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!
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Data link for renewables output.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&week=3
Don’t let dumdum lie to you.
Minimum: 16/01 12:00
Demand: 72.6GW
Export: 3GW.
Renewables (not totally utilised): 15GW.
i make that a minimum of over 20%.
Meanwhile, it gives a maximum of 85% on a different date:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
So sad for the nuke fluffers. No pay for them soon!
Mind you even in your cherry pick for “maximum”, it’s 21GW for renewables, 6GW export and 74GW for demand.
That’d be…. 28%.
Oooooh! Sooo variable!
28/21= 33% variation between min and max.
Meanwhile uranium varied from 7.3% of the mix to 13.5% of the mix.
13.5/7.3= 83% variation between min and max.
I guess nukes are just too variable to be usable even at sub-10% utility rates, there just needs to be too much load balancing to solve the problems of it’s wild variations in output…!
Okay, let’s look at the data another way.
Pick Month = January, Week = 3.
Weekly generation average for 16-22 Jan:
Solar: 0.255 GW
Wind: 0.676 GW
Combined W&S: 0.931
Conventional: 8.899 GW
Total: 9.83 GW
So average W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:
0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%
And when it comes to misleading people, why have i never heard about this report from you, dumdum?
“Okay, let’s look at the data another way.”
I already did.
Unless your other way is a trumpian way. In which case, no, we won’t look at it another way,
Weekly generation average for 16-22 Jan.
What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?
We’re talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?
Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to run??!?!?
You’re a lying little turdface, buddy dumdudm.
In March 2017 40% of power demand in Germany was supplied by renewables.
“Conventional: 8.899 GW”
So managed less than 1/7th of the demand?!?!?!?
Fuck, that’s terrible.
#308 Sorry – ‘average’ should be ‘total’ and units should be TWh.
No change to the 9.47% result.
0.931 TWh.
“#308 Sorry – ‘average’ should be ‘total’ and units should be TWh.”
Yeah, still doesn’t change the fact that renewables did about 30%. Compared to nuclear’s 13%.
Aaaaw. Failing nuclear.
” What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?
0.931 TWh.”
Lie!
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&week=3
You really can do maths, can you? This really is just you lying your little lying puke of a heart out here, isn’t it?
You know, dick levels of “Climate sensitivity is only for a doubling of CO2” level of lying your fucking heart out, right?
https://www.energy-charts.de/index.htm
Remember, too, that not all renewable and storage was utilised in any given period because when you overproduce, there’s no need to use it all up.
So when you add storage into the mix, there’s untapped reserve.
And when you add in the current HVDC grid that is able to easily supply 30% of peak demand, and the AC interconnects able to manage a similar level on top, along with renewables able to manage 30%, if it really came balls-to-the-wall emergency and they only had their current renewables infrastructure, they could keep going indefinitely at dumdum’s minimum alarmism rate indefinitely, with only losing 10% or so off the peak supply available.
Hardly enough to collapse industry, unlike your fatuous fantasy created solely to scare people into running for the unwise investment into the white elephant of nuclear power.
Just in case you want to try the moronic claim of how germany’s anti-nuke program is causing havoc and their reliance on renewables causing them to have to import power.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Total renewables: 38+12+8+19 TWh = 77TWh.
Total nonrenewable:: 38+19+22+51 TWh = 130TWh.
Total: 207TWh.
Renewables 37% of total.
Nonrenewables: 63% of total
See also for January above link.
Total renewables 15TWh (29.1%)
Total nonrenewables 36TWh (70.9%)
BBD, you keep getting tripped up at W&S vs renewable.
>Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you
Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.
BBD, Germany doesn’t have to export. So if the wind and solar etc can meet the domestic demand, that is good enough right?
“Before you were saying it was 85%”
Indeed I was.
“Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend.”
Uh, that is all in the link:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
Not my fault if you didn’t read it, “mike”.
“Stop lying.”
About what?
” So if the wind and solar etc can meet the domestic demand, that is good enough right?”
WTF?
Are you trying to get buddy dumdum here to accept that the demand for power in Germany is not going to be exported?
Because
a) that’s well unclear
b) he doesn’t want to comprehend. You know, like you and Mann’s work.
Hell, the reason for HVDC and all the other HVAC links between regions, states and countries are so that private companies generating power can, instead of selling them cheap locally, can sell it at market rates elsewhere if those rates are higher.
No, of course not. But the more W&S there is in the energy mix, the *more* storage and interconnections are necessary.
When did I lie about March? And why have we shifted from a week in January to the whole month of March?
And as usual, your numbers are wrong.
March 2017:
TWh
Conventional: 28.16
Wind: 9.43
Solar: 3.52
W&S: 12.95
Total: 41.8
That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.
* * *
Fossil fuels are a nightmare, nuclear is problematic and on its arse as an industry so W&S are going to have to work. All the heavy lifting of rapid decarbonisation is falling on them by default. Getting this to work will be immensely challenging. What hacks me off is that saying so is a trigger for so many people. It shouldn’t be.
MikeN #320
Um, confused.
” We’re talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?
Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to run??!?!?
No, of course not.”
You’re just going to ignore it and pretend, then? Sure, but that’s merely lying by omission.
“But the more W&S there is in the energy mix, the *more* storage and interconnections are necessary.”
WRONG!
“When did I lie about March? ”
When did I say you lied about March? YET ANOTHER made up claim from you!
“And as usual, your numbers are wrong. ”
And as usual, you’re absolutely wrong.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)
You lying little shitstain, dumdum.
“What hacks me off is that saying so is a trigger for so many people. It shouldn’t be.”
So you think is triggering to say its challenging? That ain’t it you lying fuckwit.
It should be a worry for anyone when a lie is told with no compunction or care for the truth or that the lie is patent and obvious, yet still ignored.
If you’d just left it to “challenging”, I would have asked “Got one that isn’t?”
DO YOU HAVE ONE THAT ISN’T?
But you didn’t leave it at that, you had to, HAD. TO. Lie and bullshit to scare people into running to nuke power to pad your resume and keep you in employment.
Without further comment:
Yeah, though that;s kinda your thing, like with any other denier: don’t say anything, but post as if you had.
No comment because you think it doesn’t apply to you.
Sorry dumbass, it does.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)
When YOU claimed it was 27% less than that.
And no comment on whether you have a national scale energy system plan that isn’t challenging?
#330 “denier”
Er, i honestly was not aware BBD
was one of the denier loons.
There is some posting history that
indicates otherwise.
Im open to being wrong.
Its easy to settle though.
BBD, are you one of those denier loons?
#325 “Fossil fuels are a nightmare, nuclear is problematic and on its arse as an industry so W&S are going to have to work. All the heavy lifting of rapid decarbonisation is falling on them by default. Getting this to work will be immensely challenging. ”
This seems eloquent and reasonable and its hard to disagree.
#326, BBD, the second part is a reference to Wow’s lies.
Wow’s numbers are renewables is X, and you are countering with you’re wrong, wind + solar is Y,<X.
“This seems eloquent and reasonable and its hard to disagree.”
Which is why it was said.
But why was all the other crap said? Because that last bit there you quoted was not what dudmdum thinks.
“#326, BBD, the second part is a reference to Wow’s lies.”
Which ones where “mike”?
“Mike”,rememeber I posted the link to 85% renewables supplied in Germany report. Dated 17 May. It’s news. And if you read it, even the summary says it was over a weekend.
It was dumdum who went “Huh, but what about thisweek in january, huh?!??!?!?!”.
If you want to complain about liars talking about a different time period, that was dumdum.
LiD, think of this, if dumdum here really thought we’d have to go renewables no matter what because it’s the best option out of all the possible ones we know the technology for (so no zero point energy generation discoveries), what does it mean to be “challenging”? How can it matter, when we’re going to do it anyway? What complaint can be made it will “cost more”? More than what? It can’t cost more than it costs, whatever it costs, since that is what it costs. And it doesn’t matter if it costs more since it’s still supposedly the best option, and all the others unworkable.
This is, of course, given that the claim you quoted that seemed inarguable was genuine. Indeed if it were inarguable, how come dumdum keeps arguing about it, and only it?
And in purely mathematical terms, what does “It will cost more” mean when there’s no answer coming to “So how much more?” and “More than what?”.
Why complain that there will be more HVDC when there’s no answer to the queries “More than what? How much more?”. Indeed I’ve also tried to point out that no matter what generation we go with, we’re using HVDC now and we’re increasing HVDC and adding HVDC makes any grid system more profitable, more efficient and reduces redundancy when it protects against rare events.
More HVDC than what? What OTHER plan is there that wouldn’t? What plan for renewables would it require more HVDC and what plan for renewables are you complaining doesn’t have enough HVDC?
When you notice this you notice how buddy dumdum here is lying out of his ass and decieving you with claims “Oh, nuke is bad, coal is bad, gas is bad, we have to go with renewables” because his arguments are null and void and their only purpose is one of two things:
1) FUD about changing things, keep the status quo, delay delay delay.
2) FUD about renewables, point to AGW as urgent and overwhelming need to remove fossil fuels, but renewables can’t do it. Never mention nukes in a bad light. Never SAY “use nukes”, just make sure every other option is shouted down as too expensive, possibly impossible to do.
And over at Eli’s, #2 was 100% dumdum’s line. Continually claimed he’d “never said” that we couldn’t use renewables. Continued to claim it was far more expensive than claimed, possibly impossible to implement. Continued to claim he’d never said renewables were unworkable.
Remember?
“renewables possibly impossible to implement”
“renewables unworkable”
Oh, sure, unworkable isn’t in the first sentence.
Oh, and if you did try to push his quotes back at him there, he’d insist either the precise word claimed was not there (see above) or ignore it completely, wasting all your work looking through the blog for the evidence he demanded.
Nuke sux dogs balls.
Thats my position as eloquently as i wish to make it.
Renewable is the only way forward.
Coal is for fuckwits.
Renewable is a challenge. Not overwhelming.
But challenging.
Sorta like if ya on a boat and it sinks
a couple kms from shore.
Theres no choice. Ya gotta swim. Its challenging.
But ya gunna make it.
Thats sorta how i stay positive. Its a couple km swim.
Luckily we are about 1/4 way there already!
We got some existing tech. Theres heaps of research.
Heaps of public interest and goodwill.
Carmichael mines on the nose.
But its still gunna be a slog, with waves and rips and
the odd denier jellyfish blobbing about, being annoying.
What would sorta help is that people swam together instead
of endless petty bullshit.
Wanna look at another positive?
Theres gas as a helplful transition tool.
Its far from perfect. But it exists.
What there was no such thing as gas? Shit
would be way more challenging then.
But we got it! Yay!
I cant say im a fan of fracking overly on farmland.
Another damn good thing some countries have
is a baseload of hydro . Thats a big plus.
Its subject to climate change issues of course.
And there is horrible ecological damage from the dams.
Hydro is also renewable energy…
As is biomass.
Know another thing that’s renewable? Synthfuel from excess wind or solar. Or hydrogen cells from wind/tide/solar/geothermal/…
Know what we can do with them?
Store them up in those big tanks we reserve for fossil fuels like gas and petroleum and burn them like they’re gas or oil.
But, remember, as long as someone wants to slow down changing from the status quo or push you to an expensive bondoogle that will delay doing anything other than spend massive amounts on infrastructure we may find out in 20 years is entirely unusable in the changed climate we have already dealt for ourselves in our collective denial and timewasting, you can only “store” in new build storage.
And in a blogpost that talks about the perfection fallacy to proclaim that 100% will be hard and then ignore the existence of cold backup plants which could be coal fired or nukes or anything that we currently have producing a massive fraction of what we currently need (most of the time, but they’re not absolutely reliable), just to make sure that we delay and avoid renewables for as long as possible, is rather ironically ridiculous.
So if we leave all current generation there and replace normal operation with 100% planned capacity of renewables, on the rare occasion germany and all its neighbours are under thick cloud and a MASSIVE high pressure zone, they can use the mothballed stations and produce not 100% renewable but 30% renewable and 70% fossil fuels for 0.1% of the time, making it 99.3% renewables on average, somehow this will still be, to denier morons like dumdum here, a failure to bring up and constantly whine and whinge about as a failure, because only renewables have to be perfect.
Agree. Theres alot of bullshit about 100% anything.
Li D
No.
Oh boy.
Wow – those are ANNUAL figures. We were discussing THE WEEK OF 15 – 22 JANUARY and your numbers are incorrect. You have over-estimated by 27%:
March 2017:
TWh
Conventional: 28.16
Wind: 9.43
Solar: 3.52
W&S: 12.95
Total: 41.8
That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.
Please, get it straight.
The only liar here is you, Wow. You are the one trying to pretend that a discussion about expanding wind and solar should use figures for hydro.
These are the relevant data.
Total W&S for the week in question was 0.931 TWh.
As I keep showing you. You can deny it all you like, but the numbers will not change:
Use this link for weekly generation totals for 16-22 Jan:
Pick Month = January, Week = 3.
Weekly generation for 16-22 Jan:
Solar: 0.255 GW
Wind: 0.676 GW
Combined W&S: 0.931
Conventional: 8.899 GW
Total: 9.83 GW
So W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:
0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%
“” BBD, are you one of those denier loons?”
No.”
Then again, when do you remember last a denier answering yes to that question? But he is a denier. Remember, there’s not just AGW denial.
“That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.
Please, get it straight.”
WRONG!
It’s 41.4%, 1.4% HIGHER than I said.
“0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%”
Yup, but the 0.931 is a lie form you buthurt wangfiddler.
“Use this link for weekly generation totals for 16-22 Jan:”
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
2.33 TWh renewables = 19.9%
Look too at the totals for March:
19.83 TWh renewables = 41.4%
Look too at the lies dumbass fuckwit here spews.
Look at it for the totals for 2016:
181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%
And for 2015:
182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%
And so far for 2017:
77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.
Wow, you are *still* conflating biomass and hydro with wind and solar – something I was careful *not* to do from the very outset. This discussion was always about highly variable wind and solar, NOT biomass and hydro, which are pretty stable and which do not have much potential for growth – unlike W&S – which will be the heavy lifters in the evolving energy transition.
* * *
Another of your misleading tricks is the use of partial 2017 annual data. Charitably, I’ll ascribe this to incompetence rather than intent, although every single number you have given so far has been a substantial over-estimate, which suggests I’m being too kind to you. Anyway, NB: you can’t use partial data to make a strong claim (>40% !!!) as you are doing. It’s incorrect. It’s misleading.
If we look at 2016 – for which there are complete data – we see that wind = 14.3% and solar = 6.9% of total generation. So that’s 21.2% of total generation by W&S. In 2015, it was 21.6%. These are correct annual percentages and these are what you should be quoting.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
“You are the one trying to pretend that a discussion about expanding wind and solar”
And yet another made up claim from you, dumbfuck.
Take a look at the URL:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
FROM RENEWABLES.
Take a look at the topic [post of the thread:
download
“you can’t use partial data to make a strong claim (>40% !!!) ”
YOU want to use partial data to make a strong claim (<10%!!!!)?
Or is it projection again, you flatulent blowhard moron?
“. These are correct annual percentages and these are what you should be quoting”
I did:
And so far for 2017:
77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.
Look at it for the totals for 2016:
181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%
And for 2015:
182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%
All from:
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
And you continue without a blink to mislead by conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar.
So, you are dishonest to the point where talking to you is a waste of time.
People like you do more harm to the public perception of renewables than the FF brigade. Everyone sees the total disregard for the truth in your comments and it confirms their darker suspicions that the energy industry is lying to them. As I said upthread, you aren’t even a useful idiot.
“And you continue without a blink to mislead by conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar. ”
Nope. More bullshit claim from you, retardo.
WRONG. AGAIN.
“So, you are dishonest to the point where talking to you is a waste of time. ”
No, your dishonesty is a waste of time but you can’t let it lie, you have to lie for it.
“People like you do more harm to the public perception of renewables”
Shall I bold and italicise that for you?
renewables
And
mislead… conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar.
The only, and I mean ONLY way this can be said is if you’re EVEN LESS CAPABLE OF REALITY THAN DICK.
EVEN TRUMP will be going “That dude some stupid fuck!”
“As I said upthread, you aren’t even a useful idiot.”
Yup, and it has only gotten even more incomprehensibly stupid to say it.
You HAVE to, HAVE. TO. Lie like your nuts are at risk if you tell the truth.
So you lie and know you lie about whatthe conversation is about and lie and know you lie when you claim I’m wrong, you lie and know you lie when you complain that others are misleading, you lie AND KNOW YOU’RE LYING when you say you are annoyed with the public being mislead.
Because the only leading you want to happen is away from renewables in fear and uncertainty and doubt it will work.
A plain old nuke worker shilling for their PR cheque.
Wow
The transient 85% generation peak on April 30 between 13:00 – and 15:00 was not caused by a sudden spike in biomass generation. Nor did it result from a sudden output surge from hydro.
It was produced by unusually widespread windy conditions on a sunny day – which happened to be on a holiday weekend when industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low.
Wind and solar variability produced the headline. So the ensuing conversation was about wind and solar variability and its implications. Or at least, the honest side of it was. Only a peddler of misleading industry PR such as yourself would try to conflate an event arising from wind and solar variability with biomass and hydro. It’s just dishonest.
JEZUSFUKINGCRIST!
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?!?!?
See the problem is you have FUCK ALL to say that is in ANY WAY honest or real or even fucking SANE.
ONLY YOU would take an event that is fully explained and then WHINE ABOUT IT BEING EXPLAINED.
You are the exact same as dick and his “Climate sensitivity is per doubling of CO2!!!!”.
The event was renewables produced 85% of the power needed in germany to which YOU whined that it was “misleading” for reasons that clearly became more and more outlandish.
Then you whine about how nonexistent claims of nonexistent renewables would cause nonexistent problems for nonexistent futures that you thought were bad.
So you have lurched from one complete clusterfuck of lies and ignorance and deception into the next screaming fake outrage and bullshit claims every single dfrigging step of the way.
Remember when you wanted dick banned for being a complete and utter unprepentant liar?
DID YOU FEAR THE COMPETITION YOU FUCKWIT????
Germany got 85% of their demand from renewables. They got over 40% in march, last year got 33% and 31% the year before that.
ITS A FACT.
But you have to run round in circles screaming “MIsLEAD MisLEAD MIsLEAD!!!!”.
Fuck you’re a retard.
And then you go complaining “you’re not even worth talking to”.
Fuck off.
Just fuck right off.
Where the fuck do you live and we’ll get in touch and I;ll fucking sort you out.
And don’t worry about “I don’t want to hit a woman”, ‘cos I sure as shit don’t give a fuck about restraining myself hitting you and wiping you out.
Put up your town of residence, mine is Exeter, and tell Greg that it’s OK to pass on your email address to me and we’ll arrange a day to meet up where I will send you a fucking message you will NOT ignore.
Fucking deal you moron?
“Oh, it was only 85% for a very special and odd occasion where the wind and sun were appropriate!!!!”
Earlier from you, you fucking lying streak of shit:
“Oh, what about when all of Germany is under a lull in wind for weeks, and there’s no sunlight because of the cloud cover, huh? HUH?”
YOU FUCKING DID IT.
TWAT.
So we give up on the “unusual conditions”.
Renewables 2016 in Germany: 33%.
https://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-lancaster-exception.html?m=0
When you wave about a headline shouting 85%! and it turns out that the story is about W&S variability – not hydro, not biomass – W&S variability, then wind and solar variability is the proper focus of the discussion. Anyone trying to make it about biomass and hydro is being misleading and dishonest.
I pointed out that wind and solar variability is huge – 85% one Sunday afternoon in April and 2% on Sunday Jan 22. That kind of variability has to be addressed by non-FF backup and grid interconnections (something deeply stalled in Germany right now). It’s a problem, not something to be crowing to the newspapers about. That’s why this kind of PR bullshit is so reprehensible.
* * *
You have a tell that I really have to warn you about.
When you get caught out lying, as above, you GO ALL CAPS and frothingly insane. You do it every time and it’s a bit obvious. Mind you, I’m pretty sure everybody knows what a shameless liar you are by now.
BBD:
I admire your patience in dealing with Wow.
His name calling has gotten even worse lately.
I tend to ignore his posts now.
“When you wave about a headline shouting 85%! ”
When it does.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
“and it turns out that the story is about W&S variability ”
Except it doesn’t. It’s about how renewables managed 85%.
“wind and solar variability is the proper focus of the discussion. ”
No it isn’t retardo.
Now you going to step up and back your bullshit or are you going to fuck off and leave this blog to the at least marginally sane like “Mike”?
Because you’re even worse than dick in your insanity and incapacity to tell anything even vaguely the truth.
In 149 I gave that link.
Here’s what you said in 150:
And when its dark / winter? And low wind conditions?
And then HERE is what you said
“It was produced by unusually widespread windy conditions on a sunny day – which happened to be on a holiday weekend when industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low. ”
Surely if it was ONLY “windy conditions on a sunny day”, then” industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low.” would be FICTION.
Fucking moron.
Oh noes! RENEWABLES DID MORE THAN DOUBLE!!!!! IT FAAAAIIILLLLLDDDD!
THIS is how moronic you are.
A system that has been managing 30+% and increasing that year on year get a time when they do more than twice that AND YOU SCREAM “FAILURE!!!!”.
You’re a fucking paid hack.
“His name calling has gotten even worse lately.”
How the fuck would you know, knobmunch? You ignore my posts now.
And yes, calling fuckwits names is worse when there are fuckwits than when there aren’t.
Who’daguessed?!?!?!?
Fucking moron.
And “his” again? You could have said “Her” and if I’d asked about how you figured that said “Well you’ve said you don’t like “him””.
But no, you have to try and bring up the same old tired “gender” argument again because you really REALLY can’t handle people as people rather than as whatever dangles between their legs.
Which is the beginning and end of the entirety of sexism.
Er Greg…
I’m not happy about this at all.
“I’m not happy about this at all.”
Join the frigging club, retard.
Want to try honety, or at least avoid DIShonesty?
Oh and instead of running off crying about meanies, you COULD, like any fucking adult and go “No, I’m not willing to participate”.
#342
Ok that sorts that out. Cheers.
So, apparently “Wow” is a woman in her mid-40’s who writes like a deranged 9-year-old boy. Unhinged. Honest to the point of recklessness, self-centered to the extreme. Looking for a fight like a school kid who had their feelings hurt once too many. Derailing every conversation “she” participates in with no regard for truth or honest discussion. Fascinating, sad and disturbing all at once.
Who knew? Though nothing new. Just a different venue.
Greg, I’m surprised you tolerate it though, frankly, I’m glad you do. Very entertaining to see that side of the human mind displayed. At length.
And how does that “appear”?
Patrick is “apparently” an ignorant knuckledragger who only comes out of the woodwork when they think they can play hero.
Unfortunately, lacking any method by which to argue a point, they utterly fail their crusade for, well, whatever the hell they’re trying to pursue in the last five minutes. It’s not like HE cares, is it.
“with no regard for truth or honest discussion.”
Ah, some proof would be handy.
Well patmcgroin?
Too funny. Hero? “Wow”, you’re right, I don’t give a shit. I find you entertaining and certainly not in the way you would want.
As for proof? Gee, I don’t know. How about virtually every comment above? Or we can go to numerous other sites for more–the defunct asylum of Deltoid being a personal favorite. Of course I would have to have the time and inclination to do that. And I don’t.
Was merely a comment pointing out who you seem to have identified yourself as–a deranged, insecure 40-something woman. I was surprised. At least about the woman part. And it “appears” that way because you have made it so idiot.
Yes I am a man. You are an assclown nutter. Neither will change.
“I don’t give a shit.”
Ah, clearly you don’t care about honesty, then.
Kinda explains your earlier claims, too.
Warrior away, retard.
#372
” asylum of Deltoid”
Get stuffed. Deltoid is a great blog.
It did get killed by batshit betty and StuPid. Hence batshit is roving and trying to get more disruption here.
Looks like we can award the victory to BBD with this neutral scorecard.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160696999931/how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate-on-the
Rick, ignoring Wow is what I try to do as well, but other posts get missed.
BBD, will you answer #260?
No. Sorry.
Well, clearly you CAN, but it is unsupportable by any logic reason or reality.
Oh, and I guess it explains how you still don’t understand either Mann’s work or the work from the IPCC given your love of sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LALALA! CAN’T HEAR”.
Not forgetting the ludicrous claims given that if you don’t read my posts, you can’t actually have any information about them.
You’re not the sharpest knife in the sock drawer, are you, “mike”.
It;s enlightening to how you perceive things when you link to a blogroll with the URL title:
how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate
When it ought to be clear this SHOULD have been apolitical and based on provable facts, not political stance.
Clearly even you see that dumdum is not arguing reality, but partisanship.
“Warrior?” What does that even mean? Oh, I know. It’s your attempt at some sort of slight. I guess. Shame it makes no sense. But that is by no means unusual for you.
You really don’t have a life away from these pages, do you “Wow?” It would be sad if it weren’t so amusing.
Nah, it’s still sad…
“Wow” proclaims…”Ah, clearly you don’t care about honesty, then.”
I don’t? What would give you that idea? I honestly believe you are raging idiot with too much time on “her” hands. One who claims knowledge on any number of topics which you clearly do not possess. And I honestly find you endlessly entertaining but, again, not for the reasons I’m certain you would prefer. So, do, please, keep it going. Provided, of course, you don’t get banned. Though given your latest work I suspect it is but a matter of time. And you likely won’t get your own little padded cell like other venues–see Eli.
Li D–“Get stuffed. Deltoid is a great blog.”
It’s not a blog at all anymore, and really hasn’t been for many years. Perhaps 10 years ago you’d have been correct. But I do thank you for your suggestion.
MikeN re #260:
The problem with large-scale renewables is that the prime resource locations tend to be geographically distant from the major demand centres. So you need lots of new long distance transmission capacity linking the prime renewable resources to their potential markets. Typically, this will mean lots more HVDC, which is a slow, painful process because of all the land rights issues it incurs. There’s a good explainer here. You can see why the US isn’t looking likely to make a successful energy transion to a high renewables mix unless there is hard-edged federal intervention and soon. And we know teh Donald is really on-side with that.
With all that lot (assuming ‘enough backup’ really does mean enough backup) then broad strokes, SD would have partially decarbonised its electricity supply. Important to remember that decarbonising electricity generation is just the first – and easiest – step along the much harder road to full decarbonisation of total primary energy (TPE). But decarbonisation of TPE is what has to be achieved if atmospheric CO2 levels are eventually to be reduced.
“The problem with large-scale renewables is that the prime resource locations tend to be geographically distant from the major demand centres”
The problem with your asinine claim is that we have roofs. We put them on the places that are major demand centers.
“With all that lot (assuming ‘enough backup’ really does mean enough backup)”
Oh, dear, because if there isn’t enough, there’s only the magical pixie dust of nuclear that we put right in the middle of our demand centers that never has a problem with being not enough. Just one gramme of uranium will ALWAYS be enough!!!
“Important to remember that decarbonising electricity generation is just the first – and easiest – step along the much harder road to full decarbonisation of total primary energy (TPE)”
So what? WHAT CHANGES if it’s hard or easy? If it’s REALLY REALLY hard, do we just not bother and roast or sit at home and do nothing?
And when robots are doing all the work and teleconferencing is all that the jobs left require, the demand for transit to work is gone.
Sounds like transitioning to TPE is easy then.
You’re a fucking retard, dumdum.
Hey, wanckchat, you don’t appear to have anything to do but post BS about a thing you claim you don’t give a shit about.
How retarded is that?
The problem with you, Wow, is that you have almost no idea at all what you are talking about but you never shut up.
Let’s take this bit of cretinousness:
But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres. You have forgotten that solar irradiance at the surface varies with latitude. To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest.
In your own words:
Why Greg allows you to carry on is increasingly puzzling.
Ah, yet more projection an dbollocks form you.
And what is this about “you never shut up”? What about the moron who said “It’s not even worth talking to you”? Yet here you are, still trying to talk over me.
That, by the way was incredible stupidity you said.
“Why Greg allows you to carry on is increasingly puzzling.”
Because he needs to have someone willing to go up against your pro-nuke insane bumblings and he’s quite aware of how mindbogglingly infuriating a retard like yourself is when they’re desperately trying to rubbish the competition.
Kinda simple. Not as simple as you are, you moronic fuckwit, but that’s practically “absolute stupid”. Even trump is going “that dumdum fella is fucking stupid, isn’t he.”.
The fact is that all your complaints about renewables are manufactured failures you’re promoting to scare people off and rush them into buying nuclear. Not one of them, even the very few valid points, are of any value whatsoever because even the valid ones are valid for ALL OTHER GENERATION.
And you keep whining about how challenging it will be to no purpose.
Got anything that isn’t challenging? No? Then you’re only whining about how it’s not money going to pay for worthless nukes.
If you wonder why nobody wants nukes or believes the BS about their safety, your lies and horrendous arguments against renewables is why.
You have screwed over the industry in your insane rantings devoid of reality against renewables.
Wonderful own goal dumbass.
“But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres”
No, they’re everywhere.
Or are you secretly a moleman? A molech? Some sort of cave-dwelling troll? We have humans here and we work above ground mostly, and the few underground jobs are apart from deep seam mining, all absent any great power demands.
And without coal and uranium, we won’t need much mining.
And where are the major sources of uranium? Coal? Right under the major cities?
Nope.
“To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest. ”
Wrong. It’s cheaper to build large scale solar plants where the sun is strongest.
Germany isn’t where the sun is strongest, yet it managed 85% of demand from renewables.
In which Wow denies that surface solar irradiance varies with latitude.
For three hours on a Sunday afternoon. But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show.
Looking at individual days is potentially misleading, hence the misleading PR we see regurgitated by they press every so often. Let’s avoid that sort of error and concentrate on annual data.
Total solar was 7.1% in 2015 and 6.9% in 2016. That puts things a bit more into perspective.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
“For three hours on a Sunday afternoon”
But according to your screed this is impossible, because Germany is where the big industrial powerhouse of Europe is, and you insist that we only have sufficient power in distant places and therefore have to have lots of HVDC.
“But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show. ”
No, the data shows that is a load of bollocks. Another fake trumpian claim from you, dumdum. Tell me do you have ridiculous “real hair” too? Offensively long ties?
“Looking at individual days is potentially misleading”
Yet you keep bleating on about individual days whenever you whine and whinge about renewables being too expensive to possibly work.
You really don’t care what bullshit you spew, do you?
“Let’s avoid that sort of error and concentrate on annual data.”
YOU were the one bleating about “What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!”
Annual data for Germany, hardly a place with a clear sky desert climate today:
And so far for 2017:
77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.
Look at it for the totals for 2016:
181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%
And for 2015:
182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%
All from:
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Your claims are just fakery and the exact reason why nukes will NEVER be acceptable to the educated and educable, since your lies and bullshit are entirely fictions to drive people to your white elephant money grab scam.
And the renewables are so plentiful that Germany is increasing year on year the exports the do to the rest of Europe.
Making the figures above EVEN BETTER, since they include overgeneration that is sold for profit elsewhere. Generation ABOVE demand.
“In which Wow denies that surface solar irradiance varies with latitude. ”
and another fake claim from you, you retard.
“To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest. ”
Where buddy dumdum insists that it’s eternal night in Germany.
It was the Sunday of the May Day holiday long weekend. As has been pointed out repeatedly, industrial demand was at unusually low levels.
Learn to read a graph. German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:
22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00
S: 0
W: 1.37
W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%
Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany’s ‘record-breaking’ 85% renewables blah on this thread. For three hours on a Sunday afternoon.
“It was the Sunday of the May Day holiday long weekend”
So when you claimed that solar had to be built in distant places far from the demand, you had the unstated coda “unless it’s a Sunday May Day Holiday!”????
Fucking liar.
“Learn to read a graph. German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:”
I can.
Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.
Nearly 10x what you’re claiming.
And weren;t you whining about not taking some short atypical time period and we had to use annual averages?!?!?!?
Oh, yes, you were.
Seems like hypocrit is still a hypocrit.
If you ever wondered why dick still gets to post, you are the reason why. If he sacked dick he’d have to get rid of you first.
“Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany’s ‘record-breaking’ 85% renewables ”
IOW you scream “FAKE NEWS!!!!”.
No, it really did break the record, it’s a fact, it;s reality, it;s what really really happened. Renewables manged 85% of power demand in Germany. A fact you cannot face so bury under your bullshit.
O, and more lies too.
Wjen you posted this at post 95:
Was that BEFORE or AFTER my post at 149:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
?
Was 95 a response to a LATER post, dumfuck?
Come on, which is earlier in the number sequence: 95 or 149?
Does Scott have “When they have to make up reality to prove you wrong, that proves you’re right” in his description of how you can tell you’ve won an argument “Mike”?
And since industrial demand is so significant, why do you keep whining about out-of-office-hours lack of solar? There’s very little industry running at night. So low industrial (therefore low national demand) would have the same effect as a May Day Bank Holiday Weekend Sunday.
Blah blah blah.
I don’t think anyone reads you bollocks anymore.
22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00
S: 0
W: 1.37
W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%
Fact. Deal with facts.
Because a WEEK isn’t the same as a day, idiot.
You keep ondoing this. Are you stupid or simply dishonest?
Do tell.
“Blah blah blah.
I don’t think”
True, dumdum.
” Nearly 10x what you’re claiming.
Because a WEEK isn’t the same as a day, idiot. ”
But one day is not the same as “German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan.” That happens to be one week, moron.
And what does % have to do with the difference between one day and one week.
More maths fail from the dribbling buffoon nuke fluffer.
” Are you stupid or simply dishonest?”
You are both.
“Fact. Deal with facts.”
Hey, you’re the one whining about facts and insisting they’re PR.
And is it a FACT that 95 comes after 146, moronico?
Or are you just terminally incapable of thought?
Do tell.
“https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables”
Fact.
Deal with it.
German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:
Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.
Fact. Deal with it.
#95 was BEFORE #146
FACT.
Deal with it, morondo.
“Fact. Deal with facts.”
Facts like renewables managed 85% of demand in Germany? No, you can’t deal with facts. Only fluffery.
Does radioactive knob taste nice?
OK, BBD, I had misunderstood your objections in previous thread, and thought you were saying the variation of wind and solar was a technical challenge. Instead your argument is that the wind and solar local supply is not enough, and you need transmission lines to utilize the national supply?
He doesn’t know what the challenges are, he knows he has to keep harping on about them.
National grids, for example, are mostly AC. There’s nothing about HVDC that makes them necessary, they only make it cheaper to run, having the possiblity of lower loss than HVAC of the same power capacity because of capacitative losses. It’s currently used where it makes it cheaper to move electricity now. And it will be used no matter what the future power grid will be, because long distance catchments allow more market exploitation.
>He doesn’t know what the challenges are, he knows he has to keep harping on about them.
You are an expert on keep harping on without knowing the details.
Yes, that’s his probem all right.
I’m an expert and he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about and NOBODY knows “the” details, because there aren’t any.
Hell, when I asked you “About what?” when you told me “stop lying”, YOU didn’t know any more details than you’d asked me to stop lying.
You didn’t know the details of the content of the link and got the detail that HE’D waddled off about some OTHER period of time and appeared to think it was me (which is why dumdum thought you were telling THEM to stop lying, THAT is how out of detail you were).
I will demonstrate your lack of knowing what “the details” are by asking you again right here: what details, and where are they to have been missed?
You posted that BBD was lying with #235:
“Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.
Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”
This is a lie by you.
MikeN
Well, that’s two sides of the same coin, really. Whenever W&S variability causes local supply to fall below local* demand there’s a problem. It might be that local wind and solar resources are not that good or it might be that it’s dark and windspeeds are low or a combination of both. Doesn’t matter – there’s a supply shortfall.
Small, transient supply shortfalls can be managed with demand-side management but longer and larger shortfalls need extra energy inputs. These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both. But they have to come from somewhere or the lights go out.
It looks likely that a combination of both will eventually be used, with HVDC links to the big wind resources in the N and big solar in the SW as essential parts of the US grid infrastructure. The results would look something like this (red circles indicate imports, blue indicate exports). Note that the source is NREL – generally considered impeccable in RE discussions.
*’Local’ in this context can mean ‘NYC’ or ‘the Eastern Seaboard’. Not just Littleburg, VA.
“You posted that BBD was lying with #235:
“Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.
Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”
This is a lie by you.”
Nope, retard, this is where you told me I was lying:
What was I lying about?
“Small, transient supply shortfalls can be managed with demand-side management but longer and larger shortfalls need extra energy inputs…But they have to come from somewhere or the lights go out. ”
So tell me your power supply where this would not be the case that if there is insuffucient power produced the shortfallnhas to come from somewhere or the ligths go out?
“These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both.”
And, yes power has to come from somewhere, but it DOESN’T have to come from utility scale storage or long distance, or both.
That is a lie.
“Whenever W&S variability causes local supply to fall below local* demand there’s a problem.”
Wherever nuclear variability causes local supply to fall below local demand, there’s a problem.
So what magical power source do you have that this is NOT the case?
“Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”
IS a lie.
Retard bum dumb destroyed was lying about renewables producing less than 10% in that time period WHICH WAS WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO ANSWER: how much renewables produced to demand.
And lied about how much DEMAND was when he kept bleating on about how much GENERATION was and CLAIMED it was demand.
Even you tried to correct him on his deliberate “confusion” most recently in 324.
No, it’s a fact. Deal with facts.
Wind and solar produced 9.47% during the week 15 – 22 Jan.
Fact. Deal with facts.
another way. Here are the weekly generation figures for 16-22 Jan:
Solar: 0.255 GW
Wind: 0.676 GW
Combined W&S: 0.931
Conventional: 8.899 GW
Total: 9.83 GW
So W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:
0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%
Not 30%.
But it is demand. If generation exceeds demand, then the grid breaks. Already explained this to you.
There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand – electrons don’t care, they just have to *go* somewhere. So generation must = total aggregate demand (domestic + export).
Your topic knowledge is appalling.
“No, it’s a fact. Deal with facts. ”
No, it’s a lie, and I deal with liars like you by treating them with the same disdain and abuse they give reality.
“https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables”
Fact.
Deal with it.
German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:
Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.
Fact. Deal with it.
#95 was BEFORE #146
FACT.
Deal with it, morondomookfuck.
“But it is demand.”
No it isn’t. It’s supply.
Fucking moron has no clue what reality is.
“There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand ”
So Germany is the entire world? Or Germany exports to Germany?????
Fucking idiot.
“Not 30%.”
it was 85%.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
DEAL WITH FACTS.
Germany manged 85% of power demand being supplied by renewables. They did not require HVDC to provide it, they did not even use all storage to provide it.
There was nothing misleading about the story.
There is no power supply that will not result in power outages if there is insufficient power supplied.
There is no idea from you on how to avoid your claims of problems.
You do not know what generation, demand, supply or export means.
You have only ever whined about renewables as being challenging, and only care about pointing out how insufficient supply is a problem if we don’t build enough power generation.
You have lied and made shit up. This too is a fact.
You then go and complain when I make blank assertions from claims that you made when I do them RIGHT AFTER YOU MAKE THE BS CLAIM.
You have proclaimed you would provide a list showing how I insist there should be no HVDC or backup with renewables, yet not one location did you find it.
I have provided one direct quote of you to support MY claim about your lies.
You are a partisan hack trying to stop renewables from being pushed out by proclaiming unspecified catastrophe if we do a thing nobody has shown we should do and given no method of avoiding that catastrophe you claim could exist.
Facts? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE FACTS.
More facts: the anti-green brigade and pro-nuke fluffers and the AGW denialists have all insisted that renewable penetration would cause catastrophe much past 20% of total average generation because of “intermittent” supply.
Germany has manged over 30% just fine. And this build out was not produced to the expectation of covering that volume. NOT ONE OF YOU MORONS have actually stated how much the build-out of renewables in Germany was intended to supply (given your claims of its capacity factor compared to nukes and other fake-dispatchable suppliers). It’s definitely not 40% and last I actually heard the plans for Germany was a while ago when it was “We will get to 20% or more renewables by 2020”.
So you deniers and corporate shills and hacks complain that in a scenario where it isn’t expected to cover 40% that it somehow has failed when producing 85% because it hasn’t done it for a long stretch of time????
HOW THE HELL IS THAT A FAIL?
You fucked this up earlier when you tried to pretend that the export wasn’t demand:
#247
And at #265:
You were wrong then and you are wriggling now.
Own your faceplants and bullshit.
God but you need banning.
For an eyeblink. That is what is misleading about this story. Sometimes the variable renewables wind and solar which produced the 85% blip can drop to >10% for an entire week.
The lack of meaningful progress in dealing with it is the real story. But it is the one you will not allow to be discussed, preferring instead to peddle misleading industry PR.
“You fucked this up earlier when you tried to pretend that the export wasn’t demand:”
And another fake claim from the moron of the year.
“You were wrong then”
Really? O was wrong? WHERE? EVERY SINGLE VALUE IS CORRECT
“Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January”
Is that not CLEARLY supply exceeded demand?
Fuck off you lying little streak of weak piss. Just because you hate reality doesn’t mean I have to be banned you fucking retard trumpnutmuncher.
ESPECIALLY when you’re too shit scared to solve this like humans, face to face.
You chickenshit liar.
NO! Jesus you idiot!
Read. The. Words:
But it is demand. If generation exceeds demand, then the grid breaks. Already explained this to you.
There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand – electrons don’t care, they just have to *go* somewhere. So generation must = total aggregate demand (domestic + export).
Can’t you even begin to understand the basics?
“For an eyeblink. That is what is misleading about this story. Sometimes the variable renewables wind and solar which produced the 85% ”
IS NOT MISLEADING IN THE STORY!
Do you know what is misleading about you and your idiotic screed?
The nuclear explosion in Fukushima has caused trillions in damage and YOU HAVE IGNORED IT.
Greg, you will, if you have the patience, see that dumbfuck retard here’s MO is to go full retard and rile the shit out of people who DARE to say that renewables might work so that they can keep fucking lying.
He’s a 100% fucking troll and if you want reality to even have a chance you either have to completely and permanently drop all reports of anything about renewables in a good light OR ban that fuckwit trollidiot from the blog.
That shitstorm sea of sewage calling itself “BBD” will REFUSE to let renewables be seen as anything other than a complete failure and unworkable idea.
I pointed out your lie to you, and then you switched to another statement. Then you strangely repeat your lie in #417, while trying to say it’s a lie that wind and solar is low because renewables. If you want to say that ‘wind and solar is low’ is a lie, then you have to demonstrate that ‘wind and solar is not low.’ Repeating your statements about renewables cannot make ‘wind and solar is low’ a lie. That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and ‘wind and solar’ is why I call you a liar.
“I pointed out your lie to you, ”
Ah.so when you said:
You were lying, it had NOTHING to do with “a different time period”. If you’d said “*a* lie”, that would have been different, but youve just said this was *the* lie, the lie you were talking about there.
“and then you switched to another statement. ”
Nope, I stayed on the statement YOU had made, I had not switched statement, just like, it now appears, you admit to lying about when claiming I had switched to another time period (indeed it was dumfuck wallyfeaturs who did that).
So that is a second lie from you.
Not doing bad. do you also whine about your own duplicities like you do everyone else’s, or are you endemically corrupt and hypocritical “mike”?
“Then you strangely repeat your lie in #417”
WHAT lie in 417?
“Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”
IS a lie. Because it was buttfuck mcstupidarse’s use of the “low W&S” to “prove” I was wrong about renewables being about 30% of demand. Since W&S is not “renewables”, bleating on about it is NOT proof of error in, or counter to, my claim about renewables.
THEREFORE his claim was a lie.
But you dont know what anything means, you only hope to take advandage of your own confusion and pretend that you’re somehow right and someone who has been a thorn in your side is wrong.
Sorry, cupcake, you’re entirely wrong.
And that’s if it’s just pure stupidity rather than active lying going on there, “mike”.
“That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and ‘wind and solar’ ”
The point is that either YOU don’t know or YOU DON’T CARE.
Because it’s sure as shit that turdbreath monkeynutfeatures doesn’t care that he’s getting it wrong, he has a corporate cheque to cash in, and lies to promote to earn it.
When he was asked what renewables were, HE was the one who claimed the solar plus wind totals and then continued to proclaim I was “wrong” because renewables are NOT the same as wind and solar.
He didn’t care because he’s a useless shitstain of a human being.
Why didn’t you care about it, monkeynuts?
Too complex for you, didn’t CARE, or know you’re talking bullshit?
Moreover, the statement you claim is a lie and was repeated in 417 was NOT in any of the posts you complained about.
Go back to badbraindumdump’s post at 292, “mike”.
Oh, and as predicted in 411 when I said
To your post at 410 when you proclaimed:
Since you failed to provide any of the details nor where they were to be “not got” by me.
Sadface, cryface.
And when you swallowed dumdum’s liquid load claim of “Buys you about 12 hours”, did you miss the details like, oh, say, the complete lack of any calculation for that figure, especially when it is quite easy to work out if it’s even near?
Seems like you love to not get details and complain about them.
Currently dumdum is helping sow doubt about the feasibility of doing anything about AGW and promoting the “do nothing” agenda of AGW denial, so you’re really up for helping him, and all of a sudden, you’re not so worried about asking him where he gets his data from or detail the working and proofs of his claims.
When you like them, you will just let the pass, even though you were awful insistent on “PROOF DAMMIT!” when he wasn’t helping delay doing anything about AGW.
For all dumdum’s whining about how people saying “we can do 100% renewables” are, somehow, because he’s not given any proof this is actually reality, pushing people to stick with fossil fuels by not proclaiming renewables possibly too hard to even do.
And you haven’t noted any lack of evidence of this claim even existing.
“W&S can swing from 85% to 2%.”
Notice that “mike”? Or did you not care? When you complained
Had you actually read the thread you were complaining about, or had you merely read enough to confirm what you wanted to see?
Do you want to post that to dumdum? Call HIM a liar? Or do you wish not to undermine someone working toward the FUD and delay tactics of not doing anything “because it may be really really hard, like” that you prefer to see “win” in the political arguments you’re stuck in?
And if you DO go back and see how your expectations changed the evidence you “saw” (as in that was all you saw), you NOW know why the scientific method is there and how it doesn’t just apply to things you do in a lab or science class, it really does need applying everywhere in life when your aim is to describe reality as it is.
And how the lack of such scientific scepticism really does nullify any claims, no matter if they are “honestly held” or not, because the evidence is not what is real but what is presented.
#436 “…method is there and how it doesn’t just apply to things you do in a lab or science class, it really does need applying everywhere …”
Mmmm yes. Shit boils down to this really. What works and how do we know?
The thing that ( off topicly ) came to mind reading your post
was this. Does tax lowering for corporations assist growth and
employment? Its almost a forgone conclusive thought for many.
But is it valid? Theres no shortage of data to examine.
#430 jeezuz!
No wow. Just no. Thats my view anyhow.
Batty on the other hand…
Whoops. That was a typo.
W&S on April 30 was 65% of total peak generation / demand. On Jan 22, it was 2%.
* * *
Li D
Thanks for your kind words.
“Does tax lowering for corporations assist growth and
employment?”
Well, no.
For a very simple reason: they don’t have to employ more people if they can increase profits by government handouts or tax breaks. Normally it would require more workers to produce more goods to produce more revenue to produce more profits.
If you’re going to get more profit because the government hands you cash or free services, there’s no need to go to the risk of employing someone new.
“No wow. Just no. Thats my view anyhow.”
I didn’t give a view, lid. I have given the parameters of consequence.
” “W&S can swing from 85% to 2%.”
Notice that “mike”? Or did you not care? When you complained
Whoops. That was a typo. ”
Ah, shall I correct your typo?
“whoops. that was incriminating.”
You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables. EVEN “MIKE” tried to make you see your fallacy. Though they were attempting to make it my fault.
“W&S on April 30 was 65% of total peak generation”
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?
And while you’re avoiding those questions, here are more you need to avoid:
How much untapped storage was there from current storage systems that are not an additional cost for renewables, but a requirement for a modern stable national grid intended to be reliable?
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?
PS why aren’t you thanking “mike”? He’s taking everything you emit here and guzzling it down like a pornhub amateur.
And don’t you mean 55%, dungus?
And isn’t that mostly due to turning off gas, coal and oil? If they were all kept on, what % would “wind and solar” be? And if the renewables managed 20% of the demand, then isn’t it the fact that when there’s the “perfect storm” of no sun and no wind, renewables managed 20+% not your “only 2%!”?
Out of the 30% they nominally produce, that gives a “wide variation” of 22/30=73% of nominal when still untapped hydro and storage of currently applicable ratios of HVDC and storage to generation are built out.
Oh noes, it could go and drop by 27% from expected!!!! For a few hours!!!! For which we’d have to use up maybe 4% of our EV fleet’s battery storage!!!!!! END OF WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope, lies on both counts. I acknowledged the typo the instant it was pointed out and I have repeatedly made the point that since the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability then it is *misleading* to conflate biomass and hydro with W&S. Which, of course, is why I didn’t do so and you did.
W&S would be exactly the same. Germany curtails fossil fuel plant in favour of W&S. You can see this instantly from the weekly data. But clearly you don’t care about the facts.
Back to the numbers for 30/04:
Peak generation / demand was 75.55GW at 11:00.
Solar: 29.76
Wind:16.75
W&S: 46.51
W&S % of total gen = 46.5/(75.5/100) = 65%
Peak generation / demand was 68.17GW at 13:00.
Solar: 28.94
Wind: 15.66
W&S: 44.6
W&S % of total gen = 44.6/(68.2/100) = 65%
Peak generation / demand was 66.72GW at 14:00.
Solar: 26.32
Wind: 16.78
W&S: 43.1
W&S % of total gen = 43.1/(66.72/100) = 65%
Peak generation / demand was 64.34GW at 15:00.
Solar: 21.55
Wind: 18.77
W&S: 40.32
W&S % of total gen = 40.32/(64.34/100) = 63%
And yet again, you are making shit up.
What I object to is the incessant barrage of industry PR (lies, really) about ‘cheap’ renewables and the misleading presentation of W&S variability (85%!!) as if it was a benefit rather than a profound systemic problem.
All I care about is efficient decarbonisation. Anything that gets in the way, from anti-nuclear activism to misleading presentations of renewables potential, is the problem.
OK, you were lying on both counts, dumdum.
And another lie. It’s about renewables. Not wind and solar variability.
You LOVE the lies, don’t you? Can’t prevent yourself diving right into them. Because the truth is devastating to your checking account.
Ah, and another lie from you, retard.
No. If it were supposed to be 100% renewables,then there would be no normally operating nuke or coal or oil or gas plants producing power.
You are INCREDIBLY stupid to think that ANYONE would buy your bullshit claims. Yet still you bullshit.
Therefore that 55% was not due to wind or solar variability, was it you pointless waste of oxygen? It was due to not bothering with that useless nuke or coal or gas or oil.
But your bank account can’t handle that so you keep pretending your idiotic ranting is somehow believable.
I can. So can everyone else. Which is why your idiotic claims are so trumpianly stupid to make. It’s so easy to show you are talking complete and utter bullshit.
Peak generation / demand was 75.55GW at 11:00.
Lie. It was less than that. 13.4 GW was exported and not part of demand.
And so far for 2017:
77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.
Look at it for the totals for 2016:
181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%
And for 2015:
182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%
All from:
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm
Facts. Deal with them, you blundering dunderheaded idiot.
Nope, 100% of that was an accurate and apt description, you screaming frothing maniac.
Now THERE is a lie.
No, you only care about your paycheck and job at the nuclear industry PR firm you inhabit. You would prefer to go back to 100% smog producing coal than let renewables work.
OK, so what is your plan for renewables to be as variable as you claim, you lying streak of shit?
And see, lid, how with this batshit crazy moron bullshitting that any blog that dares talk about renewables will be as broken as deltoid with batshit betty on it, because BBD is 100% identically equivalently insane on nukes as batshit is about how AGW is a scam.
Sure, keep the retard and let them post their bullshit, but no discussion will be allowed that shows renewables could work without dumb idiots ranting and railing against renewables being impossible like Bloody Boring Dumbass shitting all over it in their insane crusade against reality.
So still no actual evidence of any catastrophe from BBD.
Still no plan that will work better.
Still no plan that he’s complaining about.
Still just 100% content free insanity from the pro nuke shill going batshit.
Misleading to proclaim it’s about wind and solar variability when it’s all about when “conventional plants” were turned off, varying the output to zero. Misleading to claim it’s all about wind and solar variability when it’s all about demand variability dropping at weekends.
Misleading will be you whining about how it’s “NOT only conventional plant variability, that’s a LIE!” when the truth is that is PRECISELY how you caricature the situation, just choosing a target of the variation to focus solely on that does not help and indeed punctures your political and financial ideology against the FUD promotion about renewables you crusade about on every single thread on every single blog where you do not get 100% your own way to scare the shit out of people into paying massive inflated costs and take on incredibly stupid risks of nuclear power.
And incredibly misleading to pretend that you are never doing this, only the opponent who is fighting your insanity in public.
Nukes in the two periods BBD provided to “prove” wind and solar were unusable varied 45%. Yet renewables varied 15%. But somehow this is not about nuke variability.
Demand varied from 35GW to 75GW over that entire week 3 in 2017 in Germany, yet somehow this is not about demand variability.
Supplies from “non renewable” sources varied from 42 to 60GW, yet somehow this is not about conventional supply variability.
April 30th, conventional varied from 15GW to 49GW. Yet still this is not about conventional power variability.
The subject of the thread above the line is about renewables. Not “Wind and solar” never mind “wind and solar variability”. The URL said RENEWABLES, not “wind and solar” never mind “wind and solar variability”, my questions have been about renewables, my figures have been for renewables.
And this was, apparently supposed to be about GERMANY (post 177), yet you talked about US grid, which last time I looked was not built in Germany.
You bullshit and scream your insanity at the skies and when it fails insist on going somewhere else. But only when “rebutting” a claim you cannot handle.
I posted FACTS showing that nukes varied from 7.3-13.5GW and that it barely managed to get over 8% for much of the period in question, yet when this pitiful amount was shown, dumdum here whined “But they’re closing down nukes! You can’t use that!”, yet when I point out that the 55% of production was a result of shutting down white elephants of fossil fuel production therefore you could not use it compared to 100% of the production but the 30% of production that renewables were generally getting, of which 2/3rds was not wind and solar but still absolutely renewabeles, suddenly it was “MISLEADING” to take into account shutting down plants and shutting down those plants anyway shows how variable renewables are!?!?!?!!
And not one of the whiners complaining about me care.
Do you, morons.
Which is why your complaints are rebutted but your concerns discarded. I may defend myself against attack but I don’t have to worry about your good opinion of me. Or, indeed your opinion AT ALL.
If you had displayed any sense of actual care about reality, I would find it much harder to discard your whining as anything other than partisan idiocy and glee at finding someone to attack in safety. Because it really REALLY is only the cheapest and most cowardly bullying you’re doing. Wait for someone to come along who you can attack without worrying about having to defend yourself.
Pure, unadulterated cowardice.
And therefore your “concerns” can be dismissed as entirely fake. They never bothered you before, with ample justification to be bothered if you were honestly worried about your points.
Why the hell did I bother?
BBD,
I received a paper this week from a principle planner who has been dealing with defining the assumptions that are going into mobility plans being developed for a large county (1). Richard indicated that a lot of his efforts are spent coming up with communication plans. Being well seasoned, or over the hill depending on how you look at things, he stressed that his objective or goal is to provide context to the assumptions in the plans- or as Richard stressed “the goal is to minimize distorted thinking and see the world more accurately.”
The EIA had a recent post on how the state of CA is doing in regards to reducing natural gas this spring:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31252
“….So far in 2017, increased hydroelectric generation and solar power generation in California have contributed to lower natural gas-fired power generation in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) region, the electric system operator for much of the state”…
Genentech media noted the slowdown in residential capacity additions this spring vs last recently as well:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/residential-solar-capacity-down-17-year-over-year-for-q1
…”The decline is even more pronounced on a year-over-year basis, dropping by 31 percent from 284 megawatts (DC) in the first quarter of 2016, to 196 megawatts (DC) in the first quarter of 2017”….
(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Because your paycheck relies on it. Of course, being unsuccessful means no bonus pay for you.
Not that you HAVE bothered.
Still no actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.
Still no plan that will work better.
Still no 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?
BBD #452:
I was asking myself the same question.
But that means nothing. Actually nothing. No information, no progress, no reasoning, nothing.
So ask yourself this question: why are you pointless?
For example, I ask why dumdum keeps making such bullshit and easily destroyed claims and whinges.
So I can take it that you feel the same way, right?
If not, then why did you not realise you actually said nothing there? If you do, ask yourself why I had to assume?
“Genentech media noted the slowdown in residential capacity additions this spring vs last recently as well: ”
Which would be because the current owners of the white house are trying to kill renewables. And increased capacity is still increased capacity. You know, in case you were confused. It’s not like they took down 88MW of solar, is it. They still added just shy of 200MW.
Moreover, what does this do about Germany where the private homeowner solar cells aren’t counted. Not even counted by dumdum as Zebra pointed out in post #88..
“I received a paper this week…
(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09…”
Hmmm.
Mark
Thanks, interesting market data. I didn’t realise just how badly SoCalGas’s storage capacity has been hit by and since the Aliso canyon leak.
But as you see, it’s no use dealing in facts when people cannot handle too much reality.
Wow
I retired several years ago and now live on an investment income. Nobody pays me to say anything nor ever will.
“I didn’t realise just how badly SoCalGas’s storage capacity has been hit by and since the Aliso canyon leak. ”
Is that why you only complain about storage for wind and solar, dumdum? I guess you now know that it was a fake problem with solar and wind because ALL generation has problems with it.
“it’s no use dealing in facts when people cannot handle too much reality. ”
Too true. Why do you hate facts so much, dumdum?
“I retired several years ago”
From a nuke plant marketing position.
” and now live on an investment income.”
Which requires that the companies keep bringing in the ROI that means dividends.
“Nobody pays me to say anything nor ever will.”
And another fake claim from you. Nobody SHOULD pay you. You need to visit reality sometime and stop worrying about your stock portfolio crashing when renewables change things about.
They certainly don’t pay you to talk about what plan it is you’re complaining about. Nor what plan avoids your claimed problem.
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?
All of them unanswered.
No profit in actually having a substantive point, much easier to whine for you, isn’t it.
Wow,
Why don’t you tell us what the last quarterly profit was at Westmill Wind Farm….. also known as Wind Over Westmill or (Wow)….
And then tell us how “corrupt” it is for distributing a percent of the profits to it’s shareholders…which includes you.
Thanks.
Ah, so by “also known as” you mean “not at all known as”, batshit. So sacked from your tree pruning work for the council, betty? Stole from your customers, eh? Nicked any little boys’ underwear you found was it?
Oh, and swindon is not devon, dumbass.
Life’s a birch and then you die.
Yes Wow, I did notice you forgot to tell us how “corrupt” Westmill is for distributing it’s profits to it’s shareholders, which includes you.
Please, in detail…
Which includes who? You don’t even know what the company you named is known as. But as well as being incompetent at geography as well as tree pruning, you also admit to having a fetish for collecting little boys underwear.
When there’s a community project it pays to the people in the community. Which are people in the area. Ask a grown up for what all the words mean. And, no, I’m not an owner of that wind farm. Because it’s a community project and I’m not in Swindon.
But you do have a problem now you’re unemployed and on the KP watchlist.
Oh, and glad to hear that you discard utterly the free market and capitalism as corrupt, batshit! Well done for meeting reality and getting rid of that ridiculous faith of yours.
Next time John comes on I’ll let him know you’re changing your mind on economic policies and are discarding the corrupt and unworkable free market capitalism. It’s not much of a change because you’re still as clueless as ever, but it’s SOMETHING.
So who is pushing vested interests here, Wow?
No, I had my own business. For over 20 years. I will categorically state that I have never worked for the nuclear industry directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever.
You are lying again. Surprise.
“So who is pushing vested interests here, Wow?”
You, dumdum. Already said that. Alzheimers gotten to the optic nerve?
“No, I had my own business.”
SURE you did. As a PR fluffer for the nuke industry, right?
“For over 20 years. I will categorically state that I have never worked for the nuclear industry directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever. ”
Yeah, Pat Michaels said the same thing to Congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress
Lies the first time around, so no change.
Now I think about it, I recall you saying that you were a major shareholder in a solar project as well, presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm.
Go on, deny it.
“Lies the first time around, so no change. ”
Lying again. As usual.
” the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm. ”
LOL! Now THAT I gotta tell John! You believe batshit! LOL!
And you had insisted I was lying about being a shareholder of a community solar farm! ROFL! But though batshit perv here is from Australia therefore doesn’t know where Exeter is can be sort of understood, you claim to be from the UK.
Dayum! You’re making TRUMPO look smart!
No, I don’t recall even mentioning it at the time.
I think you are projecting like a poisoned dog.
“No, I don’t recall even mentioning it at the time. ”
Aaaw. The weasel wording of the moron who knows what will happen if they make a concrete statement.
LOL!
Must be bitter for you, hmm, having to suck up to the dumbest AGW deniers around to help your case!
PS if your feet get cold, ask betty,they have so many socks they manage to turn each other in accidentally.
So did M2, oddly enough. AND he spent several posts proclaiming that he was honest and used consistent names. AND another moron denier on Barry Bickmore’s blog tried to defend him.
But eventually the evidence was irrefutable, being as it was all on the same page, and he gave up and said he was using the wrong account because he got confused about which tab was open for which webblog.
But, hey, plenty of socks is how deniers think it’s REALLY warming.
You just want to cash in before you cash out.
Quote me, then.
The *truth* is that you are making money out of the solar industry and I am not being paid by the nuclear industry and never have been.
That thing with facts again, Wow.
They matter, at least they do to honest people.
“Quote me, then. ”
Then what?
What do I get for doing that? You will piss off and never come here again?
“The *truth* is that you are making money out of the solar industry ”
Actually, that’s what batshit betty claims. And you believe it.
And go read up on community projects for solar. Renewable community plants were most usefully used in the Hebredians because they were getting fucked over in charges to get power, so they chipped together and bought their own wind turbines to power the small village and that saved them money.
Most community projects don’t make profit, they sell their generation to the grid, but it’s there to power the community, hence the term. The community gets paid for it by reductions in payments for power, NOT by profiting.
But it’s no surprise you don’t know any of this.
So, I go and get that quote of you and you do what?
Oh, and while you mull that over, please peruse this list of pertinent questions for your shill paycheck to cover:
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?
“They matter, at least they do to honest people.”
Ah, that explains your abhorrence of facts, then, dumdum. Dracula doesn’t faint at the sight of crosses faster than you faint at the horrible truths you can’t bear to see in print.
Wow – “When there’s a community project it pays to the people in the community. Which are people in the area.”
And it also distributes profits to it’s shareholders, like the Westmill Solar Co-operative you are part of….
So why would you be part of a “corrupt” operation…”corrupt” according to you, because it earns a profit…
C’mon Wow, let’s see some honesty here, your hypocrisy has already been exposed, what do you have to lose?
Hey, dumdum, in the meantime, please go through the “thought” process that led to this claim from you:
I could do with a bit of a giggle to cheer me up!
So, betty, because I say profit is corruption as far as you caricature it, you are of the opinion that if something is criticised, it must be being engaged in, correct?
Oh, and yes, according to the free market ideology, profit shows that the market is corrupted. Which I assume you did not know because you think that free market capitalism is a load of bullshit.
Wow – “glad to hear that you discard utterly the free market and capitalism as corrupt”
As usual, you are arguing with yourself…
Wow – “No, a business corporation is organised and carried on primarily to sell to customers and exchange the customer money for the businesses’ goods or service.
That is all. All else is political dogma and hidden corruption”
“As usual, you are arguing with yourself…”
Oh, so you weren’t posting as far as you recall. Fair enough, I’ll assume you’re denying your own posts too.
Wow – “So, betty, because I say profit is corruption as far as you caricature it, you are of the opinion that if something is criticised, it must be being engaged in, correct?”
Nope – it’s because you told me you owned it.
There’s no difference between investing in solar and getting a £500 dividend and being part of an energy co-op and paying £500 a year less for your electricity. Call it profit or call it material benefit or whatever; it’s all the same: there’s £500 in your bank account that would not be there otherwise.
Wow,
Still waiting for you to explain why you are part of a “corrupt” profit making operation…
It’s a simple question which you seem to have a hard time answering…
#452, at least I got an opportunity to clarify the issue. I thought you were claiming the grid itself locally can’t handle the variability even if there is excess supply to cover the drop in wind and solar. I have seen this argued elsewhere, but you don’t think that’s an issue.
Betula, basic microeconomics argues that profits will be zero in a competitive environment.
“There’s no difference between … getting a £500 dividend and … paying £500 a year less for your electricity.”
Yes there is, dumbass. It’s the same damn thing as getting free food money handouts or growing your own veg in the garden meaning a smaller shopping bill, you retard. But you’re well sold into the PR fluffery of your nuke cheque and therefore don’t want to think there’s any difference, do you.
Now, where’s the answer to any of MY questions you lazy lying fuckwit?
Oh, and I suppose we can now take it as given you were employed by the nuclear industry.
#487 it’s called “marginal cost”. But batshit betty really doesn’t care. Oh, and apparently you’re going to be arguing with yourself because not even betty wants to read their own posts. Just an FYI.
From who?
The analogy breaks if the energy co-op is grid-connected and sells energy to the grid and / or receives any kind of external subsidy.
You don’t start well:
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.
” sells energy to the grid ”
Wrong.
” and / or receives any kind of external subsidy. ”
That would.
Now, comeon, what “thought” process led to your claim:
” presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm. ”
Love to hear it, but you hate to actually support your blatant bullshit, it so often leads to your humiliation.
Not to mention all the other bullshit you have claimed, been asked to answer (and you are the only one who CAN answer since they pertain to your complaints that you have internally held to with religious zeal).
Come on, stop fucking about and start explaining yourself. Until you do, I’ll just leave the assertion of your ridiculous wrongness to blank assertion, since this seems to be entirely acceptable to you.
And yes, your tacit agreement that you WERE a nuke employee has been noted.
“You don’t start well:”
Ah, so the plan you are complaining about is me not starting well…. Got it. You’re complaining about nothing.
YOU claimed that the people would riot if the lights went out, but we have had the lights going out and society is still here.
We’ve HAD the catastrophe you cried about, but there was the miniscule possiblity that you were thinking of something specific.
But you weren’t thinking at all.
So next?
The Hypocrisy of Wow….
Wow – “Profit is unnecessary. All the bills are paid before profit. Everyone gets paid what they need. And if anyone has money in the business, they still have that business asset as collateral and to sell.”
Wow – “ZERO profit is all a business needs. Less than that and the business will eventually fail. And more than that is merely evidence of a failure of the market to find the fair market price, and is a drag on the economy, making it inefficient”
Wow – “a business corporation is organised and carried on primarily to sell to customers and exchange the customer money for the businesses’ goods or service.
That is all.
All else is political dogma and hidden corruption.”
Yet, you are part owner of a business that not only profits, but distributes part of those profits to it’s shareholders….
So why do you choose to be part owner of a business that overcharges for it’s product and is corrupt? And why shouldn’t you be viewed as anything other than the arrogant jackass hypocrite that you are?
Thanks.
Days later and still the entertainment continues.
From madam “Wow”…”…you screaming frothing maniac.”
More ironic words have never been written.
Betula…” And why shouldn’t you be viewed as anything other than the arrogant jackass hypocrite that you are?”
“She” shouldn’t be. And isn’t.
Batty. Piss off under your rock. You are
fair dinkum the most trollish crap artist muppet
who only exacerbates tension and never contributes
to the topic at hand.
Energy transition can and is and will happen.
Its a reasonable thing to highlight issues that need
looking at so that they can be rectified.
Its a reasonable thing to think they will.
Its not fucking reasonable for people with the same
goals to carry on like porkchops.
Save the abuse for denier scum whos motive is, well,
they are so fucking incoherent in their arguments, its hard
to work out a motive. Certainly isnt healthy scepticism.
Certainly isnt advancement of science. Certainly isnt a healthy
biosphere.
Li D – “who only exacerbates tension”
Right, because there was very little tension within the 461 comments before I entered the discussion. It was the act of exposing Wow for the hypocrite that he is that resulted in diverting the relatively calm, reasonable, understanding nature of the conversation to a more tense one…
Yes, you’re a genius.
Anyone got any thoughts on the cella hydrogen storage idea?
Ive always been ambivialant about hydrogen cuz its so dangerous, but this cella shit looks interesting.
Li, it is not promising when the first link in a web search is broken. That said, the dangerousness is considerably reduced perhaps. There is still the issue of hydrogen production. Using solar and wind to produce the hydrogen might work.
Synthfuel is possibly a better option at the mo given current infrastructure and systems.
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.
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-meltdown/#comment-645707
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-corporations-killed-us/#comment-645751 )
“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-corporations-killed-us/#comment-645751
“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-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
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-electricity-statistics/
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-renewable-electricity
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-radioactive-leak-investigated-at-washington-nuclear-site
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-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables
Again. Who is this moron you are parroting, dumdum?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/29/french-nuclear-power-worst-situation-ever-former-edf-director
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-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/
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.