The Problem with Renewable Energy....

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
Just because the Chinese are building them doesn’t mean we should too.
The Chinese government does a lot of stupid things. They don‘t even need the extra capacity because their current power plants only run at 50 percent capacity.
But China’s coal industry is state owned and there is political pressure to create jobs so they are building power plants they don’t need.
That is incredibly naive. You obviously haven't been to China.

China's economy is as big as the U.S. economy and demand is increasing as more of their population moves to the middle class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
That’s quite the spin. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.
“At the level of individual power plants, the continued investment in new coal generators is difficult to understand, given profitability across the sector is declining and analysis suggests that new investments are likely to become “stranded assets” unable to recoup their investments.
But from the perspective of the Chinese government, the short-term and localized economic benefits of new plants can make sense, given the industry is dominated by state-owned enterprises.
The nature of China’s political economy — where the government often owns not just the power plant but the construction company that builds it, the mining company that supplies the coal and the purchaser of the power — helps explain the decision to keep building, said Philippe Benoit from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.”

And
“Part of what makes the decision to leave coal behind so difficult is the legacy of the Chinese coal industry, which has powered the country’s meteoric economic rise.
The fundamental issue determining the speed of China’s coal phase down is the government’s approach to spurring growth and its ability to move away from smokestack industries, said Jorrit Gosens, a scholar at Australian National University, lead author of the paper.

As long as China relies on stimulating its economy through construction and other carbon-intensive energy, renewable energy will never be enough, even if its use surpasses stated targets. “That very big expansion of wind and solar doesn’t ensure a reduction in coal-fired power,” Gosens said.”

China’s coal industry doesn’t have the environmental requirements that ours does so coal isn’t as expensive over there but it does cost it’s citizens in other ways.
And I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to live with Chinese air pollution.

Coal is extremely dirty, and it’s not just CO2, but mercury, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, selenium and a whole host of other toxic poisons plus a lot of soot into the air.
Why use coal when there are much better options like natural gas, renewables and even nuclear?
And if you put pollution control equipment on coal plants, it makes coal more expensive than the competing power sources.
So why not just use the other power sources?
We can’t stop using coal overnight, it will have to be phased out and that’s what’s happening now.
Coal plants are being closed and new natural gas plants, solar farms and wind farms are being built to replace them.
People should not bemoan the fall of coal electricity, we should celebrate it.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,676
12,524
1
“At the level of individual power plants, the continued investment in new coal generators is difficult to understand, given profitability across the sector is declining and analysis suggests that new investments are likely to become “stranded assets” unable to recoup their investments.
But from the perspective of the Chinese government, the short-term and localized economic benefits of new plants can make sense, given the industry is dominated by state-owned enterprises.
The nature of China’s political economy — where the government often owns not just the power plant but the construction company that builds it, the mining company that supplies the coal and the purchaser of the power — helps explain the decision to keep building, said Philippe Benoit from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.”

And
“Part of what makes the decision to leave coal behind so difficult is the legacy of the Chinese coal industry, which has powered the country’s meteoric economic rise.
The fundamental issue determining the speed of China’s coal phase down is the government’s approach to spurring growth and its ability to move away from smokestack industries, said Jorrit Gosens, a scholar at Australian National University, lead author of the paper.

As long as China relies on stimulating its economy through construction and other carbon-intensive energy, renewable energy will never be enough, even if its use surpasses stated targets. “That very big expansion of wind and solar doesn’t ensure a reduction in coal-fired power,” Gosens said.”

China’s coal industry doesn’t have the environmental requirements that ours does so coal isn’t as expensive over there but it does cost it’s citizens in other ways.
And I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to live with Chinese air pollution.

Coal is extremely dirty, and it’s not just CO2, but mercury, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, selenium and a whole host of other toxic poisons plus a lot of soot into the air.
Why use coal when there are much better options like natural gas, renewables and even nuclear?
And if you put pollution control equipment on coal plants, it makes coal more expensive than the competing power sources.
So why not just use the other power sources?
We can’t stop using coal overnight, it will have to be phased out and that’s what’s happening now.
Coal plants are being closed and new natural gas plants, solar farms and wind farms are being built to replace them.
People should not bemoan the fall of coal electricity, we should celebrate it.

So to summarize, if you over regulate it, you will get less of it.

That appears to be the same strategy the D’s are using with the oil and gas industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,192
1,264
1
“At the level of individual power plants, the continued investment in new coal generators is difficult to understand, given profitability across the sector is declining and analysis suggests that new investments are likely to become “stranded assets” unable to recoup their investments.
But from the perspective of the Chinese government, the short-term and localized economic benefits of new plants can make sense, given the industry is dominated by state-owned enterprises.
The nature of China’s political economy — where the government often owns not just the power plant but the construction company that builds it, the mining company that supplies the coal and the purchaser of the power — helps explain the decision to keep building, said Philippe Benoit from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.”

And
“Part of what makes the decision to leave coal behind so difficult is the legacy of the Chinese coal industry, which has powered the country’s meteoric economic rise.
The fundamental issue determining the speed of China’s coal phase down is the government’s approach to spurring growth and its ability to move away from smokestack industries, said Jorrit Gosens, a scholar at Australian National University, lead author of the paper.

As long as China relies on stimulating its economy through construction and other carbon-intensive energy, renewable energy will never be enough, even if its use surpasses stated targets. “That very big expansion of wind and solar doesn’t ensure a reduction in coal-fired power,” Gosens said.”

China’s coal industry doesn’t have the environmental requirements that ours does so coal isn’t as expensive over there but it does cost it’s citizens in other ways.
And I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to live with Chinese air pollution.

Coal is extremely dirty, and it’s not just CO2, but mercury, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, selenium and a whole host of other toxic poisons plus a lot of soot into the air.
Why use coal when there are much better options like natural gas, renewables and even nuclear?
And if you put pollution control equipment on coal plants, it makes coal more expensive than the competing power sources.
So why not just use the other power sources?
We can’t stop using coal overnight, it will have to be phased out and that’s what’s happening now.
Coal plants are being closed and new natural gas plants, solar farms and wind farms are being built to replace them.
People should not bemoan the fall of coal electricity, we should celebrate it.
This may also have something to do with China's decision to continue to build coal plants:

"Chinese officials realize that the country’s renewable energy resources are insufficient — and too intermittent — to ease dependence on coal in the near future. Zhang cited recent problems with energy grid failures in Texas as a prime example of what Chinese officials don’t want to see happen in their country."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
This may also have something to do with China's decision to continue to build coal plants:

"Chinese officials realize that the country’s renewable energy resources are insufficient — and too intermittent — to ease dependence on coal in the near future. Zhang cited recent problems with energy grid failures in Texas as a prime example of what Chinese officials don’t want to see happen in their country."
Texas isn’t a good example for anyone, their power companies make a boatload off crisis, is anyone surprised they have them.
And here in the USA, we have enough natural gas, and we can construct enough renewables and perhaps some nuclear to supply our power needs without using coal.
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy being alive and healthy and want to be this way as long as I can, so the less poison I breathe and drink the better.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,063
5,245
1
Texas isn’t a good example for anyone, their power companies make a boatload off crisis, is anyone surprised they have them.
And here in the USA, we have enough natural gas, and we can construct enough renewables and perhaps some nuclear to supply our power needs without using coal.
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy being alive and healthy and want to be this way as long as I can, so the less poison I breathe and drink the better.

Times are changing.

On a mild Sunday afternoon, California set a historic milestone in the quest for clean energy. The sun was shining, the wind was blowing and on May 8th, the state produced enough renewable electricity to meet 103% of consumer demand. That broke a record set a week earlier of 99.9%.​
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,192
1,264
1
Texas isn’t a good example for anyone, their power companies make a boatload off crisis, is anyone surprised they have them.
And here in the USA, we have enough natural gas, and we can construct enough renewables and perhaps some nuclear to supply our power needs without using coal.
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy being alive and healthy and want to be this way as long as I can, so the less poison I breathe and drink the better.
The Chinese realize that they must have sufficient power under all conditions to maintain grid stability and they are smart enough to understand that wind/solar/batteries are not going to be able to do that in the near future (if ever). If Texas would have kept the 6 GWE of shuttered coal plants operating or built another 6 GW of gas plants at $7 billion perhaps they would have prevented a $200 billion disaster.

The problem is we do not require that wind and solar cover their true cost to the grid due to their intermittency. The graph below shows power generation by the Texas grid before and during the disaster. As shown on this graph as the cold front came through wind generated about 60% of the grid electricity and natural gas and coal less than 15% each. Just 3 days later the electricity from natural gas increased 8-fold and coal more than doubled while electricity from wind dropped by 80%. What energy sources bore the cost of this wild swing? It certainly wasn’t wind. The result was the $200 billion dollar disaster.

The problem I have is our ridiculous ideological commitment to wind and solar above all else and the lack of understanding that the most important function of the grid is to provide reliable power. Unless we account for the true cost and limitations of wind power these types of disasters will happen again. If some of the people who ran ERCOT into this disaster would have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, perhaps it would send a message.

Figure_1-1.jpg
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,192
1,264
1
Times are changing.

On a mild Sunday afternoon, California set a historic milestone in the quest for clean energy. The sun was shining, the wind was blowing and on May 8th, the state produced enough renewable electricity to meet 103% of consumer demand. That broke a record set a week earlier of 99.9%.​
So what, that statistic is meaningless propaganda.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
The Chinese realize that they must have sufficient power under all conditions to maintain grid stability and they are smart enough to understand that wind/solar/batteries are not going to be able to do that in the near future (if ever). If Texas would have kept the 6 GWE of shuttered coal plants operating or built another 6 GW of gas plants at $7 billion perhaps they would have prevented a $200 billion disaster.

The problem is we do not require that wind and solar cover their true cost to the grid due to their intermittency. The graph below shows power generation by the Texas grid before and during the disaster. As shown on this graph as the cold front came through wind generated about 60% of the grid electricity and natural gas and coal less than 15% each. Just 3 days later the electricity from natural gas increased 8-fold and coal more than doubled while electricity from wind dropped by 80%. What energy sources bore the cost of this wild swing? It certainly wasn’t wind. The result was the $200 billion dollar disaster.

The problem I have is our ridiculous ideological commitment to wind and solar above all else and the lack of understanding that the most important function of the grid is to provide reliable power. Unless we account for the true cost and limitations of wind power these types of disasters will happen again. If some of the people who ran ERCOT into this disaster would have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, perhaps it would send a message.

Figure_1-1.jpg
The problem is the state's power system.
Texas has the worst power system in the union.
And Texas blames equipment failure in natural gas plants.
Why is it they seem to fail in Texas more than anywhere else?
And there isn't a commitment to renewables above all else, natural gas plants have boomed in recent years.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
“At the level of individual power plants, the continued investment in new coal generators is difficult to understand, given profitability across the sector is declining and analysis suggests that new investments are likely to become “stranded assets” unable to recoup their investments.
But from the perspective of the Chinese government, the short-term and localized economic benefits of new plants can make sense, given the industry is dominated by state-owned enterprises.
The nature of China’s political economy — where the government often owns not just the power plant but the construction company that builds it, the mining company that supplies the coal and the purchaser of the power — helps explain the decision to keep building, said Philippe Benoit from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.”

And
“Part of what makes the decision to leave coal behind so difficult is the legacy of the Chinese coal industry, which has powered the country’s meteoric economic rise.
The fundamental issue determining the speed of China’s coal phase down is the government’s approach to spurring growth and its ability to move away from smokestack industries, said Jorrit Gosens, a scholar at Australian National University, lead author of the paper.

As long as China relies on stimulating its economy through construction and other carbon-intensive energy, renewable energy will never be enough, even if its use surpasses stated targets. “That very big expansion of wind and solar doesn’t ensure a reduction in coal-fired power,” Gosens said.”

China’s coal industry doesn’t have the environmental requirements that ours does so coal isn’t as expensive over there but it does cost it’s citizens in other ways.
And I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to live with Chinese air pollution.

Coal is extremely dirty, and it’s not just CO2, but mercury, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, selenium and a whole host of other toxic poisons plus a lot of soot into the air.
Why use coal when there are much better options like natural gas, renewables and even nuclear?
And if you put pollution control equipment on coal plants, it makes coal more expensive than the competing power sources.
So why not just use the other power sources?
We can’t stop using coal overnight, it will have to be phased out and that’s what’s happening now.
Coal plants are being closed and new natural gas plants, solar farms and wind farms are being built to replace them.
People should not bemoan the fall of coal electricity, we should celebrate it.
You cut and paste from green websites but that doesn't give you an objective point of view.

Coal power capacity doubled in the past decade. China is the biggest but India, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam are also adding to their coal capacity. They aren't doing this because they are ignorant. They are doing it because demand is growing and coal is an economical option.

You never answered. Why did Germany push for Nordstream II? Why didn't they just put up some more windmills?
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
You cut and paste from green websites but that doesn't give you an objective point of view.

Coal power capacity doubled in the past decade. China is the biggest but India, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam are also adding to their coal capacity. They aren't doing this because they are ignorant. They are doing it because demand is growing and coal is an economical option.

You never answered. Why did Germany push for Nordstream II? Why didn't they just put up some more windmills?
They did build more renewables and Nordstream II is a natural gas pipeline.
I'm not arguing against natural gas.
Japan has had a rough time with nuclear plants and natural gas is expensive in Japan but it's commitment to coal isn't as strong as you claim for they are closing a lot of their old plants.
As for India, they are one of the largest coal producers in the world making coal politically popular there.
But they are paying the price, India's air pollution is worse than China's now.
Our coal plants are closing because of pollution regulations to keep coal ash and toxic chemicals from getting into the air and water.
"Coal’s outlook is even more grim over the next several years. S&P Global Market Intelligence reports utilities will close 51 GW of coal power between 2022 and 2027, followed by a “record plunge” in 2028 with more than 23 GW scheduled closures. Federal rules to keep coal ash and toxic metals out of drinking water will take effect that year – regardless of Supreme Court decisions on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions – and many utilities are not investing in compliance upgrades for plants that keep losing money.

When utilities ignore coal’s economic and regulatory headwinds, they risk punitive consumer cost spikes. In West Virginia, where coal supplies 89% of statewide power but plants require hundreds of millions in mandatory upgrades, power prices have risen up to 122% in recent years."

Is Fobes a "green" website too?
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,796
23,317
1
I don't know where Jeff lives, but when I lived in PA - 2 years ago - every year at electricty provider contract time, they would give a price for unit. Then they would offer a rate for renewable electricity, and every year the rate for renewable was HIGHER. So maybe renewable is cheaper somewhere, but it wasn't for me.
It's cheaper, but you pay more for the warm and fuzzy feeling of doing the right thing for the environment. 🤣
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
They did build more renewables and Nordstream II is a natural gas pipeline.
I'm not arguing against natural gas.
Japan has had a rough time with nuclear plants and natural gas is expensive in Japan but it's commitment to coal isn't as strong as you claim for they are closing a lot of their old plants.
As for India, they are one of the largest coal producers in the world making coal politically popular there.
But they are paying the price, India's air pollution is worse than China's now.
Our coal plants are closing because of pollution regulations to keep coal ash and toxic chemicals from getting into the air and water.
"Coal’s outlook is even more grim over the next several years. S&P Global Market Intelligence reports utilities will close 51 GW of coal power between 2022 and 2027, followed by a “record plunge” in 2028 with more than 23 GW scheduled closures. Federal rules to keep coal ash and toxic metals out of drinking water will take effect that year – regardless of Supreme Court decisions on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions – and many utilities are not investing in compliance upgrades for plants that keep losing money.

When utilities ignore coal’s economic and regulatory headwinds, they risk punitive consumer cost spikes. In West Virginia, where coal supplies 89% of statewide power but plants require hundreds of millions in mandatory upgrades, power prices have risen up to 122% in recent years."

Is Fobes a "green" website too?
Forbes isn't a green website but you can't comprehend what you read.

Germany was all in on Nordstream because renewable energy can't do it all and this seemed like their best option.

I agree that our coal plants are closing because of regulations. It's NOT because green energy is less expensive.

China and India have huge pollution problems. China has been encouraging EVs, working on solar, etc. That said, they have 1.4 billion people with only half of them living a good middle class lifestyle. As those people move to middle class status the demand for energy will skyrocket and renewables will only go so far. That's why China is building coal plants. It's their best alternative.

I never claimed that Japan's commitment to coal was strong. They're like everybody else. They would love abundant clean energy that's reliable and inexpensive. Unfortunately that doesn't exist.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,421
23,507
1
You cut and paste from green websites but that doesn't give you an objective point of view.

Coal power capacity doubled in the past decade. China is the biggest but India, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam are also adding to their coal capacity. They aren't doing this because they are ignorant. They are doing it because demand is growing and coal is an economical option.

You never answered. Why did Germany push for Nordstream II? Why didn't they just put up some more windmills?
My kid is a rocket scientist now working in design and trouble shooting for a Texas aerospace company. Prior to this he was a nuclear engineer working and traveling to plants.
Most green energy is stupid and a waste of time and energy, it cannot produce the results that nuclear can(cleanest) or coal (cheapest), bot we need to use now. If we never did windmills we would probably be at a net energy positive considering the energy expenditures in getting the windmills up and running to deliver sub par results.
And Stump is an idiot. I just have to add that whenever he drones on. I'll listen to Jr. on rthis issue3 over what probably is a dumbazz public school teacher or some other idiot.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,796
23,317
1
Times are changing.

On a mild Sunday afternoon, California set a historic milestone in the quest for clean energy. The sun was shining, the wind was blowing and on May 8th, the state produced enough renewable electricity to meet 103% of consumer demand. That broke a record set a week earlier of 99.9%.​
What happened when the sun went down?
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Forbes isn't a green website but you can't comprehend what you read.

Germany was all in on Nordstream because renewable energy can't do it all and this seemed like their best option.

I agree that our coal plants are closing because of regulations. It's NOT because green energy is less expensive.

China and India have huge pollution problems. China has been encouraging EVs, working on solar, etc. That said, they have 1.4 billion people with only half of them living a good middle class lifestyle. As those people move to middle class status the demand for energy will skyrocket and renewables will only go so far. That's why China is building coal plants. It's their best alternative.

I never claimed that Japan's commitment to coal was strong. They're like everybody else. They would love abundant clean energy that's reliable and inexpensive. Unfortunately that doesn't exist.
You are a fool if you want pollution regulations taken off of coal.
Coal poisons the air and water and should be discontinued.
Again, I like being alive and healthy.
And how many times do I need to repeat myself, our electricity should come from a mix of natural gas, renewables and nuclear.
Renewables and nuclear are the cleanest but natural gas is cheap and readily available, relatively clean and it works well with renewables because it can be switched on and off depending how much the renewables are producing.
I can see a system where the nuclear plants run 24 hours a day, with the production on the other two fluctuating depending on demand and how much renewables are producing.
And the coal plants should be mothballed.
To go totally nuclear would make electricity expensive so adding natural gas and renewables would make it more affordable.
We would have to make sure we had enough capacity in the gas plants to handle and spikes in demand or drop in production from renewables.

Not only would this reduce our CO2 emissions, our air and water would have less toxic chemicals and heavy metals and it could be done at a relatively affordable price.
Right now coal is the most expensive so our rates could even go down if those plants are retired and replaced by the other three.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,435
2,530
1
The Chinese realize that they must have sufficient power under all conditions to maintain grid stability and they are smart enough to understand that wind/solar/batteries are not going to be able to do that in the near future (if ever). If Texas would have kept the 6 GWE of shuttered coal plants operating or built another 6 GW of gas plants at $7 billion perhaps they would have prevented a $200 billion disaster.

The problem is we do not require that wind and solar cover their true cost to the grid due to their intermittency. The graph below shows power generation by the Texas grid before and during the disaster. As shown on this graph as the cold front came through wind generated about 60% of the grid electricity and natural gas and coal less than 15% each. Just 3 days later the electricity from natural gas increased 8-fold and coal more than doubled while electricity from wind dropped by 80%. What energy sources bore the cost of this wild swing? It certainly wasn’t wind. The result was the $200 billion dollar disaster.

The problem I have is our ridiculous ideological commitment to wind and solar above all else and the lack of understanding that the most important function of the grid is to provide reliable power. Unless we account for the true cost and limitations of wind power these types of disasters will happen again. If some of the people who ran ERCOT into this disaster would have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, perhaps it would send a message.

Figure_1-1.jpg

So the lack of adequate system-wide winterization didn't cause the issues in Texas and the resulting unanticipated 40%+ decline in natgas production, which was providing 60%+ of all production, wasn't the primary cause? It wasn't the ~30% decline in coal production or the ~25% decline in nuclear production weren't the cause...nope it was the intermittency of wind and solar that apparently no one knew about, got it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,589
26,886
1
An altered state
Times are changing.

On a mild Sunday afternoon, California set a historic milestone in the quest for clean energy. The sun was shining, the wind was blowing and on May 8th, the state produced enough renewable electricity to meet 103% of consumer demand. That broke a record set a week earlier of 99.9%.​
So that was one afternoon. Was it for a 24 hr period? Or the afternoon time slot? What happened the next five days? Did the wind get too high and they shut down the turbines?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,319
36,220
1
Times are changing.

On a mild Sunday afternoon, California set a historic milestone in the quest for clean energy. The sun was shining, the wind was blowing and on May 8th, the state produced enough renewable electricity to meet 103% of consumer demand. That broke a record set a week earlier of 99.9%.​
Why is electricity 10 cents per kwh in Arkansas but 20 cents per kwh in California?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,796
23,317
1
The problem is the state's power system.
Texas has the worst power system in the union.
And Texas blames equipment failure in natural gas plants.
Why is it they seem to fail in Texas more than anywhere else?
And there isn't a commitment to renewables above all else, natural gas plants have boomed in recent years.
You determine from that data that Texas has the worst power system in the union? What a critical thinker you are!

Most power failures in a given period of time meansthe worst power system? Really? What other variables can you think of that could contribute to more failures?

Size of the state?
Miles of transmission lines?
Severe weather?
Number of power plants/ other generation sites?
Amount of power produced?

Jesus, dude, you apparently read a lot, but lack critical thinking skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royboy

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,796
23,317
1
The problem is the state's power system.
Texas has the worst power system in the union.
And Texas blames equipment failure in natural gas plants.
Why is it they seem to fail in Texas more than anywhere else?
And there isn't a commitment to renewables above all else, natural gas plants have boomed in recent years.
You know what I love about your list? Washington and Oregon, land of the fruity- nutty people, are on the list due to vandalism. You libs just can't stand to see a power plant running, so you vandalize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,001
20,857
1
The Dureya Motor wagon Company was founded in 1893. How long from then till the interstate high way system was completed? I mean what is it with you cons and being down on America and American industry and innovation ? How long did it take to electrify the whole country? Oh no we do not have 100% renewable energy in the first 20 years of it being deployed at scale so better not do it. Is it that renewable and green energy some how connotes "liberal"? I mean what exactly is your dislike of it? An energy grid with 20% contribution from 5 different sources is a more robust grid. What is the percent of the grid from nuclear? and how long did that take?
I think it is pretty damn funny to read RWNJ posts on threads like this. ("Boo, alternative energy! Boo hiss! Yay, coal! Yay for more pollution! Lung cancer is the bomb!")
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,780
58,196
1
Just because the Chinese are building them doesn’t mean we should too.
The Chinese government does a lot of stupid things. They don‘t even need the extra capacity because their current power plants only run at 50 percent capacity.
But China’s coal industry is state owned and there is political pressure to create jobs so they are building power plants they don’t need.

One of them is not creating electricity shortages.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,780
58,196
1
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy being alive and healthy and want to be this way as long as I can, so the less poison I breathe and drink the better.

Trust me Jeff, you have plenty of poison in your mind already.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,780
58,196
1
I think it is pretty damn funny to read RWNJ posts on threads like this. ("Boo, alternative energy! Boo hiss! Yay, coal! Yay for more pollution! Lung cancer is the bomb!")

LOL... "YEAH LUNG CANCER IS THE BOMB."

Are you really a lawyer?
 

Latest posts