Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs.

You'll be arguing against this no matter how successful it turns out to be, won't you? The next few years should be pretty fun in this thread, as more and more evidence proves you and other oil fanatics to have been completely wrong about the future of renewable technologies.

Cycloptichorn

That's because this is not about energy independence. It's about gas. The price of gas is high, people have made bad decisions in the past, automakers have produced gas guzzling cars and people have bought them - and now people are looking back to the times when gas was cheap and wishing desperately that something, anything, could bring back those times.

Changing your lifestyle, buying a more efficient car, switching to an economy that is less dependent on oil....? Nah. Too much of a hassle.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal.

miniTAX wrote:

In God we trust, all others must show their numbers.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you understand that your track record on this thread does not really add weight to your assertions?

Don't know what you mean by such cheap wholesale accusation. But well, if it could make you feel better, so be it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Whereas the city did, in fact, purchase the wind power to use?

Maybe you could move to Houston to pay cheaper renewable electricity and say good bye to your current "voluntary higher bill", lol :wink:

0 Replies

2,000 ACRES FOR OIL DRILLING IN ANWR / 19,000,000 ACRES IN ALL OF ANWR =
2 / 19,000 = 1 / 9,500 = 0.0001053.

0.0001053 X 100% = 0.01053%

I bet all those Alaskan caribou, polar bears, etc. are not limited to the 2,000 acres of ANWR proposed for new oil drilling.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you understand that your track record on this thread does not really add weight to your assertions?
Don't know what you mean by such cheap wholesale accusation. But well, if it could make you feel better, so be it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Whereas the city did, in fact, purchase the wind power to use?

Maybe you could move to Houston to pay cheaper renewable electricity and say good bye to your current "voluntary higher bill", lol :wink:

I'm not sure what you find to be funny about the fact that PG&E allows us to pay a higher rate for our power, with the difference between the rates going to fund furthering the infrastructure of renewable power in the area.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal.

miniTAX wrote:
In God we trust, all others must show their numbers.

Ask it to CyclopticHorn, he "voluntarily" pays a higher rate for his electricity to promote wind, so he must know the numbers.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
[Houston's windturbines are] Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs.
...
Cycloptichorn

CORRECTION

[Houston's windturbines are] ALLEGED BY Cycloptichorn AND A WSJ WRITER, WRITING ABOUT WHAT THE HOUSTON CITY GOVERNMENT ALLEGEDLY CLAIMS, TO BE reliable enough that [THEY ARE] powering a major portion of the city's 24/7/52 energy needs.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

old europe wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal.

miniTAX wrote:
In God we trust, all others must show their numbers.
Ask it to CyclopticHorn, he "voluntarily" pays a higher rate for his electricity to promote wind, so he must know the numbers.

He said that the difference between the rates is going to fund furthering the infrastructure of renewable power.

I'm sure you will agree that paying more to promote wind energy is not the same as paying more for wind energy.

You, on the other hand, made the claim that "Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
[Houston's windturbines are] Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs.
...
Cycloptichorn

CORRECTION

[Houston's windturbines are] ALLEGED BY Cycloptichorn AND A WSJ WRITER, WRITING ABOUT WHAT THE HOUSTON CITY GOVERNMENT ALLEGEDLY CLAIMS, TO BE reliable enough that [THEY ARE] powering a major portion of the city's 24/7/52 energy needs.

I'm not sure the WSJ alleged that either. Did Cyclop provide a link? Although one of the world's largest wind turbine farms is at Sweetwater TX, that is some 450 miles from Houston with a lot of communities to be served in between. I haven't spent a great deal of time in Houston in recent years, but I don't recall that part of Texas being very windy--mostly hot, muggy, humid much of the year.

It appears there is a push to increase coal as a major energy source for Texas however as Texas's use of coal is considerably less than the national average. SEE HERE

Wouldn't it be wonderful if a) scientists would put all the global warming stuff to rest so we could move on to solve solvable problems? and b) that resulted in discovery of ways to use the relatively inexpensive and widely plentiful coal in nonpolluting ways and thereby solve the world's energy crisis?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not sure the WSJ alleged that either.

It would seem that the city of Houston itself says so.

Quote:

Officials from the City have been working to stabilize the City's $150 million annual electricity bill. The strategy that City experts have settled on is a diversified power portfolio including the use of renewable wind power. The City has negotiated a contract to ensure that a third of the city's power is to be generated by renewable wind energy, making Houston a national leader among local governments across the country using renewable energy.

[...]

The renewable wind power contract gives the City of Houston the ability to bring in up to 80 megawatts, or 700,800,000 kilowatt-hours, of renewable power which represents 50% of the City's total power. This would embody the highest purchase of green energy by any governmental entity, including federal agencies. The design of the contract includes a negotiated "structure" that comprises third party wholesalers, Reliant Energy, the Government Land Office, and City of Houston to transact long-term wind power. The strategy will be to step in 10 megawatts increments of wind power for 5-year terms at competitive prices.

In choosing renewable wind power as a major source of the City's overall power usage, the City will not only be saving the tax payers money, but more importantly, get a power source that reduces climate-changing emissions from being emitted into the air.

From the website of the Mayor's Office of Environmental Programming, City of Houston, Texas.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,
This is the link to the WSJ article about Houston's windmills that Cyclo provided:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121496500652721955.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

...
It would seem that the city of Houston itself says so.

Quote:
Officials from the City have been working to stabilize the City's $150 million annual electricity bill. The strategy that City experts have settled on is a diversified power portfolio including the use of renewable wind power. The City has negotiated a contract to ensure that a third of the city's power is to be generated by renewable wind energy, making Houston a national leader among local governments across the country using renewable energy.

....

From the website of the Mayor's Office of Environmental Programming, City of Houston, Texas.

The statement "The City has negotiated a contract to ensure that a third of the city's power is to be generated by renewable wind energy" does not mean that Houston's windmill facility is "reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs."

A contract is not in itself the actual realization of what is merely the objective of the contract. Too often technical contracts don't lead to what is promised in the contract.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

A contract is not in itself the actual realization of what is merely the objective of the contract. Too often technical contracts don't lead to what is promised in the contract.

True. So we can only look at the part of the contract that has already been realized, and look at the fact that Houston is has already started using wind-powered electricity - for about a fourth of its municipal power needs, and at a lower price than for power produced from coal and natural gas...

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre,
This is the link to the WSJ article about Houston's windmills that Cyclo provided:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121496500652721955.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

Ah okay. I suppose 1/4th of the City's municple needs--which I suspect is most likely restricted to municiple buildings, street lights and such and does not include power for homes, private businesses and industry, etc.--could be translated 'major portion' of Houston's needs by some though I think that might be a bit misleading. I do not deny that it is significant for a city the size of Houston to be able to utilize wind power for a fourth of its municiple needs, however.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I suppose 1/4th of the City's municple needs--<snip>--could be translated 'major portion' of Houston's needs by some though I think that might be a bit misleading.

Yeah, I suppose so. It's a good thing that nobody actually did so, right? I mean, after all, back in in the post where Cyc mentioned this, it was really clear for anybody who can read that this was about municipal power needs.

Which means that there's only one poster so far who misinterpreted this.

0 Replies

Quote:

Under a five-year contract, Houston will pay a fixed price of 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour for the wind-generated electricity, 21% lower than the 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour it pays for conventional power. The city will buy half the wind power through Goldman Sachs and half through Reliant Energy, said Issa Dadoush, director of the city's department of general services.

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/7/2/151318/9555

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Under a five-year contract, Houston will pay a fixed price of 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour for the wind-generated electricity, 21% lower than the 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour it pays for conventional power. The city will buy half the wind power through Goldman Sachs and half through Reliant Energy, said Issa Dadoush, director of the city's department of general services.

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/7/2/151318/9555

wtf Parados? That's impossible! Wind power is so much more expensive! Our experts here in the thread have explained it time and time again.

---

Can't you guys see that this is where things are headed - a mix of renewables with redundancy. Decentralized production of power through ever-increasing efficiencies in solar and wind. Large-scale geothermal coming on line. Coal is not an attractive option in the long run when compared to emerging technologies!

When I originally posted the story I knew there would be plenty of denying and bitching by those who are against new technologies and their adoption, preferring to rely upon older, more tested technologies. That's why I said the next few years will be fun, as we're only going to see more and more of this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I suppose 1/4th of the City's municple needs--<snip>--could be translated 'major portion' of Houston's needs by some though I think that might be a bit misleading.

Yeah, I suppose so. It's a good thing that nobody actually did so, right? I mean, after all, back in in the post where Cyc mentioned this, it was really clear for anybody who can read that this was about municipal power needs.

Which means that there's only one poster so far who misinterpreted this.

Cyclop said this related to the linked data:

Quote:

Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs

Perhaps you can define the precise point where this statement refers to 'municipal power needs' or mentions that 'major' in this case is 1/4th or where I misinterpreted that for that matter?

By the way, as I did you the courtesy of answering your questions, I am still waiting for you to do me the courtesy of answering questions directed to you on the General Election 2008 thread.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I suppose 1/4th of the City's municple needs--<snip>--could be translated 'major portion' of Houston's needs by some though I think that might be a bit misleading.

Yeah, I suppose so. It's a good thing that nobody actually did so, right? I mean, after all, back in in the post where Cyc mentioned this, it was really clear for anybody who can read that this was about municipal power needs.

Which means that there's only one poster so far who misinterpreted this.

Cyclop said this related to the linked data:

Quote:
Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs

Perhaps you can define the precise point where this refers to 'municipal power needs' or mention that 'major' in this case is 1/4th?

Yeah. I guess if you didn't read his earlier post, on the same page, six posts earlier, which ican replied to, and which Cyc's post that you just quoted was, in turn, a reply to, then you might in fact misinterpret what was said.

If, however, you want to display some intellectual honesty, then feel free to peruse the above link in the post you quoted to find Cyc's original post...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I suppose 1/4th of the City's municple needs--<snip>--could be translated 'major portion' of Houston's needs by some though I think that might be a bit misleading.

Yeah, I suppose so. It's a good thing that nobody actually did so, right? I mean, after all, back in in the post where Cyc mentioned this, it was really clear for anybody who can read that this was about municipal power needs.

Which means that there's only one poster so far who misinterpreted this.

Cyclop said this related to the linked data:

Quote:
Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs

Perhaps you can define the precise point where this refers to 'municipal power needs' or mention that 'major' in this case is 1/4th?

Yeah. I guess if you didn't read his earlier post, on the same page, six posts earlier, which ican replied to, and which Cyc's post that you just quoted was, in turn, a reply to, then you might in fact misinterpret what was said.

If, however, you want to display some intellectual honesty, then feel free to peruse the above link in the post you quoted to find Cyc's original post...

And since you didn't quote some of my points here, perhaps you could show where I am failing to show intellectual honesty? And am I sufficiently capable of reading Cyclop's mind to know that he didn't interpret his own post as "major' meaning 1/4th of the city's municipal needs? Cyclop's link that Ican furnished only provided a couple of paragraphs of the article cited. However if you honestly want to open a whole new can of worms that I must go back and read ALL of Cyclop's posts in order to decipher his stated intent, are you willing to extend that policy to me?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know