Frogs

[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."

?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If you repeat it often enough, if you say it loud enough... Chuck will believe it is true.

[chuckChuck]

So A5 your only lame, often repeated argument is that Sask Power is wrong and doesn't know their cost of electricity from their generation sources? LOL

And you keep coming up empty handed when asked to prove Sask Power wrong!

Get your tail between your legs and keep running A5!

[TSIPP]

Capacity rating? The renewables don’t come close to capacity rating.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You can prove that Sask powers speculative projections are potentially true by finding a region where the addition of wind and solar didn't result in much more expensive electricity to the consumers.
You tried Texas, but as we now know, it made it 20% more expensive for their consumers compared to their next door neighbors who stuck with fossil fuels.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, have I got a deal for you. Since you claim to be a capitalist farmer, I'll sell you a fleet of the cheapest new harvesting capacity that you can add to your fleet.

Threshing machines. The payments on your new combines are costing you $100's per threshing hour. I can get you into a fleet of threshing machines for a fraction of that cost per threshing hour. And you can use wood burning steam engines to power them, and horses to haul the stooks and grain and save the environment from CO2 at the same time.

Except, you can't sell your current combines because you will still need them when it gets too dark for the threshing crews without lights, so your payments will stay the same, but their cost per acre will go up a lot. You will just add the payments for the threshing machines.

You'll never buy fuel for the threshing machines, you'll just have to hire a crew year round to cut and spilt and cure and haul firewood, you'll pay that crew year around, even when the threshing machines aren't even in use. You will need to seed a large amount of farmland back to trees to keep up with the demand.

Your current swathers won't work, so you'll have to buy a fleet of binders, and horses to pull them, and harnesses, and build a barn to house the horses, and hire the crews to drive them, then feed and look after the horses year around, even if they aren't producing anything all winter. You'll have to devote a large proportion of your farmland to growing horse feed, those are acres that will no longer be growing crops you can sell. But you'll still have the payments on your existing swathers to swath for the combines you'll have to keep.

Just like wind and solar, the supply needs to be brought to where the demand is, and since a threshing machine is stationary, you'll need to buy a fleet of stook wagons and horses and hire the crews to haul the stooks to the threshing machines.

The threshers won't reach into your current grain carts and trucks, so you'll need to buy an entire fleet of grain wagons and crews to run them, but you'll still have to keep your trucks and carts to service the combines. Did you forget that those wagons don't have hoists? Now the elevators you haul to will have to install hoists to dump the wagons, should that cost be forced on all the other farmers who don't use it?

You will have more downtime, they require a lot of maintenance. With a road speed of 2 miles per hour behind the steam engine while you move from field to field across your 6000 acre farm, you will need a lot of redundant capacity to make up for the travel time while the threshing machines don't do any productive work.

They are quite weather dependent. Everytime it rains, and every night, you'll have to remove all the belts from the thresher, and the canvases from the binders, better allow a lot of extra time for this.

The straw will all end up in a pile, if you burn it, you release CO2, since care about the environment, you will need to spend a lot of time and energy putting the straw back on the fields where it belongs.

But at least you can always claim that these new threshing machines have the cheapest cost of new threshing capacity. Unless of course you can actually do math.

[shtferbrains]

The basic argument goes back to the government regulating the economy to support their manta of controlling the weather.
Western governments have lost touch with their taxpayers.
Not hard to see why China wants to interfere in our politics.
They sell us all the things needed for the new green economy but aren't playing in the same game.
We are handing it to them.
They get stronger and we decline.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The basic argument goes back to the government regulating the economy to support their manta of controlling the weather.
Western governments have lost touch with their taxpayers.
Not hard to see why China wants to interfere in our politics.
They sell us all the things needed for the new green economy but aren't playing in the same game.
We are handing it to them.
They get stronger and we decline.

It takes a lot of cheap coal to make expensive green energy.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Aug/Renewables-Competitiveness-Accelerates-Despite-Cost-Inflation"

"For the last 13 to 15 years, renewable power generation costs from solar and wind power have been falling. Between 2010 and 2022, solar and wind power became cost-competitive with fossil fuels even without financial support. The global weighted average cost of electricity from solar PV fell by 89 per cent to USD 0.049/kWh, almost one-third less than the cheapest fossil fuel globally. For onshore wind the fall was 69 per cent to USD 0.033/kWh in 2022, slightly less than half that of the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option in 2022."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Do you think IRENA might be missing something from their equation?
If this cheapest form of energy always results in higher consumer costs, perhaps you might want to revisit some assumptions.

After all, we now have decades of real life data proving that it is never cheaper. There's no need to rely on projections such as this.