If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Obama to nuke coal power plants   (cnn.com) divider line 297
    More: Interesting, Obama, coal power plant, climate change skeptics, coal-fired power plants, senior administration official  
•       •       •

2409 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 1:17 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 05:40:08 PM

netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.


Yes and demand in the US peaks on hot sunny days. Which actually makes solar the best form of energy to meet demand. Solar both can make more during the highest demand AND can also be used to store power and run 24/7.
 
2013-06-25 05:40:44 PM

Hollie Maea: First, you said that the high efficiency for a specific example I gave doesn't count because "cherry picking".


That is correct, because you are using HVDC for your tranmission example.  HVDC is not the standard transmission system used in this country (thought it should be considered more).

 Then you argued that the high efficiency I gave for the whole country doesn't count because it's the whole country

Strawman.  When did I say that it did not 'count'?  In fact one of my arguemnts agreed with that point.  However, that has nothing do do with the premis of my original agrument.
 
2013-06-25 05:41:40 PM

Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.


In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.
 
2013-06-25 05:47:21 PM

HeadLever: However, that has nothing do do with the premis of my original agrument.


Your original argument was that transmitting wind power from the Midwest would face 50% or greater transmission losses.  You have yet to come up with a single citation that remotely backs up such a claim.

Since then, your main argument has been that it's unfair to consider HVDC efficiency because we don't use it much.  In spite of the fact that when we use it, those are the types of applications we use it for.  And also in spite of the fact that HVAC vs HVDC is a cost consideration, not an efficiency consideration.  But just to put that argument to rest, Path 66, which is an AC line, actually carries more power than the Pacific DC Intertie, goes the same distance, and transmits at similar efficiency.
 
2013-06-25 05:48:47 PM

Hollie Maea: Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.

In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.


Molten Salt biatches!!!!


Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy retained by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.
 
2013-06-25 05:53:44 PM

Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.

In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.

Molten Salt biatches!!!!


Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy retained by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.


Well, that's the efficiency of the storage.  I'm referring specifically to the step of transferring from heat to work or heat to electricity.  And with concentrated solar, you DO lose 50 percent of the solar energy when you run the turbine--but that's actually really good; much better than the 20% you get with PV.  But yeah, the molten salt is a perfect and ridiculously efficient storage medium.
 
2013-06-25 05:57:21 PM

Hollie Maea: I never said we have a lot of HVDC lines


I know you didn't.  However, the premis of my argument was that we would use 'typical' AC transmission lines.  Therefore your example is not really representative of my original argument.

 Once again, your assertion was that we COULD build a big line to transmit wind power from the Midwest,

No it was not. My premis is that we would use what we currently have to transmit the power - namely, high voltage AC.

 I gave a specific example of technology that could and would be used to do such a thing.

Sure, we could use microwave transmission and have 0% losses, but that is beside my point.  Right now, that infrasttructure does not exist.

You can get just as high efficiency with high voltage AC lines--you just have to have slightly bigger wires to account for skin effect. For AC lines, the wires are a bit more expensive.

True and we are also going to even higher voltages to help in this regard. It is the ongoing capital cost vs loss analysis.  For short base-load systems, you really don't need it as losses are a small percentage.  However, when you are in Wyoming and shipping all your power 800 miles away, it makes much more sense. Problem is that the infrastructure is not easy to build
 
2013-06-25 05:57:56 PM

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.

In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.

Molten Salt biatches!!!!


Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy retained by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.

Well, that's the efficiency of the storage.  I'm referring specifically to the step of transferring from heat to work or heat to electricity.  And with concentrated solar, you DO lose 50 percent of the solar energy when you run the turbine--but that's actually really good; much better than the 20% you get with PV.  But yeah, the molten salt is a perfect and ridiculously efficient storage medium.


Ah got ya!
 
2013-06-25 05:59:01 PM

HeadLever: True and we are also going to even higher voltages to help in this regard. It is the ongoing capital cost vs loss analysis. For short base-load systems, you really don't need it as losses are a small percentage. However, when you are in Wyoming and shipping all your power 800 miles away, it makes much more sense. Problem is that the infrastructure is not easy to build


Which is another great thing about home solar you don't need to ship the power far like you need to do with other forms of power generation.
 
2013-06-25 06:00:05 PM

Hollie Maea: Your original argument was that transmitting wind power from the Midwest would face 50% or greater transmission losses.


Nope: Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.  Please try to pay attention next time or you end up arguing with a strawman again.
 
2013-06-25 06:02:57 PM

HeadLever: However, the premis of my argument was that we would use 'typical' AC transmission lines.


OK.  No problem with that premise.  It'll be a bit more expensive than it needs to be, but certainly no technological problems.  There are a ton of examples of high efficiency high capacity long distance lines (built before HVDC was cost effective).  Path 46 and Path 66 are well known examples.

Still waiting for an example of a transmission line with 50% or more losses.
 
2013-06-25 06:04:25 PM

Corvus: Which is another great thing about home solar you don't need to ship the power far like you need to do with other forms of power generation.


Yeah, with solar getting so damn cheap, solar could really be a savior to the grid.  WIth more and more decentralization you don't need as much of the transmission upgrades that you would typically see.  Hopefully, that trend continues.
 
2013-06-25 06:05:30 PM

HeadLever: but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.


OK.  You got me there.  I can't deny that it would be possible to build a line that would have 50% losses or greater.  It would be unprecedented, illogical, stupid, and would require all sorts of special engineering to deal with the heat it would generate, but why not...it might happen.

Hell, it might have losses greater than 99%, if they decide to transmit 10,000 amps at 120 volts across AWG 14 wire.
 
2013-06-25 06:11:08 PM

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?

Right, because taking people's jobs and (and thus healthcare) away is a great way for us to have a healthy society.


So you won't mind you family's health being negatively  impacted as long as jobs are created for others.

So, if 1,000 people could get jobs but the result was your spouse contracts cancer, you'd accept that, right? How about for 100 jobs? 10? 1?
 
2013-06-25 06:14:36 PM

Hollie Maea: Still waiting for an example of a transmission line with 50% or more losses.


Since the AC system is an interconnected grid, you won't.  However, if you want a facts on losses on a 345KV line that I posted earlier, here you go (page 4)
 
2013-06-25 06:25:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you won't mind you family's health being negatively  impacted as long as jobs are created for others.

So, if 1,000 people could get jobs but the result was your spouse contracts cancer, you'd accept that, right? How about for 100 jobs? 10? 1?


So if 1,000 people lost their ability to earn, feed their families and take their families to the doctor to screen for things like cancer, you'd be okay with this?
 
2013-06-25 06:32:19 PM

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: So you won't mind you family's health being negatively  impacted as long as jobs are created for others.

So, if 1,000 people could get jobs but the result was your spouse contracts cancer, you'd accept that, right? How about for 100 jobs? 10? 1?

So if 1,000 people lost their ability to earn, feed their families and take their families to the doctor to screen for things like cancer, you'd be okay with this?


No, i don't think the ability to get cancer screening should be dependent on your employment status.

I'm sure the thought of all the jobs saved will be a great comfort to your spouse as they deal with the months of agonizing pain.

Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that you can have clean drinking water? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that your food isn't contaminated? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that the paint in your house isn't filled with lead? Think of all the people who don't have healthcare so you wouldn't be exposed to those health hazards.
 
2013-06-25 06:34:55 PM

HeadLever: However, if you want a facts on losses on a 345KV line that I posted earlier, here you go (page 4)


OK, so the worst case scenario is 4.2% loss per 100 mile.  Not sure how that helps your argument.  And don't try to pretend that there is anything unusual or exotic about 500kV lines.  The country is crawling with them.  And from your link, the losses for those are only 1.3% per 100 miles.  Again, that is run of the mill high voltage AC lines.  To get your 50% losses, you would have to go over 3800 miles, which is more than 50% farther than the distance from LA to New York.  There is no point in the contiguous United States that is anywhere near that far from Wyoming.  Again, that's using old school vanilla technology.  From your link, if we go up to 765kV, then the losses get down to .5% per 100 miles.  That means we could go 10,000 miles before we hit your 50% losses.  That is to say, we could transmit power from Los Angeles to London AND BACK AGAIN.  And that's not even using HVDC.

Bullshiat number was bullshiat.
 
2013-06-25 06:39:52 PM

Hollie Maea: I can't deny that it would be possible to build a line that would have 50% losses or greater.


My point is not that you would construct this line, but that this would be the result of using the current infrastructure (of which ASCE has given us a D+ in this regard).
 
2013-06-25 06:45:46 PM

HeadLever: My point is not that you would construct this line, but that this would be the result of using the current infrastructure


OK.  I will concede that if you build huge amounts of generation with no transmission that will be a problem.  Kind of a pointless argument, especially since WECC is already planning for the required transmission needed to bring 12+ GWh of wind each in Wyoming and Montana, as well as 12GWh of solar each in Montana and New Mexico.
 
2013-06-25 06:46:22 PM

Hollie Maea: And don't try to pretend that there is anything unusual or exotic about 500kV lines.


Absolutely not.  The problem is that the grid is several decades behind the demand in this respect.
 
2013-06-25 06:47:43 PM
 
2013-06-25 06:48:19 PM

HeadLever: Corvus: Which is another great thing about home solar you don't need to ship the power far like you need to do with other forms of power generation.

Yeah, with solar getting so damn cheap, solar could really be a savior to the grid.  WIth more and more decentralization you don't need as much of the transmission upgrades that you would typically see.  Hopefully, that trend continues.


Already have a handful of states where solar has "grid parity" and every year it will add more as costs continue to go down.
 
2013-06-25 06:55:48 PM

Corvus: netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.

Yes and demand in the US peaks on hot sunny days. Which actually makes solar the best form of energy to meet demand. Solar both can make more during the highest demand AND can also be used to store power and run 24/7.


You need to have a smart grid in place though.  I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally..  I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms.  You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing.  The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed. 

"Operators of power transmission systems are charged with the balancing task, matching the power output of all the generators to the load of theirelectrical grid. The load balancing task has become much more challenging as increasingly intermittent and variable generators such as wind turbines and solar cells are added to the grid, forcing other producers to adapt their output much more frequently than has been required in the past. "
 
2013-06-25 06:57:18 PM

whidbey: netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.

Actually, we're still waiting on those citations asked of you.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Does this help?
 
2013-06-25 07:00:23 PM
My energy plan would be:
Build no more nuclear but keep the ones currently running.
Charge a CO2 tax that would slowly increase each year based on CO2 production.
Invest in renewable energy and conservation. (money could be used from CO2 tax)

Also I would charge more for companies getting oil from public land. It's dumb that they are the riches companies on earth and they get much of their product from the US public. Talk about a government hand out.
 
2013-06-25 07:04:29 PM

Hollie Maea: Kind of a pointless argument, especially since WECC is already planning for the required transmission needed to bring 12+ GWh of wind each in Wyoming and Montana, as well as 12GWh of solar each in Montana and New Mexico.


Not necessarily as these types of project require a EIS which takes 2 to 5 years.  Add to that the environmental/NIMBY lawsuits, and these can take a decades to get constructed.  See my opposition link above (2013-06-25 05:57:21 PM ) that specifically deals with the Gateway West line.

For this line, the EIS was finsihed in 2011 and they don't expect construction until 2019. That is assuming that the Enviros/NIMBY's don't win any of their lawsuits.
 
2013-06-25 07:06:12 PM

netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.

"Operators of power transmission systems are charged with the balancing task, matching the power output of all the generators to the load of theirelectrical grid. The load balancing task has become much more challenging as increasingly intermittent and variable generators such as wind turbines and solar cells are added to the grid, forcing other producers to adapt their output much more frequently than has been required in the past. "


THE US ALREADY HAS BIG SOLAR PLANTS THAT FEED THE GRID. (like I said before please stop talking you're embarrassing yourself) Reread the links where I have shown you they already exist!!!

Dude you didn't know you could put solar power on the grid why should anyone listen to you about anything on this subject? You are one of the least informed person on solar power I have ever meet.

You thought all solar power was "intermittent" and could not be possibly be put on the grid, even though it has been done for 30 years now. Please, please be quiet.
 
2013-06-25 07:07:22 PM

Corvus: Already have a handful of states where solar has "grid parity" and every year it will add more as costs continue to go down.


Exactly, what is cool is that the price trend seems to not be slowing at all.
 
2013-06-25 07:10:19 PM

netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.



Right it would be impossible to do it at a large scale to power the grid:

upload.wikimedia.org We've only been doing it for 30 years.

NextEra claims that the solar plants power 232,500 homes

Like I said please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
 
2013-06-25 07:11:02 PM

HeadLever: Corvus: Already have a handful of states where solar has "grid parity" and every year it will add more as costs continue to go down.

Exactly, what is cool is that the price trend seems to not be slowing at all.


Right it's been pretty linear and most people think it's got a long way to go.
 
2013-06-25 07:13:26 PM

Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

Well you read from incorrect source and have no idea what your talking about my solar on my home goes on the grid. Plus southern California has solar plants since the 70s that go on the grid.

Also solar energy can run 24/7. You really have no idea what you're talking about?

What do you mean "a local issue" is my grid I pull power from different then the normal electrical grid?


Your neighborhood operates on a closed loop between each house and a transformer... mostly on a per-street level depending on population density.  The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.  The electric company can monitor your 'upload' and can pay your for generating electricity.  The power you generate via home solar does not go back to the the electric company let alone the national grid.  It's not carried by high voltage cables to neighboring cities. 

This is why you need an infrastructure upgrade or a smart grid to accept more and variable power sources.    Some coutnries and even some parts of the US have enabled intelligent systems but we're not there yet... which is my main point.  Coal plants are tied into the national grid, provide consistent power and are cheap.  I'm not saying that they are good or clean or anything else.  I'm just pointing out that you need a large infrastructure upgrade in order to implement any new and preferable clean alternative to Coal.  This is why I argued that simply closing down Coal plants is not a solution. Is this what you arguing with me over?
 
2013-06-25 07:15:51 PM

Corvus: netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.


Right it would be impossible to do it at a large scale to power the grid:


I never said impossible.  You did.  These one-off projects are great and the government should sponsor and promote them.  But you can't simply turn off all the Coal plants and call the job done.  Solar currently can't meet the need today.
 
2013-06-25 07:16:36 PM

netizencain: Your neighborhood operates on a closed loop between each house and a transformer... mostly on a per-street level depending on population density. The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use. The electric company can monitor your 'upload' and can pay your for generating electricity. The power you generate via home solar does not go back to the the electric company let alone the national grid. It's not carried by high voltage cables to neighboring cities.

This is why you need an infrastructure upgrade or a smart grid to accept more and variable power sources. Some coutnries and even some parts of the US have enabled intelligent systems but we're not there yet... which is my main point. Coal plants are tied into the national grid, provide consistent power and are cheap. I'm not saying that they are good or clean or anything else. I'm just pointing out that you need a large infrastructure upgrade in order to implement any new and preferable clean alternative to Coal. This is why I argued that simply closing down Coal plants is not a solution. Is this what you arguing with me over?


Their are so many incorrect points in this post I can't really point them all out.

Dude you didn't even understand that home solar goes back into the grid now you keep changing your statements (and still getting it wrong) to try to pretend you have not been totally wrong this entire time.

Stop it. You have no idea about what your talking about. Go be dumb somewhere else.
 
2013-06-25 07:20:04 PM

Corvus: netizencain: Your neighborhood operates on a closed loop between each house and a transformer... mostly on a per-street level depending on population density. The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use. The electric company can monitor your 'upload' and can pay your for generating electricity. The power you generate via home solar does not go back to the the electric company let alone the national grid. It's not carried by high voltage cables to neighboring cities.

This is why you need an infrastructure upgrade or a smart grid to accept more and variable power sources. Some coutnries and even some parts of the US have enabled intelligent systems but we're not there yet... which is my main point. Coal plants are tied into the national grid, provide consistent power and are cheap. I'm not saying that they are good or clean or anything else. I'm just pointing out that you need a large infrastructure upgrade in order to implement any new and preferable clean alternative to Coal. This is why I argued that simply closing down Coal plants is not a solution. Is this what you arguing with me over?

Their are so many incorrect points in this post I can't really point them all out.

Dude you didn't even understand that home solar goes back into the grid now you keep changing your statements (and still getting it wrong) to try to pretend you have not been totally wrong this entire time.

Stop it. You have no idea about what your talking about. Go be dumb somewhere else.


Okay, you've lost me here.  Maybe we'll break it down to see where I'm messing up.

Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid.  Does it?
 
2013-06-25 07:20:17 PM

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.


Right it would be impossible to do it at a large scale to power the grid:

I never said impossible.  You did.  These one-off projects are great and the government should sponsor and promote them.  But you can't simply turn off all the Coal plants and call the job done.  Solar currently can't meet the need today.


So you didn't say it would be impossible without a "smart grid" and the US doesn't have that infrastructure?

It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.


SOLAR PLANTS DON'T HAVE TO JUST GENERATE ENERGY WHEN THE SUN IS UP.  IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE "INTERMITTENT".

How many times do we need this explained to you.
 
2013-06-25 07:21:46 PM

netizencain: Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?


Actually NO.

First off it goes STRAIGHT into the grid and I get my power back off from the grid. I get charged/credit for the difference.

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.
 
2013-06-25 07:23:14 PM

netizencain: Okay, you've lost me here. Maybe we'll break it down to see where I'm messing up.

Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?


Here let me now ask you a question.

Why in the hell do you think solar needs a smart grid while everything else doesn't?
 
2013-06-25 07:23:19 PM

Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.


Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.
 
2013-06-25 07:24:26 PM

Corvus: SOLAR PLANTS DON'T HAVE TO JUST GENERATE ELECTRICITY WHEN THE SUN IS UP. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE "INTERMITTENT".


Here let me be more exact. yes it generates "Energy" when the sun is up but can generate "Electricity" at anytime.
 
2013-06-25 07:26:06 PM

Corvus: netizencain: Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?

Actually NO.

First off it goes STRAIGHT into the grid and I get my power back off from the grid. I get charged/credit for the difference.

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.


Take it easy.  Just trying to understand.  The maritime electrician next to me says the the transformer in your neighborhood is a closed loop system in that the power it distributes to your street is designed to prevent anything from feeding back out of it.  Thus, your excess can't leave your close loop.  If you can cite something different, I'd like to read it.
 
2013-06-25 07:29:28 PM

netizencain: Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.

Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.


Can you point out where that article said all solar (including thermal) does not work unless you have a smart grid? Because scanning it I don't see it.
 
2013-06-25 07:32:48 PM

Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.

Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.

Can you point out where that article said all solar (including thermal) does not work unless you have a smart grid? Because scanning it I don't see it.


They don't specific smart grid but when the article says, "The implication is that greater cooperation between grid operators, including new operating procedures, market rules and expanded transmission capacity, can do much to offset the variability of high levels of solar power. "  These are the components of a smart grid.
 
2013-06-25 07:34:04 PM

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?

Actually NO.

First off it goes STRAIGHT into the grid and I get my power back off from the grid. I get charged/credit for the difference.

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.

Take it easy.  Just trying to understand.  The maritime electrician next to me says the the transformer in your neighborhood is a closed loop system in that the power it distributes to your street is designed to prevent anything from feeding back out of it.  Thus, your excess can't leave your close loop.  If you can cite something different, I'd like to read it.


No you weren't "trying to understand" you came into this thread saying solar could not work based on all sort of wrong information.

So your getting help from others now?  Why the hell did you not find out what you were talking about when you started making all these incorrect statements about how solar can't possibly work?

Closed loop vs. I feed directly to my grid are two different things. Now your trying to pretend you were right (which you were not) by pretending we were talking about something else.

like I said please stop you are making it worse. If you want to actually learn why not leave and actually read links I shared? The reason you won't is because you are not trying to "just understand" you are just trying to cover up you're so clueless about this all.
 
2013-06-25 07:36:01 PM

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.

Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.

Can you point out where that article said all solar (including thermal) does not work unless you have a smart grid? Because scanning it I don't see it.

They don't specific smart grid but when the article says, "The implication is that greater cooperation between grid operators, including new operating procedures, market rules and expanded transmission capacity, can do much to offset the variability of high levels of solar power. "  These are the components of a smart grid.


Yes they are talking photovoltaic. Not Thermal. See you have no idea what you are talking so much, you didn't understand the article you read.

If like now you admit you have no idea what you were talking about why did you come into this thread acting like you did?
 
2013-06-25 07:40:01 PM
Corvus:

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.

I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong.  So far:

Your home solar excess doesn't go back to the grid... it's stays withing your closed loop transformer system.  Perhaps grid was an ill-defined term.  Some people may see the grid as anything outside of their own circuit breaker.  Sorry about that.  I really meant the national system of electrical distribution.  I was trying to state that the current infrastructure does not  allow small solar solutions to feed into a large distributed system.

I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.  I think this statement as not been proved wrong.  Yes, we do have solar and wind farms.  Yes they tie into the national grid.  But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal.  While for individual uses I was wrong.  And the government should promote these alternatives.  However, you can't replace coal with green on a national level today.

What other mistakes have I made... you mentioned 20.
 
2013-06-25 07:46:53 PM
Solar porn thread!

i.imgur.com

This is a 5MW solar PV plant in San Francisco. It was built atop the roof of a giant cistern (the "Sunset Reservoir") that was formerly just a big concrete eyesore in the middle of an otherwise amazing view. At the time of construction a few of years ago it was the third largest PV system in the United States.

It went up amazingly quick once work began. From the time I first spotted rails being installed to the whole thing being covered in panels was the span of a few months.
 
2013-06-25 07:50:50 PM

Corvus: . If you want to actually learn why not leave and actually read links I shared? The reason you won't is because you are not trying to "just understand" you are just trying to cover up you're so clueless about this all.


I read both articles.  They are new, developing solutions.  I actually drove place the Nevada plant during spring break... thanks for the link.

Corvus: No you weren't "trying to understand" you came into this thread saying solar could not work based on all sort of wrong information

....

Did you see my initial comment?  "But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement. "  It's not.  Not today.  And nothing you have said or links provided has changed that.  You can't turn off coal plants today and have enough solar or wind to support the market.

Is that comment wrong?
 
2013-06-25 07:53:41 PM

o5iiawah: whidbey: Yes we know you hate social services, especially those designed to make sure people have food to eat.

Actually I dont.


Then you need to drop the insulting point you made earlier about people on food stamps. It was not only uncalled for, but irrelevant to this discussion.

What i hate are people who make moronic assertions about them.  Since you admitted these coal miners are all out of jobs, perhaps you'd like to tell the class where you expect them to work.

Actually, I'm waiting for you to cite that " tens of thousands of people " would be out of work and not retrained for other jobs, that some of the workers at these plants could be union, etc.

You're the one making assumptions here. And it was also brought to your attention that even if we did put them out of work, the health issues associated with coal plants are ultimately more important than a job that we could find retraining for, or get the company who owns the plant to invest in the community.

So basically you just showed up in this thread to make two easily challenged "arguments" and then again, resorted to personal attacks when called out.

Honestly, I'm about to just put you ignore and be done with it.

Philip Francis Queeg: How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?

Right, because taking people's jobs and (and thus healthcare) away is a great way for us to have a healthy society.
 
2013-06-25 07:55:47 PM

netizencain: You can't turn off coal plants today and have enough solar or wind to support the market.


When did I or anyone else in this thread said this?
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report