Hydrogen and fuel cells are made right here in the US and A.
This industry is currently adding lots of high salary jobs to the workforce
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
Hydrogen and fuel cells are made right here in the US and A.
This industry is currently adding lots of high salary jobs to the workforce
Get back to us when that technology can power our economy at a similar cost to natural gas-fired generation or even nuclear.
We will 100% suck this planet dry and it will be a rock and nothing will matter.
That's simply not accurate. While on a per kW basis, solar and wind are less expensive than coal, they are not less expensive than natural gas. But those numbers are meaningless when it comes to the revenue impact on utility bills. The value of a Solar and wind kW to meet a capacity shortfall is not the same as a kW from a fossil fuel resource. In other words, solar and wind resources are not directly substitutable for fossil fuel generation, on a kW to kW basis. You can't compare them on a per kW basis and understand the relative cost of each resource. We have been through this before. If a utility needs 100 MW of capacity, that means 100 MW of capacity has to be there when it is needed by customers. Coal and gas are both dispatchable, so the utility can install 100 MW of those resources and fill the need. In contrast, solar and wind, are not dispatchable and the full capacity will only be available during ideal conditions, which often do not occur during peak use conditions that the utility is building the capacity to serve. Solar, for example, in the midwest, only provides about 20% of its capacity during peak times. That's an average for the year. When you look more closely, it provides nearly zero capacity during the winter months and as much as 40% - 50% during summer months. This means if winter capacity is driving the need, solar will provide virtually zero. If summer capacity is driving the need, solar can supply some percentage of its maximum output to satisfy the capacity need. In either case, a utility cannot install 100 MW of solar and meet the capacity needs where it could with fossil fuel. To meet the need with solar, it would have to be combined with some other resource to get to the 100 MW requirement. Because of this, solar and wind rarely meet any least cost planning criteria. They are generally installed by third parties, or due to political exclusions by commissions who mandate a certain level renewable energy.The problem with your argument is you are assuming, erroneously that fossil fuel is lowest cost energy source which is false. Solar and wind are much less expensive than fossil notwithstanding the costs associated with the environmental impact on human health, but you seem to always be opposed to those sources. I favor an "all of the above" approach and let utilities and governments choose the lowest cost methods that make sense for them. Industrialized countries should, and for the most part are transitioning to cleaner more efficient and lower cost sources. Even China the worst offender spends over $100 Billion a year on alt energy.
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's a great argument for why you can't have 100% or maybe even 70% alt energy. However alt energy can be apart of your energy mix as it is now in many utilities, to reduce cost and provide a more cleaner operation, but it could be increased from say 10% to upwards of 50%. You have your gas turbines available when needed (hopefully not so much coal). The output as it might change seasonally for your alt energy sources can be fairly accurately predicted just like outages can be planed for fossil plants.
As an aside battery storage technology is improving dramatically so there will be a time when reserve stored energy can absorbe a significant if not all of the real time operating output deficiencies.
Until nuclear is an option and other countries are on board with reducing evil emissions, there is no sense in having a discussion.
The proponents of wind and solar are the same people arguing our military should have entirely electric vehicles. That’s so goddam stupid, one can only conclude they’re trying to destroy the United States through their energy policies.
Let’s build some nuclear plants and stop sending our trash to China to dump in the ocean, then we can talk other energy sources.
The proponents of wind and solar are the same people arguing our military should have entirely electric vehicles. That’s so goddam stupid, one can only conclude they’re trying to destroy the United States through their energy policies.
Let’s build some nuclear plants and stop sending our trash to China to dump in the ocean, then we can talk other energy sources.
Yes, and also USA companies like PLUG and Ballard are making power stations out of fuel cells. Large enough to power entire towns.
They are run off of hydrogen, which is getting cheaper as more is produced and purchased. Likely, will be inline with Oil prices at some point
The case for renewable resources is purely clean energy. There are no cost savings currently. That's why you see renewable mandates. If solar and wind were less expensive approaches to meeting capacity needs, then it would come out of planning models as the least cost alternative. It doesn't do that. The bottom line that everyone needs to understand is that adding renewables to a resource mix does not lower cost for consumers. It raises cost. You could meet the same capacity shortage with gas at a lower cost.
Using my example from above. You are a winter peaking utility. Your planning model shows a capacity shortfall of 100 MW during your peak hours. Most Midwestern utility's winter peak occur between 7 am and 9 am. Explain how adding solar lowers cost in that scenario over serving it with 100 MW combined cycle or simple cycle turbine?
Yeah, of course you have. Like all little baby sheep, just follow the herd. Don’t ask any questions, hear no lies.
We can do away the misnomer “renewables,” as well. No such thing as renewable energy.
Oh! And you’re not following a herd???? I have heard your shit a million times from others. Don’t act like you’re original
Last edited:
Recently I have heard of plans to encourage big box retailers to put solar panels on their roofs, to at least provide some if not all of their energy needs, there certainly is a lot of flat area on these stores, and seems to me to make a lot of sense, especially in warmer sunnier climates where their is plenty of sunshine. Every little increment forward helps.
That's quite true. While wind and sun are "renewable" so to speak, the physical mechanisms required to extract energy from them are not renewable.
If the store sees a break even or a financial gain from such, it makes sense. Nothing wrong with stores making bottom line decisions.
Renewables are now significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the world’s cheapest source of energy, according to a new report.
Of the wind, solar and other renewables that came on stream in 2020, nearly two-thirds – 62% – were cheaper than the cheapest new fossil fuel, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
www.weforum.org
Of the wind, solar and other renewables that came on stream in 2020, nearly two-thirds – 62% – were cheaper than the cheapest new fossil fuel, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
'Renewables' power ahead to become the world’s cheapest source of energy in 2020
Most renewable power is now being generated more cheaply than the cheapest new fossil fuel options. It’s progress, says the International Renewable Energy Agency.
www.weforum.org
Renewable energy, often referred to as clean energy, comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished. For example, sunlight and wind keep shining and blowing, even if their availability depends on time and weather.
Renewable Energy: The Clean Facts
Wind and solar are powering a clean energy revolution. Here’s what you need to know about renewables and how you can help make an impact at home.
Renewable energy, often referred to as clean energy, comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished. For example, sunlight and wind keep shining and blowing, even if their availability depends on time and weather.
Renewable Energy: The Clean Facts
Wind and solar are powering a clean energy revolution. Here’s what you need to know about renewables and how you can help make an impact at home.www.nrdc.org
It’s a fiction. Solar panels and turbines use petroleum based products and need to be replaced, as well as finite natural resources for conductivity and battery storage, etc. Wind and sun may be renewable, the process is anything but.
It's semantics. The industry is referring to the sources. Most people have at least a basic idea of what's involved in the mechanisms to produce electricity from different sources. I can tell you though that the cost of producing and maintaining wind mills and solar panels is infinitesimal compared to the cost of building, maintaining and staffing a coal fired or gas turbine plant.
It’s not just semantics. It an intentional misuse of the word to elicit a false impression. It is typical of politics these days. Turbines are not recyclable. They are buried in landfills and must be replaced. It’s not about the cost. It is about whether they are truly renewable forms of energy. The materials need for the batteries and cells, etc., are certainly not renewable.
In addition it's good PR for the company because millions of guys like me think it's the right thing to do. Not unlike sponsoring the ballet. Or the local little league. You do it because you want to be a good member of the community which builds good will.
Is that article doing anything other than comparing per KW costs of various forms of generation? It's way more complicated than that. I doubt the person who wrote that understands the first thing about least cost planning and how decisions are made in the industry to build new generation resources.Renewables are now significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the world’s cheapest source of energy, according to a new report.
Of the wind, solar and other renewables that came on stream in 2020, nearly two-thirds – 62% – were cheaper than the cheapest new fossil fuel, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
'Renewables' power ahead to become the world’s cheapest source of energy in 2020
Most renewable power is now being generated more cheaply than the cheapest new fossil fuel options. It’s progress, says the International Renewable Energy Agency.
I see your points, but it would be interesting to actually see one of these planning models you speak of to see the actual cost per kwh delivered to the customer using different mixes i.e. 60/40 fossil/alt 40/60 fossil/alt etc., which would assumedly include the capital costs over each type of system over it's lifecycle. If they don't include capital costs it isn't valid.
My hunch is there would be a break even point somewhere, that would likely show some overall savings by using a relatively smaller percent of alt say 20-40% but over that it might result in higher per unit costs - but that's purely a guess.
At any rate technology continues to evolve alt energy is almost 100% cheaper now than it was 10 years ago and systems continue to improve. So at some point it become much more economically advantageous to include more alt in the mix.
If the technology ever gets to the point that it can be dispatched it would change the game. That’s a huge hurdle though. As an aside, these models calculate present value revenue requirement over the life of the asset. The least cost (lowest present value revenue requirement) is selected. You have to keep in mind that these analyses are done on each incremental capacity addition. So they include both capital and operating costs.
Yeah, arguing metrics that are globally agreed on by all groups, you just have to do the math. You just can't make it make anymore sense than what is obvious. But continue to listen to a media and group of people that are getting paid to spew this horseshit you are buying. Move along sheeple.
I don't reject it but I'm not convinced 1) it's happening at all 2) man is a significant contributor 3) it's bad 4) it's devastating.
The "proof" falls well short of actually proving any of the above. Even if it ever does: 1) taxes won't be the answer and is just more foolery set forth by the shysters trying to profit further and 2) any action at all is worthless without china and India acting.
All of us, including the government should take reasonable steps to preserve the environment which includes continued efforts to seek out renewable energy sources. Not the drastic insanity put forth by those in power or parroted by people on social media etc
His social media should be required viewing for everyone who starts parroting the political lines. It's something to watch these people evade wiggle and squirm doing anything and everything to avoid answering his basic questions under oath. They can't answer because the whole thing is based on at best speculation and at worst an outright lie
Energy is a complex topic that involves a lot of different things, reliability is one factor, but cost is probably the biggest driving factor. The cost for the small module nucs he was referring to has gone up 53% within the last year to $89/mwh. If this was the best option for utilities that needed addition capacity or replacing coal-fired steam plants at the end of their life cycle, they would be choosing them. The vast amount of money that will go into building any sort of power production facility is born by the utility, not the federal government. Even TVA which is owned by the government does not receive appropriated funds for power generation, it's all on the rate payers.
Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor
NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced costs of a 462-megawatt small modular reactor (SMR) have risen dramatically
ieefa.org
Agree that the issue is complex and cost is important. I also believe our leaders, public and private, on this issue DO NOT believe we are facing the cliché existential threat. Nukes would be a priority, if that was the case.Energy is a complex topic that involves a lot of different things, reliability is one factor, but cost is probably the biggest driving factor. The cost for the small module nucs he was referring to has gone up 53% within the last year to $89/mwh. If this was the best option for utilities that needed addition capacity or replacing coal-fired steam plants at the end of their life cycle, they would be choosing them. The vast amount of money that will go into building any sort of power production facility is born by the utility, not the federal government. Even TVA which is owned by the government does not receive appropriated funds for power generation, it's all on the rate payers.
Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor
NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced costs of a 462-megawatt small modular reactor (SMR) have risen dramatically
