Print Page - The folly of wind and solar as energy sources

Title: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 11:25:52 AM

Power outages in Texas have shown how dangerous it is to rely on feel good luxury, but intermittent energy sources like wind and solar that cannot ramp up in periods of high demand.

Unreliable Power'

Dan Kish, a Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Institute for Energy Research (IER), told The Epoch Times Wednesday that "there's a lot of CYA going on right now. And the truth is we just don't know exactly what happened because the numbers aren't all in yet. But clearly we lost some production on the fossil energy side and the rest due to the cold."

But Kish claimed there is a fundamental difference between the problems that interfered with Texas power plants burning fossil fuels and those generating power through wind and solar.

"The way renewable energy works is it's inherently intermittent, and therefore it's all like a luxury in essence," Kish said, "except for the people that own it and the people that have to pay for it.

"That's because you're taking a perfectly good system that can respond by ramping up and down, typically, to demand and casting that aside and putting in this stuff that produces energy when it feels like it."

The clean energy facilities require back-up power sources that are typically fossil-fueled to fill in the gaps created by cloudy skies and windless days, Kish said.

Despite its long-standing reputation as the heart of the oil and gas industry, Texas' reliance on wind energy has increased in the past decade to 23 percent of the state's total electricity generation.

In fact, as the Texas Tribune noted in 2010, Texas has long produced more wind energy than any other state. But it's one thing to generate power with windmills and solar panels, it's another to move the power across vast distances to where it's needed.

It was Perry, when he was in the governor's office in Austin, who went along with a $5 billion program to erect transmission lines to move the power from the West Texas windmills and solar panel farms to the big cities across the state.

And before Perry, Kish noted, an early booster of the Texas clean energy industry was former Enron Chief Executive Officer Ken Lay, who invested heavily in the nascent power resource after then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush helped persuade Congress to renew a critical federal tax credit in 1998. Bush's father had signed the legislation that created the tax credit in 1992.

Consequently, as Texas Public Policy Foundation Vice President Chuck DeVore explained earlier this week, "Texas is now experiencing what California deals with on a regular basis — unreliable power."

DeVore said, "Texas has seen a growth of 20,000 megawatts of wind and solar over the same period [the past four to five years] to a total of 34,000 megawatts of installed capacity statewide, though they rarely perform anywhere close to capacity.

"Wind and solar, with state and federal subsidies, have pushed reliable thermal operators out of business or prevented a new generation from being built as operators can't make money off of the market."

https://www.theepochtimes.com/texas-winter-storm-power-outages-prompt-bitter-fight-between-fossil-fuel-clean-energy-advocates_3701130.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-02-18

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar
Post by: kiebers on February 18, 2021, 11:37:00 AM

I would say that one of the main issues with the power in Texas is that we are an independent power grid. We have no one to borrow from. Of course they are also going to blame it on not being regulated enough so that we would have something in place to keep the wind mills from freezing up. Now to a degree I can agree with needing some kind of regulations addressing that. There are quite a few wind farms located in Texas that see freezing weather on a fairly regular basis. That part does need to be addressed.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 11:55:50 AM

We have a lot of wind farms in the SW part of my province..

Suprprisingly, many are owned or at least invested in by oil and gas companies..

They received money from the former provincial government's carbon tax to invest in massive turbines..

They don't operate properly in our cold climate, but they have natural gas to back them up when that happens, and it happens a lot.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on February 18, 2021, 12:08:14 PM

I lived in that area & in winter often went through the area to ski hills in the mountains (Mainly Fernie)

The winters there are brutal .. and worse, subject to sudden temperature changes .. rapidly melting due to Chinook winds and then sudden refreezing

While often windy, a bad idea .. What melts fast also refreezes fast = ice at very low temperatures

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 12:24:37 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=402658 time=1613668094 user_id=88~~
I lived in that area & in winter often went through the area to ski hills in the mountains (Mainly Fernie)

The winters there are brutal .. and worse, subject to sudden temperature changes .. rapidly melting due to Chinook winds and then sudden refreezing

While often windy, a bad idea .. What melts fast also refreezes fast = ice at very low temperatures

It's one of the windier areas in Canada..

There seems to be more windfarms every trip to the Pincher Creek area..

They use so much land to produce minimal amounts of power that still require natural gas in extreme weather.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 01:21:44 PM

There is no magic or silver bullet when it comes to energ. So called renewable energy, in particular wind and solar, is intermittent. A solar power plant uses 100 times of land as a traditional power plant, while a wind power plant takes up to 1,000 times.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 09:56:24 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/151238853_1070220290056731_8611374118035231419_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=9BF-DXyNzJEAX-cVhl2&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=8fec9fd0869f6de8718d0e7f5bd1006b&oe=60566D8B%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=60566D8B%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/151238853_1070220290056731_8611374118035231419_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=9BF-DXyNzJEAX-cVhl2&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=8fec9fd0869f6de8718d0e7f5bd1006b&oe=60566D8B%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 10:21:18 PM

Texas policy makers chose profitability and proliferation of unreliable wind turbines without natural gas as capacity backup.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2021, 11:36:01 AM

I don't see Trudeau or Biden taking a breath on wind energy or any Democrat governor. They will double down on risky, unreliable wind and solar. Texas could be the new norm.

When the ice storm cometh

Texas crisis will reshape energy policy-making everywhere as wind-power collapse puts renewables under scrutiny

What's most interesting and important is the energy politics triggered by the polar vortex and its impact on the Texas power grid. Indeed, the Texas power wipeout instantly generated an explosion of hype, conflict and debate that will shape energy policy-making for some time. The key question: What are the risks in renewable power, especially wind?

Over the past week, shares of key renewable corporations have dropped, presumably brought on by reports that a collapse in the Texas wind-power sector was one of the main factors behind the failure of the Texas electricity grid. Among the until-now high-flying wind power firms to take a hit are NextEra Energy Partners, down 10 per cent over the past week. Other renewables in different sectors (Brookfield Renewable Partners down six per cent, Renewable Energy Group down 20 per cent) seemed to be part of a sudden ice storm downdraft that struck just as the sector was hitting a likely over-bought peak.

A few days later after the blackouts spread across Texas, Abbott blamed the grid meltdown and blackouts on the failure of the state's renewable wind power to operate through the storm. Fierce attacks followed. That brought on a round of counter attacks from the media and green activists who, with some accuracy, noted that the Texas power failure was not solely a product of the collapse of wind power.

In reality, the fierce storms and cold locked down other power sources, although it is clear that wind-generated power all but collapsed, with much of the burden taken up by natural gas. In the end, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, much power kept flowing thanks to fossil fuels, nuclear and coal production.

The failure of renewable wind supply was not the sole cause of the Texas blackouts. What were the other causes? Clearly a full review of the state's energy policies is needed to get to the overall political, economic and technological background that created the conditions for massive failure. This is where the real lessons from the Texas ice storm will emerge and where the future of energy policy will be shaped, and not just in the United States.

Renewable advocates are scrambling to the defence of wind and solar, but the Texas case joins others around the world that suggest the great stampede to build wind and solar, fuelled by massive government subsidies and price-fixing regimes, comes with risks.

In Germany, a 2019 McKinsey report on the state of the nation's power grid warned that "Germany has enjoyed a highly secure electricity supply for decades, but the tide is beginning to turn. The German power grid repeatedly faced critical situations in June of this year: significant shortfalls in available power were detected on three separate days. At its peak, the gap between supply and demand reached six gigawatts — equivalent to the output of six major power plants."

The German problems continue. A Foreign Policy magazine commentary last week asked whether Germany is making too much subsidized renewable energy, risking more blackouts and price distortions. The McKinsey report warned of blackouts, continued high prices and of the need to increase electricity imports to offset the inconsistency in renewable power.

The German problem is in part the same one confronting Texas, which includes the same risks that are building in Britain, Australia and Canada, where the push for renewables keeps growing.

In Ontario, the latest renewables movement comes from city governments that are being cajoled by activists into shutting down natural gas plants — of the kind that are keeping Texas supplied with power today — and replacing them with wind and solar plants.

The Texas disaster has given American green activists a new sense of anxious urgency to keep their movement on track. U.S. Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quickly pounced on the governor of Texas for blaming wind for the grid crisis, claiming it all could have been avoided if her Green New Deal had been adopted. In other words, she argued, more wind power would have saved the state from its wind power collapse.

Two weeks ago, smart money was betting big on renewables as a sure thing, pushing share values to new highs. Now, the ice storm has come and a new policy debate is just beginning.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-when-the-ice-storm-cometh

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 20, 2021, 01:42:00 AM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/151180024_2878468312400809_6657207450032566736_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=HP184GMpDK0AX9-9a82&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=56a413975e9efcc5852fff89085b56bb&oe=6055B947%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=6055B947%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/151180024_2878468312400809_6657207450032566736_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=HP184GMpDK0AX9-9a82&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=56a413975e9efcc5852fff89085b56bb&oe=6055B947%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 02, 2021, 01:38:20 PM

The race for very finite amounts of rare earth metals if the US would deveolop it's own energy resources instead of chasing wind and solar pipe dreams.

US May Boost Rare Earths Mining to Counter Threat From China

WASHINGTON—The Chinese communist regime has recently signaled that it could leverage its dominance in rare earth minerals, raising alarm bells in the United States. The threat has prompted the Biden administration to take action to reduce U.S. reliance on China for rare earth metals that are used in everything from smartphones to electric vehicles to fighter jets.

In 1992, Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping predicted the importance of rare earths to China's future when he famously said, "The Middle East has oil. China has rare earths."

Today, China is the dominant global supplier of rare earths, a group of 17 chemical elements used in the production of critical components of key technologies, which could easily be used as a weapon against other countries in a trade war or a conflict.

Beijing has already demonstrated that it could use rare earth elements as a retaliatory tactic. In 2010, China abruptly cut off exports of these elements to Japan during a conflict over a fishing boat. And at the height of the U.S.-China trade spat in 2019, Beijing sought to use rare earth exports as a "counter-weapon" against the United States.

And most recently, the Chinese regime officials reportedly explored whether curbing the export of rare earth minerals to the United States could cripple its production of F-35 fighter jets.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-may-boost-rare-earths-mining-to-counter-threat-from-china_3715572.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-03-01-5

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 05, 2021, 11:13:43 PM

And as a reminder, Ontario did not escape. The Liberal `Greenwashing` deception. The $50B `invested` in wind and solar when finally mortgaged out to 2045 will have cost at least $170B. No 50,000 jobs and a tax subsidy of $6B per year keeps the lights on. All going to landfill!

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 06, 2021, 12:18:46 AM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=404292 time=1615004023 user_id=1689~~
And as a reminder, Ontario did not escape. The Liberal `Greenwashing` deception. The $50B `invested` in wind and solar when finally mortgaged out to 2045 will have cost at least $170B. No 50,000 jobs and a tax subsidy of $6B per year keeps the lights on. All going to landfill!

Where are all the green jobs that were promised as companies left Ontario due to high energy prices.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2021, 09:58:30 PM

Cold hard facts — wind power no substitute for fossil fuels.

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-opinion-cold-hard-facts-wind-power-no-substitute-for-fossil-fuels?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&fbclid=IwAR0YMVgnmrW9R75QmiHEXlP77N4roW7xmVqRGzChSJGs8LUvdHhdlTE9z1E#Echobox=1615378241

Although both sides have merit, the defenders of renewables implicitly admit that wind and solar are not reliable.

The hard numbers from the Texas crisis show Canadians that government support for renewables will leave their own grids more susceptible to blackouts.

To recap, the problem in Texas wasn't that the supply of electricity was disrupted below normal levels, but rather that the demand jumped to record-breaking levels (for winter).

And the grid, hampered by the cold, couldn't rise to meet the challenge.

Consider the first day blackouts were implemented (Feb. 15, 2021).

As reported on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website, that day the total electricity delivered was 1,161 gigawatt-hours (GWh), a unit of energy representing one billion watt hours. In contrast, exactly one year earlier (Feb. 15, 2020), the Texas grid only delivered 936 GWhs.

Thus, during the first day of the Texas blackouts, the grid supplied 24% more electricity than it did one year earlier on a more typical winter day. The blackouts occurred because demand jumped even more.

We can also look at individual energy sources.

From Feb. 15, 2020, to Feb. 15, 2021, electricity provided by natural gas-fired plants was up 91% while electricity from wind was down 72%.

On Feb. 15, 2020, wind supplied 28% of the electricity while natural gas provided 43%.

A year later, during the first day of the blackouts, wind only supplied 6% of the electricity while natural gas provided 65%.

In light of these statistics, how can anyone blame natural gas for the blackouts?

Because the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) had contingency plans assuming wind power would be relatively useless during a severe storm and relied on thermal plants (natural gas, coal and nuclear) to pick up the slack.

At the worst point, the extreme cold knocked 30 GWhs of generation capacity from thermal plants offline (the data are not broken down among sources but natural gas is presumably the leader), which is more than double the estimate ERCOT made for an extreme storm scenario.

In contrast, ERCOT already assumed wind wouldn't provide much electricity in an "extreme low wind scenario" so the wind turbines knocked out by the cold weren't the immediate reason ERCOT's planning failed.

Yet this defence of wind power is hardly reassuring.

If we compare the electricity provided during the first day of the blackouts with the "maximum installed capacity," natural gas came in at 46% compared to 10% for wind.

While U.S. government policies — such as the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and the looming possibility of a carbon tax — may have helped encourage the growth of Texas wind capacity at the expense of other sources, they clearly hurt the ability of the grid to supply power during the freeze.

It's true that Canadian wind operators are better prepared for the cold than their Texas counterparts, but wind will always be an intermittent source that relies on non-renewables as backup.

Of course, Canadians want reliable energy during periods of high demand, and the debacle in Texas shows that wind power is no substitute for fossil fuels.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 11, 2021, 11:03:50 AM

What drives some people toward wanting "intermittent" power like those ugly turbines that destroy natural landscapes or ruined / wasted fields of solar panels?

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 11, 2021, 11:13:47 AM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=404825 time=1615478630 user_id=88~~
What makes some people want "intermittent" power like those ugly turbines that destroy natural landscapes or ruined / wasted fields of solar panels?

They only want YOU to have intermittent power. They will have diesel powered generators for their mansions.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 11, 2021, 11:15:55 AM

Good point for the filthy rich, but what I can't wrap my head around is what drives the legions of regular (or no) income lemmings following them

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 11, 2021, 11:22:53 AM

The denier label scares them.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 17, 2021, 09:05:10 PM

Energy is neither renewable nor sustainable. Energy generated for human use cannot be 'green', 'clean', 'renewable' or 'sustainable'. These words are all part of the 'greenwashing' or 'sugar-coating' vocabulary used for the benefit of corporate or political interests, or simply words of misunderstanding. They have no foundation in rigorous scientific language or thought.

Humans increasingly wish to convert solar radiation into different forms of energy such as electricity or fuel, that can do work. This can only be achieved by creating devices or machines to convert one form of energy into another and the resources for those devices come from the Earth's crust. Those devices have a finite life span and depend on yet further infrastructure (transport, cities, factories, universities, police, etc.) to maintain and operate them, which in turn has a finite life span. Continued mining, refining and manufacturing is required.

The amount of energy captured from the sun by such devices can never be enough to restore the Earth to its original condition. This is determined by the second law of thermodynamics. So the process of mining, building and manufacturing, to convert and use energy, inexorably depletes and degrades the Earth's mineral resources. It is irreversible and unsustainable. It makes no difference whether we consider solar, wind, hydro, coal, bio, nuclear or geothermal energy. They are all unsustainable according to the laws of physics.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 17, 2021, 10:09:52 PM

Surprising science — There's no such thing as clean energy

A meticulous new review published in the scientific journal, Energies, conducted by a team of Irish and US-based researchers including CERES researchers, raises surprising and unsettling questions about the feasibility and the environmental impacts of the transition to renewable energy sources. Concern for climate change has driven massive investment in new "green energy" policies intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other environmental impacts from the fossil fuel industry. The world spent US$3,660 billion on climate change projects over the eight-year period 2011–2018. A total of 55% of this sum was spent on solar and wind energy, while only 5% was spent on adapting to the impacts of extreme weather events.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CMEDIUM%20id=%222370%22%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://miro.medium.com/max/2370/1*dGRiGI5ZS5AwHwglDC7VTg.jpeg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://miro.medium.com/max/2370/1*dGRi%20...%20C7VTg.jpeg%22%3Ehttps://miro.medium.com/max/2370/1*dGRiGI5ZS5AwHwglDC7VTg.jpeg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3C/MEDIUM%3E%3Cbr/%3E%3Ce%3E)

Surprising environmental impacts

The researchers discovered that renewable energy sources sometimes contribute to problems they were designed to solve. For example, a series of international studies have found that both wind and solar farms are themselves causing local climate change. Wind farms increase the temperature of the soil beneath them, and this warming causes soil microbes to release more carbon dioxide. So, ironically, while wind energy might be partially reducing human "carbon emissions", it is also increasing the "carbon emissions" from natural sources.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CMEDIUM%20id=%222400%22%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*b8dmmbm7aIzmdWm8XV-qRg.jpeg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*b8dm%20...%20V-qRg.jpeg%22%3Ehttps://miro.medium.com/max/2400/1*b8dmmbm7aIzmdWm8XV-qRg.jpeg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3C/MEDIUM%3E%3Cbr/%3E%3Ce%3E)

Green energy technologies require a 10-fold increase in mineral extraction compared to fossil fuel electricity. Similarly, replacing just 50 million of the world's estimated 1.3 billion cars with electric vehicles would require more than doubling the world's annual production of cobalt, neodymium, and lithium, and using more than half the world's current annual copper production.

Solar and wind farms also need 100 times the land area of fossil fuel-generated electricity, and these resulting changes in land use can have a devastating effect on biodiversity. The effects of bioenergy on biodiversity are worse, and the increased use of crops such as palm oil for biofuels is already contributing to the destruction of rainforests and other natural habitats.

https://medium.com/@ronan_51814

Politicians, crony capitalists and NGO's make very false claims about solar and wind energy.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 17, 2021, 10:19:20 PM

Perplexing financial implications

Surprisingly, more than half (55%) of all global climate expenditure in the years 2011‒2018 was spent on solar and wind energy ‒ a total of US$2,000 billion. Despite this, wind and solar energy still produced only 3% of world energy consumption in the year 2018, while the fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) produced 85% between them. This raises pressing questions about what it would cost to make the transition to 100% renewable energies, as some researchers suggest.

As lead author Coilín ÓhAiseadha says:

"It cost the world $2 trillion to increase the share of energy generated by solar and wind from half a percent to three percent, and it took eight years to do it. What would it cost to increase that to 100%? And how long would it take?"

(//%3C/s%3E%3CMEDIUM%20id=%22700%22%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*tw0BDpTZjPz-uVJgOG8RiQ.jpeg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*tw0BD%20...%20G8RiQ.jpeg%22%3Ehttps://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*tw0BDpTZjPz-uVJgOG8RiQ.jpeg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3C/MEDIUM%3E%3Ce%3E)

Daunting engineering challenges

Engineers have always known that large solar and wind farms are plagued by the so-called "intermittency problem". Unlike conventional electricity generation sources which provide continuous and reliable energy 24/7 on demand, wind and solar farms only produce electricity when there is wind or sunlight.

Dr Ronan Connolly, co-author of the new review, points out:

"The average household expects their fridges and freezers to run continuously and to be able to turn on and off the lights on demand. Wind and solar promoters need to start admitting that they are not capable of providing this type of continuous and on-demand electricity supply on a national scale that modern societies are used to,"

The problem is not easily solved by large-scale battery storage because it would require huge batteries covering many hectares of land. Tesla has built a large battery to stabilize the grid in South Australia. It has a capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh and covers a hectare of land. One of the papers reviewed in this new study estimated that, if the state of Alberta, Canada, were to switch from coal to renewable energy, using natural gas and battery storage as back-up, it would require 100 of these large batteries to meet peak demand.

Some researchers have suggested that the variations in energy production can be evened out by building continental electricity transmission networks, e.g., a network connecting wind farms in north-west Europe with solar farms in the south-east, but this requires massive investment. It is likely to create bottlenecks where the capacity of inter-connections is insufficient, and does not do away with the underlying vulnerability to lulls in sun and wind that can last for days on end.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 17, 2021, 10:21:56 PM

Hurting the poorest

A series of studies from Europe, the U.S. and China shows that carbon taxes tend to lay the greatest burden on the poorest households and rural-dwellers.

Although the primary motivation for green energy policies is concern over climate change, only 5% of climate expenditure has been dedicated to climate adaptation. Climate adaptation includes helping developing countries to better respond to extreme weather events such as hurricanes. The need to build climate adaptation infrastructure and emergency response systems may conflict with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because fossil fuels are generally the most readily available source of cheap energy for development.

With regards to indigenous peoples, the review highlights the fact that all energy technologies can have severe impacts on local communities, particularly if they are not properly consulted. Cobalt mining, required to make batteries for e-vehicles, has severe impacts on the health of women and children in mining communities, where the mining is often done in unregulated, small-scale, "artisanal" mines. Lithium extraction, also required for manufacturing batteries for e-vehicles, requires large quantities of water, and can cause pollution and shortages of fresh water for local communities.

As lead author, Coilín ÓhAiseadha, points out:

"There was worldwide coverage of the conflict between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Dakota Access Pipeline, but what about the impacts of cobalt mining on indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and what about the impacts of lithium extraction on the peoples of the Atacama Desert? Remember the slogan they chanted at Standing Rock? Mni Wiconi! Water is life! Well, that applies whether you're Standing Rock Sioux worried about an oil spill polluting the river, or you're in the Atacama Desert worried about lithium mining polluting your groundwater."

Overview of the paper

The review, published in a Special Issue of the journal Energies on 16 September, covers 39 pages, with 14 full-color figures and two tables, detailing the breakdown of climate change expenditure and the pros and cons of all of the various options: wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels, bioenergy, tidal and geothermal. For the review, the researchers searched meticulously through hundreds of research papers published throughout the whole of the English-speaking world, in a wide range of fields, including engineering, environment, energy and climate policy. The final report includes references to 255 research papers covering all of these fields, and it concludes with a table summarizing the pros and cons of all of the various energy technologies. Research team members were based in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the United States.

The review was published as an open-access peer-review paper and can be downloaded for free from the following URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4839 .

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 17, 2021, 10:58:34 PM

~~Quote~~replacing just 50 million of the world's estimated 1.3 billion cars with electric vehicles would require more than doubling the world's annual production of cobalt, neodymium, and lithium, and using more than half the world's current annual copper production.

Solar and wind farms also need 100 times the land area of fossil fuel-generated electricity, and these resulting changes in land use can have a devastating effect on biodiversity. The effects of bioenergy on biodiversity are worse, and the increased use of crops such as palm oil for biofuels is already contributing to the destruction of rainforests and other natural habitats.

Wind and solar suck up more finite resources than fossil fuels.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 18, 2021, 09:12:45 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/162032691_10158672595710995_5191437582997834945_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=qPs0nNoue2kAX-RCqOe&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=3864b22fabdcf3884764fe2a780d24cf&oe=60799968%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=60799968%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/162032691_10158672595710995_5191437582997834945_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=qPs0nNoue2kAX-RCqOe&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=3864b22fabdcf3884764fe2a780d24cf&oe=60799968%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2021, 10:48:28 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/162126308_616387845965947_9136830414803467547_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=A-dM_vKHhUsAX_2fsSJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=aa6ec065be5823cb731b0f3818a47b33&oe=607C6214%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=607C6214%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/162126308_616387845965947_9136830414803467547_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=A-dM_vKHhUsAX_2fsSJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=aa6ec065be5823cb731b0f3818a47b33&oe=607C6214%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 22, 2021, 08:40:50 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyyc3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/159208179_2824131021140489_3153877368808889194_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=EBpCUL1UpeIAX_wbaJd&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc3-1.fna&oh=91c4913731bf82f42c2ed2414738b1bc&oe=6080862D%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyyc3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=6080862D%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyyc3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/159208179_2824131021140489_3153877368808889194_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=EBpCUL1UpeIAX_wbaJd&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc3-1.fna&oh=91c4913731bf82f42c2ed2414738b1bc&oe=6080862D%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 02, 2021, 02:36:18 PM

We keep throwin good money after bad. We keep holding back real energy sources to create an artificial demand for diffuse energy sources that don't work, provide no jobs and require importing wind and solar panels to use land we can't spare.

Green program a 'market failure'

Federal auditors are calling the Renewable Energy Deployment Program a "market failure."

An internal report at the Department of Natural Resources that looked into the program from 2002-19 said that few green energy projects — like solar, wind and geothermal projects — can survive financially without subsidies, according to Blacklock's Reporter.

"The program clearly addresses a market failure," said the report, which added that "most projects would not have been financially viable" without aid from a program already costing $1.4 billion.

The program paid subsidies of a cent per kilowatt hour for greenenergy projects.

"None of the projects generated sufficient market revenues to be profitable without the Renewable Energy Deployment funding," the audit found. "The majority of the supported projects generated sufficient revenues to attain small surpluses with which they could pay off some of their capital costs."

The green-energy projects also qualified for provincial subsidies.

The auditors also said renewable energy, such as solar power, was unreliable in some harsh Canadian conditions.

"The energy outputs of the projects were in many cases different than what was anticipated," said the report.

"In most projects, natural conditions — such as (the intensity) of wind, solar and water sources — were different than anticipated, in some cases higher, others lower."

Hydroelectric dams accounted for most of Canada's electricity production — 60% — while nuclear plants in Ontario and New Brunswick contributed 15% of the nation's total.

Wind farms generated 5% and solar power accounted for only 0.6% of Canada's power production.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 04, 2021, 08:56:00 PM

I want to see this.

How Canadian filmmaker and environmentalist Julia Barnes decided to take on renewable energy with Bright Green Lies

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/adv/article-how-canadian-filmmaker-and-environmentalist-julia-barnes-decided-to/?fbclid=IwAR1c8lbkSuWbSUG8IXUup9wZM-iYrhGFQ-KuvUHO-1SENt3QvwO33LlBnK0

Renewable energy sources like wind and solar have long been seen as the key to reversing climate change. But a new documentary from Toronto-based environmentalist and filmmaker Julia Barnes challenges that notion. In Bright Green Lies, Barnes' second film based on a forthcoming book of the same name, the award-winning filmmaker highlights the environmental costs that come with building out renewable infrastructure – from the harms of mining for metals to create batteries and wind turbines to the adverse impact of dams on waterways and wildlife. The film argues the need for a radical reduction in how we consume energy, calling on Canadians to rethink how our society functions.

Here, Barnes talks about the process of making the film and the challenges her team faced.

What do you want the average viewer, or the average environmentalist, to take away from this film?

We need to understand that there is no green form of industrial energy production. We need to stop solving for the wrong variable and stop taking this high energy way of living as a given.

What was your most shocking discovery while making the film?

JB: The most surprising thing was finding out what the "green" tech industry's impact could be on the ocean. There are plans to mine the deep sea for materials that are used in batteries for electric cars and grid energy storage for solar and wind. The ocean could become a sacrifice zone in the name of consumption, including for green technology. We've got to wake up and realize there's nothing green about destroying the world.

Bright Green Lies will premiere virtually on April 22, Earth Day. The premiere will include a Q&A session with Barnes and the three authors of the book Bright Green Lies, Max Wilbert, Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith. Visit brightgreenlies.com to get tickets.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 05, 2021, 06:15:22 PM

Making concrete produces a lot of C02.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/169041199_10222661588901278_4726813754260368029_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=3GeTuDAk9NkAX_syZwH&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=1e169b2daacb735f85fef64f35e2d3cf&oe=60918E2C%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=60918E2C%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/169041199_10222661588901278_4726813754260368029_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=3GeTuDAk9NkAX_syZwH&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=1e169b2daacb735f85fef64f35e2d3cf&oe=60918E2C%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 08, 2021, 10:14:40 PM

"Green Energy"

Wind Turbine in Mahanoy, PA today 3/13/2021

~~[media]~~https://www.facebook.com/richard.major1/videos/10110297277215878[/media]

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2021, 02:50:01 AM

Solar and wind cannot produce cheap, reliable energy.

How Germany embraced solar and wind and ended up in energy poverty

Let's take a look at this in practice. Germany is considered by some to be the best success story in the world of effective solar and wind use, and you'll often hear that they get a large percentage of their energy from solar and wind.

You can see here on this chart how this claim was made and why it's not accurate.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://info.industrialprogress.com/hs-fs/hubfs/email5.jpg?width=1070&upscale=true&name=email5.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://info.industrialprogress.com/hs-%20...%20email5.jpg%22%3Ehttps://info.industrialprogress.com/hs-fs/hubfs/email5.jpg?width=1070&upscale=true&name=email5.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

First of all, this is just a chart of electricity. Solar and wind are only producing electricity and half of Germany's energy needs also include fuel and heating. So solar and wind never contribute half as much to Germany's energy needs as this chart would imply.

But that's not the biggest problem. What you notice here is that there's certain days and times where there are large spikes, but there are also periods where there's relatively little. What that means is that you can't rely on solar and wind ever. You always have to have an infrastructure that can produce all of your electricity independent of the solar and wind because you can always go a long period with very little solar and wind.

So then why are the solar and wind necessary? Well, you could argue that they're not and that adding them onto the grid will impose a lot of costs.

In Germany, electricity prices have more than doubled since 2000 when solar and wind started receiving massive subsidies and favorable regulations, and their electricity prices are three to four times what we would pay in the U.S. (Because of its low reliability, solar, and wind energy options require an alternative backup—one that's cheap, plentiful, and reliable—to make it work, thus creating a more expensive and inefficient process.)

Nuclear and hydro

Fossil fuels are not the only reliable sources. There are two others that don't generate CO2 that are significant and are more limited, but still significant contributors. Those are hydroelectric energy and nuclear energy.

Hydroelectric energy can be quite affordable over time, but it's limited to locations where you have the right physical situation to produce hydroelectric power.

energyclarity2.1

Nuclear is more interesting because nuclear doesn't have the problems of hydro but it's been very restricted throughout history so today in the vast majority of cases it's considerably more expensive than say electricity from natural gas. This may change in the future and one thing we'll discuss under policy is how we need to have the right policies so that all energy technologies can grow and flourish, if indeed the creators of those technologies can do it.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on May 21, 2021, 03:37:33 AM

They need to move towards smaller and more fortified nuclear builds for say a town, village, or city in order to mitigate the severity of accidents.

The tech is out there for it but it's not as profitable.

I love solar for remote locations... but it's not worth doing beyond a household or business. A 150-250 watt solar panel with a regulator and 120-130 AGM battery is adequate enough to keep a 40-60 litre fridge going 24/7, plenty of LED lighting, and charge accessories... in a reasonably sunny environment.

...but people love their air con, microwaves, big washers, and the rest.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2021, 06:19:56 AM

SMR's. Small modular reactors.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2021, 07:47:20 AM

Solar is fine for small scale.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on May 21, 2021, 12:56:35 PM

~~Quote from: Fashionista post_id=411558 time=1621597640 user_id=3254~~
Solar is fine for small scale.

Definitely so for remote areas with no power .. or for end of the line remote areas who are always last on the list for repair when things go wrong on the main grid

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2021, 02:39:17 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=411567 time=1621616195 user_id=88~~
~~Quote from: Fashionista post_id=411558 time=1621597640 user_id=3254~~
Solar is fine for small scale.

Definitely so for remote areas with no power .. or for end of the line remote areas who are always last on the list for repair when things go wrong on the main grid

Exactly cc.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on June 10, 2021, 04:03:30 PM

The ESG divestment movement poses as a long-range, financially savvy, and moral movement. In reality it is a short-range, financially ruinous, and deeply immoral movement that perpetuates poverty in the poorest places and threatens the security of the free world.

Over the last 5-10 years, "ESG"--standing for Environmental Social Governance--has gone from an acronym that virtually no one knew or cared about, to a cultishly-embraced top priority of financial regulators, markets, and institutions around the world.

The preposterous financial pretense of "ESG investing" is that the promoters of it have so accurately identified universal norms of long-term value creation--Environmental norms, Social norms, and Governance norms--that imposing those norms on every company is justified.

In reality, ESG was a movement cooked up at the UN--not exactly a leading expert in profitable investment--to impose moral and political agendas, largely left-wing ones, on institutions that would not adopt them if left to their own devices.

The number one practical meaning of ESG today is: divest from fossil fuels in every way possible, and associate yourself with "renewable" solar and wind in every way possible. That's why I call it the "ESG divestment movement."

Modern ESG's obsession with unreliable "renewable" solar and wind, reflects its political nature. Any serious concern about CO2 emissions means embracing the only proven, reliable, globally scalable source of non-carbon energy: nuclear. But most ESG does not embrace nuclear.

Divesting from fossil fuels is immoral because:

1. The world needs much more energy.

2. Fossil fuels are the only way to provide most of that energy for the foreseeable future.

3. Any problems associated with CO2 pale in comparison to problems of energy deprivation.

Since the oil and gas industry began in the second half of the 19th century, global life expectancy has doubled, extreme poverty has plummeted, and human liberty has grown tremendously. The timing here is no coincidence.

Unfortunately, many people still lack access to life-enhancing modern energy, which presents the most pressing global energy challenge.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2021, 09:46:38 PM

Solar is the most polluting source of energy.

Dark Side To Solar? More Reports Tie Panel Production To Toxic Pollution

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/?sh=25fe2a575fe5

A major new study of the economics of solar, published in Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds that the waste produced by solar panels will make electricity from solar panels four times more expensive than the world's leading energy analysts thought. "The economics of solar," write Atalay Atasu and Luk N. Van Wassenhove of Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires, one of Europe's leading business schools, and Serasu Duranof the University of Calgary, will "darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash."

Conventional wisdom today holds that the world will quadruple the number of solar panels in the world over the next decade. "And that's not even taking into consideration the further impact of possible new regulations and incentives launched by the green-friendly Biden administration," Atasu, Wassenhove, and Duran write in HBR.

But the volume of solar panel waste will destroy the economics of solar even with the subsidies, they say. "By 2035," write the three economists, "discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection."

The solar industry, and even supposedly neutral energy agencies, grossly underestimated how much waste solar panels would produce. The HBR authors, all of whom are business school professors, looked at the economics from the point of view of the customer, and past trends, and calculated that customers would replace panels far sooner than every 30 years, as the industry assumes.

"If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model," they write, solar panels "can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than [International Renewable Energy Agency] IRENA anticipates."

The HBR authors found that the price of panels, the amount solar panel owners are paid by the local electric company, and sunlight-to-electricity efficiency determined how quickly people replaced their panels.

"Alarming as they are," they write, "these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger."

What about recycling? It's not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. "While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material," they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.

The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.

"The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness," conclude the HBR authors. "If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL's estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031."

It's not just solar. "The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies," they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled – a lag that automakers are racing to rectify as sales figures for electric cars continue to rise as much as 40% year-on-year."

But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc."

Beyond the shocking nature of the finding itself is what it says about the integrity and credibility of IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency. It is an intergovernmental organization like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, funded by taxpayers from the developed nations of Europe, North America, and Asia, and expected to provide objective information. Instead, it employed unrealistic assumptions to produce results more supportive of solar panels.

IRENA acted like an industry association rather than as a public interest one. IRENA, noted the HBR reporters, "describes a billion-dollar opportunity for recapture of valuable materials rather than a dire threat." IRENA almost certainly knew better. For decades, consumers in Germany, California, Japan and other major member nations of IRENA, have been replacing solar panels just 10 or 15 years old. But IRENA hadn't even modeled solar panel replacements in those time frames.

IRENA wasn't the only organization that put out rose-tinted forecasts to greenwash solar. For years, the solar industry and its spokespersons have claimed that panels only "degrade" — reduce how much electricity they produce — at a rate of 0.5% per year.

But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. "One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year," noted an industry reporter. The "majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box."

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2021, 09:54:21 PM

From the same article.

But solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their "fuel," sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.

Even as the cost of solar panels has come down, the cost of producing reliable grid electricity with solar panels has risen, due to their weather-dependent nature, something that became evident in 2018, was recognized by University of Chicago economists in 2019, and was further supported by spiraling costs in renewables-heavy Germany and California in 2020.

The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California's blackouts last summer. It's now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar's costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.

And none of this even addresses the biggest threat facing solar power today, which are revelations that perhaps both key raw materials and the panels themselves are being made by forced labor in Xinjiang province in China.

The subsidies that China gave solar panel makers had a purpose beyond bankrupting solar companies in the U.S. and Europe. The subsidies also enticed solar panel makers to participate in the repression of the Uyghur Muslim population, including using tactics that the US and German governments have called "genocide."

Today, many companies, including Facebook, Google GOOG +0.4%, and Microsoft MSFT +1.1%, buy immense quantities of solar panels with no awareness of their impact. "I tried to bring up this issue [of solar waste] when I worked at Microsoft," said a former employee. "I was told 'That's not the problem we're trying to solve.'"

The Guardian reporter claimed, "it's valid to note that end-of-life solar panel recycling and disposal is an issue that we'll have to address smartly, but unlike climate change, it's not a big or urgent concern," but the Harvard Business Review study shows that this was never the case.

The idea that humankind should turn our gaze away from urgent problems like genocide, toxic waste, and land use impacts because they complicate longer-term concerns is precisely the kind of unsustainable thinking that allowed the world to become dependent on toxic solar genocide panels in the first place.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on June 23, 2021, 06:31:13 PM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=414033 time=1624412798 user_id=1689~~
Solar is the most polluting source of energy.

Dark Side To Solar? More Reports Tie Panel Production To Toxic Pollution

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/?sh=25fe2a575fe5

A major new study of the economics of solar, published in Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds that the waste produced by solar panels will make electricity from solar panels four times more expensive than the world's leading energy analysts thought. "The economics of solar," write Atalay Atasu and Luk N. Van Wassenhove of Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires, one of Europe's leading business schools, and Serasu Duranof the University of Calgary, will "darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash."

Conventional wisdom today holds that the world will quadruple the number of solar panels in the world over the next decade. "And that's not even taking into consideration the further impact of possible new regulations and incentives launched by the green-friendly Biden administration," Atasu, Wassenhove, and Duran write in HBR.

But the volume of solar panel waste will destroy the economics of solar even with the subsidies, they say. "By 2035," write the three economists, "discarded panels would outweigh new units sold by 2.56 times. In turn, this would catapult the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, a measure of the overall cost of an energy-producing asset over its lifetime) to four times the current projection."

The solar industry, and even supposedly neutral energy agencies, grossly underestimated how much waste solar panels would produce. The HBR authors, all of whom are business school professors, looked at the economics from the point of view of the customer, and past trends, and calculated that customers would replace panels far sooner than every 30 years, as the industry assumes.

"If early replacements occur as predicted by our statistical model," they write, solar panels "can produce 50 times more waste in just four years than [International Renewable Energy Agency] IRENA anticipates."

The HBR authors found that the price of panels, the amount solar panel owners are paid by the local electric company, and sunlight-to-electricity efficiency determined how quickly people replaced their panels.

"Alarming as they are," they write, "these stats may not do full justice to the crisis, as our analysis is restricted to residential installations. With commercial and industrial panels added to the picture, the scale of replacements could be much, much larger."

What about recycling? It's not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. "While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material," they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.

The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.

"The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness," conclude the HBR authors. "If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL's estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031."

It's not just solar. "The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies," they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled – a lag that automakers are racing to rectify as sales figures for electric cars continue to rise as much as 40% year-on-year."

But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc."

Beyond the shocking nature of the finding itself is what it says about the integrity and credibility of IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency. It is an intergovernmental organization like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, funded by taxpayers from the developed nations of Europe, North America, and Asia, and expected to provide objective information. Instead, it employed unrealistic assumptions to produce results more supportive of solar panels.

IRENA acted like an industry association rather than as a public interest one. IRENA, noted the HBR reporters, "describes a billion-dollar opportunity for recapture of valuable materials rather than a dire threat." IRENA almost certainly knew better. For decades, consumers in Germany, California, Japan and other major member nations of IRENA, have been replacing solar panels just 10 or 15 years old. But IRENA hadn't even modeled solar panel replacements in those time frames.

IRENA wasn't the only organization that put out rose-tinted forecasts to greenwash solar. For years, the solar industry and its spokespersons have claimed that panels only "degrade" — reduce how much electricity they produce — at a rate of 0.5% per year.

But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. "One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year," noted an industry reporter. The "majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box."

Wind and solar are not renewable/sustainable, environmentally friendly, and they cannot compete with abundant diffuse energy sources like gas/hydro/nuclear without massive taxpayer cash grabs.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on July 16, 2021, 01:37:21 AM

https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1414989251117076481

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on July 16, 2021, 03:15:52 PM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=415921 time=1626413841 user_id=1689~~
https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1414989251117076481

Alex Epstein provides a teasure trove of inconvenient facts about energy.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on July 19, 2021, 08:01:29 PM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=415921 time=1626413841 user_id=1689~~
https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1414989251117076481

All the information the media and governments give us about wind and solar is positive....it's as if it's perfect.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2021, 05:58:58 PM

I remember Jack Mintz did an indepth look at whether Canada routinely suibsidizes fossil fuel production. He could find no evidence to support such claims.

There is no fossil-fuel subsidy pot of gold

Much of the assumed fossil fuel subsidies anti-oil activists claim exist are either not there, or take the form of consumer subsidies that don't exist in Canada

Some supporters of renewable energy argue that taking supposedly massive current subsidies to oil and gas and switching them over to renewables will help make renewables cost-effective for legions of new consumers. Is that true?

Professor Emeritus Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba, that belief is mistaken. As Smil noted in 2018, ignoring energy density by moving to all-renewable sources of energy could require countries to "devote 100 or even 1000 times more land area to energy production than today... [which] could have enormous negative impacts on agriculture, biodiversity, and environmental quality."

Second, in many cases estimates of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry worldwide depend on dubious assumptions. In 2011, economists Kenneth McKenzie and Jack Mintz noted that measuring fossil fuel subsidies was a "tricky art." They spotted numerous methodological errors in existing measures, including inappropriately adding up individual tax expenditures and royalty relief items without accounting for critical interactions between taxes and royalties — a mistake akin to arguing that people's behaviour would not change if the top marginal rate of personal income tax rose from 25 to 75 per cent.

Another example: In 2017, University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick found numerous problems with the International Monetary Fund's estimate that US$5.6 trillion was being spent subsidizing energy worldwide. In addition to not taking account of the behavioural effects of changes in tax expenditures, the estimate counted non-tolled roads as a subsidy, among other errors. As McKitrick argued, it "clouds the subsidy discussion if we arbitrarily select one type of public good and call it a subsidy without applying the same reasoning to all other public goods."

Even with subsidy estimates that may be closer to reality, the have-your-subsidized-renewable-cake-and-fewer-fossil-fuel subsidies-too scenario runs into the political problem of who currently benefits from subsidies. For example, the OECD's estimate of $178.2 billion in oil and gas subsidies in 2019 judges that $34.2 billion or 19 per cent went to producers, while another $18.3 billion, or 10 per cent, went to fossil fuel development without directly benefiting individual producers.

But by far the largest share — fully $125.5 billion or 70 per cent — went to consumers. That's usually in the form of below-market prices for gasoline in countries such as Venezuela and Iran, where per litre prices were recently about 25 cents and 75 cents (Canadian) respectively.

Large consumer subsidies of this sort mostly do not exist in Canada. Our subsidies are usually either one-offs, such as when the federal government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline, or tax concessions for innovation, research and development, often on environmental problems.

That suggests countless billions of dollars will not flow seamlessly and painlessly to the renewables sector from the oil and gas sector, because much of the assumed fossil fuel subsidies that anti-oil activists claim exist are either not there, or take the form of consumer subsidies that lower gasoline prices in countries such as Iran and Venezuela, but not in Canada.

There is no "pot of gold" — whether black gold or regular gold — from which to divert future trillions of dollars to green/renewable subsidies. Subsidies to these energy forms will have to be paid for with taxes or additional government debt.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-there-is-no-fossil-fuel-subsidy-pot-of-gold?fbclid=IwAR0je9fhfXlMnedMQELtxzwK5hx-AfMWHy3xXnnfh7tp_xyoLfdVoYCXLoM

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2021, 10:34:02 PM

https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1417886497475203073?s=20

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on August 08, 2021, 08:41:27 PM

GUNTER: The not-so-green results coming out of green alternatives (//https)

I call it magic wand thinking; the idea that all a government has to do to replace fossil fuels with "green" alternatives is wave a magic wand (and a few trillion dollars) and – presto! – the world will have a low-carbon future.

Whatever one thinks of the climate change/global warming theory (and I don't think much of it), the practical problem of converting developing countries to low-carbon (or net-zero) economies is far more daunting than eco-obsessed politicians such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will admit, even to themselves.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Justin-dim-bulb.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/upl%20...%20m-bulb.jpg%22%3Ehttps://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Justin-dim-bulb.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

For the most part, the technology doesn't yet exist to keep the lights on, the heat heating, and goods and people moving using mostly "green" energy. It's a matter of engineering, not of too few subsidies.

There are huge reliability problems with wind, solar and biofuels that simply will not go away anytime soon.

For instance, electric vehicles just won't go very far in a cold Canadian winter. It's not possible to replace a diesel pickup with an e-vehicle if you have to drive 300 kilometres to a pumping station in the northern bush in the middle of January.

Nor, in a country as large as Canada, are most people who are driving to distant relatives' willing to stop every 300 kms for an hour or more to charge their car's battery.

During particularly snowy winters, rooftop solar panels can become covered, reducing their output. How do you heat your home then? Hook up a preachy bicycle commuter to a pedal-power generator in your basement?

Whether or not you believe recent droughts, wildfires and heatwaves are signs of a dangerously changing climate or merely natural variations in weather, this was a bad week for the notion that going "green" is easy.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal reported on a study by Fengqi You, a professor of energy systems engineering at Cornell University, that shows the production of solar panels consumes huge amounts of electricity.

And since most panels installed in North America and western Europe are made in China, and since China uses the dirtiest coal to generate most of its power (and is building at least seven new coal-fired power plants a year), the solar panels that environmentalists insist are so vital to ending the climate "crisis" actually generate more emissions over their lifecycle than simply powering our homes using natural gas or other fossil fuels.

It reminds me of a study last year showing that mining and manufacturing wind turbines and the concrete bases that anchor them make wind power as emissions-intensive as fossil fuels.

(Don't forget, either, that most materials in Chinese solar panels are produced by Uyghurs in western China who are forced to choose between working in mines or processing plants or being sent to re-education camps.)

[And none of the above includes the utter folly of becoming dependent on undependable winds and sun]

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on August 08, 2021, 10:08:39 PM

I read about Canadians want their federal government to take action on climate change..

They probably don't understand that action means other countries producing energy instead of us.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on August 09, 2021, 04:37:48 AM

Trudeau's plan to "fight climate change" is to make Canadians poorer. The making Canadians poor part is working. The climate needle hasn't budged.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on August 09, 2021, 10:38:42 AM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=417662 time=1628498268 user_id=56~~
Trudeau's plan to "fight climate change" is to make Canadians poorer. The making Canadians poor part is working. The climate needle hasn't budged.

And with the misguided efforts he is using and abusing, it never will

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on August 09, 2021, 10:51:05 AM

What do you care... really... or why should you. He consistently pursues a depopulation measure.... lulz

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on August 09, 2021, 11:01:20 AM

:confused1:

The reply was to "The climate needle hasn't budged" .. to which I care a lot Period

I alone will determine what I care about and I ask for no assistance

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on August 09, 2021, 11:17:11 AM

False narrative though...

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on August 09, 2021, 04:06:19 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=417662 time=1628498268 user_id=56~~
Trudeau's plan to "fight climate change" is to make Canadians poorer. The making Canadians poor part is working. The climate needle hasn't budged.

Trudeau's climate goals are the height of insanity. They are also treasonous.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on September 16, 2021, 12:20:18 AM

In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105?mc_cid=4ca9f7e579&mc_eid=1986a05a04&fbclid=IwAR3teiX65m4S33AiHdbIS84i-Jc9QpECcrZHJfPs5TCjUED_e17msgoA6cE

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on September 28, 2021, 11:02:42 PM

Natural gas is where it's at.

https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/09/wind-and-solar-power-cant-drive-down-global-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3DGhBBPcKU8VEZn-RsiS7_neLnCE-OYrNjRnqRnswsQdhmEbFT52EUrdY

A study last year by the Manhattan Institute, an independent New York-based think-tank, found that replacing the energy output of a single 100-megawatt natural gas-fuelled power plant requires a minimum of twenty 170-metre-tall windmills, together occupying 10 square miles (25.9 square kilometres) of land. Building that wind farm requires 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete and 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics (mainly for the mammoth blades).

Moreover, the wind farm can only replace the natural gas plant's power when the wind is blowing sufficiently. Making the wind farm's power output reliable would require the storage capacity of 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries. Mining the minerals to produce those batteries would consume huge amounts of fossil fuel to power the heavy equipment, not to mention imposing severe environmental and social impacts. By comparison, building that natural gas-fuelled power plant requires less than 10 per cent of the raw materials required for the wind farm and, once built, it occupies just a few acres of land – about 1/1,000th the land area of the wind farm. And it saves large numbers of eagles and other birds from being killed by windmill blades.

What about solar panels? The Manhattan Institute report includes U.S. Department of Energy data showing that the material requirements to produce a given amount of solar energy are some 60 per cent higher even than for wind turbines. And, to make them reliable sources of power 24-hours-a-day, solar farms would also need all those storage batteries. In reality, because mass battery storage is unachievable in practical or economic terms, wind and solar facilities all need to be backed up by a reliable power source that can kick in when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. In North America, that source is almost always natural gas. So we need more natural gas even as we frantically build wind and solar farms!

Demand for crude oil in non-OECD countries will increase from 51.7 to 58.3 million barrels per day over the next five years. Shifting as much as possible of that increasing energy consumption to natural gas is the only realistic way of arresting CO2 emissions growth in those countries.

Tweet

Clearly, building wind and solar farms that could replace the 84 per cent of global energy currently supplied by fossil fuels is technically impossible and would be very damaging to the environment. Moreover, the colossal costs of trying to do so would drive electricity prices to what, for most people, would be ruinous levels.

There is still another compelling reason why wind and solar are not the answer to reducing global emissions. Just 1.3 billion of the Earth's 7.9 billion inhabitants live in advanced economies where those costly investments might even be possible. Most of the other 6.6 billion are striving to lift themselves out of poverty, largely by increasing their access to fossil fuels. That's why almost all of the current increase in oil and coal demand is occurring in non-OECD countries.

For example, the International Energy Agency in this report estimates that crude oil demand in OECD countries will increase by just 1.5 million barrels per day over the next five years, while demand in non-OECD countries will increase from 51.7 to 58.3 million barrels per day. Shifting as much as possible of that increasing energy consumption to natural gas is the only realistic way of arresting CO2 emissions growth in those countries.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on October 01, 2021, 12:37:17 AM

Reliance on renewable energy, mainly wind, has left the country heavily dependent on imported natural gas for electricity when the wind doesn't blow. UK natural gas prices have risen more than fivefold over the year to €73.10 a MWh, equivalent to $84.83.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on October 01, 2021, 12:47:30 AM

There aint going to be a jobs boom building powerlines carrying power created from wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Sorry folks, Jim Crow Joe lied to you.

Wind and solar folly in detail

https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/29/wind-and-solar-folly-in-detail/?fbclid=IwAR0km52QSJVuxdFrsITY5f-FnDtsNfV42jidNhI0IY9KKtZf0Foncvds5yE

The Lower 48 states of the US cover four time zones. The sun sets in California about 3 hours after the sun sets in New York. One must wonder if the folks running the government in Washington DC are aware of this. President Joe Biden's plan for a climate-friendly electric grid depends on his administration's ability to construct thousands of miles of power lines to bring energy from the wind and the sun across the nation.

This is intended to meet the democrat's goal of eliminating the power sector's carbon dioxide emissions. Their purpose is to save the world from predictions made by mathematical equations saying the Earth might warm a few degrees ending life as we know it.

New transmission lines will be required to carry wind and solar power across the country to replace electricity previously supplied from coal and natural gas. As the sun sets in New York and their wind calms, California may be able to keep Manhattan's lights on for a few more hours before all goes dark. There are however other major problems.

Eric Wolfe writing at politico.com [1] pointed out the tremendous local opposition encountered constantly to high-voltage transmission lines. Efforts by power companies to build these long-range transmission lines have failed repeatedly in recent decades. They become mired in legal and political fights from the opposition of states and communities along the projects' paths.

In fact, Wolf's article failed to point out that all sources of energy and all means of transmission/transportation of energy are regularly opposed by people who call themselves environmentalists. It would appear they yearn for life in mid nineteenth century when heating was with wood, air conditioning non existent and transportation was by horse.

Nuclear energy has long been stifled by opposition based on unsubstantiated fear and there is a war against all fossil fuels because of global warming said to stem from the odorless, colorless, life-giving gas CO2.

Let me remind all readers, we are not just talking fuel for Transportation but the capacity to create Electricity, Cook our food, Heat and cool our homes, Manufacture everything, fertilize Agriculture, create most Products and provide Sanitation. Mark Mathis at Clear Energy alliance.com is campaigning to end the use of the term fossil fuel and replace it with the acronym TECHMAPS which holds the initials of each of the most important things for which we use petroleum products.

Industrial wind machines are opposed by neighbors on the grounds of deep vibrating sound, shadow flicker, and ugliness. Solar panels that spread out over huge tracts of land render the land unsuitable for farming.

To make hydropower useful, you have to have a large flow of water, a big change in elevation, and a huge lake to store the water. The lake floods huge areas, much to the consternation of environmentalists. To grow energy crops, such as corn for ethanol, requires water, fertilizer, and pesticides, all annoying to the average environmentalists.

We all know that pipelines for carrying oil or natural gas meet opposition wherever they are proposed. The most notable one is the Keystone pipeline, which after years of struggle has been canceled by the brain trust in Washington. Yet railroad tank cars and tanker trucks which are far more dangerous than pipelines, also regularly meet opposition.

Transmitting electricity from place to place requires cables. The greater the distance the power must be transmitted, the higher the transmission voltage has to be. The more the sources are spread out, the greater becomes the web of transmission lines, and the greater the number of lawsuits brought by environmentalists.

Environmentalist nannies tell us to turn down the thermostat, eat raw vegetables, stop eating food that came from distant places, drive less, take the stairs instead of the elevator, and so forth.

In other words, the battle against power lines is just another skirmish in the larger war against energy production, transport and use. It is a fair bet that 80% of the environmental road blockers are democrats but don't expect them to back down for President Biden's master plan for using only wind and sun to run our country.

The hypothetical wind/solar grid (ignore its impossibility) that is being promoted is not—repeat, not—a source of electricity. Like any utility's grid, "the grid" merely delivers electricity from where it is generated to where it is used by virtue of transmission lines. Some might require a million volts of direct current (dc),for noon solar power to be delivered from Arizona to New York, Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta.

The real problem, however, is that even on this

grid, every source of energy must be able to provide power all the time, because the requirement for every grid is 99.9% reliability. When the current on the grid is lowered a tiny amount automatic circuit breakers shut down throughout the system and in a very few minutes the entire system shuts down to save itself. Catastrophic destruction occurs throughout the system and weeks are required to put the grid back in operation. February in

Texas this year escaped that situation only by about 5 minutes as they cut off power to enough companies and locations to get back in balance.

Regardless of these incontrovertible facts, Wolff quoted from Biden's recent address to Congress:

"My American Jobs Plan will put hundreds of thousands of people to work — hundred [sic] of thousands of people to work — line workers, electricians, and laborers — laying thousands of miles of transmission line; building a modern, resilient, and fully clean grid," he said.

Ideally, the utilities and the grid would have very few employees, because everybody on the payroll costs consumers money. The purpose of utilities is to provide the highest quality, most reliable electricity at the lowest cost, not to have the most employees. Providing electrical power is a service, not a make-work project.

And what, precisely, is unclean about the present grid? We can hardly wait to see the "modern" wires.

Even a bigger problem is that building long transmission lines has always been hampered by what developers call the "three P's": planning, permitting, and paying for it. "These long-haul transmission lines take eight to 10 years to build," said Lauren Azar, a transmission expert and former DOE adviser and Wisconsin state commissioner. "And we as a nation don't even have the right planning processes right now to identify the right transmission that is needed." Simply put, while you will continue to see large groups of wind turbines and solar collectors proliferate across our nation on your tax dollar, they will never make up a significant portion of our nations energy utilization no matter who is in the Whitehouse.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on October 03, 2021, 08:21:17 PM

What have we got to show for green crony capitalism? Massive inflation and a critical shortage of energy. Good going greentards.

https://rclutz.com/2021/10/02/beware-the-green-bubble-popping/?fbclid=IwAR1FlxE4cpDxHnMOVCZCRhcaapetFePyKq_gqC3QvO_GFXZm3BN1-IpPbqE

Prices for all energy commodities jumped during the past month, some by record margins, as a global energy shortage set off a scramble for gas, coal and oil. Brent crude has doubled in the past year, Newcastle coal has quadrupled, and Netherlands natural has risen seven-fold. There are many small reasons for the global energy squeeze, and one big one:

Investment in hydrocarbons has collapsed under pressure from the Green agenda adopted by international consensus.

Energy investment in the United States has dwindled as large institutional investors boycott fossil fuel investments.

The political pressure of the Green agenda has virtually wiped out investment in the US oil and gas industry. Capital expenditures for US exploration and development companies during 2021 (and projected for 2022) are only a fifth of the 2015 peak of $150 billion.

Meanwhile, oil and gas companies are sitting on mountains of cash. The free cash flow of the oil and gas industry will rise to $50 billion next year, the highest on record. In 2015 the oil and gas industry showed negative free cash flow because it borrowed to expand production.

Now oil and gas companies are paying down debt and returning cash to shareholders rather than take hydrocarbons out of the ground.

But the energy market suggests that the hard reality of supply constraints will overwhelm the Green agenda before it gets started.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on October 09, 2021, 09:34:43 AM

The energy crisis that has led to shortages and blackouts in Europe and Asia could hit the United States this winter, said the CEO of an energy firm.

"We've actually had discussions with power utilities who are concerned that they simply will have to implement blackouts this winter," Ernie Thrasher, the head of Xcoal Energy & Resources, was quoted by Bloomberg News as saying. "They don't see where the fuel is coming from to meet demand."

He added that utilities are switching from natural gas to coal during the fall and winter months to keep up with the demand.

The global demand for power has increased as economies attempt to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering natural gas shortages primarily in Europe and Asia.

Power producers including Duke Energy have warned customers that bills may spike during this winter. Duke's Piedmont Natural Gas unit stated Tuesday that higher gas prices and low production will raise customer bills by approximately $11 per month in North and South Carolina.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Gaon on October 09, 2021, 01:27:13 PM

~~Quote from: seoulbro post_id=422969 time=1633786483 user_id=114~~
The energy crisis that has led to shortages and blackouts in Europe and Asia could hit the United States this winter, said the CEO of an energy firm.

"We've actually had discussions with power utilities who are concerned that they simply will have to implement blackouts this winter," Ernie Thrasher, the head of Xcoal Energy & Resources, was quoted by Bloomberg News as saying. "They don't see where the fuel is coming from to meet demand."

He added that utilities are switching from natural gas to coal during the fall and winter months to keep up with the demand.

The global demand for power has increased as economies attempt to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering natural gas shortages primarily in Europe and Asia.

Power producers including Duke Energy have warned customers that bills may spike during this winter. Duke's Piedmont Natural Gas unit stated Tuesday that higher gas prices and low production will raise customer bills by approximately $11 per month in North and South Carolina.

Biden and Trudeau foolishly block energy development.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on November 03, 2021, 08:47:54 PM

WInd and solar don't have what it takes to power a modern economy. They make some companies and some countries very rich artificially, but they have made Europeans poor.

Renewables are making Europe energy-poor

Existing policies were causing substantial energy poverty in Europe even before the price spike this autumn

https://financialpost.com/opinion/renewables-are-making-europe-energy-poor

With the recent rise in the price of natural gas in Europe to five times where it was earlier this year, expect to see many more Europeans, including Brits, plunged into "energy poverty" — too poor to pay their utility bills on time and/or keep their homes adequately warm. Why is not hard to grasp: from Greece to Great Britain and everywhere in between, the European electricity grid is increasingly de-linked from reliable, affordable fossil fuels and hooked up to more expensive and intermittent wind and solar projects. When wind and solar are not available, Europeans and others end up chasing the same supplies of oil, natural gas and coal, pushing their prices dramatically higher.

Canadians should pay attention. What Europeans are already enduring and will suffer through again this winter will only intensify thanks to government efforts at COP26 this week to mandate an even faster "phaseout" of fossil fuels. But existing policies were causing substantial energy poverty in Europe even before the price spike this autumn. Stefan Bouzarovski, a University of Manchester professor and chair of an energy poverty working group, estimates that pre-pandemic, 80 million Europeans were already struggling to adequately heat their homes. Meanwhile, at least 12 million European households were in arrears on their utility bills.

The European Union has attempted to provide an objective measurement of the problem but its best data is six years old. The EU Energy Poverty Observatory's most recent estimate — from 2015 — showed that 16 per cent of EU consumers faced a "high" share of energy costs, with "high" defined as energy expenditures relative to income that were more than twice the national median.

To get a better sense of the challenge faced by European households and energy poverty, we used 2008 as a start year and then compared the rise in household median incomes (with the full set of data ending in 2019) with the rise in electricity prices (ending in 2020) in 30 European countries.

We found that in lower-income European countries that have seen strong growth in incomes since 2008 (mainly ex-communist states such as Estonia, Bulgaria and Poland), median incomes rose faster than power prices. Not so in many richer European countries, however. For example, though median household income rose just 19 per cent in France, electricity prices were up 61 per cent. In the U.K income rose just 14 per cent, compared to a 51 per cent rise in electricity prices. In Ireland, income was up 11 per cent, electricity 48 per cent. Worst off was Spain, where median household income rose by just eight per cent, while electricity prices soared 68 per cent.

Canada's existing target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is daunting enough as is.

Krystle Wittevrongel: Let's be smarter on carbon capture — we won't get to net-zero without it

None

Terence Corcoran: Two climate activists take charge of Canada's resource economy. What could go wrong?

None

Joe Oliver: Our energy self-delusion continues

The response of some European governments has been to subsidize utility bills — as in Ontario, which did it to mask the effect of policies that drove the province's electricity prices dramatically higher. All that does, however, is shift the burden of high power costs from the "consumer pocket" to the "taxpayer pocket." But, of course, both pockets are in the same coat: so, either way, households bear the cost, or their children and grandchildren do if today's utility bills are subsidized through government borrowing.

Why electricity is so costly in the EU and U.K is clear: policy. Governments there have attempted to "transition" from fossil fuels despite their superior energy density — their "power punch," as Vaclav Smil, retired environment professor at the University of Manitoba characterizes it — vis-à-vis renewables.

The result can be seen in the declining share of fossil fuels in EU electricity production: from about 50 per cent in 2000 to 38 per cent in 2019. Nuclear-generated electricity, which has also been discouraged, has declined from 32 per cent of electricity production in 2000 to just over 26 per cent in 2019.

Meanwhile, renewables have more than doubled as a share of EU electricity production, from just over 16 per cent in 2000 to over 34 per cent in 2019. That would be fine, except solar and wind are not exactly inexpensive. They are also not as reliable as fossil fuels, something Brits were recently reminded of when wind power dropped and coal again had to be used to prop up their country's electricity grid.

It's been said that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The policymakers gathered in Glasgow evidently want to speed up the killing of fossil fuels even thought it has already led to widespread energy poverty in Europe. Are they expecting different results?

https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/energy-poverty-in-european-households-an-advance-lesson-for-canadians/?fbclid=IwAR2m5AOpZTzxWt5aIjwG8YzBlSVd5RiM5BVtJLseiZK_HowUdB-TP8iAUCM

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on November 03, 2021, 09:54:54 PM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=426022 time=1635986874 user_id=1689~~
WInd and solar don't have what it takes to power a modern economy. They make some companies and some countries very rich artificially, but they have made Europeans poor.

Renewables are making Europe energy-poor

Existing policies were causing substantial energy poverty in Europe even before the price spike this autumn

https://financialpost.com/opinion/renewables-are-making-europe-energy-poor

With the recent rise in the price of natural gas in Europe to five times where it was earlier this year, expect to see many more Europeans, including Brits, plunged into "energy poverty" — too poor to pay their utility bills on time and/or keep their homes adequately warm. Why is not hard to grasp: from Greece to Great Britain and everywhere in between, the European electricity grid is increasingly de-linked from reliable, affordable fossil fuels and hooked up to more expensive and intermittent wind and solar projects. When wind and solar are not available, Europeans and others end up chasing the same supplies of oil, natural gas and coal, pushing their prices dramatically higher.

Canadians should pay attention. What Europeans are already enduring and will suffer through again this winter will only intensify thanks to government efforts at COP26 this week to mandate an even faster "phaseout" of fossil fuels. But existing policies were causing substantial energy poverty in Europe even before the price spike this autumn. Stefan Bouzarovski, a University of Manchester professor and chair of an energy poverty working group, estimates that pre-pandemic, 80 million Europeans were already struggling to adequately heat their homes. Meanwhile, at least 12 million European households were in arrears on their utility bills.

The European Union has attempted to provide an objective measurement of the problem but its best data is six years old. The EU Energy Poverty Observatory's most recent estimate — from 2015 — showed that 16 per cent of EU consumers faced a "high" share of energy costs, with "high" defined as energy expenditures relative to income that were more than twice the national median.

To get a better sense of the challenge faced by European households and energy poverty, we used 2008 as a start year and then compared the rise in household median incomes (with the full set of data ending in 2019) with the rise in electricity prices (ending in 2020) in 30 European countries.

We found that in lower-income European countries that have seen strong growth in incomes since 2008 (mainly ex-communist states such as Estonia, Bulgaria and Poland), median incomes rose faster than power prices. Not so in many richer European countries, however. For example, though median household income rose just 19 per cent in France, electricity prices were up 61 per cent. In the U.K income rose just 14 per cent, compared to a 51 per cent rise in electricity prices. In Ireland, income was up 11 per cent, electricity 48 per cent. Worst off was Spain, where median household income rose by just eight per cent, while electricity prices soared 68 per cent.

Canada's existing target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is daunting enough as is.

Krystle Wittevrongel: Let's be smarter on carbon capture — we won't get to net-zero without it

None

Terence Corcoran: Two climate activists take charge of Canada's resource economy. What could go wrong?

None

Joe Oliver: Our energy self-delusion continues

The response of some European governments has been to subsidize utility bills — as in Ontario, which did it to mask the effect of policies that drove the province's electricity prices dramatically higher. All that does, however, is shift the burden of high power costs from the "consumer pocket" to the "taxpayer pocket." But, of course, both pockets are in the same coat: so, either way, households bear the cost, or their children and grandchildren do if today's utility bills are subsidized through government borrowing.

Why electricity is so costly in the EU and U.K is clear: policy. Governments there have attempted to "transition" from fossil fuels despite their superior energy density — their "power punch," as Vaclav Smil, retired environment professor at the University of Manitoba characterizes it — vis-à-vis renewables.

The result can be seen in the declining share of fossil fuels in EU electricity production: from about 50 per cent in 2000 to 38 per cent in 2019. Nuclear-generated electricity, which has also been discouraged, has declined from 32 per cent of electricity production in 2000 to just over 26 per cent in 2019.

Meanwhile, renewables have more than doubled as a share of EU electricity production, from just over 16 per cent in 2000 to over 34 per cent in 2019. That would be fine, except solar and wind are not exactly inexpensive. They are also not as reliable as fossil fuels, something Brits were recently reminded of when wind power dropped and coal again had to be used to prop up their country's electricity grid.

It's been said that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The policymakers gathered in Glasgow evidently want to speed up the killing of fossil fuels even thought it has already led to widespread energy poverty in Europe. Are they expecting different results?

https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/energy-poverty-in-european-households-an-advance-lesson-for-canadians/?fbclid=IwAR2m5AOpZTzxWt5aIjwG8YzBlSVd5RiM5BVtJLseiZK_HowUdB-TP8iAUCM

It's inexcusable that in a country with so much natural gas reserves, and hydroelectric potential that we are forcing people to choose between heating their homes and putting food on their tables. Imported wind turbines and solar panels are the causing energy poverty.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on November 04, 2021, 04:12:20 PM

Canada and Europe's plan to slow climate change is to make energy and heating expensive.....and send jobs abroad.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 13, 2022, 04:39:10 PM

From energy expert Alex Epstein.

The Truth About Geothermal Energy

Geothermal cannot replace a significant percentage of fossil fuel use because it requires the rare geology of places like Iceland. "Deep geothermal" has promise, but is decades away from scalability.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on February 13, 2022, 05:34:31 PM

There are people in Australia who want to tap into our geothermal energy source.

They cite places like Iceland as examples.

Iceland's geothermal activity is very close to their surface.

Ours is several hundred kilometres below surface level. But they think all you have to do is drill a deep enough hole.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on February 13, 2022, 07:28:46 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=439203 time=1644791671 user_id=1560~~
There are people in Australia who want to tap into our geothermal energy source.

They cite places like Iceland as examples.

Iceland's geothermal activity is very close to their surface.

Ours is several hundred kilometres below surface level. But they think all you have to do is drill a deep enough hole.

The same woke idiots who think wind and solar are sustainable.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on February 13, 2022, 08:07:27 PM

Very much so.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on February 13, 2022, 08:47:29 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=439203 time=1644791671 user_id=1560~~
There are people in Australia who want to tap into our geothermal energy source.

They cite places like Iceland as examples.

Iceland's geothermal activity is very close to their surface.

Ours is several hundred kilometres below surface level. But they think all you have to do is drill a deep enough hole.

It might work at places like Daylesford and the volcanic lakes/springs region in Victoria but there aren't many of those in the country.

Plus all the yuppies would throw a shit fit if their hot springs day trips were affected in any way.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 03, 2022, 10:29:14 PM

Solar and wind are unreliable, use up scarce resources, and make us dependent on foreign countries for energy, but they aint cheap. Here is why.

Why "cheap" solar increases the price of power

https://www.cfact.org/2022/03/03/why-cheap-solar-increases-the-price-of-power/?fbclid=IwAR12nQaj7Wo6TqlI-upgfELk7DVMv-p_JBk3PNIHV8cEeHsgS43Cv4H8JbQ

So let's look into this cheap solar fallacy a bit more. Our starting point is the fabled cheapness. It is based on a simple measurement called the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). You just take the cost of producing electricity over a long period of time, divided by the amount produced. For grid scale generation LCOE is usually measured in dollars per megawatt hour (MWh).

It is true that most LCOE reports for America have solar (and onshore wind) a little bit lower than for combined cycle gas fired power, which is today's workhorse generator. However the difference is relatively small. Solar LCOE also varies a lot regionally, depending on how sunny it is, but we can ignore that complexity for now.

The big point is that it is impossible for solar to generate reliably. Night always happens and clouds happen frequently. This means that for every MW of solar generation there has to be a MW of gas fired power (or something else) backing it up.

Since we do not need more electricity, solar + gas is a zero sum game, just like having two cars but only driving one. Whenever solar is powering, gas is sitting there costing money but making none, even though it could.

Simply put, the cost of not running the gas generator in order to run the solar is part of the cost of that solar power. This cost of forced idleness is sometimes called the "capacity cost" of the system. The capacity cost due to solar should part of the solar LCOE, but it is not.

The capacity cost of gas fired solar backup will be large. The cost of gas for a power plant is normally only about a third of the total cost of the plant. Gas fired plants are not as expensive to build as coal fired, because their boilers are somewhat smaller, but they are still very expensive.

So when solar power forces gas power to stop, you may save on fuel but the capacity cost of having that gas plant sit their idling is much larger.

Solar may be reducing gas fired emissions but it is certainly not paying off. The same is true for onshore wind. (Offshore wind has an LCOE that may be three times greater or more than onshore, so the savings issue does not even arise.) In fact both solar and onshore wind should only be seen as expensive emission reduction technologies, not as power generation technologies. Both cost extra.

The high cost of backup capacity is why states like California and countries like Germany, that have implemented lots of solar and wind, have such expensive electricity. The power production cost of solar and onshore wind my be low but the grid system cost is not low at all.

Adding low cost solar and wind power just makes grid electricity more expensive.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 03, 2022, 11:00:30 PM

There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 03, 2022, 11:24:09 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442327 time=1646366430 user_id=1560~~
There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear.

That depends. Most of Canada has abundant natural gas reserves and the infrasture it needs. Other areas have abundant hydroelectric capabilities, although it takes up massive amounts of land. Some places in the world, like Australia have almost inexhaustible deposits of coal. Use it and make it less polluting. Nuclear is a good option for Europe and Asia.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 03, 2022, 11:35:40 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442327 time=1646366430 user_id=1560~~
There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.

Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.

Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.

TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.

And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do, we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.

Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 03, 2022, 11:47:55 PM

France gets most of it's power needs from nuclear. In Canada, small modular nuclear reactor technology has reduced a lot of the risks.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 03, 2022, 11:49:03 PM

You mean spread out the risk.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 04, 2022, 12:09:27 AM

~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442340 time=1646369343 user_id=1676~~
You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.

The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 04, 2022, 12:15:14 AM

~~Quote from: Thiel post_id=442346 time=1646370567 user_id=1688~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442340 time=1646369343 user_id=1676~~
You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.

The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

I've seen some of these proposals. They may be slightly less dangerous to operate but there are still risks.

And spreading them out, they become targets for bad actors with a mind to cause localised carnage.

They'd become potential stationary tactical nukes in a contamination sense... no thanks.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 04, 2022, 12:45:59 AM

~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442348 time=1646370914 user_id=1676~~
~~Quote from: Thiel post_id=442346 time=1646370567 user_id=1688~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442340 time=1646369343 user_id=1676~~
You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.

The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

I've seen some of these proposals. They may be slightly less dangerous to operate but there are still risks.

And spreading them out, they become targets for bad actors with a mind to cause localised carnage.

They'd become potential stationary tactical nukes in a contamination sense... no thanks.

In theory, SMR's seem like a sound idea. If emergency cooling is needed, specialized valves open automatically—allowing steam to discharge from the reactor vessel into the containment vessel. The steam then condenses and water flows back into the core through a second set of valves at the bottom of the reactor vessel. This helps cool the reactor down.

As the water boils, the steam that is created recirculates, setting up a passive safety cooling process that continues until the heat and pressure eventually stabilize.

With fewer parts needed to accomplish the same safety function, the company's simplified design allows the valves to open automatically without the need for additional pumps, power or operator action.

This leads to greater reliability of the safety system and lower capital costs when building the reactor.

So far, the only working SMR's are in the Russian Far East. But, Ontario and some American states will have them online before the end of this decade.

This short video explains their emergency cooling system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7-GNwe3WEQ

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 04, 2022, 01:01:57 AM

~~Quote from: Thiel post_id=442349 time=1646372759 user_id=1688~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442348 time=1646370914 user_id=1676~~
~~Quote from: Thiel post_id=442346 time=1646370567 user_id=1688~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442340 time=1646369343 user_id=1676~~
You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.

The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

I've seen some of these proposals. They may be slightly less dangerous to operate but there are still risks.

And spreading them out, they become targets for bad actors with a mind to cause localised carnage.

They'd become potential stationary tactical nukes in a contamination sense... no thanks.

In theory, SMR's seem like a sound idea. If emergency cooling is needed, specialized valves open automatically—allowing steam to discharge from the reactor vessel into the containment vessel. The steam then condenses and water flows back into the core through a second set of valves at the bottom of the reactor vessel. This helps cool the reactor down.

As the water boils, the steam that is created recirculates, setting up a passive safety cooling process that continues until the heat and pressure eventually stabilize.

With fewer parts needed to accomplish the same safety function, the company's simplified design allows the valves to open automatically without the need for additional pumps, power or operator action.

This leads to greater reliability of the safety system and lower capital costs when building the reactor.

So far, the only working SMR's are in the Russian Far East. But, Ontario and some American states will have them online before the end of this decade.

This short video explains their emergency cooling system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7-GNwe3WEQ

Still reliant on valves though.... it's still a mechanical contraption.

Valves in series have failed the big nuke plants before.

Now they want to miniaturise the unit as a trade off for massive accidents so instead of major meltdowns, we'll have mini ones dotting our regional areas.

Will new cars or existing homes need radiation monitoring equipment integrated in?

It's ridiculous to me that we could water down catastrophe by spreading it more thinly everywhere.

]

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2022, 01:10:09 AM

Human error has caused all problems at nuclear plants from Three Mile Island to Chernobyl to Fukushima. The idea of eliminating the need for operational personnel will eliminate that.

I don't know enougb about these modular reactors, and since we aint got any up and running, we shall see if they can supply power needs at a decent price. Safety issues are not not a concern I have with them.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 04, 2022, 01:17:07 AM

Just keep that shit away from my region....

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 04, 2022, 01:17:19 AM

~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442350 time=1646373717 user_id=1676~~

Still reliant on valves though.... it's still a mechanical contraption.

Valves in series have failed the big nuke plants before.

Now they want to miniaturise the unit as a trade off for massive accidents so instead of major meltdowns, we'll have mini ones dotting our regional areas.

Will new cars or existing homes need radiation monitoring equipment integrated in?

It's ridiculous to me that we could water down catastrophe by spreading it more thinly everywhere.

First, they really can't melt down. Second, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission just agreed that any emergencies that could possibly occur at a small modular nuclear power plant probably won't even get past the fence.

No need to come up with huge evacuation plans for nearby cities or anyone living near the plant, like we did for older plants. You can just stand there at the fence and watch what's going on.

These reactors just won't melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worst for nuclear power. In case of any emergency, the reactor just shuts down and cools off.

That means just what it sounds like - the reactor doesn't need the complex back-up power systems that traditional reactors require and which traditionally add a lot of cost as well as some uncertainty. No humans or computers are needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling.

So you don't have to be ready to evacuate everyone who lives nearby. They will never be affected.

A couple of additional features are: 1) no one can hack this reactor and 2) refueling of this reactor does not require the nuclear plant to shut down. It's probably why this reactor design is sailing through the regulatory approval process faster than any reactor in history.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 04, 2022, 01:24:21 AM

~~Quote from: Thiel post_id=442354 time=1646374639 user_id=1688~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442350 time=1646373717 user_id=1676~~

Still reliant on valves though.... it's still a mechanical contraption.

Valves in series have failed the big nuke plants before.

Now they want to miniaturise the unit as a trade off for massive accidents so instead of major meltdowns, we'll have mini ones dotting our regional areas.

Will new cars or existing homes need radiation monitoring equipment integrated in?

It's ridiculous to me that we could water down catastrophe by spreading it more thinly everywhere.

First, they really can't melt down. Second, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission just agreed that any emergencies that could possibly occur at a small modular nuclear power plant probably won't even get past the fence.

No need to come up with huge evacuation plans for nearby cities or anyone living near the plant, like we did for older plants. You can just stand there at the fence and watch what's going on.

These reactors just won't melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worst for nuclear power. In case of any emergency, the reactor just shuts down and cools off.

That means just what it sounds like - the reactor doesn't need the complex back-up power systems that traditional reactors require and which traditionally add a lot of cost as well as some uncertainty. No humans or computers are needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling.

So you don't have to be ready to evacuate everyone who lives nearby. They will never be affected.

A couple of additional features are: 1) no one can hack this reactor and 2) refueling of this reactor does not require the nuclear plant to shut down. It's probably why this reactor design is sailing through the regulatory approval process faster than any reactor in history.

Despite the best laid plans, shit happens....

I'm not willing to have any of these mini nuke plants anywhere near me or potentially able to poison my home and food chain.

And I shouldn't be compelled to either....

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 04, 2022, 01:56:24 AM

~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442336 time=1646368540 user_id=1676~~
~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442327 time=1646366430 user_id=1560~~
There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.

Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.

Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.

TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.

And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do, we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.

Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Whilst you're right that errors have been made, it is also true to say that lessons have been learned, just as when the world discovered steam power, oil energy and other forms of energy.

Given the number of nuclear reactors in operation, the fact that we've had only three serious accidents, with relatively little loss of life, should not mean that we turn our backs on clean and efficient nuclear power. Two of those accidents were caused by human error (Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island) and the other was a freak tsunami. The overall safety of nuclear power has been exemplary.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 04, 2022, 02:33:29 AM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442359 time=1646376984 user_id=1560~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442336 time=1646368540 user_id=1676~~
~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442327 time=1646366430 user_id=1560~~
There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.

Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.

Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.

TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.

And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do, we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.

Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Whilst you're right that errors have been made, it is also true to say that lessons have been learned, just as when the world discovered steam power, oil energy and other forms of energy.

Given the number of nuclear reactors in operation, the fact that we've had only three serious accidents, with relatively little loss of life, should not mean that we turn our backs on clean and efficient nuclear power. Two of those accidents were caused by human error (Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island) and the other was a freak tsunami. The overall safety of nuclear power has been exemplary.

There have been more accidents and close shaves than that.

I remember a number of them in the news on the East Coast of the US or through what my father told us or what we overheard in the evenings when he'd get home. He was an engineer on many of the New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey reactors but not TMI... shit happened and if it could get swept under the rug, it was attempted....at least for the more mild mishaps.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

Even recently they've increased allowable radiation exposure levels in Japan because they haven't been able to reduce them.

It's sleight of hand stuff with the energy sacred cow.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2022, 11:03:23 AM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442359 time=1646376984 user_id=1560~~
~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442336 time=1646368540 user_id=1676~~
~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442327 time=1646366430 user_id=1560~~
There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.

Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.

Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.

TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.

And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do, we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.

Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Whilst you're right that errors have been made, it is also true to say that lessons have been learned, just as when the world discovered steam power, oil energy and other forms of energy.

Given the number of nuclear reactors in operation, the fact that we've had only three serious accidents, with relatively little loss of life, should not mean that we turn our backs on clean and efficient nuclear power. Two of those accidents were caused by human error (Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island) and the other was a freak tsunami. The overall safety of nuclear power has been exemplary.

Fuskushima was a disaster waiting to happen from the time they began construction on it.

The accident occurred at the Fukushima plant - the report notes in its conclusions - is the result of collusion between government, the regulatory agencies and TEPCO (the company operating the six reactors). The combination of their negligence betrayed the Japanese nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents. The disaster is clearly a man-made disaster. "We believe" conclude the ten experts of the Commission "that the underlying causes of the accident are to be found into the organizational and control systems that supported wrong decisions and actions". Collective and systemic fault, therefore, even cultural (the inveterate tendency of Japanese society to obedience and insularity), not attributable to individuals.

http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/luca-carra/human-error-fukushima/september-2012#:~:text=The%20accident%20occurred%20at%20the,be%20safe%20from%20nuclear%20accidents.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2022, 11:16:42 AM

~~Quote~~These reactors just won't melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worst for nuclear power. In case of any emergency, the reactor just shuts down and cools off.

I remember some Conservative premiers who were advocates of SMR technology talking about that.....Dr Leslyn Lewis did too when she sought the Conservative Party leadership..

Still, we have so much natural gas and transmission pipelines in place for it, changing energy sources seems like a waste of taxpayer money.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 04, 2022, 12:29:59 PM

Here in Ontario we have sixteen nuclear units in operation. These reactors amount to 11,400 MW of generation capacity and are located at three sites. There will be no more like Darlington ever constructed. But, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is Ontario's, and Canada's, only licensed site for new nuclear generation.

Ontario Power Generation, with Ontario government's support, is moving forward with plans to build Canada's first SMR at the Darlington site, pending regulatory approvals from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Our population is growing rapidly. We need to increase power generation. This is a cheaper alternative to hydro and a safer alrernative to conventional nuclear. We don't have vast reserves of natural gas like Alberta and BC nor the infrastructure to deliver it and with Trudeau in power that will never happen. So, SMR's it will be.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 06, 2022, 02:27:58 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/274344111_730741568333218_4539619427904301842_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=pHOfb6XfxNEAX-jhq3V&_nc_oc=AQlVSiv-IUm8e91Y25yPSunYRewbtH5KtYMw3oSeTciGJKR3Qh0-i6I0PBemGayvtStUp2AfK5bAeGyZGioqux1x&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT-MloKqGDMwj3oY9uxTFOhV0G23iea_kBV3pLRkHqZwIg&oe=622AE792%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=622AE792%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/274344111_730741568333218_4539619427904301842_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=pHOfb6XfxNEAX-jhq3V&_nc_oc=AQlVSiv-IUm8e91Y25yPSunYRewbtH5KtYMw3oSeTciGJKR3Qh0-i6I0PBemGayvtStUp2AfK5bAeGyZGioqux1x&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT-MloKqGDMwj3oY9uxTFOhV0G23iea_kBV3pLRkHqZwIg&oe=622AE792%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 06, 2022, 03:43:13 PM

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499907549746937860

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499909806504779779

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2022, 12:13:15 PM

Elon Musk has called for a boost in Europe's nuclear-energy output amid fears of a gas shortage on the back of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Musk tweeted on Sunday evening that it's "extremely obvious" that Europe should restart dormant nuclear power plants and boost the output of those that are operational.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2022, 03:55:20 PM

Could it be sanity is returning to energy development.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 07, 2022, 03:59:12 PM

And we will have Russia to thank for that.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 07, 2022, 04:01:00 PM

~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=442719 time=1646686520 user_id=2015~~
Could it be sanity is returning to energy development.

For Musk, yes. Govts? nada

It's merely him talking (albeit saying the right things)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2022, 04:05:25 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=442721 time=1646686860 user_id=88~~
~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=442719 time=1646686520 user_id=2015~~
Could it be sanity is returning to energy development.

For Musk, yes. It's merely him talking.

Govts? nada

Blocking energy development in North America has been a disaster. Wind and solar will never be anything more than an expensive novelty.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 07, 2022, 04:08:26 PM

~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=442724 time=1646687125 user_id=2015~~
~~Quote from: cc post_id=442721 time=1646686860 user_id=88~~
~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=442719 time=1646686520 user_id=2015~~
Could it be sanity is returning to energy development.

For Musk, yes. It's merely him talking.

Govts? nada

Blocking energy development in North America has been a disaster. Wind and solar will never be anything more than an expensive novelty.

Absolutely agree. N. America has so much going if utilized. Our Govts are killing everything -

Well, Alberta is waving fuel tax for now

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2022, 05:13:33 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=442726 time=1646687306 user_id=88~~
~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=442724 time=1646687125 user_id=2015~~
~~Quote from: cc post_id=442721 time=1646686860 user_id=88~~
~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=442719 time=1646686520 user_id=2015~~
Could it be sanity is returning to energy development.

For Musk, yes. It's merely him talking.

Govts? nada

Blocking energy development in North America has been a disaster. Wind and solar will never be anything more than an expensive novelty.

Absolutely agree. N. America has so much going if utilized. Our Govts are killing everything -

Well, Alberta is waving fuel tax for now

I just posted about that..

Ottawa should do the same and cancel the planned carbon tax increase on April 1......but they won't.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 07, 2022, 05:25:00 PM

Right - Not gonna happen. Lib Govt's take & never give

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 12:52:06 AM

Germany is intensifying efforts to cut reliance on Russian gas by boosting infrastructure to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and possibly relying more on coal-fired power plants.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 08, 2022, 01:06:20 AM

Go go go green powa'.... ac_biggrin

Couldn't happen to a more pretentious European nation...

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 01:19:44 AM

~~Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=442799 time=1646719580 user_id=1676~~
Go go go green powa'.... ac_biggrin

Couldn't happen to a more pretentious European nation...

They are going to throw good money after bad over the next four years on wind and solar. But, reality has kicked them in the ass. They need natural gas. We should be supplyng them, but Justine keeps rejecting every LNG export facility proposal.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 08, 2022, 03:14:30 AM

Relax, you guys.

We got this.

//https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/australia-worlds-largest-gas-exporter/

You keep your gas nicely tucked up in the ground.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Frood on March 08, 2022, 04:14:35 AM

What a garbage org...

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 10:43:00 AM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442803 time=1646727270 user_id=1560~~
Relax, you guys.

We got this.

//https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/australia-worlds-largest-gas-exporter/

You keep your gas nicely tucked up in the ground.

Someone posted about Australia being the world's biggest exporter of LNG..

It should be Canada, but our prime minister wants prosperity for countries other than Canada.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 08, 2022, 04:07:40 PM

And we thank him for it.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 05:46:41 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442841 time=1646773660 user_id=1560~~
And we thank him for it.

Australia still wants a strong middle class. Justine thinks they are a bunch of ungrateful peasants.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 08, 2022, 08:19:26 PM

Hes a great PM and you should keep there.

Would you like to buy some liquid petroleum gas?

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 08:42:33 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442865 time=1646788766 user_id=1560~~
Hes a great PM and you should keep there.

Would you like to buy some liquid petroleum gas?

He is great for foreign countries.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 08, 2022, 09:41:08 PM

Don't think we don't appreciate it.

Now, how much LPG shall we put you down for.

Big discounts for orders over 10 million litres. Those power stations aren't going to run themselves.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 08, 2022, 09:48:38 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442865 time=1646788766 user_id=1560~~
Hes a great PM and you should keep there.

Would you like to buy some liquid petroleum gas?

We import oil because we are prohibited from producing our own. Why not natural gas too.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 10:40:26 PM

These are all projects and over 100,000 good jobs that have been cancelled directly or indirectly by Justine.

Scrapped: How nearly $150 billion worth of energy projects have been shelved in Canada

A look at some of the major energy projects over the past few years that never saw the light of day

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/scrapped-nearly-150-billion-worth-of-energy-projects-shelved-in-canada?fbclid=IwAR044iHcHtiSvp73mUjzJP_gxNWRlmpSG3jlbzG8QTDwIG0aYQIXUeW22Ds

How nearly $150 billion worth of energy projects have been shelved in Canada

A look at some of the major energy projects over the past few years that never saw the light of day

Project: Frontier Oilsands Mine

Cost: $20.6 billion

Company: Teck Resources Ltd.

The proposed oilsands mine in northern Alberta was expected to produce 260,000 barrels of oil per day. It was cancelled by the proponent over the weekend amid a major fight between Ottawa and Alberta over climate change issues, a lack of pipeline capacity and low oil prices. The project was expected to push up Canadian carbon emissions and was opposed by environmental groups, but enjoyed the support of many First Nations in the region.

Project: Northern Gateway

Cost: $7.9 billion

Company: Enbridge Inc.

The proposed pipeline to bring oil from northern Alberta to a port in Kitimat B.C. was approved by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, but was quashed by a Federal Court of Appeal two years later. It was rejected by the Liberal government in 2016.

The pipeline was expected to ship 525,000 barrels of oil per day to international markets and boost pipeline capacity to meet the needs of surging Canadian oil production.

Project: Energy East

Cost: $16 billion

Company: TransCanada Corp. (now TC Energy Corp.)

A proposed pipeline to carry 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to coastal refineries in New Brunswick. TransCanada planned to build 1,500 kilometres of new pipe and reverse the direction on another 3,000 km of an existing pipeline. It faced heavy opposition in Quebec and Ontario and the environmental review process was marked by controversy. The National Energy Board, the regulator at the time, ultimately asked the company to restart the environmental review process. TransCanada scrapped the project in October 2017.

Project: Pacific Northwest LNG

Cost: $36 billion

Lead company: Petronas Bhd.

The proposed LNG pipeline and export terminal in Prince Rupert B.C. on the Pacific Ocean was to export as much as 18 million tonnes of natural gas per year. The Malaysian state-owned oil and gas company and its international partners said high upfront investment costs along with plummeting global prices for natural gas reduced the feasibility of the project. The project also faced a lengthy environmental review process

Project: Aurora LNG

Cost: $28 billion

Lead company: Nexen Energy

Project: Prince Rupert LNG

Cost: $16 billion

Lead company: Royal Dutch Shell

Project: WCC LNG

Cost: $25 billion

Lead company: Exxon Mobil Corp.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2022, 10:46:50 PM

Justine has rigged the regulatory system in Canada so that oil and gas export projects cannot ever reach completion. Australia has gone the opposite direction, streamlining it. The have less natural gas, but inlike us, export it.

Canada's lost LNG opportunities due to dearth of export facilities

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/canadas-lost-lng-opportunities-due-to-dearth-of-export-facilities?fbclid=IwAR0k9edh9Fop9nD2dgLNyFgUBizm9CudTfMKXKCl2iGBgX2A2_HUhA0nT_w

Yet firms in Canada, despite having ample reserves, have not stepped up to export desperately needed natural gas to Europe. Why?

Simply put, despite producing 16.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, Canada does not have any LNG export facilities—an astonishing fact for such a resource-rich country. According to Natural Resources Canada, 18 LNG export facility projects have been proposed in Canada since 2011 (specifically, 13 in British Columbia, two in Quebec and three in Nova Scotia). One export facility in B.C. is under construction. For comparison, between 2014 and 2020, the U.S. built seven LNG export facilities and approved 20 more (five are currently under construction).

The culprit? Canada's arduous regulatory system—and fierce opposition from interest groups—has led to the cancellation of several critical LNG projects. For example, in 2017, oil and gas company Petronas cancelled its $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project due to "delays and long regulatory timelines" coupled with poor market conditions. In 2020, Warren Buffet pulled out of a proposed $9 billion LNG project in Quebec amid concerns over regulatory challenges and railway blockades. Last year, joint venture partners Chevron and Woodside Energy stated their intention to sell their shares of the Kitimat LNG project in northern B.C. after more than a decade of slow progress.

A 2020 study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute assessed the competitiveness of Canada's regulatory framework for the oil and gas sector (at the federal and provincial levels) compared to the U.S. and found that Canada had a competitive disadvantage with LNG projects, which take approximately 19 more months to gain approval in Canada compared to the U.S.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 08, 2022, 11:02:52 PM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=442897 time=1646797226 user_id=1689~~
These are all projects and over 100,000 good jobs that have been cancelled directly or indirectly by Justine.

Scrapped: How nearly $150 billion worth of energy projects have been shelved in Canada

A look at some of the major energy projects over the past few years that never saw the light of day

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/scrapped-nearly-150-billion-worth-of-energy-projects-shelved-in-canada?fbclid=IwAR044iHcHtiSvp73mUjzJP_gxNWRlmpSG3jlbzG8QTDwIG0aYQIXUeW22Ds

How nearly $150 billion worth of energy projects have been shelved in Canada

A look at some of the major energy projects over the past few years that never saw the light of day

Project: Frontier Oilsands Mine

Cost: $20.6 billion

Company: Teck Resources Ltd.

The proposed oilsands mine in northern Alberta was expected to produce 260,000 barrels of oil per day. It was cancelled by the proponent over the weekend amid a major fight between Ottawa and Alberta over climate change issues, a lack of pipeline capacity and low oil prices. The project was expected to push up Canadian carbon emissions and was opposed by environmental groups, but enjoyed the support of many First Nations in the region.

Project: Northern Gateway

Cost: $7.9 billion

Company: Enbridge Inc.

The proposed pipeline to bring oil from northern Alberta to a port in Kitimat B.C. was approved by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, but was quashed by a Federal Court of Appeal two years later. It was rejected by the Liberal government in 2016.

The pipeline was expected to ship 525,000 barrels of oil per day to international markets and boost pipeline capacity to meet the needs of surging Canadian oil production.

Project: Energy East

Cost: $16 billion

Company: TransCanada Corp. (now TC Energy Corp.)

A proposed pipeline to carry 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to coastal refineries in New Brunswick. TransCanada planned to build 1,500 kilometres of new pipe and reverse the direction on another 3,000 km of an existing pipeline. It faced heavy opposition in Quebec and Ontario and the environmental review process was marked by controversy. The National Energy Board, the regulator at the time, ultimately asked the company to restart the environmental review process. TransCanada scrapped the project in October 2017.

Project: Pacific Northwest LNG

Cost: $36 billion

Lead company: Petronas Bhd.

The proposed LNG pipeline and export terminal in Prince Rupert B.C. on the Pacific Ocean was to export as much as 18 million tonnes of natural gas per year. The Malaysian state-owned oil and gas company and its international partners said high upfront investment costs along with plummeting global prices for natural gas reduced the feasibility of the project. The project also faced a lengthy environmental review process

Project: Aurora LNG

Cost: $28 billion

Lead company: Nexen Energy

Project: Prince Rupert LNG

Cost: $16 billion

Lead company: Royal Dutch Shell

Project: WCC LNG

Cost: $25 billion

Lead company: Exxon Mobil Corp.

Global capital does not view Canada as a favourable investment destination. It did under Stephen Harper, but not under JT.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 09, 2022, 12:36:25 AM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rcgroups.net%2Fforums%2Fattachments%2F1%2F6%2F9%2F8%2F4%2F9%2Fa2213358-88-mister-burns-excellent.jpg%3Fd%3D1228774795&f=1&nofb=1%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://external-content.duckduckgo.com%20...%20f=1&nofb=1%22%3Ehttps://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rcgroups.net%2Fforums%2Fattachments%2F1%2F6%2F9%2F8%2F4%2F9%2Fa2213358-88-mister-burns-excellent.jpg%3Fd%3D1228774795&f=1&nofb=1%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Gaon on March 09, 2022, 12:39:22 AM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=442897 time=1646797226 user_id=1689~~
These are all projects and over 100,000 good jobs that have been cancelled directly or indirectly by Justine.

Scrapped: How nearly $150 billion worth of energy projects have been shelved in Canada

A look at some of the major energy projects over the past few years that never saw the light of day

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/scrapped-nearly-150-billion-worth-of-energy-projects-shelved-in-canada?fbclid=IwAR044iHcHtiSvp73mUjzJP_gxNWRlmpSG3jlbzG8QTDwIG0aYQIXUeW22Ds

How nearly $150 billion worth of energy projects have been shelved in Canada

A look at some of the major energy projects over the past few years that never saw the light of day

Project: Frontier Oilsands Mine

Cost: $20.6 billion

Company: Teck Resources Ltd.

The proposed oilsands mine in northern Alberta was expected to produce 260,000 barrels of oil per day. It was cancelled by the proponent over the weekend amid a major fight between Ottawa and Alberta over climate change issues, a lack of pipeline capacity and low oil prices. The project was expected to push up Canadian carbon emissions and was opposed by environmental groups, but enjoyed the support of many First Nations in the region.

Project: Northern Gateway

Cost: $7.9 billion

Company: Enbridge Inc.

The proposed pipeline to bring oil from northern Alberta to a port in Kitimat B.C. was approved by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, but was quashed by a Federal Court of Appeal two years later. It was rejected by the Liberal government in 2016.

The pipeline was expected to ship 525,000 barrels of oil per day to international markets and boost pipeline capacity to meet the needs of surging Canadian oil production.

Project: Energy East

Cost: $16 billion

Company: TransCanada Corp. (now TC Energy Corp.)

A proposed pipeline to carry 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to coastal refineries in New Brunswick. TransCanada planned to build 1,500 kilometres of new pipe and reverse the direction on another 3,000 km of an existing pipeline. It faced heavy opposition in Quebec and Ontario and the environmental review process was marked by controversy. The National Energy Board, the regulator at the time, ultimately asked the company to restart the environmental review process. TransCanada scrapped the project in October 2017.

Project: Pacific Northwest LNG

Cost: $36 billion

Lead company: Petronas Bhd.

The proposed LNG pipeline and export terminal in Prince Rupert B.C. on the Pacific Ocean was to export as much as 18 million tonnes of natural gas per year. The Malaysian state-owned oil and gas company and its international partners said high upfront investment costs along with plummeting global prices for natural gas reduced the feasibility of the project. The project also faced a lengthy environmental review process

Project: Aurora LNG

Cost: $28 billion

Lead company: Nexen Energy

Project: Prince Rupert LNG

Cost: $16 billion

Lead company: Royal Dutch Shell

Project: WCC LNG

Cost: $25 billion

Lead company: Exxon Mobil Corp.

This is economic treason.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 09:48:21 AM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=442924 time=1646804185 user_id=1560~~
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rcgroups.net%2Fforums%2Fattachments%2F1%2F6%2F9%2F8%2F4%2F9%2Fa2213358-88-mister-burns-excellent.jpg%3Fd%3D1228774795&f=1&nofb=1%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://external-content.duckduckgo.com%20...%20f=1&nofb=1%22%3Ehttps://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rcgroups.net%2Fforums%2Fattachments%2F1%2F6%2F9%2F8%2F4%2F9%2Fa2213358-88-mister-burns-excellent.jpg%3Fd%3D1228774795&f=1&nofb=1%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

~~:sneaky2:~~

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 09, 2022, 04:29:58 PM

Hey!!

It's not OUR fault you guys elect lunatics to run your country.

Canada is like a chocolate factory being run by a diabetic.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 06:51:36 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=443005 time=1646861398 user_id=1560~~
Hey!!

It's not OUR fault you guys elect lunatics to run your country.

Canada is like a chocolate factory being run by a diabetic.

Worst pm we have ever had. Even worse than his father Pierre.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 09, 2022, 06:59:29 PM

Somebody loves him. He keeps getting elected.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 07:11:29 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=443017 time=1646870369 user_id=1560~~
Somebody loves him. He keeps getting elected.

Nearly sixty eight percent of voters rejected him.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 07:44:31 PM

An example of why the West is kneecapped vis-a-vis tyrannies and how C-suite thinking is contributing to this. In 2017, Shell announced it had completed divestment of Canada's oil sands. In 2022, Shell defends 'difficult' decision to buy Russian crude oil.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 08:10:29 PM

The fact that this country isn't energy self sufficient lies at the feet of the left wing green movement. This could have and should have been avoided.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 08:21:31 PM

~~Quote from: seoulbro post_id=443031 time=1646874629 user_id=114~~
The fact that this country isn't energy self sufficient lies at the feet of the left wing green movement. This could have and should have been avoided.

Hey Justine, if shutting down Russia's pipeline hurts their economy, then wouldn't shutting down ours do the same?

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 09, 2022, 09:37:36 PM

:thumbup:

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 09:41:56 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=443046 time=1646879856 user_id=1560~~:thumbup:

Is that a thumbs up because you agree with Herman's post or you are glad our pm is destroying our economy?

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 09, 2022, 10:03:43 PM

I agree with Herman's post.

I would have thought that members here would not see me as one who would wish ill on your country.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2022, 10:08:01 PM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=443054 time=1646881423 user_id=1560~~
I agree with Herman's post.

I would have thought that members here would not see me as one who would wish ill on your country.

I thought you were agreeing with Herman, but I wanted to check. Yesterday. you offered to sell us some LNG.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Bricktop on March 10, 2022, 12:53:50 AM

Tongue in cheek, to highlight the idiocy of your current politicians.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2022, 01:09:17 AM

~~Quote from: Bricktop post_id=443075 time=1646891630 user_id=1560~~
Tongue in cheek, to highlight the idiocy of your current politicians.

I have been meaning to speak to you about that. I am a little sensitive about the insults of our fine leader, Justine.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2022, 11:21:04 AM

Sierra Club, Greenpeace USA, Islamic Society of North America, and Our Revolution are just a few of the many groups that joined together calling for President Biden to use the Defense Production Act to push a transition to green energy. They are also calling for the president to reject calls to ramp up America's fossil fuel production. I guess they think energy isn't expensive enough.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 10, 2022, 12:34:26 PM

Figure this one out .. WTF does it have to do with National Security ???

"Climate Change Will Be At The Center" Of Our National Security Foreign Policy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0myA-sk08&t=13s

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2022, 01:50:09 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=443108 time=1646933666 user_id=88~~
Figure this one out .. WTF does it have to do with National Security ???

"Climate Change Will Be At The Center" Of Our National Security Foreign Policy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0myA-sk08&t=13s

Has the White House blamed the situation in the Ukraine on the climate emergency yet.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on March 10, 2022, 01:56:10 PM

~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=443113 time=1646938209 user_id=2015~~
Has the White House blamed the situation in the Ukraine on the climate emergency yet.

By next week they will not be able to contain themselves any longer

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2022, 01:57:32 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=443114 time=1646938570 user_id=88~~
~~Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=443113 time=1646938209 user_id=2015~~
Has the White House blamed the situation in the Ukraine on the climate emergency yet.

By next week they will not be able to contain themselves any longer

I believe your prediction will be correct.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on March 31, 2022, 09:43:54 PM

Germany is preparing for a potential disruption of natural gas supply from Russia and activated an emergency plan on Wednesday, ahead of the Thursday deadline Vladimir Putin has ordered for gas-for-ruble payments.

Germany triggered an emergency plan in case the supply from Russia is interrupted. The plan could see rationing of gas supply. Other EU member states, including Greece and the Netherlands, have also placed their systems and stakeholders on high alert. Italy and Latvia also issued warnings of potential disruptions.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on March 31, 2022, 09:45:39 PM

~~Quote from: Thiel post_id=445201 time=1648777434 user_id=1688~~
Germany is preparing for a potential disruption of natural gas supply from Russia and activated an emergency plan on Wednesday, ahead of the Thursday deadline Vladimir Putin has ordered for gas-for-ruble payments.

Germany triggered an emergency plan in case the supply from Russia is interrupted. The plan could see rationing of gas supply. Other EU member states, including Greece and the Netherlands, have also placed their systems and stakeholders on high alert. Italy and Latvia also issued warnings of potential disruptions.

Pay in rubles or not natural gas.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 01, 2022, 09:10:45 PM

Germany is on the brink of blackouts, because they've succumbed to activist pressure and are shutting down their nuclear facilities at the exact same time Europe is pledging to find alternate sources to all the oil and gas they're currently getting from Russia. They're not going to find it, because global oil/gas shortages are here for a while; production is constrained by a lack of capital and a lack of desire from oil/gas producers to plow money back into an industry that is being hounded out of existence.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 01, 2022, 10:09:12 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277764895_10158603315095869_6564174590661666660_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=XsEBDFpr3-UAX89628n&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT922gys2QPWXaCz2ZKVWJZbLbStWlNuwabzKnH-AbDFKA&oe=624D116C%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=624D116C%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277764895_10158603315095869_6564174590661666660_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=XsEBDFpr3-UAX89628n&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT922gys2QPWXaCz2ZKVWJZbLbStWlNuwabzKnH-AbDFKA&oe=624D116C%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 05, 2022, 03:07:28 PM

Suncor Energy Inc. is getting out of the wind and solar business. The Calgary-based energy giant — which has been involved in renewable energy production for two decades — announced Monday its plans to divest its wind and solar assets to focus on hydrogen and more sustainable fuels instead.

In 2002, Suncor partnered with Enbridge to build one of the first 'renewable' energy projects in Canada. Since then, Suncor has developed eight wind power projects in three provinces — Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 05, 2022, 07:53:11 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277574381_159186953158983_5186082070907766093_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=0wKkyCk4xHgAX-fKnpC&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT9kIWXpBVvslYlEp8UinHAGP_jA4BVVX_rE4D5R2Ev1FA&oe=6252A40E%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=6252A40E%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/277574381_159186953158983_5186082070907766093_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=0wKkyCk4xHgAX-fKnpC&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT9kIWXpBVvslYlEp8UinHAGP_jA4BVVX_rE4D5R2Ev1FA&oe=6252A40E%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 08, 2022, 10:18:55 PM

Wind energy company kills 150 bald eagles in US, pleads guilty

The criminal case comes amid a push by President Joe Biden for more renewable energy from wind, solar and other sources to help reduce climate changing emissions.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/wind-energy-company-kills-150-bald-eagles-us-pleads-guilty?fbclid=IwAR1mi1eohYX9Ysd2zqBAuJbtCG47ZQUIlvMi5XTKBN70ZYSRf6-wOVUxsSo

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on April 13, 2022, 10:17:16 PM

Killing Fields Of Wind Energy Cannot Be Ignored (//https)

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/wind-turbine-bald-eagle.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/upl%20...%20-eagle.jpg%22%3Ehttps://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/wind-turbine-bald-eagle.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

On the irony of self-proclaimed guardians of the earth promoting a regressive—even primitive—energy technology that is killing millions of the planet's creatures.

ANextEra subsidiary's recent revelation of the mass killing of bald and golden eagles exposed the ugly secret that nearly all wind projects share: the wanton destruction of rare and endangered species. On April 5, in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, ESI Energy pleaded guilty to killing more than 150 eagles in eight states. The company was fined $8 million.

For too long, the slaughter of birds by wind turbines has been allowed to continue under the faux emergency declaration of climate alarmists. But with bird mortality in the millions and the lack of promised benefits from wind energy, the only rational option is to end the development of wind farms.

Studies in the last two years have confirmed what scientists and conservationists have been saying all along: There is blood on the blades of these wind farms, causing irreversible damage to thousands of bird species, including those listed in endangered and vulnerable categories.

In 2021, scientists did a comprehensive study of wind-farm effects on mammalian and avian life. They considered 825 peer-reviewed articles that showed that the "construction, operation and maintenance of wind facilities affect mortality and behavior of mammals and birds as well as habitat suitability."

"It is estimated that 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities on wind energy facilities occur per year in the United States," the study reported.

In Finland, studies have found that the impact of wind farms is lethal not just for large raptors but also for many other species.

In neighboring Norway, researchers found that the current practice in the wind energy sector "has not succeeded in avoiding sites with higher impacts for birds, fueling conflicts surrounding environmental concerns of onshore wind energy development."

A 2022 study analyzing wind development in Bulgaria revealed wind turbines built in northeastern Bulgaria "have a significant negative impact on mortality, barrier effect, and habitat loss. The results reveal other greater risks for birds."

Grouse is another species adversely affected by wind energy. Studies reveal a reduction in grouse populations in areas with wind turbines, and scientists call for "keeping gr

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on April 13, 2022, 10:27:14 PM

South West Alberta has a lot of wind farms and lots of slaughtered birds.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2022, 11:19:21 AM

The solar energy industry has been thrown into a panic and projects are grinding to a halt after the Biden administration launched an investigation that some solar CEOs worry could tank the industry.

The Commerce Department launched the probe in March into whether four countries in Southeast Asia that supply about 80% of US solar panels and parts – Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam – are using components from China that should be subject to US tariffs.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/06/politics/solar-energy-china-investigation-climate/index.html

Besides being not even close to meeting demand, solar energy means surrendering energy independence and relying on China.

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 09, 2022, 09:36:45 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279118053_10228812549365574_9169719407234710817_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=RAeIiIEE9LgAX_J5Bjm&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_1tTV63WPHGjbrpEnygCiv7FDk8y0cN6w7xcumb7NiNg&oe=627EDEBC%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=627EDEBC%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279118053_10228812549365574_9169719407234710817_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=RAeIiIEE9LgAX_J5Bjm&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_1tTV63WPHGjbrpEnygCiv7FDk8y0cN6w7xcumb7NiNg&oe=627EDEBC%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 09, 2022, 09:54:01 PM

~~Quote from: Herman post_id=449597 time=1652146605 user_id=1689~~
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279118053_10228812549365574_9169719407234710817_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=RAeIiIEE9LgAX_J5Bjm&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_1tTV63WPHGjbrpEnygCiv7FDk8y0cN6w7xcumb7NiNg&oe=627EDEBC%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/%20...%20e=627EDEBC%22%3Ehttps://scontent.fyqr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279118053_10228812549365574_9169719407234710817_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=RAeIiIEE9LgAX_J5Bjm&_nc_ht=scontent.fyqr2-1.fna&oh=00_AT_1tTV63WPHGjbrpEnygCiv7FDk8y0cN6w7xcumb7NiNg&oe=627EDEBC%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

~~Yep, emissions free. ac_toofunny~~

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: cc on May 17, 2022, 01:29:16 PM

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/canada-climate-chamge-taxes.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/upl%20...%20-taxes.jpg%22%3Ehttps://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/canada-climate-chamge-taxes.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2022, 03:15:26 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=446799 time=1649902636 user_id=88~~
Killing Fields Of Wind Energy Cannot Be Ignored (//https)

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/wind-turbine-bald-eagle.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/upl%20...%20-eagle.jpg%22%3Ehttps://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/wind-turbine-bald-eagle.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

On the irony of self-proclaimed guardians of the earth promoting a regressive—even primitive—energy technology that is killing millions of the planet's creatures.

ANextEra subsidiary's recent revelation of the mass killing of bald and golden eagles exposed the ugly secret that nearly all wind projects share: the wanton destruction of rare and endangered species. On April 5, in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, ESI Energy pleaded guilty to killing more than 150 eagles in eight states. The company was fined $8 million.

For too long, the slaughter of birds by wind turbines has been allowed to continue under the faux emergency declaration of climate alarmists. But with bird mortality in the millions and the lack of promised benefits from wind energy, the only rational option is to end the development of wind farms.

Studies in the last two years have confirmed what scientists and conservationists have been saying all along: There is blood on the blades of these wind farms, causing irreversible damage to thousands of bird species, including those listed in endangered and vulnerable categories.

In 2021, scientists did a comprehensive study of wind-farm effects on mammalian and avian life. They considered 825 peer-reviewed articles that showed that the "construction, operation and maintenance of wind facilities affect mortality and behavior of mammals and birds as well as habitat suitability."

"It is estimated that 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities on wind energy facilities occur per year in the United States," the study reported.

In Finland, studies have found that the impact of wind farms is lethal not just for large raptors but also for many other species.

In neighboring Norway, researchers found that the current practice in the wind energy sector "has not succeeded in avoiding sites with higher impacts for birds, fueling conflicts surrounding environmental concerns of onshore wind energy development."

A 2022 study analyzing wind development in Bulgaria revealed wind turbines built in northeastern Bulgaria "have a significant negative impact on mortality, barrier effect, and habitat loss. The results reveal other greater risks for birds."

Grouse is another species adversely affected by wind energy. Studies reveal a reduction in grouse populations in areas with wind turbines, and scientists call for "keeping gr

~~How many people know the truth of the ecological devastation wind turbines cause. And they take up so much land to produce so little electricity.~~

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Breakfall on May 18, 2022, 07:06:45 AM

I intend to divert part of a natural water course and run a turbine off a water wheel.

https://greenfuture.io/sustainable-living/water-wheel-generator/

(//%3C/s%3E%20%3CURL%20url=%22https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQjLDpFGhRqlNJPR5uu7EBudcCKnGofpwyDTrMRdnUjNT28jCD6vg2gj79&s=10%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag%20...%202gj79&s=10%22%3Ehttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQjLDpFGhRqlNJPR5uu7EBudcCKnGofpwyDTrMRdnUjNT28jCD6vg2gj79&s=10%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2022, 01:08:01 PM

~~Quote from: Bonkerfist post_id=450496 time=1652872005 user_id=3358~~
I intend to divert part of a natural water course and run a turbine off a water wheel.

https://greenfuture.io/sustainable-living/water-wheel-generator/

(//%3C/s%3E%20%3CURL%20url=%22https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQjLDpFGhRqlNJPR5uu7EBudcCKnGofpwyDTrMRdnUjNT28jCD6vg2gj79&s=10%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag%20...%202gj79&s=10%22%3Ehttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQjLDpFGhRqlNJPR5uu7EBudcCKnGofpwyDTrMRdnUjNT28jCD6vg2gj79&s=10%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

~~You are a traditionalist.~~

Title: Re: The folly of wind and solar as energy sources
Post by: Thiel on May 18, 2022, 10:47:44 PM

~~Quote from: cc post_id=446799 time=1649902636 user_id=88~~
Killing Fields Of Wind Energy Cannot Be Ignored (//2022/04/12/killing-fields-of-wind-energy-cannot-be-ignored/)

https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/wind-turbine-bald-eagle.jpg[/img]

On the irony of self-proclaimed guardians of the earth promoting a regressive—even primitive—energy technology that is killing millions of the planet's creatures.

ANextEra subsidiary's recent revelation of the mass killing of bald and golden eagles exposed the ugly secret that nearly all wind projects share: the wanton destruction of rare and endangered species. On April 5, in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, ESI Energy pleaded guilty to killing more than 150 eagles in eight states. The company was fined $8 million.

For too long, the slaughter of birds by wind turbines has been allowed to continue under the faux emergency declaration of climate alarmists. But with bird mortality in the millions and the lack of promised benefits from wind energy, the only rational option is to end the development of wind farms.

Studies in the last two years have confirmed what scientists and conservationists have been saying all along: There is blood on the blades of these wind farms, causing irreversible damage to thousands of bird species, including those listed in endangered and vulnerable categories.

In 2021, scientists did a comprehensive study of wind-farm effects on mammalian and avian life. They considered 825 peer-reviewed articles that showed that the "construction, operation and maintenance of wind facilities affect mortality and behavior of mammals and birds as well as habitat suitability."

"It is estimated that 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities on wind energy facilities occur per year in the United States," the study reported.

In Finland, studies have found that the impact of wind farms is lethal not just for large raptors but also for many other species.

In neighboring Norway, researchers found that the current practice in the wind energy sector "has not succeeded in avoiding sites with higher impacts for birds, fueling conflicts surrounding environmental concerns of onshore wind energy development."

A 2022 study analyzing wind development in Bulgaria revealed wind turbines built in northeastern Bulgaria "have a significant negative impact on mortality, barrier effect, and habitat loss. The results reveal other greater risks for birds."

Grouse is another species adversely affected by wind energy. Studies reveal a reduction in grouse populations in areas with wind turbines, and scientists call for "keeping gr

There so many myths about the primitive energy sources, wind and solar.

THeBlueCashew

General Discussion => The Flea Trap => Topic started by: Anonymous on February 18, 2021, 11:25:52 AM