Fossil Fuels are a Hell of a Lot More Sustainable Than Wind and Solar

[Anonymous]

Old Jock will get his money out. A lot of people in this country will be doing that in the future. A change of government can no longer stop the downward momentum. The question is will their Canadian money be worth anything.

[Anonymous]

On another forum I saw a repost of a popular, but totally false internet claim that passenger trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy..



I was in Holland recently and I know that it was fake news on social media.



Do the Netherlands' trains really run on 100% wind power?



his question generated a number of comments in the last Blowout so I thought I would take a quick look at it. I find that the electrified portion of the Dutch railway network (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or NS) runs on grid electricity that comes dominantly from fossil fuel generation (natural gas and coal). NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction. Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.



First some details on the Netherlands' electricity sector. As shown in the table below installed capacity is dominantly fossil fuel, with natural gas making up 61% of total installed capacity and coal 15%. Wind contributes 4,117MW, representing 13% of the capacity mix.

http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/



https://energyfairness.org/dutch-trains-really-running-completely-renewable-power/

[Anonymous]

On another forum I saw a repost of a popular, but totally false internet claim that passenger trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy..



I was in Holland recently and I know that it was fake news on social media.



Do the Netherlands' trains really run on 100% wind power?



his question generated a number of comments in the last Blowout so I thought I would take a quick look at it. I find that the electrified portion of the Dutch railway network (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or NS) runs on grid electricity that comes dominantly from fossil fuel generation (natural gas and coal). NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction. Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.



First some details on the Netherlands' electricity sector. As shown in the table below installed capacity is dominantly fossil fuel, with natural gas making up 61% of total installed capacity and coal 15%. Wind contributes 4,117MW, representing 13% of the capacity mix.

http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/



https://energyfairness.org/dutch-trains-really-running-completely-renewable-power/

Was it VF? That stunned cunt asal?

[Anonymous]

On another forum I saw a repost of a popular, but totally false internet claim that passenger trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy..



I was in Holland recently and I know that it was fake news on social media.



Do the Netherlands' trains really run on 100% wind power?



his question generated a number of comments in the last Blowout so I thought I would take a quick look at it. I find that the electrified portion of the Dutch railway network (Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or NS) runs on grid electricity that comes dominantly from fossil fuel generation (natural gas and coal). NS claims 100% wind power because it has a contract with various wind farms to produce enough energy to power its rail system, but this is just an accounting transaction. Only a small fraction of the power delivered to its trains actually comes from wind.



First some details on the Netherlands' electricity sector. As shown in the table below installed capacity is dominantly fossil fuel, with natural gas making up 61% of total installed capacity and coal 15%. Wind contributes 4,117MW, representing 13% of the capacity mix.

http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/



https://energyfairness.org/dutch-trains-really-running-completely-renewable-power/

Was it VF? That stunned cunt asal?

No, it was on BF......one of the CBT regulars..



They don't understand wind and solar are unreliable as real energy sources and less sustainable not to mention more polluting.

[Anonymous]

Figures. Prog are anti-science.

[Thiel]

Something you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

[Frood]

Something you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

I will click it but I know that it won't matter for decades or even centuries...





The suppression of tech is huge and they can't let the people disregard energy giants.



At best, it will be a new more experimental tech not for the people despite them getting a hold of it decades before.

[Anonymous]

Something you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

To be honest, I doubt I will read it.

[cc]

Fusion has always been an interest of mine.



"Theoretically", it is "the" answer ... I'll give it a go, Thiel

[Anonymous]

Something you might want to read if you are interested in new technology.





Physicists Say We're Officially at the "Threshold of Nuclear Fusion Ignition"

Researchers just passed a major milestone, one they're calling "a Wright Brothers moment."

https://interestingengineering.com/we-are-now-closer-to-the-historic-nuclear-fusion-ignition-milestone

I will take a look.

[Anonymous]

Waterous Energy Fund says Alberta's oilsands are "the most economic (oil), it is reducing its carbon intensity the fastest, and it has the world's leading social and governance (standards)."



"There is growth in the future of the oilsands," Waterous said.



Waterous, who founded the fund in 2017, also believes the carbon intensity of the oilsands will continue to fall — and at a faster rate than U.S. shale oil, given Alberta's geology and the ability to capture carbon emissions and store them underground.



Finally, he said the amount of oil in the hands of free-market companies — not state-owned enterprises — will shrink in the coming decade, meaning the oilsands will gain greater importance as a stable source of supply.



These trends will propel Canadian oil production from four million barrels per day to about five million by 2030, he projected.

[Anonymous]

More Confirmation Of The Infeasibility Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Storage Electricity System

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/more-confirmation-of-the-infeasibility-of-a-fully-wind-solar-storage-electricity-system/



The background of this issue is that large numbers of green activists, up to and including the current President of the United States, make regular statements indicating that they believe that fossil fuels can be eliminated from the modern economy by simply building sufficient capacity of wind and solar electricity generation. Such statements rarely consider or mention the necessity of energy storage, or the feasibility or cost of same. And yet any serious consideration of the intermittency of wind and solar inevitably leads to the conclusion that without dispatchable backup (fossil fuel or nuclear) they require vast amounts of energy storage to cover the periods of intermittency. Understanding the amount of storage required, its physical characteristics, and its cost, is completely essential to answering the question of whether a fully wind/solar/storage system is feasible.



And yet our governments are currently marching ahead with religious zeal with plans for "net zero" electricity generation, based almost entirely on wind and sun, without any serious consideration of the amount of storage required or of the cost or feasibility of the project. Nor has there ever been a demonstration of a workable prototype system that could achieve net zero emissions with only wind, sun and storage, even for a small town or an island.



Previous posts at Manhattan Contrarian on this subject have reviewed detailed work by Roger Andrews and by Ken Gregory. In this post from November 2018, I reviewed work by Andrews dealing with actual wind and solar generation data from the two cases of California and Germany. Andrews concluded that due to seasonal patterns of wind and solar generation, either California or Germany would require approximately 30 full days of energy storage to back up a fully wind/solar generation system. Based on current costs of lithium-ion batteries, Andrews calculated that building sufficient wind and solar generation plus sufficient batteries would lead to a multiplication of the cost of electricity by approximately a factor of between 14 and 22. In this post from January 2022, I reviewed work by Gregory dealing with actual wind/solar generation for the case of the entire United States. Gregory considered how much storage would suffice as the sole back up where the U.S. had fully electrified all currently non-electrified sectors (e.g., transport, home heat, industry, agriculture), thus essentially tripling electricity demand from the current level. His conclusion was that the batteries alone would cost about $400 trillion — about 20 times the full GDP of the United States.



Clearly, if either Andrews or Gregory is anywhere near right, converting a modern economy to fully wind, solar and storage is not remotely feasible.



Into this mix now come Ruhnau and Qvist. The focus of R&Q is once again the amount of storage needed to back up a fully wind/solar generation system, once fossil fuels have been eliminated as a back up option. The R&Q study deals only with the case of Germany, and only with supplying its current level of electricity demand, rather than demand that may be tripled or more by economy-wide electrification of transport, heating, and so forth.



The bottom line is that the result of the R&Q study is approximately in line with the findings of Andrews and Gregory. Where Andrews and Gregory had calculated that about 30 days of storage would be required to back up a fully wind/solar system, R&Q come up with 24 days. However, to get to the 24 day result, R&Q require massive overbuilding of the wind/solar system, to the point where its nameplate "capacity" is about triple Germany's peak electricity demand, and five times average demand. The result is a system where vast amounts of surplus electricity on sunny/windy days must be discarded or "curtailed." However, R&Q say that their model is based on cost minimization, because building vast excess capacity and discarding electricity by the terawatt hour is actually cheaper than adding additional storage.

[Anonymous]

I learned that public finance of the fossil fuel sector claims about such subsidies are mostly a product of green activist data manipulation. But, billions are given to fossil fuel companies to eliminate and bury carbon emissions — that kind of subsidy is apparently acceptable.

[cc]

I learned that public finance of the fossil fuel sector claims about such subsidies are mostly a product of green activist data manipulation. ......................

"data manipulation" is what this whole climate & fuels thingy is all about.



Without it there would be little to no issue

[Anonymous]

I learned that public finance of the fossil fuel sector claims about such subsidies are mostly a product of green activist data manipulation. But, billions are given to fossil fuel companies to eliminate and bury carbon emissions — that kind of subsidy is apparently acceptable.

Shen Li posted about that a long time ago..



The so called subsidies are the same write-offs any new venture is entitled to use.