World pledges to save 'Mother Earth' despite Trump's snub to climate pact

[RickBradford]

^^^

Quote

Solar energy accounted for less than one percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. during the first six months of 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest Monthly Energy Review.

Hardly cause for celebration, after 45 years and tens of billions of dollars handed out on subsidies.

 

I think it would be wonderful if solar power could become a reliable, cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy technology which enhanced a country's energy security, and maybe one day it will.

 

But it has serious fundamental constraints to deal with, the main one being: How much energy falls on each square metre of the earth's surface. The answer is: Not very much.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Skywalker69 said:

Well guess you are proud to be in company with Syria and Nicaragua then?

What is that supposed to mean? Are those countries famous for producing electrical engineers rather than deluded, uniformed onanists?

 

BTW yes, fossil fuels are a limited resource, but they won't run out for a long time yet. When they do, where does steel and plastics come from? And which will be more expensive gold or aluminium?

[Usernames]

On 6/3/2017 at 6:53 AM, rooster59 said:

France said it would work with U.S. states and cities to keep up the fight against climate change. The governors of New York, California and Washington State have announced creation of a "climate alliance" committed to the Paris goals.

 

Lots of luck with that one.  Not only is it illegal for states and cities to conduct their own foreign policy, but California LEADS the US with six of the top ten most polluted cities.  Whatever they are doing isn't working.

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/19/most-polluted-cities-california/100615102/

[Skywalker69]

1 hour ago, iReason said:

 

Right.

Nuclear power  to create steam. Short sighted dangerous behavior.

What could go wrong?

 

Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste

"Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years.

 

"Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years)."

 

"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years."

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/

 

Brilliant.

 

Apparently, you feel good about this:

(This is just one nation of course)

 

 

[halloween]

6 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

 

Meanwhile energy prices continue to escalate in all countries where the meeting of 'carbon emissions' targets is deemed to be more important than maintaining a stable electricity supply. Denmark, an early big spender on 'low-carbon' technology and wind power now has the developed world’s highest price for electricity; an average of about 40¢ (25P) per kilowatt hour. This is about three times the price of American electricity (see table below). Germany, which also invested heavily in renewables, is a close second, followed by Holland, Belgium and Spain. The result: inflated energy prices and lost jobs. Those who control a country's energy supply control its economy. 600,000 low-income Germans are being disconnected by their power companies each year for non-payment of bills, a number which will probably go up as a stream of global-warming projects in the pipeline causes further rises in price. In the U.K., which has had the most politically correct climate leadership in the world, 12 million people are in fuel poverty.   http://www.habitat21.co.uk/energy98.html

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

Hardly cause for celebration, after 45 years and tens of billions of dollars handed out on subsidies.

 

I think it would be wonderful if solar power could become a reliable, cost-effective, environmentally friendly energy technology which enhanced a country's energy security, and maybe one day it will.

 

But it has serious fundamental constraints to deal with, the main one being: How much energy falls on each square metre of the earth's surface. The answer is: Not very much.

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

First off, your figures for solar energy efficiency may be accurate for northern europe, but when applied to the tropics, subtropics and desert regions, they are definitely way off.

Second, the petroleum industry receives all kinds of huge tax breaks.

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

And these subsidies don't include the massive expenses from various military ventures in the Mideast.  

[RickBradford]

^^^

Economics isn't your forte, is it?

 

Fossil-fuel subsidies are principally consumer subsidies, that is, governments enable people to buy petrol cheaper at the pump (often for fear of causing riots). The main culprits are countries like Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia.

 

Solar (and wind) subsidies are production subsidies, that is, the money is given to producers to build the things, whose output is then sold at a high price to consumers.

 

It's not hard to understand if you do a little bit of reading. Even the front-page summary of the IMF report you cited lays it out quite clearly.

Quote

" .. post-tax energy subsidies, which arise when consumer prices are below supply costs ... are dramatically higher than previously estimated, and are projected to remain high. These subsidies primarily reflect under-pricing from a domestic perspective."

 

 

 

[halloween]

" While wind and solar nameplate capacity represented 84 percent of Germany’s average electric power generation of 70.4 GW, it ultimately generated only 11.9 percent of total electricity (up from 11.2 percent in 2011). There are simple reasons for that discrepancy: night, cloud, and calm. The output of wind and solar generators varies wildly with weather and the time of day; during most hours they produce a small fraction of their nameplate power—or nothing at all. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

 

Interesting to note that electricity prices have INCREASED by 50% since 2006.

[sirineou]

 

2 hours ago, iReason said:

 

Right.

Nuclear power  to create steam. Short sighted dangerous behavior.

What could go wrong?

 

Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste

"Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years.

 

"Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years)."

 

"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years."

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/

 

Brilliant.

 

Apparently, you feel good about this:

(This is just one nation of course)

 

Sorry to disagree with you in this issue ,

but all projections concerning waste from nuclear reactors,  assume technology remains at current levels and does not advance. 

 In fact not only makes the above assumption but even ignores current advances and base argument on outdated technology.

We now have the technology to make perfectly safe reactors, and I think in a Thousand years we will be able to deal with current or past waste.

Perhaps we will ship it to Alpha Century , I hear Centurians find it to be a delicacy and would pay Mucho Buckazoid  for it

 

If interested read the following paper from MIT

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/ 

[Skywalker69]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Meanwhile energy prices continue to escalate in all countries where the meeting of 'carbon emissions' targets is deemed to be more important than maintaining a stable electricity supply. Denmark, an early big spender on 'low-carbon' technology and wind power now has the developed world’s highest price for electricity; an average of about 40¢ (25P) per kilowatt hour. This is about three times the price of American electricity (see table below). Germany, which also invested heavily in renewables, is a close second, followed by Holland, Belgium and Spain. The result: inflated energy prices and lost jobs. Those who control a country's energy supply control its economy. 600,000 low-income Germans are being disconnected by their power companies each year for non-payment of bills, a number which will probably go up as a stream of global-warming projects in the pipeline causes further rises in price. In the U.K., which has had the most politically correct climate leadership in the world, 12 million people are in fuel poverty.   http://www.habitat21.co.uk/energy98.html

Do you have children?

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

But it has serious fundamental constraints to deal with, the main one being: How much energy falls on each square metre of the earth's surface. The answer is: Not very much.

Enough solar energy falls in a fraction of a millimeter to set paper on fire

Have you not played with magnifying glasses as a kid?

 

The good news.

 The stone age did not end because they run out of stones.

 

 

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

And this estimate does not include the military cost to support access to fossil fuels ,  maintain delivery routes. and the blow-back  of the resulting reactionary terrorism.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

What is that supposed to mean? Are those countries famous for producing electrical engineers rather than deluded, uniformed onanists?

 

BTW yes, fossil fuels are a limited resource, but they won't run out for a long time yet. When they do, where does steel and plastics come from? And which will be more expensive gold or aluminium?

There is  a chance   flint could  have  most  value .

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

Economics isn't your forte, is it?

 

Fossil-fuel subsidies are principally consumer subsidies, that is, governments enable people to buy petrol cheaper at the pump (often for fear of causing riots). The main culprits are countries like Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia.

 

Solar (and wind) subsidies are production subsidies, that is, the money is given to producers to build the things, whose output is then sold at a high price to consumers.

 

It's not hard to understand if you do a little bit of reading. Even the front-page summary of the IMF report you cited lays it out quite clearly.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

Economics isn't your forte, is it?

 

Fossil-fuel subsidies are principally consumer subsidies, that is, governments enable people to buy petrol cheaper at the pump (often for fear of causing riots). The main culprits are countries like Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia.

 

Solar (and wind) subsidies are production subsidies, that is, the money is given to producers to build the things, whose output is then sold at a high price to consumers.

 

It's not hard to understand if you do a little bit of reading. Even the front-page summary of the IMF report you cited lays it out quite clearly.

 

 

Wrong. According to that report, the biggest subsidy is in not charging for the environmental and consequent health damage caused by fossil fuel consumption:

"Most energy subsidies arise from the failure to adequately charge for the cost of domestic
environmental damage—only about one-quarter of the total is from climate change—so
unilateral reform of energy subsidies is mostly in countries’ own interests, although
global coordination could strengthen such efforts.
  Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by
$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP), cut global CO2 emissions by more than
20 percent, and cut pre-mature air pollution deaths by more than half. After allowing for
the higher energy costs faced by consumers, this action would raise global economic
welfare by $1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP)."

 

And I notice you are still repeating the falsehood about how high solar energy costs are. What's always intriguing to me is the people who profess to believe in the free market and technological advancement, turn into Luddites when it comes to renewable energy sources. And this despite massive evidence to the contrary. Not only has the cost of generating renewable energy been in precipitous decline, but the cost of storage has been in rapid decline, too. Maybe those who deny these advancements are secretly addicted to the fumes generated by fossil fuels?

[ilostmypassword]

You know, there was a time before the Kochs and their billions got into the game, when Republicans accepted the fact that human caused climate change was a serious problem.  Cap and Trade was a Republican idea.

How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science

The campaign ad appeared during the presidential contest of 2008. Rapid-fire images of belching smokestacks and melting ice sheets were followed by a soothing narrator who praised a candidate who had stood up to President George W. Bush and “sounded the alarm on global warming.”

It was not made for a Democrat, but for Senator John McCain, who had just secured the Republican nomination.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[halloween]

6 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Do you have children?

Yes Solar Warrior, I do. Should I tell them "the end is nigh" or "we are all doomed"?

[Watchful]

On 6/3/2017 at 3:45 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

All good then. The rest of the western world needs to man up and stop hanging onto America's apron strings.

They can still do all the things they would have done without the US, but without the US paying for it.

Go for it western countries, ban cars, ban air travel, ban fossil fuelled electricity and food production. Oh, they aren't going to do any of that and will only tax their citizens more! Good luck with that making an iota of difference in average temperature.

Those are excellent Points!

 

Now that Sugar Daddy Obama is gone, someone needs to step up and sent money to implement the Paris Accord. It's my expectation that TV members so concerned about this will stop blowing smoke and .... contribute!

 

Come on guys get off your soap boxes and start writing some big checks.

 

I mean the sky is falling!  Send some serious money to Paris! It's for your children!

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

Wrong. According to that report, the biggest subsidy is in not charging for the environmental and consequent health damage caused by fossil fuel consumption:
"Most energy subsidies arise from the failure to adequately charge for the cost of domestic environmental damage .. <snip>

That is a truly extraordinary argument. Make a guess at the amount of "environmental damage", state that it should be added to the price of fuel, then claim that because it wasn't added, that amounts to a subsidy. That's the kind of economics the Soviet Union used for bogus production figures in tractor plants.
 

Quote

And I notice you are still repeating the falsehood about how high solar energy costs are. 

I have already stated that I am a big fan of solar power, and that I hope that one day, if the true Luddites continue to succeed in blocking nuclear power, that it will be a viable large-scale energy source. But the data show that is not yet the case, and with global energy demand skyrocketing, fossil fuels are the only sensible course we have to meet that demand.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

That is a truly extraordinary argument. Make a guess at the amount of "environmental damage", state that it should be added to the price of fuel, then claim that because it wasn't added, that amounts to a subsidy. That's the kind of economics the Soviet Union used for bogus production figures in tractor plants.
 

I have already stated that I am a big fan of solar power, and that I hope that one day, if the true Luddites continue to succeed in blocking nuclear power, that it will be a viable large-scale energy source. But the data show that is not yet the case, and with global energy demand skyrocketing, fossil fuels are the only sensible course we have to meet that demand.

"That is a truly extraordinary argument. Make a guess at the amount of "environmental damage", state that it should be added to the price of fuel, then claim that because it wasn't added, that amounts to a subsidy. That's the kind of economics the Soviet Union used for bogus production figures in tractor plants."

The noted communist, Milton Friedman, disagrees with you. In economics its called externalities and relates to issues of the commons.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

As for your repeated demonstrations of  ignorance about renewable energy. It's already more economical than coal in many parts of the United States.

This interactive map shows why renewables and natural gas are taking over the US

The University of Texas Austin’s Energy Institute has put out an incredibly useful interactive map showing what types of power plants are cheapest to build in every county in the continental United States. (No, really, it’s fascinating.)

 

Playing around with the map, you can see why natural gas and renewables are likely to provide much of America’s new electric capacity going forward. It also shows why, despite Trump’s promises, it will be extremely difficult to build new US coal plants anytime soon. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/12/13914942/interactive-map-cheapest-power-plant

 

And here's some data which you continue to ignore:

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

 

 

[halloween]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"That is a truly extraordinary argument. Make a guess at the amount of "environmental damage", state that it should be added to the price of fuel, then claim that because it wasn't added, that amounts to a subsidy. That's the kind of economics the Soviet Union used for bogus production figures in tractor plants."

The noted communist, Milton Friedman, disagrees with you. In economics its called externalities and relates to issues of the commons.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

As for your repeated demonstrations of  ignorance about renewable energy. It's already more economical than coal in many parts of the United States.

This interactive map shows why renewables and natural gas are taking over the US

The University of Texas Austin’s Energy Institute has put out an incredibly useful interactive map showing what types of power plants are cheapest to build in every county in the continental United States. (No, really, it’s fascinating.)

 

Playing around with the map, you can see why natural gas and renewables are likely to provide much of America’s new electric capacity going forward. It also shows why, despite Trump’s promises, it will be extremely difficult to build new US coal plants anytime soon. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/12/13914942/interactive-map-cheapest-power-plant

 

And here's some data which you continue to ignore:

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

 

 

And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why.

 

" The standard measure of that shortfall in electricity production compared to nameplate capacity is the “capacity factor”: the amount of electricity a generator produces in a year divided by the amount it would produce if it ran at nameplate capacity for all 8,760 hours. In 2012, German solar electricity production rose to 28 TWh from the 2011 figure of 19.3 TWh. But those solar panels would have produced 254 TWh had they run at full power for all 8,760 hours in the year, so they had a capacity factor of just 11 percent. Production from wind power, despite all the new turbines, actually declined to 46 TWh from the 2011 figure of 48.9 TWh. (Sun and wind anti-correlate, so the solar surge came at the expense of wind.) That puts the capacity factor of German wind at 17 percent. By comparison, fossil-fueled plants can achieve capacity factors of 80 percent or more. And electricity production from Germany’s 12 GW of nuclear capacity in 2012 was 99 TWh, a capacity factor of 94 percent. Even though Germany’s nuclear nameplate capacity was just one-fifth the size of its solar and wind nameplate capacity, those few nuclear gigawatts produced 35 percent more watt-hours of electricity than did all the wind and solar generators put together. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

 

Sorry to start getting technical on you, but ti is important to understand the difference between GW and GWh.  GW are what an energy plant, of whatever type, CAN produce, GWh is a reflection of it DOES produce. At 11% capacity factor, you need a lot more GW to produce the same GWh.

 

In Oz we built the Moree solar farm,. with a plate output of 56MW. " The solar farm is expected to have an operating life of 30 years and generate approximately 4,000 GWh over that time. " https://arena.gov.au/projects/moree-solar-farm/     

 

They hope. OTOH Bayswater power station with 4 660MW Toshiba units (they actually run at 700MW when required after mods) estimates its ANNUAL output at 17 TWh (17,000 GWh).

[Dumbastheycome]

It is interesting to  observe  the  bias  of  opinion.

Is it that  the   anti  climate  change  devotees seemingly  argue   on the  basis  of  economic  returns  as of the  present as  opposed  to  the  more  rational  ideology  of pro  climate  change in  view of future  impact , short  term or   longer?

Personally  I would suspect  that the  latter  view  is  more  compatible  with the humanitarian desire  and expectation for  sustainable longevity  than  the  psychopathic suicidal greed  for  the  fast   buck ! 

But  then again I  also  detest  corporate monopoly and  the  distortions  it  has instilled in  social conformity.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, halloween said:

And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why.

 

" The standard measure of that shortfall in electricity production compared to nameplate capacity is the “capacity factor”: the amount of electricity a generator produces in a year divided by the amount it would produce if it ran at nameplate capacity for all 8,760 hours. In 2012, German solar electricity production rose to 28 TWh from the 2011 figure of 19.3 TWh. But those solar panels would have produced 254 TWh had they run at full power for all 8,760 hours in the year, so they had a capacity factor of just 11 percent. Production from wind power, despite all the new turbines, actually declined to 46 TWh from the 2011 figure of 48.9 TWh. (Sun and wind anti-correlate, so the solar surge came at the expense of wind.) That puts the capacity factor of German wind at 17 percent. By comparison, fossil-fueled plants can achieve capacity factors of 80 percent or more. And electricity production from Germany’s 12 GW of nuclear capacity in 2012 was 99 TWh, a capacity factor of 94 percent. Even though Germany’s nuclear nameplate capacity was just one-fifth the size of its solar and wind nameplate capacity, those few nuclear gigawatts produced 35 percent more watt-hours of electricity than did all the wind and solar generators put together. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

 

Sorry to start getting technical on you, but ti is important to understand the difference between GW and GWh.  GW are what an energy plant, of whatever type, CAN produce, GWh is a reflection of it DOES produce. At 11% capacity factor, you need a lot more GW to produce the same GWh.

 

In Oz we built the Moree solar farm,. with a plate output of 56MW. " The solar farm is expected to have an operating life of 30 years and generate approximately 4,000 GWh over that time. " https://arena.gov.au/projects/moree-solar-farm/     

 

They hope. OTOH Bayswater power station with 4 660MW Toshiba units (they actually run at 700MW when required after mods) estimates its ANNUAL output at 17 TWh (17,000 GWh).

Climatically and geographically the situation of India is quite different from that of Germany 

In india, solar generated power is already competitive with coal and has resulted in the cancellation of many plans to build coal powered power plants.

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

[jackh]

All you Globalist Warming Dreamers are delusional i you really think humans have the power to change the world's climate! The only change you will do it is to put more $$$ into the elite SOBs bank accounts as they laugh at your retarded asses! 

 

Trump is done with these scams and I for one is grateful that at least 1 person of power acts with reason.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, jackh said:

All you Globalist Warming Dreamers are delusional i you really think humans have the power to change the world's climate! The only change you will do it is to put more $$$ into the elite SOBs bank accounts as they laugh at your retarded asses! 

 

Trump is done with these scams and I for one is grateful that at least 1 person of power acts with reason.

Thank you for the wealth of factual hard information you have provided in your post.

[Dumbastheycome]

2 minutes ago, jackh said:

All you Globalist Warming Dreamers are delusional i you really think humans have the power to change the world's climate! The only change you will do it is to put more $$$ into the elite SOBs bank accounts as they laugh at your retarded asses! 

 

Trump is done with these scams and I for one is grateful that at least 1 person of power acts with reason.

Thats   quite  humorous.

[Smarter Than You]

8 hours ago, halloween said:

And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why.

 

" The standard measure of that shortfall in electricity production compared to nameplate capacity is the “capacity factor”: the amount of electricity a generator produces in a year divided by the amount it would produce if it ran at nameplate capacity for all 8,760 hours. In 2012, German solar electricity production rose to 28 TWh from the 2011 figure of 19.3 TWh. But those solar panels would have produced 254 TWh had they run at full power for all 8,760 hours in the year, so they had a capacity factor of just 11 percent. Production from wind power, despite all the new turbines, actually declined to 46 TWh from the 2011 figure of 48.9 TWh. (Sun and wind anti-correlate, so the solar surge came at the expense of wind.) That puts the capacity factor of German wind at 17 percent. By comparison, fossil-fueled plants can achieve capacity factors of 80 percent or more. And electricity production from Germany’s 12 GW of nuclear capacity in 2012 was 99 TWh, a capacity factor of 94 percent. Even though Germany’s nuclear nameplate capacity was just one-fifth the size of its solar and wind nameplate capacity, those few nuclear gigawatts produced 35 percent more watt-hours of electricity than did all the wind and solar generators put together. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

 

Sorry to start getting technical on you, but ti is important to understand the difference between GW and GWh.  GW are what an energy plant, of whatever type, CAN produce, GWh is a reflection of it DOES produce. At 11% capacity factor, you need a lot more GW to produce the same GWh.

 

In Oz we built the Moree solar farm,. with a plate output of 56MW. " The solar farm is expected to have an operating life of 30 years and generate approximately 4,000 GWh over that time. " https://arena.gov.au/projects/moree-solar-farm/     

 

They hope. OTOH Bayswater power station with 4 660MW Toshiba units (they actually run at 700MW when required after mods) estimates its ANNUAL output at 17 TWh (17,000 GWh).

"And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why".

 

You're being a little dishonest here by omitting some facts.

Why can't they secure financing?

Why is the Australian Government putting up $1 billion of tax payer money?

[iReason]

6 minutes ago, jackh said:

All you Globalist Warming Dreamers are delusional i

you really think humans have the power to change the world's climate!

The only change you will do it is to put more $$$ into the elite SOBs bank accounts as they laugh at your retarded asses! 

 

Trump is done with these scams and I for one is grateful that at least 1 person of power acts with reason.

 

You appear very upset. You don't have to yell.

 

And I believe you misspelled a word in the statement below:

 

"at least 1 person of power acts with treason."

 

And there is a good chance that it may turn out to be more than one.

Stay tuned...

[Skywalker69]

19 hours ago, halloween said:

Yes Solar Warrior, I do. Should I tell them "the end is nigh" or "we are all doomed"?

No just keep on and leave for the kids to sort out the mess.

[halloween]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Climatically and geographically the situation of India is quite different from that of Germany 

In india, solar generated power is already competitive with coal and has resulted in the cancellation of many plans to build coal powered power plants.

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

Yes it is. In a desert, capacity factor of solar can reach 23%. Tell me, what do you think people are doing for electricity the other 77% of the time? Do you think Adani are building a huge coal mine so they can make a loss?

[halloween]

5 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

"And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why".

 

You're being a little dishonest here by omitting some facts.

Why can't they secure financing?

Why is the Australian Government putting up $1 billion of tax payer money?

Why should I bother with the financial issues? The announcement of the mine go-ahead is expected TODAY.