Originally posted by chuckChuck
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Solar power due to overtake oil production investment for first time, IEA says
Collapse
Logging in...
Welcome to Agriville! You need to login to post messages in the Agriville chat forums. Please login below.
X
-
-
Sadly he believes what he wrote and sadder still is that others do.
He writes everything as if fact when you can see it's all a stretch.
Where in Canada can you turn a coal facility on and off and who would pay for that? Anyone here ever work in one?
Why would you throttle a nuke plant or can you? Who pays for that?
Does no one see that our windfarms have zero or negative days?
What would your basis be on grain if your terminal shut down 20% or even 10% of the time? Railroads?
But no, electric infrastructure different?
Who is really this stupid?
Guess I answered my own question and could write a book of examples.
Comment
-
Originally posted by blackpowder View PostSadly he believes what he wrote and sadder still is that others do.
He writes everything as if fact when you can see it's all a stretch.
Where in Canada can you turn a coal facility on and off and who would pay for that? Anyone here ever work in one?
Why would you throttle a nuke plant or can you? Who pays for that?
Does no one see that our windfarms have zero or negative days?
What would your basis be on grain if your terminal shut down 20% or even 10% of the time? Railroads?
But no, electric infrastructure different?
Who is really this stupid?
Guess I answered my own question and could write a book of examples.
Comment
-
So who was saying gas plants and hydro can't be used to backup renewables?
Hydroelectric facilities are also able to dispatch extremely quickly; for instance the Dinorwig hydro power station can reach its maximum generation in less than 16 seconds.[4]
Natural gas turbines are a very common dispatchable source, and they can generally be ramped up in minutes.
Don't let the facts get in the way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by furrowtickler View PostWell we have some NFU hobby farmers , some organic and an Ag minister that has a garden trying to rule Ag policy for all farmers even though most don’t have a single clue what it takes to run a modern farm …… even remotely
Comment
-
-
Haven't seen this review of solar power efficiency in Australian show up in any western MSM.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/05/solar-a-risky-waste-of-time-and-money/
It looks at energy pay back time (EPBT) for Solar and the required batteries when we go net zero.
Energy pay back is when you get to the point where the energy produced is greater than the energy required to produce the panels and the batteries.
Study uses data from Australia.
Don't know how to compare Canada but data shows here solar has about 5% capacity factor in winter.
" The results show that:
The Energy Pay-Back time for roof-top solar generation of electricity is 22 to 24 years for Melbourne, 14 to 15 years for Perth, and 14 years for Alice Springs.
For Melbourne, Perth, and Alice Springs, EPBT’s exceed the lifetime of the battery, therefore, batteries have to be replaced twice in the 30-year lifetime of the solar panel. Accounting for this, the energy embodied in the manufacture and installation of the system is not recovered in the lifetime of the system.
Storage of excess summer generation for practical use requires very large batteries, resulting in unfavourable EPBT."
The following conclusions can be drawn:
Since prior research indicates that solar farms are worse than rooftop solar, solar farms are not a feasible replacement for traditional coal/gas-based electricity generation.
Given equal dollar value eg dollars per kWh, assigned to both input and output electricity, the cost results will echo the energy results, that is to say that the cost incurred in manufacture etc. will not be recovered in the lifetime of the system. Given that, within that lifetime, the batteries would be replaced at additional cost, it follows that electricity generated by the solar system will always be more expensive than the input coal/gas electricity which established the system. Statements by politicians such as, ‘the reason electricity is more expensive now is because we do not have enough renewable energy’ is the reverse of the facts. The more solar generation we have, the more expensive electricity will become.
Subsidies to adjust input and/or output dollar charges do not change the costs. They transfer costs to another element of production, for zero added value. Such subsidies are therefore inherently inflationary.
Continued purchase of solar panels and batteries from low-cost, coal/gas-based producers while, at the same time, inhibiting and closing domestic coal/gas-based electricity, presents national security issues, for no economic or environmental benefit.
Persistence with the widespread installation of PV panels and batteries and closure of coal or gas-fired power stations, will result in greater not lesser emissions of carbon dioxide, higher electricity charges, and higher inflation.
Put simply, Australia mines coal and exports it to China where coal-fired power stations generate electricity, which is used to manufacture PV panels and batteries, which Australia buys and uses to generate electricity from the rays of the sun. In their lifetimes, the solar panels never generate enough usable electricity to replace the coal/gas electricity they originated from.
Reliance on solar combined with closing down coal and gas generation is definitely premature and will lead to power shortages, inflated energy costs, compromised national security, and increased carbon dioxide emissions. Australia would be better off for supply reliability, emissions, costs, and sovereign security, to use coal and gas domestically for electricity generation.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by fjlip View Postwell that settles it...CC you and all your science baloney green climate crap are totally full of SHIT!
Lies on top of lies...time to garbage the whole idea and all the projects.
Comment
-
- Reply to this Thread
- Return to Topic List
Comment