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.
Prove it's a scam and while you're at please provide us with any peer-reviewed papers to support your assertion.
oh yes the good old fall back of "peer reviewed" papers. sorry but peer review is mostly political in nature to begin with these days, and thus is not worth responding to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Even now solar panels are already the least expensive source of electrical power. Large scale utility plants are below $0.03 per kwh and still dropping. And that is fully loaded life time costs. At that price you duplicate all fossil resources. And if we chose we can net the US. That will provide virtually continuous access to wind and solar. And it means access to the remaining fossil back up capability can be a nationwide shared resource.
you are looking at the WRONG costs. how much do solar panels themselves cost? how much to maintain them? how much to replace them in the future? how much to repair them in the future? how often do they need replacing? what is the failure rate of solar panels? what is the warranty on solar panels? the price of electricity generated means very little over all.
oh yes the good old fall back of "peer reviewed" papers. sorry but peer review is mostly political in nature to begin with these days, and thus is not worth responding to.
you are looking at the WRONG costs. how much do solar panels themselves cost? how much to maintain them? how much to replace them in the future? how much to repair them in the future? how often do they need replacing? what is the failure rate of solar panels? what is the warranty on solar panels? the price of electricity generated means very little over all.
The price quoted is all up all in. Learn about the levelized cost of power and stop the silliness.
This is a very interesting take on the modern opposite world since if you asked the top wood heat experts in the USA of a list of 10 Americans with the most experience in residential wood heating....I'd be on that list!! Major publications feature little old me in articles about the subject.
But, whatever!
There are not enough trees in China to do the job....and burning wood creates PM - a lot of it in most cases, resulting in sickness and disease.
"Up to 80% of PM2.5 emissions in Fairbanks, Alaska, are from residential wood burning."
But we can have another thread on that. Being as I have patents in the field and have manufactured, designed, imported, retailed, installed and used many many thousands of wood burning appliances I think I may know just a bit about them. Just a bit....
Including the fact that hippies and lefties started and ran most of the current wood-burning revolution in the USA - Companies like Vermont Castings, Jotul, Lange and many more. I was around at the first wood heating conventions in the late 1970's....it was like going to Woodstock II.
FYI, less than 2% of French Electric comes from Biomass. Not relevant.
It's far more relevant than talking about wood burning stoves in Alaska. There are barely 700K people in the entire state, and AK is a huge place.
As far as China goes, there isn't enough of anything. The population is unsustainable on any basis that you would like to measure it.
Actually you are likely golden for the next decade or two. The need for cheap backup to the renewable sources is clear.
Down the pike the need may very well decline as back bones between areas and storage capability get developed. But no time soon.
9 yrs is all I need to punch out. We have 2 more recip plants on planing table that'll keep me busy until retirement......Then it's the Black hills for us! I'll take whatever the grid pushes but trust me, I 'll have my own generation .......
oh yes the good old fall back of "peer reviewed" papers.
Yep because research scientists publish their experiments in peer reviewed papers for anyone to replicate.
If you have some definite evidence of gross error in any published climate science peer reviewed paper...then frankly point it out, and don't forget to publish your findings to the whole world, so that the enormous pyramid of mainstream science comes tumbling down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
sorry but peer review is mostly political in nature to begin with these days, and thus is not worth responding to.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Nice attempted dodge. If it's a hoax as you claim then show us the science that validates this hoax.
Second, despite the massive investment in renewables, German CO2 emissions actually rose in 2016. Here's why.
Quote:
As Peter Rez at Arizona State University discusses, renewables will not make much of a dent in their total carbon emissions. The problem is that even when renewables produce enough energy to supply all of the country’s electricity, the variability of the renewables means Germany has to keep the coal plants running, over half of which use the dirtiest of all coal, lignite.
The Germans are also phasing out the rest of their nuclear fleet in the next few years, which will make them even more dependent on French nuclear and Polish coal fired generation.
So in exchange for paying the second highest prices in the world, they're still burning as much lignite because renewables aren't reliable. That's "good progress"?
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.
