Wind power--Wyoming blows

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

So then whats the problem?    

 

You put hydro power by Niagara Falls and the Hoover Damn.  You put solar power in the southwest.  You put wind in the great plains and on ocean coasts.   Why would any sane person be against that if its cost effective, non-polluting, and creates domestic jobs?     


I've never said that solar and wind never makes sense.  Just that our policies are and have been stupid.  We've pissed away trillions of dollars.  Don't forget that subsidies began in a substantial way under Carter, and we're still pissing away money.

 

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  I believe that we should have put much of the money we pissed away in producing expensive energy on research.  Producing hyper expensive energy makes no sense.

Originally posted by: Boilerman

I've never said that solar and wind never makes sense.  Just that our policies are and have been stupid.  We've pissed away trillions of dollars.  Don't forget that subsidies began in a substantial way under Carter, and we're still pissing away money.

 

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  I believe that we should have put much of the money we pissed away in producing expensive energy on research.  Producing hyper expensive energy makes no sense.


WHat hyper expensive energy would that be?   The costs of renewables have plummeted just since 2010 and are now the most cost effective in the country.   The problem with them is not cost - its being able to build them to scale.       Private electric companies didnt shut down their coal plants  because liberals made them....they did it because it saved them money.     

 

So - you would rather we pay more for fossil fuels?

 

 

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

Originally posted by: Boilerman

I've never said that solar and wind never makes sense.  Just that our policies are and have been stupid.  We've pissed away trillions of dollars.  Don't forget that subsidies began in a substantial way under Carter, and we're still pissing away money.

 

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  I believe that we should have put much of the money we pissed away in producing expensive energy on research.  Producing hyper expensive energy makes no sense.


Yeah, well, sending the space shuttle to the moon to grab a pair of those purple giraffes makes no sense, either.

 

Boiler, you LUVVV to argue by saying "X says," when X has never said it; "this happened" when it never did, and "this is true" when it isn't. It's a childish and stupid way to argue, and makes you look foolish. Do I expect you to change your foolish habits? No. But I wanted to point them out.

 

Far from producing "hyper expensive energy," as you stupidly misspell it, renewable energy sources produce electricity that is less expensive than burning fossil fuels. That line was crossed several years ago, and the gap continues to widen.

 

And since you claim to be an expert on these things (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA), I'll explain to you why: 1) Economies of scale, and 2) Lower cost of production materials.

 

People like Boiler, who can't see the future even when it stares them in the face, dismiss the spending on development of sustainable energy as "pissing away money." Tell us, Boiler, how much money was "pissed away" developing the fossil fuel industry?

 

Thank Christ that the Boilers of this world are dying off. I want to live in the 21st century, not last century--Boiler wants to live in the past, when he could still get it up, which is understandable.

Originally posted by: Boilerman

Still baffled by at simple concept.


Not at all. I'm mocking your silly obsession with it, as if your mentioning it over and over and over somehow proves whatever idiot point you're trying to make.


Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

WHat hyper expensive energy would that be?   The costs of renewables have plummeted just since 2010 and are now the most cost effective in the country.   The problem with them is not cost - its being able to build them to scale.       Private electric companies didnt shut down their coal plants  because liberals made them....they did it because it saved them money.     

 

So - you would rather we pay more for fossil fuels?

 

 

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia


4 year old chart.  If costs are going down, why are companies dropping their projects due to high costs?  Companies are scaling back their EV car production due to high costs & lack of demand

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

WHat hyper expensive energy would that be?   The costs of renewables have plummeted just since 2010 and are now the most cost effective in the country.   The problem with them is not cost - its being able to build them to scale.       Private electric companies didnt shut down their coal plants  because liberals made them....they did it because it saved them money.     

 

So - you would rather we pay more for fossil fuels?

 

 

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia


4 year old chart.  If costs are going down, why are companies dropping their projects due to high costs?  Companies are scaling back their EV car production due to high costs & lack of demand

Liberals con't zero of the peaker plant costs which MUST be available to start up and shut down at a moments notice to accomodate wind and solar power generation fluctuation.  This cost is massive, and they conveniently expense this cost on the conventional power ledger.  These plants would not exist, if not for wind and solar, so this is a convenient lie.

 

This fact makes all of PJ's charts another serial Liberal lie.

Where are your charts?   Ever notice how I back up what I say and you never do?     When Tom and Boilerman dont provide links that means they made it up.   Thats 15 years of posting here.

 

I dont have to speculate if costs are going down.   They are and I have the data that proves it.  I dont have to speculate what those costs are.  They are well documented and I have the documentation to prove it.

 

Boilerman and Tom lie daily on this board.   It would be forgiveable if they were just misinformed with a bad source of information....but they dont even have that.    They just make shit up and post it here.  this thread is a perfect example.

 

Is 2023 too old of a chart for you?   

2023 data shows Boilerman and Tom lie more than any Trump campaign speech.

 

Technology U.S. Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/MWh, 2023 Minimum Maximum

Onshore wind $24 $75

Solar PV (utility scale) $24 $96

Gas combined cycle $39 $101

Onshore wind + 4-hour lithium storage $42 $114

Solar PV (utility scale) + 4-hour lithium storage $46 $102

Geothermal* $61 $102

Coal* $68 $166

Offshore wind $72 $140

Gas peaking $115 $221

Nuclear* $141 $221

Edited on Nov 13, 2023 9:21am

Pj is lying when he says I don't provide sources. 

Does pj even understand what those numbers mean?   Looking at top line numbers without any context is a waste.  What is included, what is excluded?  We don't know. 

Finally if these projects are so good, why do they need government subsidies?  Why are they being cancelled?  Why do these companies want more government money?  Why aren't people buying the ev cars?  Why do these cars need subsidies? Why are ev plants not going forward?

 

Originally posted by: tom

Pj is lying when he says I don't provide sources. 

Does pj even understand what those numbers mean?   Looking at top line numbers without any context is a waste.  What is included, what is excluded?  We don't know. 

Finally if these projects are so good, why do they need government subsidies?  Why are they being cancelled?  Why do these companies want more government money?  Why aren't people buying the ev cars?  Why do these cars need subsidies? Why are ev plants not going forward?

 


You dont have one source anywhere on this thread that backs your point....and that pretty much settles that debate.

 

And the source I provided explains what the numbers mean.  So.....you're just kinda left holding your dick in your hand.   But thanks for stopping by.

 

"Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a metric used to assess the cost of generating electricity from a specific power source over its lifetime.

The measure takes into account all of the costs associated with building, operating, and maintaining a power plant, as well as the amount of electricity the plant is expected to produce over its lifetime."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now