Frogs

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I guess the frog title is appropriate.
Currently we have a thread about cats and dogs, a thread about unicorns(the title is actually cheap wind power, which is the same as a unicorn), and a pictures thread about sheep and dogs. Why not add frogs to the fauna theme.

[chuckChuck]

Might as well add dogs with tails between their legs running away when asked to provide credible evidence! AKA the prolific pretend libertarian from Alberta!

[TSIPP]

SaskPower doesn’t even have credible evidence that wind and solar gives us bang for our buck.

[chuckChuck]

Huh? So Sask power the company that builds gas plants, windmills and solar systems and operates coal plants and hydro facilities doesn't know what it costs to build and operate any of them? LOL

Give up Tsipper and join BL in the flat earth club!

[TSIPP]

Sask power does know what the costs are for producing electricity but they don’t have credible evidence that solar and wind is cheaper, when they say a new solar facility will out last a new natural gas power station they have lost all credibility.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Might as well add dogs with tails between their legs

Speaking of tails, perhaps you should take Blackpowder's advice from post 21 regarding getting some.
It might improve your demeanor substantially.

[sumdumguy]

Blaithin, you are so pragmatic and analytical. Two people living together for economic reasons or to care for each other is a good idea and why anyone would question it or assume anything is beyond me. Like the Beetles Say - “Come on people, just love each other.”

[chuckChuck]

Sask power does know what the costs are for producing electricity but they don’t have credible evidence that solar and wind is cheaper, when they say a new solar facility will out last a new natural gas power station they have lost all credibility.

So now you say Sask Power knows the costs for producing electricity, but they don't know what the lifetime of their generation sources are? Huh?

How do you calculate the lifetime costs if you don't know the lifespan?

Keep changing your lame, ineffective and contradictory argument Tsipper.

[furrowtickler]

So now you say Sask Power knows the costs for producing electricity, but they don't know what the lifetime of their generation sources are? Huh?

How do you calculate the lifetime costs if you don't know the lifespan?

Keep changing your lame, ineffective and contradictory argument Tsipper.

As do you when windmills are pulling up in landfills at 1/2 their lifespan

[Blaithin]

Correct me if I’m wrong but is there even a wind farm currently capable of producing its “maximum production”? All the ones I live near typically run around 1/2-3/4 of what their production is lauded to be.

So given a lower production, due to inefficiencies, a windmill would have to have a lifespan up to 2 times longer than its presumed life to even produce what the books were balanced for.

It’s hard to know what the cost of the renewable power is when you add up construction fees and upkeep fees and then the production is averaging 1/2 expected. Technology has changed in the last 15 years, or maybe now their math is just using the worst results possible so they’re covering their ass.

How do you calculate a lifetime production before something is functioning?

You run theoretical equations and pick the one that sounds the best so people who read it fall for the fake numbers and argue against the reality ones when they show up.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Correct me if I’m wrong but is there even a wind farm currently capable of producing its “maximum production”? All the ones I live near typically run around 1/2-3/4 of what their production is lauded to be.

So given a lower production, due to inefficiencies, a windmill would have to have a lifespan up to 2 times longer than its presumed life to even produce what the books were balanced for.

It’s hard to know what the cost of the renewable power is when you add up construction fees and upkeep fees and then the production is averaging 1/2 expected. Technology has changed in the last 15 years, or maybe now their math is just using the worst results possible so they’re covering their ass.

How do you calculate a lifetime production before something is functioning?

You run theoretical equations and pick the one that sounds the best so people who read it fall for the fake numbers and argue against the reality ones when they show up.

You have just described chucks entire argument.
You missed the part about ignoring any real world evidence which clearly contradicts the fantasy models. Then calling anyone who offers the real world evidence a flat Earther.

[chuckChuck]

Wind is about 40% of capacity rating depending on location. Solar in the US is around 25% in Southern California but will be below 20% in much of Southern Canada.

Coal and gas plants are only about 85% of their capacity rating because they have to shut down for maintenance over their life time.

So you can calculate how much electricity will be produced and how much the costs are over their lifetime.

Sask Power has done it and so does Lazard, its called the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

And Sask Power has said wind and solar are the lowest cost generation sources. Based on their actual costs and production.

From Sask Power:
"Don’t Wind And Solar Projects Have Short Lifespans?
Reality: The average lifespan of newer wind turbines is more than 30 years. For a solar facility, it’s also about 25 to 30 years. With good maintenance, that can be even longer!

Background: For a comparison, the average lifespan for a natural gas power station is also 25 to 30 years.

Aren’t They More Expensive?
Reality: When it comes to cost over their entire lifespan, the average cost of large-scale solar and wind generation is a lot less than other power sources."