Greg Abbott Silent as Electric Power Grid Operator Urges Texans To Turn Off Appliance

Poor Richard Saunders said:
LOL.. So let me see if I have this right..
If something costs .06 per kwh and it needs to be backed up with something that costs .12 kwh when it's needed, that is more expensive than something that always costs .12kwh? If you are an example of how Texans plan no wonder they keep having problems.

By the way.. how reliable was that fossil fuel generation a couple of winters ago?
Click to expand...
You talking OPERATING cost while its running not functional cost. Let me see. If you have to build something extra to provide BACKUP for your generating source then you also have factor that extra cost into your cost for wind generation. You conveniently don't include the cost of building and using fossil fuel plants to backup your wind generation. The FACT is you can operate a grid that solely uses fossil fuels and CAN't build a grid that solely uses wind generation.

BTW Fossil fuel generation failed in Texas in winter 2020 because of design flaws. Wind generation also failed in 2020 because of design flaws.
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
When you deny something as basic as the composition of coal, it's nigh impossible to take you seriously about anything.
Click to expand...
Yes I generally avoid reading his posts because he always makes off the wall claims that are so easy to disprove. I have made exceptions in this thread but I'm starting to regret it.:laugh:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Coal is too a hydrocarbon. It is formed from the detritus of plants in places like swamps and forests initially as peat or chernozem and when compressed under heat and pressure deeper in the Earth it becomes coal.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1organic/coal.html

Coal exposed to water (mainly in the form of steam) at high temperatures can be melted down into petroleum products as in the Fischer-Tropsch process

https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/ftsynthesis
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/dodaro1/
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
ExpressLane said:
You talking OPERATING cost while its running not functional cost. Let me see. If you have to build something extra to provide BACKUP for your generating source then you also have factor that extra cost into your cost for wind generation. You conveniently don't include the cost of building and using fossil fuel plants to backup your wind generation. The FACT is you can operate a grid that solely uses fossil fuels and CAN't build a grid that solely uses wind generation.
Click to expand...

He also doesn't factor in the costs for transmission lines, but that's hardly surprising the man is an imbecile.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Coal is too a hydrocarbon.
Click to expand...
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It is carbon.
T. A. Gardner said:
It is formed from the detritus of plants in places like swamps and forests initially as peat or chernozem and when compressed under heat and pressure deeper in the Earth it becomes coal.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
T. A. Gardner said:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1organic/coal.html
Click to expand...
They don't know either. They are guessing, just like you.
T. A. Gardner said:
Coal exposed to water (mainly in the form of steam) at high temperatures can be melted down into petroleum products as in the Fischer-Tropsch process
https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/ftsynthesis
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/dodaro1/
Click to expand...
Carbon does not melt into hydrocarbons.
The Fischer-Tropsche process combines a carbon source (such as carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide) and hydrogen into a hydrocarbon. The conditions for this process exist naturally in the Earth.
 
ExpressLane said:
You talking OPERATING cost while its running not functional cost. Let me see. If you have to build something extra to provide BACKUP for your generating source then you also have factor that extra cost into your cost for wind generation. You conveniently don't include the cost of building and using fossil fuel plants to backup your wind generation. The FACT is you can operate a grid that solely uses fossil fuels and CAN't build a grid that solely uses wind generation.

BTW Fossil fuel generation failed in Texas in winter 2020 because of design flaws. Wind generation also failed in 2020 because of design flaws.
Click to expand...

You can't build a power plant with fossils as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
 
ExpressLane said:
You talking OPERATING cost while its running not functional cost. Let me see. If you have to build something extra to provide BACKUP for your generating source then you also have factor that extra cost into your cost for wind generation. You conveniently don't include the cost of building and using fossil fuel plants to backup your wind generation. The FACT is you can operate a grid that solely uses fossil fuels and CAN't build a grid that solely uses wind generation.

BTW Fossil fuel generation failed in Texas in winter 2020 because of design flaws. Wind generation also failed in 2020 because of design flaws.
Click to expand...

There is no fossil fuel generation in Texas.
 
Into the Night said:
Why would transmission lines be any different between two different sources of power (other than current capacity)??
Click to expand...
Because with wind you have to run lines to remote more sparsely populated areas to bring the power back to more populace areas. Fossil fuel plants are built nearer to the customers..
 
ExpressLane said:
Because with wind you have to run lines to remote more sparsely populated areas to bring the power back to more populace areas. Fossil fuel plants are built nearer to the customers..
Click to expand...

Since wind produces so little power, that line is more like a normal distribution line than anything else. Pretty cheap to build. There are no fossil fuel plants.

Transmission lines for wind power are not the reason wind power is the 2nd most expensive method of generating electricity. The reason is a very simple one. Wind generators produce very little power and can't even run all the time. Those machines still take up real estate and require regular maintenance. Just to install one requires about 6 specially made trucks just to haul the parts in, and a helicopter to lift stuff into place. You spend more on diesel and gasoline and the special equipment to install it than you ever get out of the wind generator in it's lifetime. Much of the time it can generate no power at all because wind conditions or temperature conditions are not within tolerable limits of the machine. Icing conditions are particularly bad for these things. You can't run them with ice on the blades. A catastrophic failure would immediately result, throwing debris up to a mile away.

Then of course, there is the blight on the landscape from them.
 
Into the Night said:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It is carbon.

How do you know?

They don't know either. They are guessing, just like you.

Carbon does not melt into hydrocarbons.
The Fischer-Tropsche process combines a carbon source (such as carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide) and hydrogen into a hydrocarbon. The conditions for this process exist naturally in the Earth.
Click to expand...

ch-20102-coal-2-728.jpg


Hydrocarbon. See all those benzene rings with carbon and HYDROGEN in them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top