then we'll have brown-outs and black-outs, just like you get with the current mixed mode system of power generation, long before renewables was a blip on the radar.
But dumdum wants 100% renewables to be PERFECT.
Clearly dumdum hasn't read the title of this thread.
That second generation should have been storage.
#597 #598
Read the link I provided at #596. There, you can learn about what is going on in the real world as opposed to the fact-free fantasy land you inhabit.
The person here who is *wrong* is you. But not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, you refuse to learn. and you deny evidence clearly showing you that you are *wrong*.
Li D, heads up.
So where's the error I asked you to demonstrate at #582?
You are a liar and a bullshitter.
No, I want decarbonisation to work. As *always*, your attempt at framing is blatantly dishonest.
As for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, this glibly assumes that what is going on now is good. But it not good. In fact it's a fucking shambles and heading for a brick wall. Just adding more and more W&S to a largely unmodified grid will not deliver an energy transition because turbines and panels are only a small part of the system necessary for W&S to work at scale. But that's what is going on right now because it is cheap and relatively easy and governments do like their greenwash. Meanwhile, the hard problems are being glossed over with misleading industry PR perfectly exemplified by guff like that '85% renewables' piece.
And vociferous idiots like you do not help. It's unpleasant watching you, so absolutely convinced of your rectitude, spouting embarrassing bollocks and outright lies, virtue-signalling fit to bust, convinced that you are doing the right thing and actually making the situation that tiny little bit worse.
" WRONG
Read the link I provided at #596. "
I did. That is why I can claim you were wrong. Your link did not disprove the assertion.
"fact-free fantasy land you inhabit. "
And another idiotic and fantasist-built claim from you, dumbass.
"you refuse to learn. "
Yup, I prefer to learn from truth and facts, not bullshit and idiocy. You, clearly, prefer otherwise.
"snd you deny evidence clearly showing you that you are *wrong*. "
LOL! See beginning of your idiotic rant.
"So where’s the error I asked you to demonstrate at #582?"
Since you cannot comprehend a post beyond a couple of sentences, it is your claim it must be storage, fuckwit.
"No, I want decarbonisation to work. "
But only if it uses nukes. Because you want the cash to go to nukes and not renewables, you have to continually trash renewables.
look at all the problems with decarbonising with nukes questions that you have ignored.
When you only look at problems with one solution, EVERYONE can tell you're a partisan biased hack. It's just that some morons want big business to be the only player and ignore your idiotic claims' idiocy.
"this glibly assumes that what is going on now is good. "
Hell, you've ignored every problem you claim is already here. YOU are the one glibly assuming what is going on now is good.
"only a small part of the system necessary for W&S to work at scale."
They are working at scale today. Germany for example.
And Switzerland is going renewables too.
"But that’s what is going on right now because it is cheap"
You insisted it wasn't. Now you;re admitting it was. Care to withdraw your asinine complaint that it is misrepresenting things to call it cheap?
"guff like that ‘85% renewables’ piece. "
Yes, you hate reality therefore it is misleading.
Govenrments love their big business, they pay lots of cash and have non-voting executives boards, which is why they keep trying to kill off renewables, despite the fact that the people who have to pay the taxes that subsidise the nukes and don't get the executive board positions to profit from it are all clamouring for renewables not nukes.
And what's wrong with going for cheap renewables now? IF there is a problem it will occur as we build out and we can look at what needs doing then. Because, unlike nukes and the other big thermal plants, there's no huge time lag and investment in rolling out a new plant and then operate to find out how it breaks, and unlike nukes, no requirement for them to operate for two generations to become only one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity.
And, unlike nukes, if we decide we put the in the wrong place, we can move them and repurpose the ground right afterward.
We already know what to do with carbon fibre and silicon panels when they reach end of life. We don't know how to deal with radioactive waste when the nuke plant reaches end of life. The only reason why nukes can be considered less radioactive than coal (fly ash) is if we spend a lot of money on cleaning up.
We could have cleaned coal up too. But that costs money now and was fought against.
Nukes only turn out to be a nightmare when most of the money is already invested, and it's too late to ask for a refund of that pig in a poke then.
Indeed it is one of the reasons why Switzerland is voting to drop nukes and go renewables: the oldest nuke facility is being abandoned by the owners with the excuse they can't afford to close it down as promised, so the taxpayer is having to pay to close it down safely. Taxpayers are pissed off and don't want to build any more and get shot of the current stations before those businesses can sell off to some other company which is just a shell to go bankrupt if asked to close down the nuke plant at the end of its life.
Before anyone complains about the number of posts, the problem is dumdum seems to miss comments made inside a longer post, hence his repeats of "what was my error in the maths?" question, despite it being answered twice.
And if dumdum demands proof again, I'll just say "already done several times, look upthread". If someone else wants to know and asks, then I'll post them the information, but both dumdum and myself know what he's doing and why he's so busy gaslighting.
I think most people here have worked out that what you do is thread bomb to try and cover up your lies, mistakes and evasions - as you are doing here.
Then you will repeat a falsehood such as the 'I answered that' - which refers only to some irrelevant crap or evasion or word salad - and hope that everyone is too exhausted or confused to be bothered to check.
Nobody is fooled by you Wow. Not by now.
# 610
But I *didn't* claim that it 'must' be storage. That was an example to give LiD a feel for the scale of the backup that will be needed (*). What's more, in my first comment on this thread at #7 - since repeated because of your persistent mendacity (#413; #589) - I clearly stated that:
Stop. Lying. Wow.
(*) LiD responded by linking to a blog post entitled World's biggest-ever pumped storage hydro scheme for Scotland which is nothing if not ambitious in scale, even for a blog post:
The Strathdearn Power Canal proposal would be ~170m wide.
LiD seems to get the bit about scale. Hopefully he too realises that - blog posts aside - no serious engineering proposals to do this exist. Nor are there any serious, advancing engineering proposals that I am aware of to build any of the huge pumped hydro reserve that will fairly soon be needed.
This is, or should be, worrying.
" to try and cover up your lies, mistakes and evasions"
And another bullshit claim from you dumdum. What lies, mistakes and evasions am I covering up?
PS what about "85% wind and solar", hmm????
"Then you will repeat a falsehood such as the ‘I answered that'"
Which I did, twice upthread.
"But I *didn’t* claim that it ‘must’ be storage."
Yes you did. #557
"Stop. Lying. Wow. "
No. A. Lie. Dumbass
"in my first comment on this thread at #7"
And that is irrelevant, dumdum. You made more posts than that and the one quoted showed you lied when you claimed you always made it clear you were for nuclear being in the mix.
"LiD seems to get the bit about scale."
It's a bullshit claim, though. It's at scale now. It's working now. Your cries about how it won't work at scale are bullshit to scare people off doing what we can now and put a waste of money into nuclear to keep your pet project alive.
Lid also gets the bit about it doesn't have to be a shortfall covered by storage.
Funny how you only acknowledge what they post when you can claim it "supports" you.
Even when you don't say how.
It's at scale now. Working now. Working well now.
Germany's renewables produced 22% of generation (which was less than demand) at your cherry pick of minimum and 85% at maximum (which you whined about being misleading), from a nominal 35% of generation. A little over 2/3rds.
Yet YOU claim it goes from 85% to 2%, ergo "DISASTER!!!!!!".
You claim that if we go renewables we need more storage. Yet we need more storage if we add nuclear (if we go "use storage to cover unexpected outages" route). And nukes are more expensive and riskier today, and set only to get even more expensive in the future, even if it gets less riskier.
But you ignore nukes needing storage to operate.
So your option "needs more storage", and 100% renewables "needs more storage".
But all you can whine about is how renewables "need more storage".
Then project and insist I'm biased....
LOL.
Lid,
I read that there are 1.8 million boats in Australia (1 for every 13 people)...
Why do these Australians go out of their way to destroy the Great Barrier Reef? And why do they hate Polar Bears?
I also read that New Zealand has more boats per capita than any country in the world....
Isn't it about time you start a campaign to have these people "beaten in the streets", to help ease that feeling of bitterness you are forced to endure?
And why not "thread bomb", dumdum?
There's no information when you're busy ignoring it and pretending it never appeared, so any lack of utility is moot.
Moreover, since the same points are covered, why does it matter? If all the posts we made were rolled up into one, it would be unreadable even more than "thread bombed".
Your whinge is nothing more than tone trolling, inserting format complaints in the place of actual logical issues and fallacies because, frankly, you have nothing other than FUD to play, and ignorance to protect your bigotries.
Just quickly, yes i get the drift about scale.
Quite daunting.
Not as daunting remotly as dealing with the
raising temps on an already very compromised
biosphere. Thats daunting!
Why dont you fuck off batty ya cockhead.
"Why dont you fuck off batty ya cockhead"
Strange, you sound bitter...and I don't even own a boat.
I really think part of the solution is
stopping energy being wasted on manufacturing bullshit.
The only biosphere in the universe that we know about is
fucking up in front of our eyes.
But what scale?
China has 149GW in 2016. Is that scale? If not, why? If it is, how about in 2012 when it was 75GW?
Without anything about what the hell it means, "scale" is meaningless babble.
Yeah, a lot of demand is merely because it's supplied.
Look at food waste.
Which is one reason why dumdum's claims are bullshit. We don't necessaraily have to use the same amount of power. Scandanavian countries use less than the UK despite having less sunlight and more cold and less warmth. And the UK use less than the USA or Australia. Who in turn use less than Saudi Arabia. Why the Saudis? Oil power is cheap, even compared to USA.
The USA has reduced power demand because people are using LED lights instead of incandescents. Norway uses less than the UK on heating because they build better insulated homes.
Port Talbot cut their power use in the steel factory by 80% merely by changing their factory layout to reduce the cooling of the steel in manufacture.
EVs will use a quarter of the power of ICEs when widespread and there's power charging as frequently as petrol stations exist.
And currently there's no need to avoid using pumped storage or a different mix of power because it's not profit efficient to do so. The UK imports its power because it can't get anything built: nukes aren't wanted by the populace and wind/solar isn't wanted by government. Germany exports its power because it can benefit the balance of payments to do so, so optimising for demand is irrelevant. That's why the south imports power while the north exports it. It's more profitable to export the power than sell it internally. Exactly that reason is why Iran wanted nuke power: so they can sell the oil rather than burn it at the opportunity cost of selling at peak prices.
http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuretransmitting-power-4943271/
Only dumdum avoids admitting that HVDC is part of the future of any national grid.
Wow - "The UK imports its power because it can’t get anything built: nukes aren’t wanted by the populace and wind/solar isn’t wanted by government'
Yet, the government helped subsidize Westmill Solar, of which you are a shareholder and profit from.
Oh, the irony...
Wow, i cant speak for anyone else, but when
i think of scale, i think of my place ( Australia ) needing
perhaps 5 times as much high water storage than we
have now, as a battery. Thats alot.
Im fully confident of a complex network made of wind, solar hydro, pumped hydro, hamsters on wheels whatever can be done and managed .
We need to crank up solar farms and wind .
Crank down coal very fast.
But we gotta have some backup or fuckwit australians will
crack the shits if the power stops and they cant watch
Home and Away.
We need batteries of some sort right now being planned.
Pumped hydro makes sense to me.
We DONT need fucking nuke, thats for damn sure.
Typically hypocritical, we will sell uranium to any bastard though!
Really, only one thing matters, and thats coal disappearing quick quick. Or we are all fucked.
"i think of my place ( Australia ) needing
perhaps 5 times as much high water storage than we
have now, as a battery. "
Under what plan?
Because here's the thing dumdum doesn't get and you don't seem to have arrived at: you don't have to just multiply what you have currently.
Lets say you cut power usage by 80%. You don't need any batteries.
Lets say you pave Australia with 10x the amount needed to run your country. You'll throw away nearly 90% of your power, but you won't need batteries.
Lets say you build out 100% of the amount with renewables and solely solar PV. You see all those coal power stations? Who said to knock them down? Mothball them. No need for batteries OR any new build-out apart from the solar panels.
Lets say you build out 25% wind, 25% solarPV, 10% thermal solar, 10% biomass and 5% tidal and 25% molten sodium solar generation. How much battery will you need?
Especially since you still have those coal generators if your plan turns out to have a problem.
Doubly so if you cut waste.
If you mothball coal, you'll need to face off the coal so that you can stop fires starting under there. But you'd need to do that if you never consider digging up and burning any coal ever in the future. Fires still happen.
"But we gotta have some backup or fuckwit australians will
crack the shits if the power stops and they cant watch
Home and Away."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout
Of course, the failures were stated by the government were the result of renewables because dumdum knows that governments LOVE A greenwashing....
But it looks like blackouts have happened and rioting in the streets was not the result.
Hell, if you're operating a private for-profit business, you won't oversupply because that wastes cash, you're better off oversupplying only as much as is necessary to keep you from being sued for a huge amount.
Businesses have to look for profit. It's government that doesn't have to care about profit, only cost.
Li D must have been ecstatic when the South Australian blackout occurred....the people were finally living like Queen Victoria!
Wow - "Businesses have to look for profit"
Speaking of profit, what sort of profit distribution will you be receiving from Wetsmill Solar this quarter Wow? The more the better, correct?
Lid, look at deltoid in January to see batshit betty and StuPid pretending to be "honest brokers" and not caring. The moron has a serious mancrush on Jeff too.
For some reason, Wow (Adam) doesn't like it when people point out his hypocrisies and lies...
Anyway Lid, that would be Deltoid January 2107 in case you are confused....the dead blog that Hardley refused to believe was dying...
Ah yes, Poor Hardley, it's all he had to boost his ego....at least he still has the memory of his spider to keep him going.
See what I mean about the mancrush?
Oh, and this is probably kai aka boris aka freddie from over at illconsidered posting too.
Wow - "See what I mean about the mancrush?"
Using your own logic, you obviously have a "mancrush" on BBD....you seem to have a thing for the "fuckwit".
Now, back to the topic you would like to go away...
What came from the Westmill Solar meeting Saturday regarding the distribution of profits?
Are you making a good return on your "corrupt" investment?
How much did they have to overcharge that you could receive some of that profit?
And I think he's from your neighbourhood, Lid. Australia.
We've got Mad Monckton, Australia has Batshit Betty.
USA has a gaggle...
Adam - "And I think he’s from your neighbourhood, Lid. Australia"
Never been there, though I hear there are 1.8 million boaters there that could care less about The Great Barrier Reef. Lid taught me that...
Westmill Solar Profit?
Yeah, Brisbane it was.
> I’ll just say “already done several times, look upthread”.
In other words, you'll continue to not answer and make up stuff. Like you did with actual malice before, when the lawyer came in to correct you for all to see, you just kept pretending you were right.
BBD, no need to respond to EVERYTHING wow says. People reading understand.
I have watched amusingly as the unemployed tree pruner has wormed his way into this blog. I could ignore him without a problem until he dropped this howler, 'Ah yes, poor Hardley, it's all he had to boost his ego'.
Good heavens you sad loser, get a life. How on Earth some poor woman decided to settle down with an insignificant little wimpy twerp like you is one of life's great mysteries. If anyone has an ego problem, it's you, probably because your life has been such a vacuous waste. Me? I have a PhD, 182 (and counting) publications in the peer-reviewed literature, almost 5,500 career citations, an h-factor of 43, I have attained a Professorship and I am on the editorial boards of several journals. So whether or not Deltoid is a dead blog really doesn't really leave a mark on me or my ego. You seem to think that you played a role in its demise. If this boosts what little self-esteem you possess, then by all means revel in this myth. The truth is that Tim Lambert really didn't want to invest much effort in it anymore, for whatever reason. But if you honestly think that I place that much importance on the life and death of a blog, then you really are in serious need of medical attention.
”In other words, you’ll continue to not answer"
In other words you read post #578 and are bullshitting like deniers do.
It's down here again for you, you can't claim you didn't read it without showing how vacant your head is.
PS did you reconsider your idiotic stance when I pointed out in #441?
Of course not, you're fine with the build out of nukes because that will delay actually dropping coal and so on, and also give another big business a method to scalp taxpayers and customers.
"How on Earth some poor woman decided to settle down "
We have no proof any woman did. And plenty of proof no woman would have that low a standard.
Poor old mike.
Heart as big as the whole outdoors, but he don't have one brain in his poor old head
Hell you even pointed out to dumdum his problem.
Germany for example, didn't use all the power and exported 10GW. If they fell short abruptly by 10GW, they would not brown-out, only not be able to export, since the domestic demand was 100% of generation.
Lastly, "mike", what about when dingeoness went out for 4.5months? That was 1800TWh loss.
What do you think happened? 200,000 Dinworigs were emptied?
Hardley - "If anyone has an ego problem, it’s you"
And then follows it with this precious gem...
Hardley - "Me? I have a PhD, 182 (and counting) publications in the peer-reviewed literature, almost 5,500 career citations, an h-factor of 43, I have attained a Professorship and I am on the editorial boards of several journals"
Thanks Hardley, for keeping the Deltoid comedy alive..
Hey Wow,
I just read that Westmill Solar may generate up to 13 million in profits over the next 20 years.
According to your own beliefs (as stated on this blog), can only be the result of corruption...
So why would you be a shareholder in something you deem to be so corrupt?
Please explain...help us to understand your genius.
Thanks.
Socialists tend to be wealthy industrialists. Weird phenomenon.
Well that was a load of unsubstantiated bollocks.
Dismissed.
Somewhat off topic. Jeeeezuz.Oh man.
The denialist organ Quadrant has lost the plot
massivly and obscenly.
Check your own news sources for info.