3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

As I recall you had some blackouts in 2000-2001.

You are correct to point out that a 400 megawatt loss was due to a natural gas generator, but failed to mention the 1000 MEGAWATT LOSS FROM THE LACK OF WIND.

“Saturday's outage happened after 1,000 megawatts of wind power and a 470-megawatt gas plant briefly went offline.”

and unlike the natural gas plant, the wind didn’t come back on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

They just need to design a system where the sun shines and the wind blows 24/7.  If they had just two or three old fashioned coal burning plants they would have been fine.

On a separate note, wasn’t all of this “green” energy supposed to prevent heatwaves and wildfires?  It would seem obvious that it is not working.

Brent buddy, I'm thinking you could power a windmill all by yourself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Announcing your intention to not engage is a form of engagement.

I think it is only polite to explain why you are bowing out of a conversation. Ie. the intention was to indicate that I wouldn't engage on that topic or respond to his "points" not to say i would not engage at all anymore.

But thank you for your "captain obvious" useless addition to the topic.

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As I recall you had some blackouts in 2000-2001.

You are correct to point out that a 400 megawatt loss was due to a natural gas generator . . . .

Right.  If the gas generator had started up - no blackouts.

Looks like BESS systems will be a better investment than more gas plants in the future.  We've learned our lesson.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right.  If the gas generator had started up - no blackouts.

Looks like BESS systems will be a better investment than more gas plants in the future.  We've learned our lesson.

 

MORE fossil fuel generated electricity?  You guys are going to have to rethink your fracking ban if you want to keep those generators fed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

I took your comment as an insult, if that wasn't clear. So welcome to my "specialty" I guess.

Actually, I was expressing my frustration with those who engage with the trolls in general. And trying to point out the futility of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Actually, I was expressing my frustration with those who engage with the trolls in general. And trying to point out the futility of doing so.

That's great. Calling somebody a troll is an insult, so 2 for 2 on being insulting. I don't think Brent is a troll, I just don't think he is being intellectually honest and is opposing due to an ingrained position, not just to get a rise out of people. hence I had to explain why I didn't want to engage on his points.

You decided you had to insult both of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Say what you will about Brent, but he got the canuks fighting with each other - that's gotta count for something.:p

No, he's just got Skydekker attacking out of instinct which, it seems, is all he's got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
17 hours ago, billvon said:

Right.  If the gas generator had started up - no blackouts.

Looks like BESS systems will be a better investment than more gas plants in the future.  We've learned our lesson.

 

Sorry, I misread you post.  I saw “more gas plants” and “better investment” and jumped the gun. (Note to self, don’t post while trying to get the kids to bed)

That said, as I predicted, you would mention battery storage.  Here is what MIT has to say, 

These batteries are far too expensive and don’t last nearly long enough, limiting the role they can play on the grid.  If we plan to rely on them for massive amounts of storage as more renewables come online we could be headed down a dangerously unaffordable path.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
 

 

Wind

image.png

Solar

image.jpeg

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 3:30 PM, SkyDekker said:

The debacle isn't green energy. Sounds like green energy is working very well, considering it was producing 1,000 megawatts of power. Seems pretty significant. This sounds more like a system design issue.

A system design issue.

How do you design for a lack of the only thing that makes your design work?

That's like saying that a generator, powered by hurricanes, has a design flaw if hurricanes don't show up to power it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry, I misread you post.  I saw “more gas plants” and “better investment” and jumped the gun. (Note to self, don’t post while trying to get the kids to bed)

That said, as I predicted, you would mention battery storage.  Here is what MIT has to say, 

These batteries are far too expensive and don’t last nearly long enough, limiting the role they can play on the grid.  If we plan to rely on them for massive amounts of storage as more renewables come online we could be headed down a dangerously unaffordable path.

This is true at the moment.

But in the span of a few years I expect that they will find a way to afford it, and the tech keeps getting better.

Don't resist tech progress and invention so much.

Its that same progress that allows you to post while you are putting your kids to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

A system design issue.

How do you design for a lack of the only thing that makes your design work?

That's like saying that a generator, powered by hurricanes, has a design flaw if hurricanes don't show up to power it.

The system was originally conceived and designed in a completely different era, with different technology available. Of course it isn’t perfect, any more than our medical system is perfect. We’ll get there, because we have to, and the sooner forward-looking people pay for forward-looking remedies, the sooner people with less foresight can benefit from their effort and money. 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The system was originally conceived and designed in a completely different era, with different technology available. Of course it isn’t perfect, any more than our medical system is perfect. We’ll get there, because we have to, and the sooner forward-looking people pay for forward-looking remedies, the sooner people with less foresight can benefit from their effort and money. 

Wendy P. 

The system uses wind. That's the only fuel or energy it uses.  When wind runs out, so does the efficacy of the system.

That isn't a design flaw.  The design works.

The only way to design a wind driven system that doesn't fail is to be able to manufacture wind for it to use.

I'm not advocating against turbine use other than the horrendous visual you get.  It is dreadful to see all that land cluttered by those monstrosities.

I am hopeful that the tech will advance more quickly than it has.

Again, it isn't a system design error, or flaw.  Its an unavoidable inconsistency of the energy needed to drive it, due to its dependence on an uncontrollable energy source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The system uses wind. That's the only fuel or energy it uses.  When wind runs out, so does the efficacy of the system.

That isn't a design flaw.  The design works.

The only way to design a wind driven system that doesn't fail is to be able to manufacture wind for it to use.

I'm not advocating against turbine use other than the horrendous visual you get.  It is dreadful to see all that land cluttered by those monstrosities.

I am hopeful that the tech will advance more quickly than it has.

Again, it isn't a system design error, or flaw.  Its an unavoidable inconsistency of the energy needed to drive it, due to its dependence on an uncontrollable energy source.

Clearly the concept of "system" eludes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The system uses wind. That's the only fuel or energy it uses.  When wind runs out, so does the efficacy of the system.

That isn't a design flaw.  The design works.

 

Let's consider a coal fired power plant.  You give it fuel, it burns it and generates power.  But it can't deliver it to consumers.  That's how it works.  There's no design flaw - the power plant was not designed to deliver power to consumers, period.   So consumers get zero power.

And how do you get coal there?  Usually by rail; truck delivery is woefully inadequate in most cases.  But what if there's no rails to that place, and trucking is impractical due to the volume of coal needed?  Then your coal power plant generates exactly zero power.

"But you need a power distribution system to get power to consumers!" you claim.  "You need more than just a power plant!  You need a power grid, and coal mines, and railroad tracks."  Yes, you do.  A coal fired power plant alone is insufficient to be a power grid - just as a wind turbine is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

Let's consider a coal fired power plant.  You give it fuel, it burns it and generates power.  But it can't deliver it to consumers.  That's how it works.  There's no design flaw - the power plant was not designed to deliver power to consumers, period.   So consumers get zero power.

And how do you get coal there?  Usually by rail; truck delivery is woefully inadequate in most cases.  But what if there's no rails to that place, and trucking is impractical due to the volume of coal needed?  Then your coal power plant generates exactly zero power.

"But you need a power distribution system to get power to consumers!" you claim.  "You need more than just a power plant!  You need a power grid, and coal mines, and railroad tracks."  Yes, you do.  A coal fired power plant alone is insufficient to be a power grid - just as a wind turbine is.

Wow I never thought of it that way.  We just need some wind mines and railroad tracks! We could even store a big pile of wind, on site, as an extra backup.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3