Originally posted on STOP THESE THINGS: STT has a ‘thing’ for the English language. In the hands of adept practitioners, our mother tongue is capable of conveying all manner of complex concepts and ideas, and doing so with verve and wit. However, in the hands of the well-paid spin doctors and useful political idiots that…
The whole idea of a ‘climate protection plan’, as well as sounding like some sort of insurance racket, is loaded with suspect assumptions about supposed effects of human activities on the inherent natural variation of Earth’s ocean-atmosphere system. DW.COM reports on what’s seen by some as Germany’s Moroccan climate embarrassment, as some of its own […]
Europe crumbled already, look at its dismal state of the economy
The European energy policies would impose a $676 billion drag on the U.S. economy, the report states, and result in Americans paying an extra $4,800 per year to heat their homes.
The price increase would ultimately lead to the loss of several million U.S. jobs, according to the report, which is part of a series of studies conducted by the group leading up to the presidential election. The group compared U.S. and European energy prices between 2008 and 2014.
“The types of policies being advocated by leading candidates, such as restricting energy production and imposing new mandates, would drive up energy prices and reduce America’s global competitiveness,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.
European restrictions on low-cost, existing electricity supply and oil and natural gas supplies, as well as a cascade of subsidies propping up the solar and wind power industries, contribute to the problem in European states, according to Harbert’s group.
The German government, for instance, shovels more than $1.1 trillion into the wind power industry, despite the fact that wind turbines have not actually reduced carbon emissions enough to slow global warming.
Carbon taxes, subsidies, and restrictive policies, the report states, have made Europe almost completely dependent on other countries for 70 percent of its natural gas and 88 percent of its crude oil; whereas the U.S. receives only about 4 percent and 27 percent of gas and oil from foreign countries, respectively.
Energy expenditures would more than double from $583 billion to $1,220 billion under the EU price scenario. This $610 billion increase in costs would directly reduce the amount of money each household has available to spend on goods and services.
In order to comply with millennial desire to replace reality with an alternative reality California subsidizes far out visionary Elon Musk:
In what is being considered a major win (loss) to those in the field of next-level of energy technology, Tesla was awarded a contract to provide thousands of energy storage units to Southern California.
The Southern California Edison energy company contracted out Tesla last week to provide 20-megawatts of energy storage equipment to their power grid. The equipment will be used to stop blackouts should the grid’s main fossil-fuel based energy sources fail. The Tesla Powerpack energy storage units will be installed at a SCE substation in Mira Loma and must be up and running by the end of December.
The amount of equipment being installed is enough to keep 2,500 homes with power for a day, or enoughto charge 1,000 Tesla cars, the company claimed in a blog post.
The cost of the complete energy storage system isn’t clear. As noted by Bloomberg, a 2-megawatt Tesla energy storage system runs around $2.9 million, and contracts that involve more energy than that are negotiated on a per-situation basis.
In late 2015, the Aliso Canyon natural gas reservoir ruptured, causing a major spill of methane gas and forcing over 8,000 local residents out of their homes. Following this incident, the California government has been attempting to expand its energy-storage storage efforts to prevent any potential loss of power during times of high electricity usage.
Last month, California officials green-lighted two other grid energy-storage contracts that would account for 37-megawatts of storage.
This project is one of the most notable happenings on the energy side of Tesla since the company set out to buy SolarCity in August.
To offset the abundance of ‘renewable'(the concept is in fact a perpetuum mobile) China has no alternative than to install base load power plants.
By Paul Homewood
Greenpeace appear shocked that China is continuing to build new coal-fired power capacity.
China is building another 200 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power capacity despite tough new measures designed to cut the use of fossil fuels and tackle overcapacity, environmental group Greenpeace said on Wednesday.
China’s coal-dominated thermal power sector has continued to expand rapidly amid an unexpectedly sharp slowdown in energy consumption growth, as well as a state-led effort to tackle smog, cut carbon emissions and encourage cleaner forms of electricity.
According to National Energy Administration (NEA) data, China’s total thermal capacity grew 7.8 percent in 2015 to 990 GW, outstripping a 0.5 percent increase in consumption. Another 24 GW went into operation in the first five months of 2016.
Greenpeace said more than 1 trillion yuan ($150 billion) could be “wasted” on new capacity in the next five years, leading to a…
View original post 336 more words
NYISO doesn’t answer to Cuomo and building the infrastructure to move large amounts of solar or wind power across a state is an expensive endeavor which would require cooperation from the grid regulator.
The costs associated with constructing the kind of high voltage power lines needed to transport the power cost $1.9 to $3.1 million per mile built, and the “smart grid” technology said to be able to move wind and solar power can cost up to 50 percent more. A comparable network of transmission lines in Texas capable to move power from wind-rich West Texas eastward was projected to cost $6.8 billion when it began in 2008. The project still isn’t entirely finished.
The best places solar or wind power tend to be far away from the people who will consume power, according to the Department of Energy.
The technical issues associated with transporting wind or solar power across long distances pale in comparison to the technical issues involved with storing the power. In order for the power grid to function, demand for energy must exactly match supply. Power demand is relatively predictable and conventional power plans, like nuclear plants and natural gas, can adjust output accordingly. Solar and wind power, however, cannot be predicted or easily adjust output and the electricity they generate cannot be stored economically.
Additionally, the output of a solar or wind power plant is incredibly unreliable and generally doesn’t coincide with the times when power is most needed as peak electricity demand occurs in the evenings, when solar power is going offline. Adding power plants which only provide power at intermittent and unpredictable times makes the power grid more fragile and risks blackouts.
This article is concerned with the two main forms of weather dependent Renewable Energy, Wind Power, (Onshore and Offshore) and Photovoltaic solar power. In the UK this amounts to ~75% of all Renewable Energy as installed. The other Renewable Energy inputs are traditional Hydro power ~8% and the remainder are other sources such as biomass, waste and landfill gas amounting to ~17%: they are not considered here.
This article sets out a plausible model to assess the costs commitments made to introduce weather dependent Renewable Energy in Europe. The numbers that result are very significant indeed . The populace of Europe were never consulted as to whether they wished to commit such vast sums to the Green cause of controlling CO2 as a greenhouse gas in a futile attempt to limit further temperature rise due to greenhouse warming.
- The installation of the weather dependent Renewables fleet in Europe, as of 2015, has already lead to a 60 year lifetime financial commitment amounting to roughly €3.4trillion: this approximates to the annual GDP of Germany.
- Electricity generation by using gas-fired installations is significantly cheaper than weather dependent Renewables in terms of both initial installation Capital cost and later Operation and Maintenance costs, even when accounting for the current costs of fuel.
- The € 0.72 trillion capital costs already spent on weather dependent Renewables in Europe to date would have been sufficient to re-equip the 1,000 Gigawatt European electricity generating fleet with Gas-fired power stations in large part: producing electricity for the grid consistently, as and when needed at ~90% capacity.
- The European weather dependent Renewable fleet with a nominal nameplate output of ~236 Gigawatts only contributes ~ 42Gigawatts to the European Grid, a capacity percentage at about 19% overall.
- 60 year life-time costs of Onshore wind power range from 5 times more expensive than Gas-fired generation.
- 60 year life-time costs of Offshore wind power and Solar power are about 20 times more expensive than Gas-fired generation.
- during the 60 year life-time Gas-fired generators have a full-time productive capacity of about ~90%, whereas the combined capacity figures for weather dependent Renewable Energy of only about 19% is achieved across all European weather dependent Renewable installations.
- if full fossil fuel back-up has to be provided to maintain the viability of the electricity network, the entire need for the weather dependent Renewables in the first place is obviated.