![]() |
Originally Posted by waldo135
(Post 3959878)
Harvard, that bastion of conservative thought, has something to say about the overall cost of wind
https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-ter...-wind-turbines it does make an interesting point that turbine size must be matched to the project’s particulars, something we as a society are learning just like we have with many technologies. |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3959884)
that we need to account for the full lifecycle cost and externalities in any power generating system? yeah, of course. that article does not, however, support the notion that tailhookah got from a meme.
it does make an interesting point that turbine size must be matched to the project’s particulars, something we as a society are learning just like we have with many technologies. |
Originally Posted by waldo135
(Post 3959890)
The article cautions that the hype of ‘cheap’ energy from wind is not really all that cheap. People want to look at ROI as what it cost to build vs how much power it produces. ‘The rest of the story’ as Paul Harvey used to say is a little more complex … and expensive.
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3959902)
it is indeed. that’s a far cry from the nonsense tailhookah was peddling.
It's all out there OOfff and belittling us and inferring we are less than intelligent on the matter and you are the "expert" is the mentality that puts in the place where we can't have nice things. It's not binary OOfff. We've tried the grand experiment and it doesn't work. You've met the enemy and he is you (POGO). Nothing wrong with using wind and/or solar to supplement traditional power, but it's been proven that relying solely on it for the majority of supply to your grid is a fools errand. Pound for pound, liter to liter organic fuels are absolutely the most efficient and least costly. Nuclear has come a long way as well. The new reactors Westinghouse has designed are quite impressive. You should go read up on them. |
Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
(Post 3959905)
What non-sense is that? That wind and solar are not viable or reliable sources of energy? They're most certainly not. What's France doing now BTW? Germany? Building traditional plants - to include nuclear.
It's all out there OOfff and belittling us and inferring we are less than intelligent on the matter and you are the "expert" is the mentality that puts in the place where we can't have nice things. It's not binary OOfff. We've tried the grand experiment and it doesn't work. You've met the enemy and he is you (POGO). Nothing wrong with using wind and/or solar to supplement traditional power, but it's been proven that relying solely on it for the majority of supply to your grid is a fools errand. Pound for pound, liter to liter organic fuels are absolutely the most efficient and least costly. Nuclear has come a long way as well. The new reactors Westinghouse has designed are quite impressive. You should go read up on them. Nuclear power increased in 2024 as EDF addressed corrosion issues that affected nuclear generation beginning in 2021 and implemented a program designed to make maintenance outages at its reactors more efficient. The French government continues to consider nuclear power as part of its strategy to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, which involves integrating nuclear power alongside renewable electricity technologies. The second-largest source of power generation in France is hydropower, which increased from 58 TWh in 2023 to 75 TWh in 2024. By comparison, electricity generation from fossil sources decreased, from 32 TWh to 20 TWh. Wind power decreased from 51 TWh to 47 TWh. |
Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
(Post 3959905)
What non-sense is that? That wind and solar are not viable or reliable sources of energy? They're most certainly not. What's France doing now BTW? Germany? Building traditional plants - to include nuclear.
It's all out there OOfff and belittling us and inferring we are less than intelligent on the matter and you are the "expert" is the mentality that puts in the place where we can't have nice things. It's not binary OOfff. We've tried the grand experiment and it doesn't work. You've met the enemy and he is you (POGO). Nothing wrong with using wind and/or solar to supplement traditional power, but it's been proven that relying solely on it for the majority of supply to your grid is a fools errand. Pound for pound, liter to liter organic fuels are absolutely the most efficient and least costly. Nuclear has come a long way as well. The new reactors Westinghouse has designed are quite impressive. You should go read up on them. or just rage |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3959856)
ah, so now you’ve moved the goalposts from being wrong about energy payback to being wrong about cost per kilowatt. why don’t we stick to one claim all the way through?
Show me that I’m wrong. From actual electric bills. Tell me why electricity is 3-5x more in Germany, France, Denmark and other countries that shelled their fossil fuel programs and went green. Or even the parts of the us that embraced wind. Much much higher electricity bills. Why is that? You explain that? |
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 3959858)
Oh look, it's the tried and true devolution of renewable energy discourse into hippie earth saving granola bullsh!t and once again never speaking in terms of national security and energy independence.
Yawn... Funny how China is covering their landscape in solar panels though. Yes, famous tree hugging hippies: THE CHINESE. The CCP folded to the environmentalist "Save the Pangolin!" Campaign...:D But the way, all for nuclear energy. Split baby split! (As in the atom) |
Originally Posted by Tailhookah
(Post 3959922)
Show me that I’m wrong. From actual electric bills. Tell me why electricity is 3-5x more in Germany, France, Denmark and other countries that shelled their fossil fuel programs and went green. Or even the parts of the us that embraced wind. Much much higher electricity bills. Why is that? You explain that?
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3959855)
the energy payback is much shorter than a decade, more like less than a year to a few years, and the carbon payback is similarly short. stop getting news from memes
heres a link to the editor of the book from which this falsehood originates, explaining how the meme is wrong: https://homerdixon.com/resource/no-n...y-idiot-power/ I have never even seen your meme. I did my own research. Again, for the larger farms, which is what I am really talking about, it’s a decade, give or take (and can vary by individual location due to wind speed/contancy/remoteness/etc). |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:34 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands