@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
The advocates of wind and solar power have been notoriously inaccurate in forecasting either the cost or the net benefit of their energy proposals. The siimple reason is that, both in terms of initial capital cost and long-term operating cost, these alternatives (particularly wind power) are far more expensive than any of their conventional alternatives, including coal, gas and nuclear. Moreover there are no evident technological improvements that micht significantly change that situation. This is particularly true of wind power, in that we have over a century of advanced development of airfoils, turbines and propellers, and that further advancesd are highly unlikely.
Offshore wind turbines offer generally higher average surface wind velocities, but they too suffer from significan diurnal variuation yielding an average actual power output (capacity factor of about 1/3rd the installed generating capacity. This means that well over twice the installed generating capacity must be built to yield the same level of average power output with wind & solar plants.
Moreover the simple diurnal variation in power output means that existing conventional plant capacity must be retained to ensure continuous supply. A 50% wind generated output a (as described in the article) would require more than doubling the capital investment in power generation and reducing the efficiency of its average operation by more than half. The "energy storage" schemes being advanced to solve that are at best illusions, in that over 50% of the stored energy in the compressed gas and like storage systems is lost in the various conversions from electrical to thermodynamic and back to electrical conversions involved.
Your taste for this kind of superficial propaganda appears to be boundless. It certainly far exceeds your apparent knowledge of the subject.
George, and what is the expense of cleaning up a nuclear disaster? Priceless... No price can remedy that situation... You use the word nuclear like it is a child's toy... I would call that "superficial propaganda" too and "inaccurate forecasting" of the actual long term cost of burning dirty and terminally toxic fuels... What is the expense of this disaster of global warming caused by CO2 and coal? The conglomeration of the greatest countries in the world and their resources cannot even fix a price on the damage done to our earth's inhabitants and atmosphere through these energy forms you tout. Dead lakes, acid rain and stunted life forms across any states in its coal smoke stack path... Health issues that negate any semblance of quality of life... Sulfuric acid emissions and republicans trying their damnedest to lax regulations even more. Drill baby drill. And what of the irreparable ecological damage done to level a mountain of coal? Or fracking... and again "irreparable" damage done to a water table that only nature knows how to build... What is the cost of replacing a mountain? How about you answer that? And these mountains are the very instruments that generate wind naturally... Water tables that have existed many thousands of years destroyed by corporations in a matter of a few years due to fracking procedures... Corporation who have no viable means of repairing their damage whatsoever. They also have no intention of repairing the damage done by their extractions. We are still finding floating and embedded oil sludge in the Louisiana wetlands and will be doing so for perhaps, at least, a few hundred years from now. How long will the holes plugged up in the Gulf over a spent well hold up before thousands of them break their pressure seals and start to leak toxins into the pristine Gulf of Mexico? Will we be able to cross that bridge when it occurs and what will the cost be if any price will remedy such a catastrophe? How do we repair a leaking oil stop a thousand feet under water and what is the cost to fix even one of these?
Alberta Canada is nearly a desert now due to all of the surface water which was pumped into deep underground caverns so oil companies could get every last drop of oil.
Brazil rain forests are being cut down and politically speculated by gluttonous corporation and their stinking rich stock holders for energy purposes and "thousands" of wildlife species are slated for becoming extinct due to this...
You seem oblivious and, frankly, brainwashed by, I can only guess, narrow sighted Fox News talking points.
Replacing a burned out wind turbine is not nearly as costly as waiting a few thousand years for a nuclear disaster to abate. Your point is completely moot... You need to rethink your own entire energy talking points... Also, as you well know the electric car that will soon replace our automobile fleet will be charging at night when electrical energy at this stage is at a low demand and for the most part totally wasted.
Oil sands before and after...
Open tar sands continuously oozing toxic atmospheric poisons... rather than trees that produce breathable oxygen and filter our air...
And by the way, a wind turbine in essence is nearly 100% recyclable. Metal is one of the best materials for recycling. It nearly has a 1 to 1 ratio of return in the recycling process. How do you plan to recycle a solid rock mountain? You don't... only the earth can do that and it happens over thousands of years... The earth does not accept cash payoffs either like our fossil fuel forecasters and politicians.
