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.
We will pay for this nonsense just like the Germans have. Over 1 million homes in Germany have their electricity turned off because they cannot afford it. How many low or fixed income people in the US should turn off their electricity because they can't afford it? I suppose folks like you would just demand another redistribution of wealth entitlement program to keep from harming those with low or fixed incomes who cannot afford electricity.
What about the cost of operating a business? While rates for electricity skyrocket, and small businesses, or even businesses in general are less able to afford their new electric rates, what will happen to these companies that depend on low rates? Will they start firing people? Will they start producing less? The price of their goods and services will undoubtedly need to go up to pay for the added costs, so how do they benefit?
I don't know that I could come up with a better way of crippling an economy than to intentionally drive up the cost of the electricity needed to sustain our lifestyles. I consider this evil on a scale that Marx would be proud of because it will drive individuals, families and businesses into depending upon some new socialized government program just to stay afloat. All that dependency means a whole new level of being able to control those silly American peasants.
I hope you people demanding this evil insanity are proud of yourselves.
Compared to how many in the US? National Grid in upstate NY services about 1.4 million customers and turns off the power on about 60,000 per year. So with low energy prices the US likely turns off a few million a year. Could it be this deals with issues other than the price of electricity?
And again one of the assets of solar and wind is that it is less expensive than fossil. Fact of life and going to get much more marked over the next decades. Virtually all the roof top installations are being done to save money. I don't because I do not see it as a good investment yet. But 5 years out? A sure thing then though the utilities may well counter by lowering prices due to their use of solar and wind.
And you may well see the utilities starting to offer roof top solar to their clients. The problem with independent roof top installers is they are ending up with half their cost being marketing and client acquisition...costs the utility would not encounter. And in such a scenario the utility would maintain much better control on the system.
And again one of the assets of solar and wind is that it is less expensive than fossil.
No, it isn't. If it were, Germany would have cheap electricity.
Wind and solar plants require 100% backup with conventional power plants and/or pumped-hydro storage. Adding wind and solar to the grid simply adds capital costs to the power system, without much benefit (since the existing conventional plants are both necessary and sufficient). Yes, some fuel cost is saved during sunny and windy weather, but the fuel savings is not enough to offset the added capital cost of the wind and solar.
There are notable exceptions. In remote places like Hawaii that have no local fossil fuel sources, fuel is very expensive. So solar and wind power *does* make economic sense in those locales. But that's the exception, rather than the rule. For the vast majority of the world, solar and wind will have to become *much* cheaper to make economic sense.
I'm with you 100% up to this point. Although I would add that nuclear power is also an option if we are concerned about CO2 emissions.
But then you really go off the deep end with the following:
Fossil fuels are non-renewable. We have to find a viable replacement for them at some point, unless we want society to return to the Dark Ages. In addition, the likelihood of anthropogenic global warming makes the search for alternatives all the more urgent. It's been known that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation since John Tyndall in the 1800s, so unless he was part of some Evil Socialist Conspiracy(tm), it's probably true that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise the earth's surface temperature.
I'm personally skeptical that solar and wind will be economical in my lifetime (if ever). The energy is too diffuse, meaning we would have to build huge numbers of solar and wind plants. In addition, there's no economical way to store vast quantities of electricity, so we will still need fossil fuel plants until someone comes up with a battery that can store terrawatts of electricity. I'm not holding my breath. Despite my skepticism of wind and solar power, I don't think that they are some kind of conspiracy to destroy capitalism.
Even wind and solar are nonrenewable as they require rare earth minerals to generate electricity.
We will have a greater mix of energy sources, but to say that we are going to abandon fossils any time soon is..... Well let me show you what James Hansen (father of global warming movement said)
Quote:
Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
I think the attached is a great article on the subject but those who support solar wind mandates will undoubtedly proclaim the source, WUWT, is biased rather than accepting that they merely seek the truth, rather than accepting nonsense based upon blind faith.
No, it isn't. If it were, Germany would have cheap electricity.
Wind and solar plants require 100% backup with conventional power plants and/or pumped-hydro storage. Adding wind and solar to the grid simply adds capital costs to the power system, without much benefit (since the existing conventional plants are both necessary and sufficient). Yes, some fuel cost is saved during sunny and windy weather, but the fuel savings is not enough to offset the added capital cost of the wind and solar.
There are notable exceptions. In remote places like Hawaii that have no local fossil fuel sources, fuel is very expensive. So solar and wind power *does* make economic sense in those locales. But that's the exception, rather than the rule. For the vast majority of the world, solar and wind will have to become *much* cheaper to make economic sense.
Your post is incorrect. Present pricing in Germany reflect what has occurred over the past decades and primarily reflects the high cost of fossil as nuclear is phased down. The highly competitive solar will begin service in the early 2020s and will completely crush fossil by 2030. And the levelized cost of electricity that will be obtained will in fact be lower than the operating cost of fossil. So yes the capital cost is included and still beats fossil. If you think about it you would realize that virtually the entire cost of solar is capital. Operation and maintenance is a tiny sum and will get smaller.
Solar will it appears become cheap enough to duplicate fossil and save substantial money when it is available.. Wind will have different characteristics but will likely still be useful in the mix. And likely the mix will change as continuous duty fossil plants will no longer make any sense.
Your post is incorrect. Present pricing in Germany reflect what has occurred over the past decades and primarily reflects the high cost of fossil as nuclear is phased down. The highly competitive solar will begin service in the early 2020s and will completely crush fossil by 2030. And the levelized cost of electricity that will be obtained will in fact be lower than the operating cost of fossil. So yes the capital cost is included and still beats fossil. If you think about it you would realize that virtually the entire cost of solar is capital. Operation and maintenance is a tiny sum and will get smaller.
Solar will it appears become cheap enough to duplicate fossil and save substantial money when it is available.. Wind will have different characteristics but will likely still be useful in the mix. And likely the mix will change as continuous duty fossil plants will no longer make any sense.
How are solar and wind going to "crush" fossil plants when 100% backup capacity is needed for times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? I don't understand.
How are solar and wind going to "crush" fossil plants when 100% backup capacity is needed for times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? I don't understand.
Because the technology is being rolled out that allows the power to be stored. And with the price point dropping on all of it, it is kind of inevitable.
Because the technology is being rolled out that allows the power to be stored. And with the price point dropping on all of it, it is kind of inevitable.
Can you be more specific on what this technology is?
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.
