Deep Green Freeze

LV426 said:
No, they actually don't. Because they are built to withstand cold weather. So why didn't Texas weatherize theirs?




Not really, no.

And "dozens" of gallons? My car takes dozens of gallons of oil.




House cats kill over a billion birds every year in just the US.





I thought you Conservatives liked telling the truth. Guess not.
Click to expand...


wind turbines hold from 10 to 60 gallons of lubricating oil. A lot more than your car. the wind turbines in Germany froze up and the solar panels are covered with snow. Same in alaska. In germany they are using helicopters to deice the turbines and the solar panels. helicopters powered by petroleum products.

but I think we need to find way to make alternates work efficiently, and the free market is the place for that to happen. the government cannot do anything efficiently or correctly.
 
redfish said:
wind turbines hold from 10 to 60 gallons of lubricating oil. A lot more than your car.
Click to expand...

My car's gas tank is 10 gallons and I refill it probably once a month during normal times.

So that would be 120 gallons of gasoline (oil for the benefit of this discussion) a year vs. 10-60 (? that's quite a range) for the lifetime of the turbine?

Still seems like the turbine is a better use of everything.


the wind turbines in Germany froze up and the solar panels are covered with snow.
Click to expand...

Right, but they didn't stay that way because the turbines can be de-iced and snow can be shoveled off solar panels.

If an airplane gets ice on its wings and is unable to fly, do they just ground all the planes or do they de-ice them so they can work?
 
redfish said:
Same in alaska. In germany they are using helicopters to deice the turbines and the solar panels. helicopters powered by petroleum products.
Click to expand...

Right, but no one is saying that helicopters and airplanes have to fly on renewable energy.

What you are doing in this thread is sophistry...the laziest form of contrarianism there is.
 
.
.

Coal Rescues Germany from Its Renewable Folly
BY IER

FEBRUARY 17, 2021

Germany’s millions of solar panels are blanketed in snow and ice and its 30,000 wind turbines are doing nothing as the freezing weather has no wind resource to keep the turbines operating

Solar and wind units are drawing power from the grid powered mainly by coal to keep their internal workings from freezing up. Despite Germany being the poster child of Europe’s renewable future, the country’s Energiewende—transition to wind and solar power—is not working. The Germans have found that dependable, dispatchable coal can work in any weather and is the savior during these cold months.

The plan is that Germany will have to rely more on natural gas from Russia, coal power from Poland and nuclear power from France, importing power along huge cables, instead of building a huge fleet of batteries to back up its intermittent renewable power.

However, for this unreliability of wind and solar power during this year’s snowy and icy winter, German consumers paid $38 billion ($30.9 billion euros) in subsidies for its renewable energy growth in 2020, despite the financial needs of other sectors of its economy afflicted by the coronavirus pandemic. The renewable energy subsidy is paid directly by consumers in their electricity bills, helping make German residential retail power costs the highest across the European continent and 3 times higher than those of the United States.

Americans need only triple their utility bills to get a sense of the burden Germany’s system places on its citizens. The U.S. economy is about 5 times the size of Germany’s, to compare relative expenditures for similar practices. The subsidy only raised renewable energy’s share of Germany’s electricity mix by 3 percentage points—from 43 percent in 2019 to 46 percent last year.

Read more: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/coal-rescues-germany-from-its-renewable-folly/
 
redfish said:
but I think we need to find way to make alternates work efficiently
Click to expand...

We already have this, and we already know what alternatives work and which do not.


the free market is the place for that to happen
Click to expand...

The free market is so terrible at delivering anything of value to consumers that they literally told their customers to stop doing business with them:

Texas Power Retailers to Customers in Face of Freeze: Please, Leave Us
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...r-retailers-in-face-of-freeze-please-leave-us


the government cannot do anything efficiently or correctly.
Click to expand...

Childish idiocy that is well past its shelf life.

Government works fine when you elect people to it who believe in it.

Government doesn't work fine when you elect people who are fundamentally opposed to the institution.

Conservatives like to say government is the problem, then get elected and prove it.
 
Rune said:
You literally know nothing.

Fossil fuel subsidies are 689 billion per year. Renewable subsidies are 20% of the fossil figure.
Remove all subsidies and ONLY renewables makes sense. IDIOT.
Click to expand...

No they are not that's just total bullshit from the IMF, stop fucking lying! Do you actually believe that bullshit or is this you being a hacktivist?

Over the past year, climate campaigners haven't grown tired of claiming that the fossil fuel industry received “a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies” in 2017, equivalent to 6.5 percent of global GDP. Quoting an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report that suggests the US alone wastes $649 billion annually, Rolling Stone declared that “the United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending.“

Like much else that we hear about energy these days, the story was dramatically exaggerated. In reality, $424 billion is spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies — money that is spent to reduce prices. That’s about one-twelfth of the headline grabbing claim.

Such subsidies are bad because they underprice energy resulting in more air pollution, CO₂ emissions, and vehicular congestion, and because they are inefficient and unfair. They siphon funding from areas like health and education.

None of the perpetrators of substantial subsidies are from the rich world: In 2017, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia each spent about $40 billion a year, while Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Venezuela and India each spent $15-20 billion. Kiribati politicians travel the world proclaiming outrage about climate change, while hypocritically subsidizing fossil fuels at a cost that is nearly one-third of all government health expenditure.

Subsidies are used as political weapons to avoid unrest. They mostly benefit the well-off who are more likely to own cars and use more electricity than the poor. One estimate from Harvard University showed that before Venezuela’s economy collapsed, the richest Venezuelans were benefitting over seven-times more from subsidies than the poorest. Giving away cheap gas makes for good short-term politics, but is bad both economically and environmentally. Fossil fuel subsidies should be scrapped.

Then how does the IMF get away with claiming that subsidies are 12-times higher than they are – and that the USA is one of the worst perpetrators? By subverting the definition of subsidies.

Criticizing countries like India and China (or Kiribati) for the $424 billion spent on real subsidies is unlikely to attract the attention of rich world elites. To implicate developed country governments and create outrage, the IMF adds everything that they believe should be included in the cost of fossil fuels, and say that by not including these costs in the price of fuel, countries are “subsidizing” fossil fuels.

So what’s included in this outsized re-definition? First, the IMF comes up with a price-tag of $2.3 trillion for air pollution. Burning coal is incredibly polluting, so the IMF claims coal is subsidized because it doesn’t pay for all the air pollution it causes.

It’s valid to consider the unpriced costs of any policy – but it’s wrong to call this a “subsidy”. And, it is the entirely wrong way to fix air pollution. We should not tax coal but tax coal pollution (along with any other pollution) — essentially forcing coal power to clean up its act. Doing so would cost less than a tenth of the IMF’s $2.3 trillion estimate.

The IMF calculates that China’s coal air pollution costs $720 billion per year. This is a vast exaggeration: two recent studies show China’s total air pollution costs $27-38 billion, or one-twentieth as much. And this is the cost for all air pollution, with another study showing less than half can be blamed on coal. So, the IMF has claimed that coal air pollution is 40 times costlier than it is, and then mislabeled this as a “subsidy”.

Next, the IMF claims that gasoline and diesel-driven cars cause a huge amount of congestion and traffic accidents. Sure they do – but so do electric vehicles. This is an argument for congestion charges and better road design, safety measures and speed limit enforcement. The absurdity is revealed when we realize that according to this logic, governments could reduce their fossil fuel “subsidies” by building more roads.

The authors go on to claim that every nation should implement a consistent VAT across all products. Because they don’t, the IMF counts “missing” VAT in countries like the USA as a subsidy. Not only is this an even more bizarre definition of “subsidy”, but it suggests the IMF’s political views on taxation should overrule the decisions of democratically elected governments.

Finally, the authors claim there’s a whopping cost of more than $1.3 trillion from global warming. They are correct that climate change has a real cost and should be included in the price of fossil fuels. That doesn’t make it a subsidy though – and it’s very odd they use a carbon tax more than five-times higher than the best estimate for the real world.

In trying to give grist to environmental campaigners in the West, the IMF’s politically motivated report distracts from the important issue of encouraging the world to dismantle the $424 billion left in fossil fuel subsidies. It might not generate as many headlines, but the IMF should be in the business of careful and sensible economics.
Click to expand...


https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornl...culation-of-energy-subsidies/?sh=513b28d84b42i
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
Given that 25% of Texas' power is wind now
Click to expand...

From where did you come up with this? Because it's completely false.

According to ERCOT, only 10% of Texas' energy comes from wind:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1362007181382586373

Those wind turbines accounted for just a reduction of 5 gigawatts of capacity.

Contrast that with Natural Gas and Coal, which make up 82% of the energy capacity and lost 30 gigawatts of capacity.

So at some point, someone lied to you about Wind's share of Texas' energy, and you were too lazy, too stupid, too trusting, or too scared to do the work of verifying the facts before you vomited them up on JPP for everyone to see and mock.

You got hoodwinked AGAIN because you're just not that smart or intuitive a person.
 
Rune said:
This comment is so painfully stupid that the entire internet is now stupider.
Click to expand...

Really? How is needing storage for energy when it can be reliably produced on demand not stupid? Explain why using, variously, flywheels, batteries, pumped hydro, or whatever to store energy is a desirable thing that will lower electrical energy costs compared to production on demand.
 
LV426 said:
Solyndra folded ten years ago and lost about $518M.

200 Natural Gas and Oil companies have folded since 2015 and lost about $130B.

So in what world is $518M > $130B?
Click to expand...

Solyndra is one of hundreds of solar and wind companies that went bankrupt since 2015. The difference is that with solar and wind bankruptcies as much as 50% of the debt was public in the form of direct subsidies.
 
The plan is that Germany will have to rely more on natural gas from Russia, coal power from Poland and nuclear power from France, importing power along huge cables, instead of building a huge fleet of batteries to back up its intermittent renewable power.
Click to expand...
batteries dont work well in cold either

Americans need only triple their utility bills to get a sense of the burden Germany’s system places on its citizens.
Click to expand...
fucking wood pellets are our future -after we wreck our economy
 
Countries and states with a great deal of intermittent electricity from wind and solar power are having problems keeping the lights on when the weather does not cooperate. Germany had to turn to coal this past winter when freezing temperatures made its solar and wind units inoperable and it plans to import from neighboring countries to back-up its renewable electricity in the future, as its continues to retire its coal plants. Australia’s answer to its 2016 blackout caused by lack of wind power is to obtain high-cost batteries to store excess energy when the wind does not blow. California, which already imports electricity from neighboring states, got hit by record breaking temperatures and had to use rolling blackouts when the country’s solar and wind units could not meet demand. The state is also planning on using high-cost batteries to store its excess power for later use.

Joe Biden’s plans are to put the United States into the same situation as Germany, Australia, and California by his campaign promises to make the U.S. electricity sector carbon free by 2035—10 years earlier than even California has planned—and the U.S. energy sector carbon free by 2050. Americans need to be aware of the situation that other countries are facing when they turn to intermittent renewables. The record so far is not good.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/coal-rescues-germany-from-its-renewable-folly/
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Solyndra is one of hundreds of solar and wind companies that went bankrupt since 2015.
Click to expand...

Solyndra went bankrupt years before 2015, and you haven't provided a list of the solar and wind companies that have gone bankrupt since 2015, and in no world will those bankruptcies (if there are even any) would come close to the $130B of debt and losses your fossil fuel friends lost the last 5 years.


The difference is that with solar and wind bankruptcies as much as 50% of the debt was public in the form of direct subsidies.
Click to expand...

What bankruptcies? You're talking about ONE that happened 10 years ago.

One that you just lied about and misrepresented as having gone bankrupt since 2015 (Solyndra went under in 2011).

Meanwhile, according to the IMF, we subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of $650B a year.

And those fossil fuel companies couldn't even keep the lights on in Texas, and were BEGGING their customers to stop doing business with them.
 
redfish said:
not so with CO2. it makes up less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere (.039%). It has been at that same level for as long as we have been able to measure it.
Click to expand...

Too much CO2 causes acidification of the oceans and is a greenhouse gas. Too much CO2 is not a good thing.
 
LV426 said:
Solyndra went bankrupt years before 2015, and you haven't provided a list of the solar and wind companies that have gone bankrupt since 2015, and in no world will those bankruptcies (if there are even any) would come close to the $130B of debt and losses your fossil fuel friends lost the last 5 years.




What bankruptcies? You're talking about ONE that happened 10 years ago.

One that you just lied about and misrepresented as having gone bankrupt since 2015 (Solyndra went under in 2011).

Meanwhile, according to the IMF, we subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of $650B a year.

And those fossil fuel companies couldn't even keep the lights on in Texas, and were BEGGING their customers to stop doing business with them.
Click to expand...

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies
https://www.weaselzippers.us/127128-list-the-36-obama-funded-green-energy-failures/
https://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/
https://www.lgenergy.com.au/uploads/download_files/630e729b2d0cdc6474fb272b7059d86dc6701d0b.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top