Stock Up People !!!!

[bholler]

But without those excrement loads of subsidies for the fossil fuels used to create and enable the fantasy of alt wind and solar energy....they both would be even more out of reach.

alt energy doesn't exist without the fossil fuel used to melt the minerals into the right shape.

Yes that is true at this point for the most part. But those products that are being made then go on to produce energy for decades. Far far more than the energy used to produce them.

We get it we are still a country and world that relies heavily upon fossil fuels. That isn't news to anyone. But why is it a bad thing to develop alternatives that will make us more energy independent in the long run and pollute less?


Explain to us how alternatives which now make over 20% of our electricity and growing faster every year are a fantasy.

 

[snobuilder]

If alternatives don't work why are they the fastest growing segment of energy production in the US? Even though only roughly 20% of energy subsidies went to them with 70% going to fossil fuels???? It just doesn't make sense.


And btw your example of Arizona is flawed because they are now one of the states with the fastest growing alternative energy systems.

When will the first of the 10 power plants be shut down due to so called green energy completely replacing it?

 

[snobuilder]

Explain to us how alternatives which now make over 20% of our electricity and growing faster every year are a fantasy.

20 %.....LOL ....Absolute nonsense.....can't even achieve that in sunny AZ

 

[bholler]

When will the first of the 10 power plants be shut down due to so called green energy completely replacing it?

Many have been shut down. Do a little research. Many others are idled much more often now because of the increased input from alternatives.

 

[snobuilder]

Many have been shut down. Do a little research. Many others are idled much more often now because of the increased input from alternatives.

name one

 

[bholler]

Absolute nonsense.....can't even achieve that in sunny AZ

Not yet. But they are one of the fastest growing markets. And Incase you didn't notice I said alternatives not just solar. That includes hydro wind solar and a few other minor contributors.

 

[bholler]

name one

Hundreds of coal plants have been shut down many of those were converted or replaced with natural gas. But quite a few have not been. Of the new electrical generation capacity being built only 16% are fossil fuel plants. So coal plants closing all over but only 16% of new capacity comes from fossil fuel. To me that is pretty clear.

 

[SpaceBus]

coal has been falling out of favor for a century.

 

[bholler]

coal has been falling out of favor for a century.

Yes absolutely and that is a good thing. And it is mostly due to natural gas. But alternatives are quickly starting to take over the new capacity

 

[SpaceBus]

Yes absolutely and that is a good thing. And it is mostly due to natural gas. But alternatives are quickly starting to take over the new capacity

Pretty soon it won't even be used for iron/steel works either.

 

[bholler]

Pretty soon it won't even be used for iron/steel works either.

I think that is going to take a while. The coal does more in the process than just supply heat. Those things can be done through other processes but they cost more. I agree it certainly will happen but I don't think it will be a quick transition

 

[stoveliker]

When will the first of the 10 power plants be shut down due to so called green energy completely replacing it?

Long Island. I could not find the data, i.e. this is only a newspaper, but here you go:

LIPA: Green energy to dominate LI electric grid by 2030

Nearly 70% of Long Island's power will be generated by renewable energy sources including wind and solar by 2030 as LIPA prepares to retire aging fossil-fuel plants.

www.newsday.com

Power demand on Long Island has been more or less flat for a while despite a growing population. (This is due to conservation measures such as LEDs, Energy Start appliances, and insulation.)
Peak demand will start to rise after 2028 (due to EVs). Nevertheless, fossil plants are being phased out.

For a flat demand, phasing out fossil plants simply means that there is no other explanation than (incorporating) renewables (in the system, including how to manage their variable generation capacity). (Because Nuclear is not increasing, I think - though I would encourage more nuclear - too.)

 

[snobuilder]

One Wind Turbine Takes 900 Tons of Steel , 2500 Tons Of Concrete , 45 Tons of Plastic!

From WSJ If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic. By Mark P. Mills Aug. 5, 2019 6:48 pm …

peckford42.wordpress.com

 

[stoveliker]

That is about a factor of three to five higher than other estimates...

How many steel workers does it take to build a windmill?

No, this isn’t a knock knock joke. It’s an important question that probably isn’t asked often enough, because it illustrates how investing in green energy is often good for some of the country’s older, struggling industries too. The answer, according to the American Wind Energy Association, is...

consumerenergyalliance.org

Fact Check-Meme claiming that wind turbines are inefficient misquotes expert

A meme wrongly saying that wind turbines will never generate as much energy as was used to construct them misquotes a passage from an essay written by scientist David Hughes.

www.reuters.com

Here they say 120-180 tons per.megawatt wind power:

Steel is the power behind renewable energy | ArcelorMittal

Steel is the power behind renewable energy

corporate.arcelormittal.com

 

[bholler]

One Wind Turbine Takes 900 Tons of Steel , 2500 Tons Of Concrete , 45 Tons of Plastic!

From WSJ If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic. By Mark P. Mills Aug. 5, 2019 6:48 pm …

peckford42.wordpress.com

Why doesn't that article contain and references saying where those numbers came from like most reputable articles do?

 

[Ashful]

coal has been falling out of favor for a century.

Dunno where you get that. Western PA couldn't build coal-fired generation plants fast enough in the 1970's and 1980's, when in fact they built the then-world's largest coal-fired plant, to power the new induction furnaces at Bethlehem Steel's Johnstown PA plant. Think four parallel tracks of railway, coal cars on a constant rotating shuffle, just to feed the beast. Most of these plants are still in operation, but many are due to close before 2030, due to their wastewater and other issues.

With zero research on it, I would guess the peak in coal generation in this part of the country had to be somewhere around 1975 - 1980.

 

[SpaceBus]

Dunno where you get that. Western PA couldn't build coal-fired generation plants fast enough in the 1970's and 1980's, when in fact they built the then-world's largest coal-fired plant, to power the new induction furnaces at Bethlehem Steel's Johnstown PA plant. Think four parallel tracks of railway, coal cars on a constant rotating shuffle, just to feed the beast. Most of these plants are still in operation, but many are due to close before 2030, due to their wastewater and other issues.

PA is an outlier, WV was built on coal 100 years ago and is now a shell. There is also the rest of the world to consider.

Coal has been falling out of favor for NG and petroleum for about a century. You are projecting something I didn't say. I simply said that coal has been falling out of favor for a century. This is true in the US and globally. NG and oil products are far more popular for about everything short of steel and iron works, for which coal has always been used (along side charcoal). Coal is the least popular fossil fuel, for obvious reasons, and has been very aggressively phased out recently. The oil embargo of the 70's drove some short term coal production, but that's nothing compared to the days before oil and NG started rapidly replacing it. Furthermore the successive Clean Air Acts starting in the 50's effectively sealed the fate for coal as a big time energy player.

 

[snobuilder]

Why doesn't that article contain and references saying where those numbers came from like most reputable articles do?

No worries, the ministry of truth will be along shortly to keep my mind right.

 

[bholler]

No worries, the ministry of truth will be along shortly to keep my mind right.

So you see no need to verify validity of the information you are basing your opinions upon with actual data?

That explains allot

 

[Ashful]

PA is an outlier, WV was built on coal 100 years ago and is now a shell. There is also the rest of the world to consider.

Coal has been falling out of favor for NG and petroleum for about a century. You are projecting something I didn't say. I simply said that coal has been falling out of favor for a century. This is true in the US and globally. NG and oil products are far more popular for about everything short of steel and iron works, for which coal has always been used (along side charcoal). Coal is the least popular fossil fuel, for obvious reasons, and has been very aggressively phased out recently. The oil embargo of the 70's drove some short term coal production, but that's nothing compared to the days before oil and NG started rapidly replacing it. Furthermore the successive Clean Air Acts starting in the 50's effectively sealed the fate for coal as a big time energy player.

I appreciate the reply. I guess it depends on your definition of "going out of favor", which I can see that author meant as a fraction of total energy consumption.

The reality is that, as clearly shown in the graph you linked, actual coal usage peaked around 2010 in the US. That's when NG finally really pulled ahead of it to solidly take the #2 spot after petroleum, even later than I had suspected based on local observation. Until then, NG and coal had been battling it out for 2nd place for much of the last 70 years, in the US.

The rest of the world? laugh... we can barely manage what happens here.

 

[brenndatomu]

So you see no need to verify validity of the information you are basing your opinions upon with actual data?

That explains allot

Verifying validity is one thing, but trusting this administration to decide what is truth and what is not is like putting starved fox's in charge of Colonel Sanders hen house.

 

[bholler]

Verifying validity is one thing, but trusting this administration to decide what is truth and what is not is like putting starved fox's in charge of Colonel Sanders hen house.

I am not saying anything about any administration. All of this started before this administration took power anyway so I don't see how it enters into the equation. And no I am not blaming the previous administration either. This isn't a political issue no matter how much people try to make it one.

I am talking about looking at data from multiple sources to determine what the truth actually is instead of just relying upon what one person wrote in an editorial with no sources provided for the info.

 

[brenndatomu]

I am talking about looking at data from multiple sources to determine what the truth actually is instead of just relying upon what one person wrote in an editorial with no sources provided for the info.

Have no problem with that...makes sense 100%...but that is not what this "ministry of truth" intends to do (despite their claims) and anybody that thinks it is...boy do I have a real estate deal for you!

 

[snobuilder]

So you see no need to verify validity of the information you are basing your opinions upon with actual data?

That explains allot

Show me one place where all energy needs are being met by wind and solar at a 20% rate. It sure as heck won't work where I live. not to mention the obscene amount of non sustainable natural resources it will gobble up.
Your wood stove isn't the only thing flaming.

 

[snobuilder]

I am not saying anything about any administration. All of this started before this administration took power anyway so I don't see how it enters into the equation. And no I am not blaming the previous administration either. This isn't a political issue no matter how much people try to make it one.

I am talking about looking at data from multiple sources to determine what the truth actually is instead of just relying upon what one person wrote in an editorial with no sources provided for the info.

Who decides the "truth"?....yours or mine. How many ways can you twist a simple word yet alone a statistic?

One thing is for sure, we are ALL being manipulated and perhaps that is a flag we could unite behind.