Yes. I and I comprehend enough to note that I read one of the dumbest claims I've had to read so far. Considering that our local wind wizard, angelosphere, recently decided to claim that nuclear is suitable for peaking, that's quite a stretch too. Because he went full retard as usual.
And you managed to outdo him, with your claim that the "only" HVDC deployment issues are about regulation, rather than costs. Those things are extremely expensive to deploy, and that has nothing to do with regulations, and everything to do with technological complexity of any such deployment.
Regulatory challenges may be significant on some small part of the planet. Overall, their problem, especially in Germany which desperately needs them to ship Baltic offshore wind energy to industrial centres in Bavaria is costs. Government is 100% behind this deployment, and has been ever since Energiewende started. But costs are simply too much even for German government to bear, so the roll out is slow as funding becomes available over time.
The standard method which makes it de facto impossible to trace is spreading the transactions out in smaller amounts. Cost of trace rapidly ramps up to be more expensive than amount of money to be recovered.
Oh, and something I forgot. Trump's most likely plan is to elbow US into the Australia's market of coal exports to East Asia. It keeps growing, and since coal is increasingly uneconomical in US, it would make sense to simply export it to China, India, Pakistan and ACEAN countries who are in dire need of it. It would also help with trade deficit issues.
This article seems to be in the series of green propaganda that is trying to hit back at the recent revelation that China is building up coal en masse. Like most such articles, it's written by messianic part of green movement, the people who basically view it as religion and reject pragmatic solutions entirely. Hence the goal being the "end of coal" rather than actually realistic "reduction of coal in favour of natgas and other less emitting power sources", and lying that is necessary to frame it as if "end of coal" is achievable.
Nuclear cannot do peaking. Rest can. Hydrodynamic storage has been tried in Germany, and failed for the purpose you state, which is why Germany dismantled most of its hydro "energy storage" plants even as it was building up wind.
Wind power arguably works fairly well in Northern Europe. Biggest problem is transmission. The costs are getting in the realm of "sorta kinda reasonable", though the industry is likely to remain "subsidies or dead" for foreseeable future.
If you're talking US, the problem isn't "subsidies". It's the fracking and natgas capture. Natgas is basically free in US near the transit lines. That makes it really hard for other burner fuels to compete. Same is increasingly true for Mexico, which is getting its own natgas delivery network done to ship it from US.
Same is true to lesser extent close to similar natgas sources. I.e. Great Britain with its North Sea sourced natgas, Russia and its immediate neighbourhood within range of the distribution network, etc.
Rest of the world, article is complete and utter BS. Coal is pretty much the most economical fuel for power in developing world, and will remain so for foreseeable future. This is especially true in East Asia, where whatever is not domestically sourced can be easily sourced from Australia via well established logistical lines.
In US, yes, but not courtesy of pie in the sky "wind and solar". It's dying because it can't compete with natgas sourced from fracking and modern CCGTs. It's cheaper, plants are simpler, and it emits about half CO2 per energy produced compared to coal. Add on top of that the fact that the other product of burn cycle is water, and you don't need any catalytic and particulate filtration either, nor do you need automation investments to keep NOx and SO2 production low to zero.
It's just cheaper to build a CCGT. Bonus points for the fact that if someone decides to build a wind park next door, your CCGT can be fairly economically run in OCGT cycle to function as spinning reserve.
A very large portion of power users machines, and machines managed by power users, i.e. "family and friends" likely have auto updates nuked at this point. You just go there once a month or two to run updates after they have been tested by the hapless general public.
The fact that you managed to take my statement, and warp it in your head to such a great degree shows that you either have utter lack of understanding of the topic, or alternatively you're just here to troll.
I'm not going to even bother with this one, because for someone to make that claim, we may as well just claim that biggest offender is organic life and its tendency to emit CO2 and CH4.
I'm just going to quote myself replying to another poster, since it completely addressed your points as well. Hint: don't regurgitate activist points as your own. They've been long debunked. Formulate your own.
Original post follows:
Better than what? US?
Compare it to people in US receiving medical care rather than entirety of population, so you can compare apples to apples - people receiving care to people receiving care. You'll find result flipped. US is one of the best places on the planet to get best care, if you can afford to pay for it. And most people in US can in fact afford to pay for it. They don't have to wait three years and six months for their next dental check like I do in finnish public sector.
This BS arguing based on weird extreme ideologies omnipresent in US is really strange from European view. Of course everyone should be covered publicly. But to pretend that this is going to give median person better care is just utterly wrong. It's going to make median person's care worse, unless they opt for a private option anyway. What it will ensure is that outliers on the lower end of the distribution will be much better off, which lifts the average.
Why do you think I would care to defend a country that is an ocean and a continent away for me? I'm literally on the other side of a planet for them.
What matters to me is pace of change, because status quo is fairly irrelevant when discussing global warming. What's in the atmosphere is in the atmosphere. And as anyone who works in power generation globally will tell you, US is actually on track to beat most of the European majors in reduction of things like coal power and CO2 emissions, because they have a realistic rather than ideological policy on power. They don't get stuck on "gotta remove nuclear" like Germans did, or just outsource to the highest emitters as pretty much everyone around Estonia did. They actually transition to things like natgas (same energy amount produced generates you roughly half the CO2 emissions). Notably, same direction that Great Britain took, CCGTs are now over a third of their generation base.
So if you think I'm "trolling for US", you're so off the mark, you should reconsider the entire frame you're using for this discussion. I actually give a fuck about consequences of global warming, unlike in my experience most of the green activists do. It's not just an ideological quasi-religious thing to me, where the goal is the utopia with no emissions and everyone who objects to this utopia is just definitionally evil. When I see US popping down CCGTs and capturing shale gas to fuel them, crashing not just their CO2 emissions, but those in Mexico, I call it a great thing.
Green movement calls it "things that make it worse by distancing us from fully renewable utopia". And that is what I object to. It's the same reason why I object to Paris agreement, which motivates China to effectively build up as much coal as it wants for near future so it can get as high of a "baseline" CO2 emission level from which it will need to eventually do CO2 reduction goals. If it actually start caring about the issue in the first place obviously, far from given at this junction of history. We need a pragmatic approach to the problem, and US is pretty much the leader on that front next to GB and to an extent France.
Depends on what you think to be "way too loud". Current "Main + tail rotor" helicopters produce the loud flight sound from the collision of the air from two rotors. Hence the "chopping" sound you hear when helicopter flies. Note that it's so loud, you commonly cannot even hear the engine noise.
If you had to make a car comparison, it's like engine noise to tyre noise at speed. If you had hardest possible tyres with metal spikes on shitty and very noisy asphalt. If you take the tyre noise out, engine noise is actually very tolerably quiet.
And in case of NOTAR and multiple rotor systems, it's the engine noise that you hear, not the air flow collisions.
>There's a whole world out there that involves aircraft carriers, helicopters, prop jobs capable of cruising at 200 feet above the sea, jets,...
And to provide coverage, they're not anywhere near enough on their own, because as you certainly must know, most of them travel over beaten paths. Those that don't are usually fishers, who unintentionally serve to confuse attempted detection further. That's why Impeccable got harassed as much as it did, and that's why Chinese grabbed that hydrographic drone from private contractors doing the work for USN a few years ago.
They sent a clear message.
P.S. You really should look into P-8 capabilities. It's so much beyond P-3, it's not even funny. What P-3 needed a full flight to cover in a search, P-8 does in about 45 minutes, and it provides better reliability on top of it. And it's not even close to being sufficient to be able to track Chinese subs exiting Yulin without hydrographic capabilities in SCS. More like it's utterly unsuitable for the task without it.
This hasn't been about oil in a long time. Biggest offender by far is coal. Coal is cheap, efficient and reliable. As long as you don't give a fuck about what happens to some people on the other side of the planet, it's great.
Which is why many developing countries are building it up en masse. So the real question is "how many East Asians and Africans are you willing to enslave and/or massacre to get the coal power generation down?"
Because the answer probably is "not nearly enough" if you're a person with even a shred of humanism.
Slashdot Mirror
Coal is useless. In other news, pigs fly, sun rises from the West, and you understand this topic.
Yes. I and I comprehend enough to note that I read one of the dumbest claims I've had to read so far. Considering that our local wind wizard, angelosphere, recently decided to claim that nuclear is suitable for peaking, that's quite a stretch too. Because he went full retard as usual.
And you managed to outdo him, with your claim that the "only" HVDC deployment issues are about regulation, rather than costs. Those things are extremely expensive to deploy, and that has nothing to do with regulations, and everything to do with technological complexity of any such deployment.
Regulatory challenges may be significant on some small part of the planet. Overall, their problem, especially in Germany which desperately needs them to ship Baltic offshore wind energy to industrial centres in Bavaria is costs. Government is 100% behind this deployment, and has been ever since Energiewende started. But costs are simply too much even for German government to bear, so the roll out is slow as funding becomes available over time.
How's controlling wind working for you, mr. energy wizard?
Riiiiiight. Are you angelosphere's other account, and will tell me that Germany controls wind next?
The standard method which makes it de facto impossible to trace is spreading the transactions out in smaller amounts. Cost of trace rapidly ramps up to be more expensive than amount of money to be recovered.
Oh, and something I forgot. Trump's most likely plan is to elbow US into the Australia's market of coal exports to East Asia. It keeps growing, and since coal is increasingly uneconomical in US, it would make sense to simply export it to China, India, Pakistan and ACEAN countries who are in dire need of it. It would also help with trade deficit issues.
This article seems to be in the series of green propaganda that is trying to hit back at the recent revelation that China is building up coal en masse. Like most such articles, it's written by messianic part of green movement, the people who basically view it as religion and reject pragmatic solutions entirely. Hence the goal being the "end of coal" rather than actually realistic "reduction of coal in favour of natgas and other less emitting power sources", and lying that is necessary to frame it as if "end of coal" is achievable.
Nuclear cannot do peaking. Rest can. Hydrodynamic storage has been tried in Germany, and failed for the purpose you state, which is why Germany dismantled most of its hydro "energy storage" plants even as it was building up wind.
Wind power arguably works fairly well in Northern Europe. Biggest problem is transmission. The costs are getting in the realm of "sorta kinda reasonable", though the industry is likely to remain "subsidies or dead" for foreseeable future.
Still far better than solar.
If you're talking US, the problem isn't "subsidies". It's the fracking and natgas capture. Natgas is basically free in US near the transit lines. That makes it really hard for other burner fuels to compete. Same is increasingly true for Mexico, which is getting its own natgas delivery network done to ship it from US.
Same is true to lesser extent close to similar natgas sources. I.e. Great Britain with its North Sea sourced natgas, Russia and its immediate neighbourhood within range of the distribution network, etc.
Rest of the world, article is complete and utter BS. Coal is pretty much the most economical fuel for power in developing world, and will remain so for foreseeable future. This is especially true in East Asia, where whatever is not domestically sourced can be easily sourced from Australia via well established logistical lines.
In US, yes, but not courtesy of pie in the sky "wind and solar". It's dying because it can't compete with natgas sourced from fracking and modern CCGTs. It's cheaper, plants are simpler, and it emits about half CO2 per energy produced compared to coal. Add on top of that the fact that the other product of burn cycle is water, and you don't need any catalytic and particulate filtration either, nor do you need automation investments to keep NOx and SO2 production low to zero.
It's just cheaper to build a CCGT. Bonus points for the fact that if someone decides to build a wind park next door, your CCGT can be fairly economically run in OCGT cycle to function as spinning reserve.
A very large portion of power users machines, and machines managed by power users, i.e. "family and friends" likely have auto updates nuked at this point. You just go there once a month or two to run updates after they have been tested by the hapless general public.
Is this you conceding your point, now that you switched to a completely different topic?
The fact that you managed to take my statement, and warp it in your head to such a great degree shows that you either have utter lack of understanding of the topic, or alternatively you're just here to troll.
Good luck with that.
I'm not going to even bother with this one, because for someone to make that claim, we may as well just claim that biggest offender is organic life and its tendency to emit CO2 and CH4.
I'm just going to quote myself replying to another poster, since it completely addressed your points as well. Hint: don't regurgitate activist points as your own. They've been long debunked. Formulate your own.
Original post follows:
Better than what? US?
Compare it to people in US receiving medical care rather than entirety of population, so you can compare apples to apples - people receiving care to people receiving care. You'll find result flipped. US is one of the best places on the planet to get best care, if you can afford to pay for it. And most people in US can in fact afford to pay for it. They don't have to wait three years and six months for their next dental check like I do in finnish public sector.
This BS arguing based on weird extreme ideologies omnipresent in US is really strange from European view. Of course everyone should be covered publicly. But to pretend that this is going to give median person better care is just utterly wrong. It's going to make median person's care worse, unless they opt for a private option anyway. What it will ensure is that outliers on the lower end of the distribution will be much better off, which lifts the average.
While true, their number is rapidly growing as East Asia gains affluence.
Why do you think I would care to defend a country that is an ocean and a continent away for me? I'm literally on the other side of a planet for them.
What matters to me is pace of change, because status quo is fairly irrelevant when discussing global warming. What's in the atmosphere is in the atmosphere. And as anyone who works in power generation globally will tell you, US is actually on track to beat most of the European majors in reduction of things like coal power and CO2 emissions, because they have a realistic rather than ideological policy on power. They don't get stuck on "gotta remove nuclear" like Germans did, or just outsource to the highest emitters as pretty much everyone around Estonia did. They actually transition to things like natgas (same energy amount produced generates you roughly half the CO2 emissions). Notably, same direction that Great Britain took, CCGTs are now over a third of their generation base.
So if you think I'm "trolling for US", you're so off the mark, you should reconsider the entire frame you're using for this discussion. I actually give a fuck about consequences of global warming, unlike in my experience most of the green activists do. It's not just an ideological quasi-religious thing to me, where the goal is the utopia with no emissions and everyone who objects to this utopia is just definitionally evil. When I see US popping down CCGTs and capturing shale gas to fuel them, crashing not just their CO2 emissions, but those in Mexico, I call it a great thing.
Green movement calls it "things that make it worse by distancing us from fully renewable utopia". And that is what I object to. It's the same reason why I object to Paris agreement, which motivates China to effectively build up as much coal as it wants for near future so it can get as high of a "baseline" CO2 emission level from which it will need to eventually do CO2 reduction goals. If it actually start caring about the issue in the first place obviously, far from given at this junction of history. We need a pragmatic approach to the problem, and US is pretty much the leader on that front next to GB and to an extent France.
Google "MAD" and be enlightened. It's literally there in the first paragraph.
Depends on what you think to be "way too loud". Current "Main + tail rotor" helicopters produce the loud flight sound from the collision of the air from two rotors. Hence the "chopping" sound you hear when helicopter flies. Note that it's so loud, you commonly cannot even hear the engine noise.
If you had to make a car comparison, it's like engine noise to tyre noise at speed. If you had hardest possible tyres with metal spikes on shitty and very noisy asphalt. If you take the tyre noise out, engine noise is actually very tolerably quiet.
And in case of NOTAR and multiple rotor systems, it's the engine noise that you hear, not the air flow collisions.
>There's a whole world out there that involves aircraft carriers, helicopters, prop jobs capable of cruising at 200 feet above the sea, jets, ...
And to provide coverage, they're not anywhere near enough on their own, because as you certainly must know, most of them travel over beaten paths. Those that don't are usually fishers, who unintentionally serve to confuse attempted detection further. That's why Impeccable got harassed as much as it did, and that's why Chinese grabbed that hydrographic drone from private contractors doing the work for USN a few years ago.
They sent a clear message.
P.S. You really should look into P-8 capabilities. It's so much beyond P-3, it's not even funny. What P-3 needed a full flight to cover in a search, P-8 does in about 45 minutes, and it provides better reliability on top of it. And it's not even close to being sufficient to be able to track Chinese subs exiting Yulin without hydrographic capabilities in SCS. More like it's utterly unsuitable for the task without it.
Creator's name is "Ivan Cash". Yes, he wants cash. For a pair of polarized sunglasses.
I'm just speechless.
This hasn't been about oil in a long time. Biggest offender by far is coal. Coal is cheap, efficient and reliable. As long as you don't give a fuck about what happens to some people on the other side of the planet, it's great.
Which is why many developing countries are building it up en masse. So the real question is "how many East Asians and Africans are you willing to enslave and/or massacre to get the coal power generation down?"
Because the answer probably is "not nearly enough" if you're a person with even a shred of humanism.
Do you know who's the most hated person in any company?
He who explains the jokes.
I can see the argument for people in humanities.