4 ms·

You get downvoted because you are wrong. Renewables are fine for base load - if we redesign the power grid. "The intermittency of other sources such as wind an

You get downvoted because you are wrong. Renewables are fine for base load - if we redesign the power grid. "The intermittency of other sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic can be addressed by interconnecting power plants which are widely geographically distributed, and by coupling them with peak-load plants such as gas turbines fueled by biofuels or natural gas which can quickly be switched on to fill in gaps of low wind or solar production. Numerous regional and global case studies – some incorporating modeling to demonstrate their feasibility – have provided plausible plans to meet 100% of energy demand with renewable sources." https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 "Together, a mix different types of renewable energy sources can replace a conventional generating system and can be just as reliable." https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d72a/56d60694fcf7275f237d24950be383d82f02.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d72a/56d60694fcf7275f237d24...

isostatic 7y ago
In winter, UK solar doesn't produce much - and produces zero for 14 hours a day. The same time it's producing zero in spain, greece and turkey
graycat 7y ago
I get down voted because of a case of tribal loyalty. I'm hoping that HN will wise up to the CO2 propaganda. I pay a price for that. Eventually I will conclude that the HN audience is not worth any such price. Obviously in particular I get down voted because there are about four people on HN who are getting paid to down anyone arguing with the great global warming swindle. The consistent, reliable, as reliable as a coal plant, down voting is a humiliation of HN that permits such organized attacks. In recent weeks, I've lost over 100 points from these attacks. It's an organized attack from paid anti-CO2 people. It's clear my user ID is on a list to be attacked, for nearly anything I post, even on violin playing. You want superconducting long distance high power lines, but those still cost too much, and there's no real hope for those lines getting cheaper. And there's no good reason to work for cheap, efficient, long distance power lines to make renewables reliable. Renewables are obviously just nonsense pushed by the anti-CO2 swindle. That pile of coal out back is TOUGH to compete with. Similarly for nuclear fission fuel rods. We CAN send natural gas long distances via pipelines, so natural gas fueled peak load plants are tough to compete with. For the grid, wind is hopeless, as hopeless as the screaming about CO2. Eventually the HN audience will give up on the tribalism, quasi-religion, and nonsense. A good time for that will be when people have to PAY directly for all this total nonsense about CO2. For now, talk, even really silly talk, is cheap. HN can figure this out.
- moate 7y ago
  Hello there. I work professionally for a gaming/toy company. I am not paid for any other services in any way. You're being downvoted because your aggressive tone is attacking anyone on this site and using nothing but logical fallacies and weak ideas to back your statements. It's more likely that you're constantly getting down voted because your tone and behavior is similar to the tone and behavior of these posts. I don't have time to read your back posts, so I can't really say for sure there. Maybe check out reddit if this is your preferred level of discourse. They're much more receptive to it there.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  > That pile of coal out back is TOUGH to compete with. Really? Take a look at this link. Look at the decline of coal over the last 8 years in the UK. A period in which UK government removed most renewables subsidies, but increased fossil subsidies. UK has spent weeks on end running zero coal in the last couple of years. Today it's at 1.5% of generation. It'll all be gone in a few years. Further down, look how coal has declined in all those nations, with a couple of exceptions. Wind is about 15% of UK generation and running nicely. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...
  - AtlasBarfed 7y ago
    Mines, transport, and of course if there's no proper carbon tax. Plus particulate pollution and radioactives released
belorn 7y ago
plausible being the critical word. Currently the type of power plant that receive the highest amount of investment and construction is natural gas power plants. In all parts of the world there are massive natural gas pipe lines being built, and the countries in those areas intend to use them and get a return on investments. Batteries and dynamic power usage could in theory be tuned so we don't need natural gas to fill in the gap, but if we follow the money, follow the political decisions, following the current vectors of what people are actually doing and expect to get return on investments on, then no. Renewables will not be used for base load. North america is currently investing $1 trillion on natural gas pipe lines (not countring natural gas power plants themselves). In texas, there are pipe lines being built today for an additional 12 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. In just over the small country of Sweden we have 2 massive natural gas pipe line projects, one from Norway and one from Russia, competing to provide an ever increasing demand for natural gas in EU. The russian one has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres of gas. The doubt about energy sources like wind power is not if its plausable to use renewable energy for 100% of the energy demand. The doubt and skepticism comes from the fact that no one is doing it (with minor exceptions). No one is going towards such goal or investing in it. The power grid being built today and in the current long term investment window is natural gas as base load and replacement for coal, wind and solar as cheaper energy production during good conditions.
- graycat 7y ago
  So your are saying that (i) the capital expense of a natural gas plant is cheap enough and (ii) the operating, marginal cost of the natural gas is expensive enough that at times it pays to idle the gas plant and use wind/solar? I smell the anti-CO2 crowd, subsidies, etc. But even if this is wrong, I suspect that now gas is too cheap since at too many well heads it is just burned off to get the oil and with no good way to collect, compress, and move the gas. When the pipelines are in place, then the price of gas at the well heads will go up to compete with, say, coal, and we will be back to coal and gas and less in renewables.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Gas is too cheap at the well head in many places. It's definitely crazy to encourage fracking while extensive flaring is still happening. Which part of the thermal absorbtion/emission IR spectrum of CO2 do you disagree with?

isostatic 7y ago

In winter, UK solar doesn't produce much - and produces zero for 14 hours a day. The same time it's producing zero in spain, greece and turkey

graycat 7y ago

I get down voted because of a case of tribal loyalty. I'm hoping that HN will wise up to the CO2 propaganda. I pay a price for that. Eventually I will conclude that the HN audience is not worth any such price. Obviously in particular I get down voted because there are about four people on HN who are getting paid to down anyone arguing with the great global warming swindle. The consistent, reliable, as reliable as a coal plant, down voting is a humiliation of HN that permits such organized attacks. In recent weeks, I've lost over 100 points from these attacks. It's an organized attack from paid anti-CO2 people. It's clear my user ID is on a list to be attacked, for nearly anything I post, even on violin playing. You want superconducting long distance high power lines, but those still cost too much, and there's no real hope for those lines getting cheaper. And there's no good reason to work for cheap, efficient, long distance power lines to make renewables reliable. Renewables are obviously just nonsense pushed by the anti-CO2 swindle. That pile of coal out back is TOUGH to compete with. Similarly for nuclear fission fuel rods. We CAN send natural gas long distances via pipelines, so natural gas fueled peak load plants are tough to compete with. For the grid, wind is hopeless, as hopeless as the screaming about CO2. Eventually the HN audience will give up on the tribalism, quasi-religion, and nonsense. A good time for that will be when people have to PAY directly for all this total nonsense about CO2. For now, talk, even really silly talk, is cheap. HN can figure this out.

moate 7y ago
Hello there. I work professionally for a gaming/toy company. I am not paid for any other services in any way. You're being downvoted because your aggressive tone is attacking anyone on this site and using nothing but logical fallacies and weak ideas to back your statements. It's more likely that you're constantly getting down voted because your tone and behavior is similar to the tone and behavior of these posts. I don't have time to read your back posts, so I can't really say for sure there. Maybe check out reddit if this is your preferred level of discourse. They're much more receptive to it there.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> That pile of coal out back is TOUGH to compete with. Really? Take a look at this link. Look at the decline of coal over the last 8 years in the UK. A period in which UK government removed most renewables subsidies, but increased fossil subsidies. UK has spent weeks on end running zero coal in the last couple of years. Today it's at 1.5% of generation. It'll all be gone in a few years. Further down, look how coal has declined in all those nations, with a couple of exceptions. Wind is about 15% of UK generation and running nicely. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...
- AtlasBarfed 7y ago
  Mines, transport, and of course if there's no proper carbon tax. Plus particulate pollution and radioactives released

belorn 7y ago

plausible being the critical word. Currently the type of power plant that receive the highest amount of investment and construction is natural gas power plants. In all parts of the world there are massive natural gas pipe lines being built, and the countries in those areas intend to use them and get a return on investments. Batteries and dynamic power usage could in theory be tuned so we don't need natural gas to fill in the gap, but if we follow the money, follow the political decisions, following the current vectors of what people are actually doing and expect to get return on investments on, then no. Renewables will not be used for base load. North america is currently investing $1 trillion on natural gas pipe lines (not countring natural gas power plants themselves). In texas, there are pipe lines being built today for an additional 12 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. In just over the small country of Sweden we have 2 massive natural gas pipe line projects, one from Norway and one from Russia, competing to provide an ever increasing demand for natural gas in EU. The russian one has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres of gas. The doubt about energy sources like wind power is not if its plausable to use renewable energy for 100% of the energy demand. The doubt and skepticism comes from the fact that no one is doing it (with minor exceptions). No one is going towards such goal or investing in it. The power grid being built today and in the current long term investment window is natural gas as base load and replacement for coal, wind and solar as cheaper energy production during good conditions.

graycat 7y ago
So your are saying that (i) the capital expense of a natural gas plant is cheap enough and (ii) the operating, marginal cost of the natural gas is expensive enough that at times it pays to idle the gas plant and use wind/solar? I smell the anti-CO2 crowd, subsidies, etc. But even if this is wrong, I suspect that now gas is too cheap since at too many well heads it is just burned off to get the oil and with no good way to collect, compress, and move the gas. When the pipelines are in place, then the price of gas at the well heads will go up to compete with, say, coal, and we will be back to coal and gas and less in renewables.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Gas is too cheap at the well head in many places. It's definitely crazy to encourage fracking while extensive flaring is still happening. Which part of the thermal absorbtion/emission IR spectrum of CO2 do you disagree with?