Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct. So what power sources should we use to back up wind and solar? Coal? Nuclear? Crude Oil? All of the above?
This is the naivete of lay people projecting the needs of stand alone generation onto utility networks. We don't back up individual generators on the network, we add reserves to the network to achieve a given level of reliability. Up to about 20% wind, the reserves we currently have today are more than adequate. PV probably can exceed 20% but I don't know anyone who has actually run those numbers. Higher pv works because the things that reduce pv output also reduce load -- e.g. rain cools things down so air conditioning load drops.
If a control area find itself short of needed reserves, they will most likely add simple cycle gas turbines, which are cheap and easy to site. This doesn't put much load on the natural gas supply as they are just filling short term gaps.
This is the naivete of lay people projecting the needs of stand alone generation onto utility networks. We don't back up individual generators on the network, we add reserves to the network to achieve a given level of reliability. Up to about 20% wind, the reserves we currently have today are more than adequate. PV probably can exceed 20% but I don't know anyone who has actually run those numbers. Higher pv works because the things that reduce pv output also reduce load -- e.g. rain cools things down so air conditioning load drops.
If a control area find itself short of needed reserves, they will most likely add simple cycle gas turbines, which are cheap and easy to site. This doesn't put much load on the natural gas supply as they are just filling short term gaps.
Ok, so we can add a modest amount of solar and wind to the grid. It's technically possible. I don't think anyone disputes that; the Germans, Hawaiians, and Danes have done it successfully. But from a purely economic standpoint, adding wind and solar to the grid has little benefit, it only adds cost.
Sure, there is some environmental benefit: during sunny summer days and/or windy periods, fossil plants can burn less fuel. There is also some money saved on fuel, but the money saved on fuel is not enough to offset the added cost of the wind and solar* installations. We won't be able to retire many of those fossil plants, since they will still be needed for nights with low/no wind. So the bottom line is this: we add cost to the electricity system (which will be borne by consumers) for no benefit other than modest reductions in CO2 and other emissions.
My question for you is this: how much extra should electricity consumers be forced to pay for a given ton of CO2 saved? Remember that higher electricity prices will affect everyone: single moms on welfare, industry, small business, hospitals...everyone.
*except in isolated places like Hawaii where fossil fuel is very expensive
Ok, so we can add a modest amount of solar and wind to the grid. It's technically possible. I don't think anyone disputes that; the Germans, Hawaiians, and Danes have done it successfully. But from a purely economic standpoint, adding wind and solar to the grid has little benefit, it only adds cost.
Sure, there is some environmental benefit: during sunny summer days and/or windy periods, fossil plants can burn less fuel. There is also some money saved on fuel, but the money saved on fuel is not enough to offset the added cost of the wind and solar* installations. We won't be able to retire many of those fossil plants, since they will still be needed for nights with low/no wind. So the bottom line is this: we add cost to the electricity system (which will be borne by consumers) for no benefit other than modest reductions in CO2 and other emissions.
My question for you is this: how much extra should electricity consumers be forced to pay for a given ton of CO2 saved? Remember that higher electricity prices will affect everyone: single moms on welfare, industry, small business, hospitals...everyone.
*except in isolated places like Hawaii where fossil fuel is very expensive
Increasingly wind and pv produce busbar costs lower than any other new generation, and that's before we include the value of reduced GHGs. I am aware of a utility in the upper midwest with signed contracts for wind delivered at 2.5 cents per kWh.
Let me ask you the flip side of your question, what is the cost of relocating Houston, New Orleans, 1/2 of Florida, Charleston, Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston due to rising sea levels?
Increasingly wind and pv produce busbar costs lower than any other new generation, and that's before we include the value of reduced GHGs. I am aware of a utility in the upper midwest with signed contracts for wind delivered at 2.5 cents per kWh.
Were taxpayer subsidies necessary to build the wind farms? There are all sorts of opportunities for "Enron accounting" with these cost numbers. The added cost of wind and solar might not show up on a consumer's utility bill, but it still costs society money in the form of taxes if there are subsidies involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Let me ask you the flip side of your question, what is the cost of relocating Houston, New Orleans, 1/2 of Florida, Charleston, Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston due to rising sea levels?
Is reducing GHG emissions by 10 or 20% going to prevent the flooding of those areas?
According to climatologists, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millennia. James Hansen says that CO2 emissions need to go to zero. A tall order. I doubt that's even possible. But the point is clear: token, symbolic reductions in CO2 that make us feel good aren't enough.
Let me ask you the flip side of your question, what is the cost of relocating Houston, New Orleans, 1/2 of Florida, Charleston, Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston due to rising sea levels?
Take a glass of ice water and mark the water level. Let the ice melt. What happens to the water level? (It stays the same).
The land between Hudson Bay and New York was depressed by the great weight of two miles of ice piled on top of it for 100,000 yrs. After only 10,000 yrs of being glacier free, it's still rebounding, rising a little more every year. If all the land-bound ice in the northern hemisphere were to finally melt, sea levels would not be much different than they are now.
This whole "rising sea level" argument is another bit of un-truth perpetuated by those with political agenda. As I pointed out earlier, sea levels are falling around the Pacific and the news about the large ice sheeting cracking off at the S. Pole is because it's calved off the growingsouth polar ice mass as it hits the sea. Those are the Inconvenient Truths.
Let me also repeat, German carbon emissions are rising despite their increased reliance on wind & solar because they must keep their coal fired plants burning uselessly at idle for energy security. Even if we concede carbon footprint is important, this plan won't help.
Take a glass of ice water and mark the water level. Let the ice melt. What happens to the water level? (It stays the same).
Correct. Sea level rise will come from the melting of land ice, not sea ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
The land between Hudson Bay and New York was depressed by the great weight of two miles of ice piled on top of it for 100,000 yrs. After only 10,000 yrs of being glacier free, it's still rebounding, rising a little more every year. If all the land-bound ice in the northern hemisphere were to finally melt, sea levels would not be much different than they are now.
This whole "rising sea level" argument is another bit of un-truth perpetuated by those with political agenda. As I pointed out earlier, sea levels are falling around the Pacific and the news about the large ice sheeting cracking off at the S. Pole is because it's calved off the growingsouth polar ice mass as it hits the sea. Those are the Inconvenient Truths.
Please let us know where you got that information.
Were taxpayer subsidies necessary to build the wind farms? There are all sorts of opportunities for "Enron accounting" with these cost numbers. The added cost of wind and solar might not show up on a consumer's utility bill, but it still costs society money in the form of taxes if there are subsidies involved.
No accounting magic, just a 15-20 year power supply contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Is reducing GHG emissions by 10 or 20% going to prevent the flooding of those areas?
You have to start somewhere or your grandchildren are going to suffer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
According to climatologists, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millennia. James Hansen says that CO2 emissions need to go to zero. A tall order. I doubt that's even possible. But the point is clear: token, symbolic reductions in CO2 that make us feel good aren't enough.
Take a glass of ice water and mark the water level. Let the ice melt. What happens to the water level? (It stays the same).
The land between Hudson Bay and New York was depressed by the great weight of two miles of ice piled on top of it for 100,000 yrs. After only 10,000 yrs of being glacier free, it's still rebounding, rising a little more every year. If all the land-bound ice in the northern hemisphere were to finally melt, sea levels would not be much different than they are now.
This whole "rising sea level" argument is another bit of un-truth perpetuated by those with political agenda. As I pointed out earlier, sea levels are falling around the Pacific and the news about the large ice sheeting cracking off at the S. Pole is because it's calved off the growingsouth polar ice mass as it hits the sea. Those are the Inconvenient Truths.
Let me also repeat, German carbon emissions are rising despite their increased reliance on wind & solar because they must keep their coal fired plants burning uselessly at idle for energy security. Even if we concede carbon footprint is important, this plan won't help.
The sea level rise isn't from melting sea ice. Read a little. You ignorance is alarming.
Right. It's from GW killing all the sponges in the coral reefs. With no sponges to soak up extra sea water, levels will rise and drown us all! OH, Noooooo!http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/
Sea level rises are averaging 1 mm/yr. What does that mean when daily tidal variations can be 10ft? Same for temps: average rise of 0.05 deg/yr when diurnal variation is 20 deg and yearly variation 100deg?
Try to keep things in perspective.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 07-13-2017 at 05:41 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
