That's not a graph of actual usage. And even if it was, it doesn't show wind varying with the peaks, it shows a steady wind output which is not reality as we all know wind is not steady. You could easily move that wind line to the bottom in that chart and the line would be straight. What kind of idiot are you? Try again with real world data.
Priority over gas turbines and other peak load sources is a very different thing to what you have been claiming.
Every kilowatt-hour generated from a renewable electricity facility receives a confirmed technology-specific feed-in tariff for 20 years. Grid operators are required to preferentially dispatch this electricity over electricity from conventional sources like nuclear power, coal, and gas
Yet another source that fully backs my point. And I'll await your response saying its not true or claiming it means something other than what those words clearly say. Cause that's what you do.
That's not what the articles say. They take priority over every other source. Its quite clear, and even when its limited to maintain grid stability it is quite the opposite of peaking, which only brings source on when demand required, that is very different, practically the opposite, of priority dispatch.
This is a typical interaction with you. I provide sources to back up my statements. You provide nothing, just response's that basically say "your wrong' but have nothing wrt backup. That's just trolling, its what you do.
Its all right here for anyone to see. Germany has practiced priority dispatch of wind and solar for quite some time. This means you must first purchase any available wind and solar before you can use other sources.
The accomplishment is that renewables produce about 60% as much electrical energy as coal. Most of that from hydro and biomass. A bit from wind, almost negligible from solar.
Is still laugh when folks talk about solar and wind as the solution, but take credit for hydro and biomass when cheering progress.
Who said it was impossible for renewables to generate 40% less electricity than coal when you include hydro and biomass (actual generation in GWH, not 'capacity' which is meaningless). Call me when wind gets to 10% of coal generation, and solar gets to 4%. Those are the two everyone says will solve our problems.
Most of this renewable power this article is cheering about is hydro and biomass. Wind and solar, the two sources that everyone wants to claim will solve all our problems, are only actually generating a very small percentage of global electricity, and that's mostly wind. Solar barely registers on the scale of GWH generation globally.
No, this is nonsense. Windmills are there to produce power when the wind is blowing. Wind is not "peaking power", that can fill in the gaps from other sources, because it is not dependable. The opposite is true: variable winds create peaks and troughs that need to be filled by on-demand sources such as gas turbines or... hydro.
DBill spreads that nonsense all the time, yet in most place the grid is required to accept all wind generation and run back other sources. Like you said, its intermittent, so you can't use it for peaking because its not necessarily available during the peaks. Wind charts for Germany show no correlation at all between wind output and usage peaks. Its the same everywhere. Wind is only curtailed in very rare circumstances.
He hates when people use the well established industry measure of Capacity Factor because it shows the weakness of solar and wind. He hates it so much he fabricates usage scenarios that don't exist.
BeauHD is either a clickbait tool or simply ignorant as she has proven that she can't distinguish agenda driven troll pieces from actual news or fact based articles.
Are you really incapable of understanding that the OP was talking about building more nuclear plants, not just depending on the existing fleet?
And so, if you are old enough, please tell us exactly who made that promise? I bet you don't even know where it came from. I bet you also don't even know what the cost per MWH of existing nuclear is compared to other viable alternatives.
But we don't have to rely on nuclear, we can just stop burning fossil fuels, and stop using so much energy overall. It would require an immense social adjustment to achieve this, but it has no roadblocks other than making people care enough to do it.
Continue to dream on.
People will stop using fossil fuels when something else is cheaper without subsidizes.
And since that is unlikely to happen, it would probably take military force to get some countries to switch.
Bringing a new nuclear plant online safely takes decades,
You begin with a false statement, then proceed to spout ignorance and pie in the sky idealistic yet unrealistic things like 'just stop burning fossil fuels'.
Bush ran and got elected primarily on his education platform. Ironically he was sitting in a classroom as part of delivering exactly what he promised when the planes hit the towers. That changed everything.
I don't recall anyone here every saying batteries haven't advanced. They certainly have. More so in manufacturing tech than actual battery chemistry tech, but they go hand in hand. They key advancement has been bringing the price down on lithium ion batteries through advanced production methods that allow higher density. This the result of half a century of intense effort to keep improving them. There are limits to lithium ion though, its been around a long time and there hasn't been another technology yet to supplant it.
Yes,Trump has come out against this saying "As an example of the power structure I'm fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it's too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,"
Hillary on the other hand will not come out against it, as she wants as many powerful friends in high places as she can get.
"various other historical figures".. what about the really bad ones that took the path of Hillary, telling lies and putting on a false face, when the real machine in the background takes control. That's how the truly bad historical figures took control, not what Trump is doing. He has no machine behind him.
Yup, we are better off with Hillary, who 'acts' nice, that is better than being one's self. And we are less vulnerable to tyranny with Hillary even though the media will send her message for her, she can lie about stuff and get away with minimal scrutiny by the mainstream media. She can cover up her tracks and get the FBI to cut a deal to allow her underlings to destroy evidence with no ramifications. She has a powerful political party AND money machine behind her.
So you think Trump, who won't have either political party at his back and who the media won't let get away with anything is gonna pull off some major control coup. Yeah, he's gonna be able to pull of a move to dictatorship under those conditions... give me a break. Obama gets away with significant overstepping of Presidential authority as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
It's important to note that this is a worst-case scenario, .
Further clarification. Its a worst case scenario based on an unproven model.
Isn't it amazing how somebody can insist so intently that reality isn't true.
That's not a graph of actual usage. And even if it was, it doesn't show wind varying with the peaks, it shows a steady wind output which is not reality as we all know wind is not steady. You could easily move that wind line to the bottom in that chart and the line would be straight. What kind of idiot are you? Try again with real world data.
Just as I predicted. Nothing but talk, no sources, no facts,, nothing.
Priority over gas turbines and other peak load sources is a very different thing to what you have been claiming.
Every kilowatt-hour generated from a renewable electricity facility receives a confirmed technology-specific feed-in tariff for 20 years. Grid operators are required to preferentially dispatch this electricity over electricity from conventional sources like nuclear power, coal, and gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yet another source that fully backs my point. And I'll await your response saying its not true or claiming it means something other than what those words clearly say. Cause that's what you do.
That's not what the articles say. They take priority over every other source. Its quite clear, and even when its limited to maintain grid stability it is quite the opposite of peaking, which only brings source on when demand required, that is very different, practically the opposite, of priority dispatch.
This is a typical interaction with you. I provide sources to back up my statements. You provide nothing, just response's that basically say "your wrong' but have nothing wrt backup. That's just trolling, its what you do.
Its all right here for anyone to see. Germany has practiced priority dispatch of wind and solar for quite some time. This means you must first purchase any available wind and solar before you can use other sources.
http://renews.biz/104349/germa...
China does it aggressively as well;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
California practices it as well, as do other states;
http://www.martinot.info/renew...
I see you can't show otherwise, Typical. Things are how they are, not how you dream them to be.
The accomplishment is that renewables produce about 60% as much electrical energy as coal. Most of that from hydro and biomass. A bit from wind, almost negligible from solar.
Is still laugh when folks talk about solar and wind as the solution, but take credit for hydro and biomass when cheering progress.
Who said it was impossible for renewables to generate 40% less electricity than coal when you include hydro and biomass (actual generation in GWH, not 'capacity' which is meaningless). Call me when wind gets to 10% of coal generation, and solar gets to 4%. Those are the two everyone says will solve our problems.
Most of this renewable power this article is cheering about is hydro and biomass. Wind and solar, the two sources that everyone wants to claim will solve all our problems, are only actually generating a very small percentage of global electricity, and that's mostly wind. Solar barely registers on the scale of GWH generation globally.
Windmills are there to cover peaks.
No, this is nonsense. Windmills are there to produce power when the wind is blowing. Wind is not "peaking power", that can fill in the gaps from other sources, because it is not dependable. The opposite is true: variable winds create peaks and troughs that need to be filled by on-demand sources such as gas turbines or ... hydro.
DBill spreads that nonsense all the time, yet in most place the grid is required to accept all wind generation and run back other sources. Like you said, its intermittent, so you can't use it for peaking because its not necessarily available during the peaks. Wind charts for Germany show no correlation at all between wind output and usage peaks. Its the same everywhere. Wind is only curtailed in very rare circumstances.
He hates when people use the well established industry measure of Capacity Factor because it shows the weakness of solar and wind. He hates it so much he fabricates usage scenarios that don't exist.
BeauHD is either a clickbait tool or simply ignorant as she has proven that she can't distinguish agenda driven troll pieces from actual news or fact based articles.
Are you really incapable of understanding that the OP was talking about building more nuclear plants, not just depending on the existing fleet?
And so, if you are old enough, please tell us exactly who made that promise? I bet you don't even know where it came from. I bet you also don't even know what the cost per MWH of existing nuclear is compared to other viable alternatives.
But we don't have to rely on nuclear, we can just stop burning fossil fuels, and stop using so much energy overall. It would require an immense social adjustment to achieve this, but it has no roadblocks other than making people care enough to do it.
Continue to dream on.
People will stop using fossil fuels when something else is cheaper without subsidizes.
And since that is unlikely to happen, it would probably take military force to get some countries to switch.
Cognitive dissonance. If people are emotionally invested in a poor decision, then they will retroactively justify it in a lot of ways.
Or possibly Commitment Bias and, over time, Escalation of Commitment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bringing a new nuclear plant online safely takes decades,
You begin with a false statement, then proceed to spout ignorance and pie in the sky idealistic yet unrealistic things like 'just stop burning fossil fuels'.
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/...
Bush ran and got elected primarily on his education platform. Ironically he was sitting in a classroom as part of delivering exactly what he promised when the planes hit the towers. That changed everything.
I don't recall anyone here every saying batteries haven't advanced. They certainly have. More so in manufacturing tech than actual battery chemistry tech, but they go hand in hand. They key advancement has been bringing the price down on lithium ion batteries through advanced production methods that allow higher density. This the result of half a century of intense effort to keep improving them. There are limits to lithium ion though, its been around a long time and there hasn't been another technology yet to supplant it.
Humor works best when there is truth behind it.
Yes,Trump has come out against this saying "As an example of the power structure I'm fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it's too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,"
Hillary on the other hand will not come out against it, as she wants as many powerful friends in high places as she can get.
I wonder if they did better than the Farmers Almanac?
I call BS on the headline. Let the damn thing prove it can do it before we claim it can. And doing regression model tweaking doesn't prove anything.
"various other historical figures".. what about the really bad ones that took the path of Hillary, telling lies and putting on a false face, when the real machine in the background takes control. That's how the truly bad historical figures took control, not what Trump is doing. He has no machine behind him.
Yup, we are better off with Hillary, who 'acts' nice, that is better than being one's self. And we are less vulnerable to tyranny with Hillary even though the media will send her message for her, she can lie about stuff and get away with minimal scrutiny by the mainstream media. She can cover up her tracks and get the FBI to cut a deal to allow her underlings to destroy evidence with no ramifications. She has a powerful political party AND money machine behind her.
So you think Trump, who won't have either political party at his back and who the media won't let get away with anything is gonna pull off some major control coup. Yeah, he's gonna be able to pull of a move to dictatorship under those conditions... give me a break. Obama gets away with significant overstepping of Presidential authority as it is.