Trump energy policy key to reviving economy — Biden plan destroys jobs, raise costs

Yes you are.

Oh really? How much does the sun charge you every month? Where can I buy sunshine futures in the commodities markets?


There is a market for the output and that drives the value of the product. As Germany has discovered there are times when the system produces so much power they have to pay people to use more, and other times where there is scarcity so the price rises dramatically. The overall effect is the market is unstable and that uncertainty drives prices up to about 3 to 4 times what they'd be with a stable conventional grid.

Germany's energy market is anything but unstable right now.

In fact, 46% of Germany's energy comes from renewable sources vs. 36% from fossil fuels.

So why is what you are saying in direct contradiction to what Germany is saying?
 
Yes. That's why we need reliable inexpensive power systems. That means nuclear and natural gas if you want it low / no carbon output. Wind and solar are failures. It's that simple. But energy companies are being mandated--ORDERED--by government to use solar and wind regardless of what losers these are economically. The result is an increasingly unstable grid and rising energy costs.

What I'm telling you is that government mandated solar and wind forced on energy companies makes the later costly and inefficient. That is because they are being told to use what doesn't work and can't be made to work.

What works is nuclear and natural gas.

Solar and wind continue to be the cheapest, safest, most efficient way to produce energy.

Do you know how much the Vogtle plant has cost Georgia so far? And it's not even close to being ready.

I don't want a Fukushima in my backyard, do you?
 
You'd be wrong. Modern electronic computers started to be made in the 1960's. Mechanical devices that could perform numerical functions have been around for thousands of years. The first gold-selenium photovoltaic cell was invented in 1883 by Charles Fritts. It uses the EXACT same principle of operation that current PV cells use. The "modern" version was invented from that basis by Bell Labs in 1954. Since then, there has been little change in the science other than to improve materials and production methods.
Also, the chemistry is well known and understood. You cannot get more than around 2 VDC out of a single solar cell. The ampacity of each cell is determined by its size and to a lessor extent the quality and purity of the materials used in making it. It is also well understood that these cells, like any other form of battery, lose potency over time. PV solar panels lose between 1 and 2% of their capacity per year. When they get down around 70% it starts being an issue as the voltage produced starts to fall off meaning it can no longer be converted easily to equivalent AC power. Thus PV solar panels have a run life of between 20 and 30 years.

With wind, the biggest issue is aeolian dust that literally sandblasts the turbine blades resulting in a massive increase over expected wear. There are also ongoing issues with off-shore wind and corrosion.

As for storage, this is just and added unnecessary expense if the systems were reliable. For solar the capacity factor is usually between 20 and 25%. That means you need 4 to 5 times the actual output capacity to get one KW day of power out of a solar plant and need to have storage for 4 to 5 times the plant's output. That is utterly insane.

The answer is nuclear and natural gas. It's that simple.

Isn't this whole response framed within the context of CURRENT technology?
 
Oh really? How much does the sun charge you every month? Where can I buy sunshine futures in the commodities markets?

PV panels aren't free. The materials that went into the structure and systems that go with them aren't free. The labor to install them isn't free. The maintenance on them isn't free. When you cost all of that out it's about equal right now to buying commercial power at .12 cents a KW over 20 years.

Germany's energy market is anything but unstable right now.

In fact, 46% of Germany's energy comes from renewable sources vs. 36% from fossil fuels.

So why is what you are saying is in direct contradiction to what Germany is saying?

No, it's not.

https://www.instituteforenergyresea...ys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/

Its bad enough that Germany's neighbors have begun to disconnect their electric grids from Germany's.

http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-renewables-revolution-threatens-neighbours-with-grid-collapse/

https://uk.reuters.com/article/germ...ess-stable-report-warns-idUKL5E8MR6QU20121127

And it isn't just Germany... It's anywhere there is a high percentage of wind and solar

https://www.americanexperiment.org/...ses-texas-electricity-prices-skyrocket-40000/

Nuclear and natural gas are the answer, but the left doesn't even want to entertain that possibility or listen to it as an alternative.
 
Isn't this whole response framed within the context of CURRENT technology?

It's framed within the science and engineering of solar and wind. You cannot get around chemistry and physics. You cannot engineer something that is a perpetual motion machine. That is what the Left thinks solar and wind are, and they most definitely are not. They are very inefficient ways to make electrical energy and you cannot get around that.
 
PV panels aren't free. The materials that went into the structure and systems that go with them aren't free. The labor to install them isn't free. The maintenance on them isn't free. When you cost all of that out it's about equal right now to buying commercial power at .12 cents a KW over 20 years.

I never said they were. The source is free. Of course it costs money to make and produce and distribute the panels. Never implied otherwise. The difference is that sunshine and wind aren't commodities like fossil fuels. So there is no extraction cost. There's no shipping costs. There's no OSHA compliance costs. There's no compliance costs with the Clean Water/Air Acts.

It costs companies far, far more to extract and refine shale oil and natural gas than it is to manufacture and install solar panels.
 
It's framed within the science and engineering of solar and wind. You cannot get around chemistry and physics. You cannot engineer something that is a perpetual motion machine. That is what the Left thinks solar and wind are, and they most definitely are not. They are very inefficient ways to make electrical energy and you cannot get around that.

It sounds to me more like someone in the '70's saying that computers would always have to be large, because of the way memory was stored and the need for processor size.

You can't get around things, until someone does.

The technology of the future -whether wind, solar, computers or whatever - is guaranteed to be radical compared to what we have today, and also something that we can't imagine yet.
 
You just dont care how many people die, how many people are incapacitated by this virus, just so you can re elect trump. Thats just what it boils down to. If we had 1 million deaths, it would just be a cost of doing business, to you.

Only .04% of Americans have died as a result of COMPLICATIONS the virus caused their EXISTING condition. Stop the buffoonish lies and parroting the PHONY media bullshit.

You have a far greater chance of dying from cancer or heart disease dumbass.

If we don't have an economy; many more will die and suffer you willful idiot.
 
I really like ECOtality as a utterly complete fail. About $120 million of that money they got was government grants. The company was to install charging stations for battery cars here in the Phoenix metro area. The company made a total...TOTAL... of just shy of $5000 in revenue from their operations before going bankrupt.

Most of the stations have been repeatedly vandalized by copper thieves, and of course the usual graffiti as most sit in locations making them easy targets.

Spot on. It's a sad testimony to the failure of leftist agenda's.
 
I don't understand, why doesn't an energy company just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

If government comes in and says:

You will get 50% of your energy output from wind and solar, no exceptions what does an energy company do? They build wind and solar plants and raise the cost of a KWH to compensate.

Then if government says:

Your prices are too high for consumers. We're going to cap them at $x.xx What does an energy company do? Beg for subsidies from government? Go out of business because they can't make money?

If it were up to energy companies they'd use what is cost effective.

If right now, the government backed $1 trillion in loans to energy companies to build 50 new, safe, efficient, nuclear power plants nationwide, we could see all of coal fired plants gone in 10 to 12 years. They would no longer be necessary. Solar and wind could be eliminated entirely. Nuclear is zero carbon output. Coal miners could mine uranium and thorium instead. The US has more than 1,000 years worth of those minerals to run power plants on. Natural gas would supplement the nuclear plants to produce peaking power for variations in load.
The jobs produced would be high paying ones not low paying "Green" jobs like hand assembly work or washing solar panels.

But we have a big segment of the population that has an irrational fear of anything 'nuclear' because idiots and know-nothings have been spewing lies about it for decades.
 
"inefficient" in this context means "not profitable".

So if an energy company can't make a profit off energy, then it shouldn't be privately run. Period. Full stop.

NONE of the green energy projects make money. They can't exist without FORCED taxpayer subsidies. They shouldn't exist. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

You're a fucking retard.
 

What is it you think this link says or adds to your argument?



This link says Germany is producing so much energy thanks to renewables - remember, you said renewables aren't efficient at producing energy - that it's flooding its neighbors. How could that be, when you said that solar and wind don't produce or aren't efficient producers? This link seems to argue the opposite case; that because of Germany's clean green energy, even its neighbors are seeing the overflow.

Those neighbors are disconnecting, why? Because Germany has a surplus of energy, thanks to renewables.


Nuclear and natural gas are the answer, but the left doesn't even want to entertain that possibility or listen to it as an alternative.

No one wants a nuke plant in their backyard.
 
It sounds to me more like someone in the '70's saying that computers would always have to be large, because of the way memory was stored and the need for processor size.

You can't get around things, until someone does.

The technology of the future -whether wind, solar, computers or whatever - is guaranteed to be radical compared to what we have today, and also something that we can't imagine yet.

Do you understand how a PV solar cell works? Do you get that the watt density of sunlight is on average 1 KW / m2? Do you get that a wind turbine generator uses the wind to turn a conventional DC generator? Getting around that is to not use these poor methods to make power.
 
What is it you think this link says or adds to your argument?




This link says Germany is producing so much energy thanks to renewables - remember, you said renewables aren't efficient at producing energy - that it's flooding its neighbors. How could that be, when you said that solar and wind don't produce or aren't efficient producers? This link seems to argue the opposite case; that because of Germany's clean green energy, even its neighbors are seeing the overflow.

Those neighbors are disconnecting, why? Because Germany has a surplus of energy, thanks to renewables.

And what do you do with that electricity when there is too much of it? You can't bottle it up for later. Storage like batteries, flywheels, or pumped hydro are all expensive add ons that aren't necessary with reliable generation systems.
I've already stated there are times when solar and wind are very efficient producers and other times where they're not. That is instability. You need a system that can reliably produce the power you need when you need it. Solar and wind can't deliver on that.

No one wants a nuke plant in their backyard.

I do.
 
If government comes in and says:

You will get 50% of your energy output from wind and solar, no exceptions what does an energy company do? They build wind and solar plants and raise the cost of a KWH to compensate.

OK...


Your prices are too high for consumers. We're going to cap them at $x.xx What does an energy company do? Beg for subsidies from government? Go out of business because they can't make money?

Yes, the last one. Precisely. Exactly that. If you cannot adapt to new market conditions, then you should die. Yes. 100%. Totally. We are told that the free market is this wondrous, magical, spectacular thing that is the best economic system ever.

So if a company has all that going for it and still cannot turn a profit, then it should fucking die, and we should dance on its fucking grave because that is the free market telling you that commoditizing energy production is stupid.
 
If it were up to energy companies they'd use what is cost effective.

But renewables ARE cost effective, as you proved by the fact that Germany had a surplus of energy -thanks to renewables- that drove down the profits for all the energy producers in neighboring countries.
 
Back
Top