Green energy is dumb

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Green energy is dumb

Klause's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 18:49 1 Look up ITER and DEMO.


THERE YA GO CHUCKY I fixed your energy problem for ya!! Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 9, 2017 | 19:15 2
Quote Originally Posted by Klause View Post
Look up ITER and DEMO.


THERE YA GO CHUCKY I fixed your energy problem for ya!!
Wow. Not a single response.

Where's all the green energy loving people?


Fusion reaction... commercial scale Tokomak reactors.


Iter will use 50MW to power up and produce 500MW.

Inside a magnetic containment vessel.... All the benefits of a compact nuclear power plant without any of the dangers, radioactivity, or waste...


Why spend billions of taxpayer money on wind and solar when this is around the corner? Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 9, 2017 | 19:15 3 Also noteworthy, the USA is involved, yet Canada is absent... Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017 | 19:17 4 Does after 2050 mean just around the corner?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40558758

So back to the windmills apparently Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 9, 2017 | 19:19 5 FYI... The only Canadian TOKOMAK... is here in Saskatchewan:
http://plasma.usask.ca/ Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 9, 2017 | 19:22 6
Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
Does after 2050 mean just around the corner?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40558758

So back to the windmills apparently


Let's throw 20 billion more at Fusion. and quit building windmills... It's almost 2020... 40 years till we have limitless power...

Or we can cause the next 3 generations to be in debt for no reason... and use up a bunch of rare earth resources for nothing.

We're shutting down power plants before their EoL and replacing them with un-stable, and non-sustainable "green" energy that's going to bankrupt us... Hmmmm.... Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017 | 20:07 7 Nothing but crickets. The truth comes out klause the lefties only want to tax us they know man made climate change is a hoax. Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017 | 20:30 8 This green BS, the Paris Accord, carbon tax and all the wasted resources building windmills and solar panels will be derilect and ditched in 10 years.

Number one- no one has proven that our best friend Carbon, the backbone of all organic things and food creating processes, is the nemisis of the world, and no one can give any assurance at all the the Western World can do one iota to slow down an obscure and non-specific "problem" (or maybe not a problem at all.)

All that will happen with this green blunder state, is that western wealth and our taxes will be wasted. Klause, good on you for posting this alternative but really, do we need an alternative for something that is not a problem at all. On the other hand, 33 years is a very short time, basically 1 farming career. In that time there will be lots of innovations and I suppose that can't be all bad. Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017 | 21:35 9
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
This green BS, the Paris Accord, carbon tax and all the wasted resources building windmills and solar panels will be derilect and ditched in 10 years.

Number one- no one has proven that our best friend Carbon, the backbone of all organic things and food creating processes, is the nemisis of the world, and no one can give any assurance at all the the Western World can do one iota to slow down an obscure and non-specific "problem" (or maybe not a problem at all.)

All that will happen with this green blunder state, is that western wealth and our taxes will be wasted. Klause, good on you for posting this alternative but really, do we need an alternative for something that is not a problem at all. On the other hand, 33 years is a very short time, basically 1 farming career. In that time there will be lots of innovations and I suppose that can't be all bad.
Farming career only sposed to be 33 years ?? Wtf ? Lol Reply With Quote
helmsdale's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 00:07 10 Sitting in great falls at the truck stop running some basic math. Trying to figure out what it would take to make an all electric truck fleet possible.

If we say the average truck north of 49 in the prairies is running about 900km/day @ 5mpg average we get 508.15L of fuel consumption per day. Wiki tells me diesel fuel contains 38.6MJ/L and a large diesel engine is somewhere around 45% efficient. That means 8826.56MJ is actually needed to punch a truck down the road for the day if it was 100% efficient. If we assume we could power the truck with an electric motor that is ~95% efficient we would then need 9291.12MJ per day to punch the electric truck down the road.

Now if we convert that to kilowatt hours, 1KwH=3.6MJ, so we'd need a 2580.88KwH battery. Just like you don't run your diesel tanks to empty at the end of the day and try to keep a reasonable cushion of a couple hundred liters, let's say we rig this truck with a 3000KwH battery. On the HIGH side, wiki says Li-ion packs .265KwH/kg. So the battery pack would weigh 11,321kg in lithium ion alone for a 3000KwH battery.

Now here's where things start to get Ugly... if we knock the fuel off the truck that gains us 500kg in payload, but the battery Costs us 11,321kg, so nets out at 10,821kg. I won't even discuss the added weight from additional axles and tires just to support this extra weight. Regardless, we've lost 10.821mT of payload, or nearly 25% for a Canadian super b.

At the end of the day we have to charge these things up over 8Hrs which is the mandatory daily reset. So if we assume absolutely 100% efficiency in charge and discharge then we just have to replenish the 2580KW over 8 hours, which would require 322.5KW every hour for 8 hours, or basically a 322.5KVA generator running with its tounge hanging out for 8 straight hours. Put another way, at 240Volts, you will need a 1344amp service to plug that truck into.

I'm sitting in a truck stop with probably 100 trucks sitting here, that means a 134,000 amp service so that all these trucks could plug in... at night... when there's seldom much wind blowing... blow this out for all the class 8 trucks that are on the road not only in Canada, but north America.

Maybe my assumptions and calculations are way out to lunch, but I just don't see how this is possible on renewables! Or how we are going to be able to source the shear quantity of precious metals needed... not just for the batteries, but the windmills and solar cells. Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 01:41 11
Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
Does after 2050 mean just around the corner?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40558758

So back to the windmills apparently
Perhaps if we put as much emphasis and capital into this as we do into the other alternative energy types, it wouldn't take until 2050. Look how fast the atomic bomb was developed when the resources were thrown at it.

But until the friends of politicians have positioned themselves to make a fortune from this, they will stick with solar and wind while government subsidies are still making them a fortune. If these governments really thought that CO2 is causing all of the calamities it is claimed to, they would have already put their resources into a project such as this which has a real possibility of replacing a large portion of fossil fuels, at least for electric generation.
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Nov 10, 2017 at 01:43.
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 05:09 12 Replace electric trucks with a more efficient way of hauling bulk products. ....it's called a railway for fuck sakes....


Trucks that are hauling 500 plus kms a day to deliver grain anywhere is retarded.....


Everyone has been hypnotized by the railways leaders like a cult that they are doing their very best....they are not and it's time for another railway.....

What's the reason for Bison trucks with double vans on the the number one highway.....they are either Winnipeg to Calgary or Regina to Calgary .....either way that's rail traffic. ...


It was the railways that created the trucking industry by their lack of willingness to do anything.....
Last edited by bucket; Nov 10, 2017 at 09:26.
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 09:03 13 Seems so simple, Bucket' but every politician out there has allowed the rails to take out which ever branch lines they want and close every yard to any extra car loading. 110 cars or nothing. Reply With Quote
ALBERTAFARMER4's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 09:12 14 I'm not sure how this makes green energy dumb. That is like someone saying in the 1980s that we should stop building roads because everyone will have flying cars in the future. Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 09:21 15 I say this because everyone greenie correlates reduction in ghg to the number of cars off the road....

Imagine taking 100000 trucks off the road.....

And then being able to hop a train from Regina to Calgary instead of driving......

How many flights are there Regina to Calgary everyday. ....makes a case for high speed train....might increase Saskatchewan population as well....

BTW Saskatchewan quit building roads long ago .....they are having trouble maintaining them....

The overpasses at the GTH lead to nowhere. ... Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 09:22 16
Quote Originally Posted by ALBERTAFARMER4 View Post
I'm not sure how this makes green energy dumb. That is like someone saying in the 1980s that we should stop building roads because everyone will have flying cars in the future.


Find out how much steel carbon and heavy metals it takes to get 500Mw out of wind or solar. Then find out what it takes out of a torroidal reactor.


Also land area required.


Then once it's obsolete which will be well before it's end of life... Who will take down all the windmills and solar panels? Or will they become relics like abandoned oil Wells?



We literally could power all of Canada with hydro electricity but it's not cool and the political will isn't there. Way better to spend billions on unproven and unreliable solar and wind... When we could have clean, emission free, high density water power. Reply With Quote
ALBERTAFARMER4's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 09:25 17
Quote Originally Posted by Klause View Post
We literally could power all of Canada with hydro electricity but it's not cool and the political will isn't there. Way better to spend billions on unproven and unreliable solar and wind... When we could have clean, emission free, high density water power.
If you think the sun and wind are unreliable why are you a farmer? Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 09:25 18 What do trucks burn as fuel?
Who controls the government? Less trucks =less fuel= less under the table money for political people. It's really that simple.

Who pays more? If you don't know go stand in front of a mirror tell me the dumbie you see in front of you. Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 09:27 19 It's not that green energy is dumb (likely is tho), green energy is about wealth transfer. It's about quashing the oil corps and redirecting the wealth to flow elsewhere. The anti corporate crowd that's against GMOs, Monsanto, even McDonalds are the main proponents of green. They see green energy as the new tool to recruit those unsuspecting people in society that just live day to day without an anti corporate agenda. Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 09:29 20 Klause

If they put 4 dams on the Saskatchewan river system the same water would generate power multiple times....

Then let's talk where depleted solar panels go to die..... Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 09:46 21
Quote Originally Posted by ALBERTAFARMER4 View Post
If you think the sun and wind are unreliable why are you a farmer?
Because I'm insane enough as with most farmers, to try and make a livelyhood out of 6" of decomposed rock and organic material praying the right amount of moisture condenses out of the atmosphere, hoping the sun is visible long enough to not cause frost but not so long as to negate the condensation and wither the crop... All the while praying the wind doesn't destroy my hard earned fruits of a years worth of labour...


How about you? Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 09:50 22
Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart View Post
It's not that green energy is dumb (likely is tho), green energy is about wealth transfer. It's about quashing the oil corps and redirecting the wealth to flow elsewhere. The anti corporate crowd that's against GMOs, Monsanto, even McDonalds are the main proponents of green. They see green energy as the new tool to recruit those unsuspecting people in society that just live day to day without an anti corporate agenda.


You got it!

I selected the title to try and get a rise out of lefties. Didn't work.


I'm more interested in work done in the USA... Use wind to make hydrogen through electrolysis and with little modification run a diesel tractor on it. Would be way cheaper and better for the environment as far as ag is concerned.

[http://www.dakotafarmer.com/story-hy...debuts-9-12673 Reply With Quote
ALBERTAFARMER4's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 09:54 23
Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart View Post
It's not that green energy is dumb (likely is tho), green energy is about wealth transfer. It's about quashing the oil corps and redirecting the wealth to flow elsewhere. The anti corporate crowd that's against GMOs, Monsanto, even McDonalds are the main proponents of green. They see green energy as the new tool to recruit those unsuspecting people in society that just live day to day without an anti corporate agenda.
LG, Tesla, Canadian Solar, Vestas, enphase, Panasonic, solar edge... these definitely don't sound like corporations at all. The only people upset about green energy are the ones holding stock in oil companies. Bet against technology, let me know how that works out for you in the long run. Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 10:01 24
Quote Originally Posted by ALBERTAFARMER4 View Post
LG, Tesla, Canadian Solar, Vestas, enphase, Panasonic, solar edge... these definitely don't sound like corporations at all. The only people upset about green energy are the ones holding stock in oil companies. Bet against technology, let me know how that works out for you in the long run.


Um... You're the one betting against technology...


That's the funny thing. You're just too naive to see it.


Torroidal reactors will replace all your non environment friendly green energy. After it's redistributed a vast majority of western wealth.


All the birds that get killed. The landscaped ravaged by rare earth mining. The waste of windmills and solar panels that take up anbunch of room and are an eyesore; that kill countless birds every year; that displace mammals because of the frequency emitted from the rotating units they will be obsolete before they can even be fully implemented.


By the way 40% of the world's oil goes into products other than fuel. Oil isn't going anywhere and it's you that's kidding yourself Chuck. Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 10:04 25 See like all the threads before the Climate change supporters blow smoke up our ass with charts and graphs etc and then when a real conversation happens they hide and fear and stay off line.

Hm again those solar panels at Brooks and Crake are really working today with snow on them.

People in this country need the power to go out for weeks with a ice storm or something. im sorry its time the idiots realze we live in canada and its cold in winter and snowy and icy and hell we need to heat our homes cars and buildings.

The mall isn't heated by solar panels you morons. Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 10:09 26 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/07/how-green-is-britains-low-carbon-energy-supply

How green is Britain’s record on renewable energy supply?

About half of the power generated in the UK comes from low-carbon sources – here’s a breakdown of the four main sources of electricity

Adam Vaughan
@adamvaughan_uk

Saturday 7 October 2017 16.19 BST
First published on Saturday 7 October 2017 16.00 BST

As one of the UK’s renewable energy chiefs has pointed out, electric cars won’t tackle climate change if they run off fossil fuels. Matthew Wright, managing director of Dong Energy UK, said that although plug-in cars could cut local air pollution, it would be a “pyrrhic victory” if they increased greenhouse gases from coal and gas power stations.

“The fit between renewable energy and electric is a natural [one],” he argued. E.ON, one of the big-six energy suppliers, agrees: its dedicated new electric car tariff is supplied with 100% renewable power.

Put simply, the greener the electricity mix, the greener your electric car. Today, around half of power generated in the UK comes from low-carbon sources. Here’s how that breaks down, and how it might look in the future.
Wind

Nearly a third of the UK’s electricity between April and June was generated from renewable sources – a new record, and up a quarter on the same period last year. The milestone was driven in large part by the growing number of windfarms on land and around the UK’s coast. It also helped that wind speeds were relatively high and overall electricity generation was lower than normal.

The records have continued into autumn. Last Sunday night was the perfect time to plug in a car, as the carbon emissions from power generation were at their lowest level ever, because of windfarms.

Offshore windfarms have been making headlines as well as power, securing record low levels of state support in a government auction last month. Three major offshore farms will be built in the early 2020s for a subsidy price well below nuclear, and half what the technology cost just a few years ago.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

The UK has more offshore wind power capacity than any other country in the world, and is helping set records in Europe too. Last Monday, Europe generated a new high of 263 gigawatt hours of power from offshore turbines, 95GWh of which came from the UK.

Some industry-watchers think that offshore windfarms, where larger and more efficient turbines are driving costs down fast, could become so cheap that they eventually outcompete their onshore counterparts in Britain, too. But for now, those on land still provide 50% more power than those at sea.
Solar

The number of solar panels in the UK grew at a dizzying rate between 2011 and 2016, and now provide a significant source of power in the middle of the day.

Solar is a large reason the national grid went without coal power for 24 hours in April, the first time the UK had done without the dirty fuel for a day since the industrial revolution. For one brief period on a Friday in May, solar even eclipsed the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for electricity generation.

However, the outlook for the next five years is cloudier. Experts forecast the amount of solar installed will be a fifth of the capacity fitted in the past five years.
Solar panels provide a significant amount of energy but installation is starting to fall off.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Solar panels provide a significant amount of energy but installation is starting to fall off. Photograph: Mike Kemp/Corbis via Getty Images
Nuclear
Advertisement

Nuclear power stations usually provide between a fifth and a quarter of the UK’s power, taking a 23.6% share during April and June. EDF, which is building Britain’s first new nuclear station in decades at Hinkley Point in Somerset, thinks that by 2035, nuclear’s share should grow to around a third of UK power supply.

In the French state-owned firm’s vision of the future, another third will come from renewables and the last third from gas. Together, EDF sees the three as the best way of achieving reliable, affordable and low-carbon power.

But seven of the UK’s eight existing nuclear power stations, which began generating electricity in the 1970s and 1980s, are expected to come off the grid late next decade. That means for atomic power to supply a third of the UK’s needs, Hinkley Point C will need to be finished on time, and three more plants of a similar size will need to be built.

One of those could be by EDF itself, at Sizewell in Suffolk, if it can build the reactors for a subsidy price low enough that the government would agree it.

EDF is also supporting a Chinese nuclear company, CGN, which is at the start of a four-year process to get regulatory approval for a plant at Bradwell, in Essex. Other international consortia are hoping to build a plant at Wylfa in Wales and Moorside in Cumbria.
Biomass

Although environmentalists dispute the idea that wood-burning is green at all, it is still officially considered low-carbon by the UK and EU. The UK’s biggest power station, Drax in North Yorkshire, has already converted three of its six units from coal to biomass, and is exploring switching a fourth.

Later this year, an old coal power plant at Lynemouth in Northumberland is also slated to reopen as a biomass power station. Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 10:12 27 Well chuck thats nice since britain is a island with F#$K all for Oil reserves and the colonies aren't shipping it to them for free so they have to find other ways.

Froze my ass off sitting in a hotel in London on more than one occasion so if their alternate source is so good and cheap why are they not cracking the heat.

Oh the bullshit alternates ate way way expensive.

Insert Ontario and brain dead New world.

Yea their broke. Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 10:18 28
Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
Farming career only sposed to be 33 years ?? Wtf ? Lol
If you are a poor planner and always buying new equipment..... well then enjoy it till you're 80. Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 10, 2017 | 10:19 29
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/07/how-green-is-britains-low-carbon-energy-supply

How green is Britain’s record on renewable energy supply?

About half of the power generated in the UK comes from low-carbon sources – here’s a breakdown of the four main sources of electricity

Adam Vaughan
@adamvaughan_uk

Saturday 7 October 2017 16.19 BST
First published on Saturday 7 October 2017 16.00 BST

As one of the UK’s renewable energy chiefs has pointed out, electric cars won’t tackle climate change if they run off fossil fuels. Matthew Wright, managing director of Dong Energy UK, said that although plug-in cars could cut local air pollution, it would be a “pyrrhic victory” if they increased greenhouse gases from coal and gas power stations.

“The fit between renewable energy and electric is a natural [one],” he argued. E.ON, one of the big-six energy suppliers, agrees: its dedicated new electric car tariff is supplied with 100% renewable power.

Put simply, the greener the electricity mix, the greener your electric car. Today, around half of power generated in the UK comes from low-carbon sources. Here’s how that breaks down, and how it might look in the future.
Wind

Nearly a third of the UK’s electricity between April and June was generated from renewable sources – a new record, and up a quarter on the same period last year. The milestone was driven in large part by the growing number of windfarms on land and around the UK’s coast. It also helped that wind speeds were relatively high and overall electricity generation was lower than normal.

The records have continued into autumn. Last Sunday night was the perfect time to plug in a car, as the carbon emissions from power generation were at their lowest level ever, because of windfarms.

Offshore windfarms have been making headlines as well as power, securing record low levels of state support in a government auction last month. Three major offshore farms will be built in the early 2020s for a subsidy price well below nuclear, and half what the technology cost just a few years ago.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

The UK has more offshore wind power capacity than any other country in the world, and is helping set records in Europe too. Last Monday, Europe generated a new high of 263 gigawatt hours of power from offshore turbines, 95GWh of which came from the UK.

Some industry-watchers think that offshore windfarms, where larger and more efficient turbines are driving costs down fast, could become so cheap that they eventually outcompete their onshore counterparts in Britain, too. But for now, those on land still provide 50% more power than those at sea.
Solar

The number of solar panels in the UK grew at a dizzying rate between 2011 and 2016, and now provide a significant source of power in the middle of the day.

Solar is a large reason the national grid went without coal power for 24 hours in April, the first time the UK had done without the dirty fuel for a day since the industrial revolution. For one brief period on a Friday in May, solar even eclipsed the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for electricity generation.

However, the outlook for the next five years is cloudier. Experts forecast the amount of solar installed will be a fifth of the capacity fitted in the past five years.
Solar panels provide a significant amount of energy but installation is starting to fall off.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Solar panels provide a significant amount of energy but installation is starting to fall off. Photograph: Mike Kemp/Corbis via Getty Images
Nuclear
Advertisement

Nuclear power stations usually provide between a fifth and a quarter of the UK’s power, taking a 23.6% share during April and June. EDF, which is building Britain’s first new nuclear station in decades at Hinkley Point in Somerset, thinks that by 2035, nuclear’s share should grow to around a third of UK power supply.

In the French state-owned firm’s vision of the future, another third will come from renewables and the last third from gas. Together, EDF sees the three as the best way of achieving reliable, affordable and low-carbon power.

But seven of the UK’s eight existing nuclear power stations, which began generating electricity in the 1970s and 1980s, are expected to come off the grid late next decade. That means for atomic power to supply a third of the UK’s needs, Hinkley Point C will need to be finished on time, and three more plants of a similar size will need to be built.

One of those could be by EDF itself, at Sizewell in Suffolk, if it can build the reactors for a subsidy price low enough that the government would agree it.

EDF is also supporting a Chinese nuclear company, CGN, which is at the start of a four-year process to get regulatory approval for a plant at Bradwell, in Essex. Other international consortia are hoping to build a plant at Wylfa in Wales and Moorside in Cumbria.
Biomass

Although environmentalists dispute the idea that wood-burning is green at all, it is still officially considered low-carbon by the UK and EU. The UK’s biggest power station, Drax in North Yorkshire, has already converted three of its six units from coal to biomass, and is exploring switching a fourth.

Later this year, an old coal power plant at Lynemouth in Northumberland is also slated to reopen as a biomass power station.


See? Once again completely ignoring facts and copy pasting.


Here's one... Forget about the UK.

Look at MB and Quebec where hydro power generates electricity... And in MB a vast number of houses heat with this green electricity....

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/pr...ookieSupport=1

That link goes to conference board of Canada.


And a dam has a way lower maintenance cost and longer lifespan than any solar panel or windmill... Plus it's there all year.
So Chuck, all your article, when taken with my link (which has UK on it) shows is how inferior solar and wind are... Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2017 | 10:22 30
Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
I say this because everyone greenie correlates reduction in ghg to the number of cars off the road....

Imagine taking 100000 trucks off the road.....

And then being able to hop a train from Regina to Calgary instead of driving......

How many flights are there Regina to Calgary everyday. ....makes a case for high speed train....might increase Saskatchewan population as well.....
Very effective ways to massively reduce GHG levels and carbon footprint by improving logistics alone.

1) Approve Energy East, Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain Pipeline (private sector builds infrastructure, $0 tax involved)
2) Twin railways to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay (tax $ required but very important projects)

Bonus Item But Less Effective #3) Build up railway to Churchill to keep it as a viable port.

None of these would lead to wealth distribution but would have a lot better RESULTS for a GHG reduction.
(Unfortunately I'm not sure if results mean much to socialists.....instead they favour wealth redistribution.) Reply With Quote