jlisenbe: Don't bet on electric cars in the future.....this isn't new technology...its a bet that the consciousness of the public will drink the cool aide and that the SHEPEOPLE will loudly demand more and more of these damned things....my bet is that that doesn't happen and the people will STILL want bigger and better and more powerful conventionally fueled cars.....REMEMBER: The economies of many nations depend upon the anticipation that carbon fuels consumption will constantly rise in the future...and that INCLUDES the U.S....DON'T BET AGAINST DETROIT!

Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if the government OUTLAWED every electric powered vehicle tomorrow.....along with Wind Powered Turbines and other such B.S.!!!

Even Detroit is investing in electric/hybid cars. Not just electric but self driving for you drunks and bad drivers I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Even Detroit is investing in electric/hybid cars. Not just electric but self driving for you drunks and bad drivers I suppose.

---

No steering wheel, no accelerator, no brake. 25 mph and under.

Quote:

---

V7 -- along with Wind Powered Turbines and other such B.S.!!!

---

My Ohio farmer friend had solar panels put on his house's roof last summer. He hasn't had to pay an electric bill since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...vanna_2004.jpg

Quote:

---

Don't bet on electric cars in the future.....this isn't new technology...its a bet that the consciousness of the public will drink the cool aide and that the SHEPEOPLE will loudly demand more and more of these damned things....my bet is that that doesn't happen and the people will STILL want bigger and better and more powerful conventionally fueled cars.....REMEMBER: The economies of many nations depend upon the anticipation that carbon fuels consumption will constantly rise in the future...and that INCLUDES the U.S....DON'T BET AGAINST DETROIT!

---

It's possible that you are right, but if electrics come along, and I think they will, that are considerably more economical to drive than the gas burners, then they will catch on. I am open to the idea that the marginal global warming which has occurred is caused, at least in part, by a build up of CO2. If that turns out to be the case, then people will more and more call for a decrease in fossil fuel usage. Now what to turn to? Windmills? Solar panels? None of those are economical or reliable. It is a tough question. Maybe nuclear?

I'm sure they are economical and reliable in some regions, just see my post above. Maybe run a line to one of those regions.

So what happens on those days when the wind is too slow or stopped?

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

---

Now tal I thought you are a died in the wool liberal opposed to those dastardly coal plants what is predictable is hot air blowing from the east

Quote:

---

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

---

So we have to keep double the number of generating facilities open to get the same amount of electricity we have now? That does not sound like much of a plan to me.

You might be missing something, because they are indeed doing it, and more of it as time goes by. It's a simple equation, the more you use alternative the less coal you use. Wind dies down, sun runs away kick the coal into gear until they come back and the wind blows at night too! Where did you get that keep double the facilities running for the SAME amount of electricity? Actually the coal facilities always run, but at much lower capacity.

Quote:

---

Where did you get that keep double the facilities running for the SAME amount of electricity? Actually the coal facilities always run, but at much lower capacity.

---

You just said it. "Actually the coal facilities always run." In what world does that not amount to double the facilities and double the personnel to produce the same amount of power? Why not just get rid of the wind component and run the coal plants? It would save a ton of money since the wind power is not economical anyway without fat federal subsidies, and you would halve the number of production facilities to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You just said it. "Actually the coal facilities always run." In what world does that not amount to double the facilities and double the personnel to produce the same amount of power? Why not just get rid of the wind component and run the coal plants? It would save a ton of money since the wind power is not economical anyway without fat federal subsidies, and you would halve the number of production facilities to run.

---

You know that doesn't equate to wasteful liberal philosophy

Quote:

---

You know that doesn't equate to wasteful liberal philosophy

---

I would agree with that.

The cost of shutting down and starting up a coal fired facility is prohibitive so you keep them running at a minimum. Makes little sense to shutdown a facility completely without a 100% alternative. Ask any engineer.

Quote:

---

The cost of shutting down and starting up a coal fired facility is prohibitive so you keep them running at a minimum. Makes little sense to shutdown a facility completely without a 100% alternative. Ask any engineer.

---

What would that same engineer say to the titanically crazy idea of running both the coal plant AND a bunch of windmills, and so doubling the expense of producing the same amount of power? It would be the same thing as needing one coal plant, so we'll build two and run them both. Makes no sense at all.

Talaniman: You are correct: Ups and downs with a coal generating plant is near impossible and prone to reliability issues, as well.

Personally, I like NUCLEAR in power: Just have to make a national commitment! And one hell of a sales job to the "Doubting Thomas'" out there.....Need someone with charisma and an acute engineering knowledge to do that sale: Too bad Jimmy Carter is so old now....but someone like him...he was a very, very good Engineer and I say that even if I didn't agree with him politically.

Look at it this way. If you want to produce, for example, 500KW of power, you could build a coal plant, or you could build a wind farm. What you are proposing is to build BOTH of them, and yet still only produce 500KW of power. So you go to the expense of building and operating both of them, and yet still only get 500KW of power? How on earth does that make any sense?

Vac, for you to say that coal plants have "ups and downs" and are prone to "reliability issues" is really a stretch. They are utterly, wildly reliable relative to wind farms. Now I could go along with the nuke option when you answer the question of why we would want to shut down perfectly good, up and running fossil fuel plants and start what would be an enormously expensive program of replacing them with nukes. Why would we do that? If you believe in catastrophic, man made global warming, then that would be your answer. If you don't, then why would we go to all that expense and trouble?

I see your problem. Your math! Useage of both increases your capacity substainially to be much greater than EITHER, as opposed to your statement they don't, while saving on the coal supply and dependency to it, and reducing your carbon footprint. Plus it's a growing jobs market and the land leases benefit the land owners just as gas leases do.

As for nuclear there are 450 plants world wide and while clean it's also expensive, and the most dangerous to utilize. An expensive clean up and storage proposition we are undertaking for older plants as it is.

https://sciencing.com/pros-cons-nucl...s-4779089.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...e-mess/560945/

Quote:

---

I see your problem. Your math! Useage of both increases your capacity substainially to be much greater than EITHER, as opposed to your statement they don't, while saving on the coal supply and dependency to it, and reducing your carbon footprint. Plus it's a growing jobs market and the land leases benefit the land owners just as gas leases do.

---

Actually, you don't see it at all. You are suggesting we build two facilities because of the certainty that one of them (wind) is unreliable. So you are still building two plants to only get the capacity of one of them. It's the nuttiest idea I have heard in a long time. It's just like buying two table saws but only running them one at a time. And you've already said that the coal plant, in your scenario, would be run at low capacity. Why would anyone with half a brain build a coal plant and then run it at low capacity most of the time just to support a wind farm? So I'll ask it again. Why not just build the coal plant? It's totally reliable and you'd get the same amount of power at half the cost.

Did you bother to read my link? Wind works in Texas for Texans to create electricity very reliably, cost effectively. I'm not suggesting anything to you but just telling you what we have done which is both successful and profitable. It's not building two plants to get the capacity of one, but actually doubling and tripling that capacity. You scale back the coal capacity out put to save on the coal supply, which in the long run increases your supply saving you money. Saves consumers money too.

Only a guy with half a brain would tell a guy that has done that successfully, it doesn't work. Seems you would find a way to solve your own problems with what you have rather than criticize those that have done that already. Texans are grateful for the winds to help us out. Maybe you would be better served finding something to be grateful for and helping YOU out!

So in Texas, what do you do when the wind is not blowing? How do you replace that lost power? If you do it by cranking up the coal plants, then please explain how you are not having to finance double capacity since one of them (wind) is not reliable?

Grid management which requires a bunch of investment and PLANNING.

https://thetylerloop.com/how-texas-b...to-east-texas/

Certainly helps to be blessed with a wide range of energy resources though, which regretably others don't have.

I read through your article. Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote the section where it tells what happens on those days when the wind is not sufficient to efficiently drive the turbines.

Wind and solar are similar in that neither one could make it without tens of billions of dollars in fed subsidies. I'm all for them if they can make it on their own. I don't think they can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...dies-billions/

"That sum includes all local, state, and federal subsidies as well as federal loans and loan guarantees received by companies on the American Wind Energy Association’s board of directors since 2000. (Most of the federal grants have been awarded since 2007.) Of the $176 billion provided to the wind-energy sector, $2.9 billion came from local and state governments; $9.4 billion came from federal grants and tax credits; and $163.9 billion was provided in the form of federal loans or loan guarantees."

In Texas wind is reliable and is blowing pretty good all the time somewhere in this huge energy rich state, just as the sun also shines most time. That's why coal is essentially being steadily pushed off the grid. ALL energy in America is subsidized, coal is just the oldest, but others are pushing it aside at least here any way. Astute of you to realize that some coal plants are indeed being shutdown. May happen in your state once you get harnessing your natural gas A$$ act together.

I apologize as I thought you could glean the answers to your questions from the links I provided, but I'm still searching for that easy for all to understand explanation of what happens when the winds dies in TEXAS, on a cloudy day.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/...-away-by-wind/

Let me know if this helps.

Quote:

---

In Texas wind is reliable and is blowing pretty good all the time

---

No, it's not. I lived in Dallas for two years. The wind blows pretty steadily but some days not so much, so you still have not explained what to do on those days. To be clear, if it works for you guys in Texas (only 18%, according to your article), then that's fine with me. I just don't care for those who suggest that wind and solar are THE answers. They are not.

Quote:

---

I apologize as I thought you could glean the answers to your questions from the links I provided, but I'm still searching for that easy for all to understand explanation of what happens when the winds dies in TEXAS, on a cloudy day.

---

Instead of giving a smart-a$$ answer, why not just quote your beloved article where it tells what they do when the wind does not blow? Why have you listed another article when you cannot yet explain the 300 or so you've already listed? Just give an answer, or admit you don't have the slightest idea. I think we both know the answer to that one.

What you say about Dallas is certainly true, but how did you miss where the wind farms are in my numerous links including the one with the maps. I mean even to have 18% of the energy market is pretty consistent over a year in of itself, and obviously it works whether you beleive it or not. So your case we should abandon the renewables and just have coal is absurd!

We haven't even talked about the biggest renewable here and that's gas. It's a hoot though that a dude from Mississippi is telling a dude from Texas how we waste our money, when you struggle to figure out how to get money yourself and explore your own resources. And stop blaming me for not being able to understand the links provided which explained things very well.

Or perhaps having spent more than 30 years in an industrial setting and know how stuff works from a production perspective as well as a maintenance one, my comprehension may be different than yours which is highly likely. What do you think?

Quote:

---

What you say about Dallas is certainly true, but how did you miss where the wind farms are in my numerous links including the one with the maps. I mean even to have 18% of the energy market is pretty consistent over a year in of itself, and obviously it works whether you beleive it or not. So your case we should abandon the renewables and just have coal is absurd!

---

I've never made that argument, but I'm still asking you a very simple question. What happens if the wind dies down for a couple of days?

Quote:

---

We haven't even talked about the biggest renewable here and that's gas. It's a hoot though that a dude from Mississippi is telling a dude from Texas how we waste our money, when you struggle to figure out how to get money yourself and explore your own resources. And stop blaming me for not being able to understand the links provided which explained things very well.

---

You can't understand the links, but they explain things very well? Really? And gas is a renewable? When did that happen?

Quote:

---

Or perhaps having spent more than 30 years in an industrial setting and know how stuff works from a production perspective as well as a maintenance one, my comprehension may be different than yours which is highly likely. What do you think?

---

I think that if you continue to insist that building two facilities to produce the electricity produced by one plant, then that is indeed a very different "comprehension".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've never made that argument, but I'm still asking you a very simple question. What happens if the wind dies down for a couple of days?

You can't understand the links, but they explain things very well? Really? And gas is a renewable? When did that happen?

I think that if you continue to insist that building two facilities to produce the electricity produced by one plant, then that is indeed a very different "comprehension".

---

"then that is indeed a very different "comprehension" jl, you do realise that liberals have a different comprehension they see many things as acceptable, while seeing others as unacceptabile. Taxes, abortion, HC, taxes, welfare, taxes

Texas is a red state run by conservatives Cletes just like JL so you explain it to him. JL since that has seldom happened to my knowledge then demand would be met by what's available, either coal, gas, solar or rubbing two sticks together. Where ever you got the notion that I don't understand MY own links forget it. It's you behind the curb and for your knowledge each unit of energy production has it's own output so system capacity is adding them together, as is output. One of those links you cannot understand illustrates that point.

Quote:

---

I think that if you continue to insist that building two facilities to produce the electricity produced by one plant, then that is indeed a very different "comprehension".

---

You talk crazy when you want to don't you? Of course your statement makes no sense whatsoever except to YOU?

Quote:

---

"then that is indeed a very different "comprehension" jl, you do realise that liberals have a different comprehension they see many things as acceptable, while seeing others as unacceptabile. Taxes, abortion, HC, taxes, welfare, taxes

---

That is certainly true on this board.

Quote:

---

You talk crazy when you want to don't you? Of course your statement makes no sense whatsoever except to YOU?

---

OK. Have it your way. I give up and admit that it makes perfectly good sense to build two expensive power plants to do the work of one plant. Very, very reasonable to do. In fact, we should do that for many things. Two water treatment plants to do the work of one, two traffic lights at every intersection, two interstates where only one would do, two stoves and two refrigerators in every house, and two table saws in every shop. We can call it the "Rule of Tal".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is certainly true on this board.

OK. Have it your way. I give up and admit that it makes perfectly good sense to build two expensive power plants to do the work of one plant. Very, very reasonable to do. In fact, we should do that for many things. Two water treatment plants to do the work of one, two traffic lights at every intersection, two interstates where only one would do, two stoves and two refrigerators in every house, and two table saws in every shop. We can call it the "Rule of Tal".

---

Dude, you build power plants to ADD to what you have so you can provide more power to more people. Geez even a third grader can figure that out and it works great so what are you really stuck on? That's not Tal's way but the reality of the STATE. You argue with the success or what? It's not really an argument though just you showing off your stubborn streak to hide your lack of comprehension. Admit that and enough with the stupid analogies.

No. It's just me saying that to build two powerplants to produce what one powerplant will produce is really crazy . If you need a second plant, then fine, but in your scenario the only reason to have the second plant is because the first one doesn't produce power all the time. It's a strange idea.

If you are getting it to work in Texas, then I'm all for you. At only 18%, I can see how it could be done, and your article did state that the price of electricity had gone down, so that's good. I just don't see wind farms as anything more than a small part of the pie because of the problems of the reliability of the wind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No. It's just me saying that to build two powerplants to produce what one powerplant will produce is really crazy . If you need a second plant, then fine, but in your scenario the only reason to have the second plant is because the first one doesn't produce power all the time. It's a strange idea.

If you are getting it to work in Texas, then I'm all for you. At only 18%, I can see how it could be done, and your article did state that the price of electricity had gone down, so that's good. I just don't see wind farms as anything more than a small part of the pie because of the problems of the reliability of the wind.

---

Just to inject some reality, there hasn't been a new coal plant in this nation in twenty years and many have been decommissioned so the argument is mote. Why, because massive installations of wind and solar have taken over. It isn't the cheapest power, but, it serves other purposes, like lessening the call for more renewables. But, like anything the more you do the more is expected, despite AGW being a northern hemisphere obscession

Quote:

---

Just to inject some reality, there hasn't been a new coal plant in this nation in twenty years and many have been decommissioned so the argument is mote.

---

Are you speaking of Australia?

Quote:

---

Why, because massive installations of wind and solar have taken over.

---

I assume you mean in your country. Here, wind and solar combine for only a little over 10%. Natural gas, coal, and nukes still carry the largest share by far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Are you speaking of Australia?

I assume you mean in your country. Here, wind and solar combine for only a little over 10%. Natural gas, coal, and nukes still carry the largest share by far.

---

yes I am speaking of Australia, I wouldn't say Coal isn't still the main base load but older coal is being retired with no replacement. Much of our natural gas is exported it being far from major cities and industrial centres. What I am illustrating is that there are alternatives without reverting to coal and we have no nuclear plants. Maybe we are living in a fool's paradise but it will take twenty years for us to find out

Same here Clete,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ig-coal-plant/,

I know of no new facilities being built in the USA, but more are being shuttered or planned to be and at least 50 since the dufus took office.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-coal-power-trump.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Same here Clete,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ig-coal-plant/,

I know of no new facilities being built in the USA, but more are being shuttered or planned to be and at least 50 since the dufus took office.

[]

---

Also the banking industry has decided coal carries too must risk and will not invest

the unintended consequences of promoting wind power :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

Another UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of Wind Power: Birds of prey and birds, in general, are being killed by wind driven turbines at an alarming rate....Eagle are really being taken out in large numbers.