|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Oct 16, 2012 15:27:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 16, 2012 23:42:20 GMT
Ya know, what is sad is that there are nuts running all over the place who think they have a clue what they are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Oct 16, 2012 23:55:57 GMT
What is even sadder is they don't even realize what they are proposing.
The more CO2 that companies have to pay for in fines to the government, the larger the size of the dividend that will be given to taxpayers. Who do you think will win that political fight. I mean who has the more votes?? Companies paying carbon fines (votes = 0), taxpayers receiving those fines as dividends (votes = millions). Talk about a positive feedback factor. Laws will be passed forcing power companies to use coal in the dirtiest ways possible!! Conservation tax credits will be banned!! More money to the People!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 17, 2012 0:08:13 GMT
Yep.....your own money to start with. Amazing isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2012 1:07:02 GMT
Part of the "free energy" scam aka wind farms in Michigan, and probably other states, is at night when demand goes lower the power plants turn the generators down. However, the wind turbines, if still turning, continue to run and the power companies must purchase the power regardless, and the wind turbine company gets additional subsidies, not to mention the "beneficiaries" (land owners) who signed their property rights and free speech away.
This is referred to as 'negative profits', and is sure to bankrupt the affected coal/NG/nuclear power plant, cause electricity rates to soar or both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 18, 2012 4:40:32 GMT
Part of the "free energy" scam aka wind farms in Michigan, and probably other states, is at night when demand goes lower the power plants turn the generators down. However, the wind turbines, if still turning, continue to run and the power companies must purchase the power regardless, and the wind turbine company gets additional subsidies, not to mention the "beneficiaries" (land owners) who signed their property rights and free speech away. This is referred to as 'negative profits', and is sure to bankrupt the affected coal/NG/nuclear power plant, cause electricity rates to soar or both. Wind has some issues but that interpretation is not really correct. The electricity supply industry works with a base load and then various peak loads The cheapest electricity at production time, is produced for the base load so it makes some sense to have 'free' electricity as part of the base load if it is available. The same argument applies to the very expensive to set up, issue riddled, but strategically useful nuclear production. Ie if a nuclear station exists it is most economical to use it as flat out as possible day and night because the fuel cost is not so very high. Wind energy is by its very nature totally unsuited to meeting the demands of the most peaky parts of the peak loads, so fast responding, infrequently used gas turbines are used for that. |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Oct 30, 2012 20:57:15 GMT
When scientific proof fails, invent a new type of proof. www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/sandy-climate-change_b_2042871.htmlAnd I was foolish enough to even consider a pole on how soon they will blame Sandy on AGW. The first choice would have to have been -- "They blamed it before the HPC even named the storm". And let's just ignore a cold PDO and a warm AMO like existed in the 50's! Alarmists need not respond. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 30, 2012 21:32:50 GMT
Yep.....your own money to start with. Amazing isn't it? Yep the suppliers have to love it! Jobs, overhead and a markup on the churned dollars! That way consumers have to put in 2 times extra to what their dividend checks are going to add up to! And we will be well on our way to. . . . The Goldberg Rube Emissions Are Safe Economy ! Otherwise known as "Grease"! |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 30, 2012 23:34:44 GMT
Part of the "free energy" scam aka wind farms in Michigan, and probably other states, is at night when demand goes lower the power plants turn the generators down. However, the wind turbines, if still turning, continue to run and the power companies must purchase the power regardless, and the wind turbine company gets additional subsidies, not to mention the "beneficiaries" (land owners) who signed their property rights and free speech away. This is referred to as 'negative profits', and is sure to bankrupt the affected coal/NG/nuclear power plant, cause electricity rates to soar or both. Wind has some issues but that interpretation is not really correct. The electricity supply industry works with a base load and then various peak loads The cheapest electricity at production time, is produced for the base load so it makes some sense to have 'free' electricity as part of the base load if it is available. The same argument applies to the very expensive to set up, issue riddled, but strategically useful nuclear production. Ie if a nuclear station exists it is most economical to use it as flat out as possible day and night because the fuel cost is not so very high. Wind energy is by its very nature totally unsuited to meeting the demands of the most peaky parts of the peak loads, so fast responding, infrequently used gas turbines are used for that. Wind has some issues but that interpretation is not really correct.
It may not be in your world, but in the real world where greenie law rules, my interpretation is correct. notrickszone.com/2012/10/22/german-windpark-operator-rakes-in-3-million-for-delivering-power-that-was-never-produced/Germany’s energy feed-in act forces power companies to buy up green electricity from wind and solar producers at exhorbitant prices and guarantees the green energy producers fat profits. I live in a huge wind farm construction area and do understand the scam. Negative prices and the high price of windpower ciddt.org/There is no "free" electricity. infrequently used gas turbines are used for that. They don't get turned on and off like a light switch. Wind power never has worked after 30 years of massive government subsidies, and never will. California is full of wind turbine graveyards. If they worked, I'd have one on my property. If solar power worked, I'd have my roof packed with solar panels and banks of batteries to store the energy. We have geo-thermal. It does work, was expensive but the ROI is <5 years. NG is not available down our road. Of course two years after we installed the geo-thermal system, the NG company wants to install lines in our area at a cost of $4000 per household. Since we use propane for only the clothes drier and stove (maybe $100-150/yr), it would take decades to recover the cost. Our heating/cooling/hot water bill was $569 for the first full year of tracking the costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 31, 2012 3:59:43 GMT
Magellan
You have not understood the point i am making. Obviously there is no such thing as free energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2012 13:05:19 GMT
Magellan You have not understood the point i am making. Obviously there is no such thing as free energy. You said my interpretation was incorrect. Show me based on the links provided, why that is the case. Our county where I live is getting inundated with wind farms. They are hideous and as one who has studied the pros/cons for the last several years, there is no economic advantage to them, and they don't work. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 31, 2012 14:07:39 GMT
Magellan You have not understood the point i am making. Obviously there is no such thing as free energy. You said my interpretation was incorrect. Show me based on the links provided, why that is the case. Our county where I live is getting inundated with wind farms. They are hideous and as one who has studied the pros/cons for the last several years, there is no economic advantage to them, and they don't work. I was wanting to convey that there are reasons to have an energy source like wind power as part of the base load, where together with a national energy policy it would make sense to have legislation requiring wind power to be purchased when available. At the time i was unaware that wind power was used in preference to nuclear energy but given the problems of nuclear energy even that can make good sense if it has been politically decided to move away from commercial nuclear power stations. Most of us do not want to live near any form of power generation where most of us would not want to be downstream of a large hydro dam or anything else. But what do we do? Unless the rising price of oil is just a conspiracy where BP pretended to have difficulties drilling a mile under the sea to ramp up the price of oil, it appears energy is getting harder to find - and i do not rule anything out when it comes to oil companies. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2012 19:59:34 GMT
You said my interpretation was incorrect. Show me based on the links provided, why that is the case. Our county where I live is getting inundated with wind farms. They are hideous and as one who has studied the pros/cons for the last several years, there is no economic advantage to them, and they don't work. I was wanting to convey that there are reasons to have an energy source like wind power as part of the base load, where together with a national energy policy it would make sense to have legislation requiring wind power to be purchased when available. At the time i was unaware that wind power was used in preference to nuclear energy but given the problems of nuclear energy even that can make good sense if it has been politically decided to move away from commercial nuclear power stations. Most of us do not want to live near any form of power generation where most of us would not want to be downstream of a large hydro dam or anything else. But what do we do? Unless the rising price of oil is just a conspiracy where BP pretended to have difficulties drilling a mile under the sea to ramp up the price of oil, it appears energy is getting harder to find - and i do not rule anything out when it comes to oil companies. ~1% of electricity is generated with petroleum in the U.S. The wind blows least when needed the most, and is not consistent; it is intermittent, non-dispatchable and as such can never replace any coal/nuclear/hydro/NG power plant. The inefficiencies are staggering. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 31, 2012 20:54:28 GMT
I was wanting to convey that there are reasons to have an energy source like wind power as part of the base load, where together with a national energy policy it would make sense to have legislation requiring wind power to be purchased when available. At the time i was unaware that wind power was used in preference to nuclear energy but given the problems of nuclear energy even that can make good sense if it has been politically decided to move away from commercial nuclear power stations. Most of us do not want to live near any form of power generation where most of us would not want to be downstream of a large hydro dam or anything else. But what do we do? Unless the rising price of oil is just a conspiracy where BP pretended to have difficulties drilling a mile under the sea to ramp up the price of oil, it appears energy is getting harder to find - and i do not rule anything out when it comes to oil companies. ~1% of electricity is generated with petroleum in the U.S. The wind blows least when needed the most, and is not consistent; it is intermittent, non-dispatchable and as such can never replace any coal/nuclear/hydro/NG power plant. The inefficiencies are staggering. You still dont seem to be understanding what i am saying. I know there are plenty of issues with wind. But if you have it then it makes sense to use it as part of the base load, but if you are making a hot nuclear station idle it would not make much sense. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2012 22:46:05 GMT
~1% of electricity is generated with petroleum in the U.S. The wind blows least when needed the most, and is not consistent; it is intermittent, non-dispatchable and as such can never replace any coal/nuclear/hydro/NG power plant. The inefficiencies are staggering. You still dont seem to be understanding what i am saying. I know there are plenty of issues with wind. But if you have it then it makes sense to use it as part of the base load, but if you are making a hot nuclear station idle it would not make much sense. No, it doesn't make sense. They don't work! |
|
