• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you could pay for 7 years of gas up front, to get free gas for life, would you do it?

Long term energy storage (not batteries ) is what we need to make solar and wind cost effective.
Something that can move Spring and Fall Surplus to Winter heating, and Summer Cooling.

Sources for that claim? That EU already gets more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels and Denmark gets 64 percent of their electricity from wind and solar power without barely and storage.


That you already have many ways to regulate supply and demand and you can also have a surplus of renewable energy that can be used to produce green hydrogen.
 
It makes sense in the American South West were there's 90% sunny days.

I googled and found this source and the pay back time can be less than six year in New York. So it seems like solar panels can be profitable in many places in the US:

 
Sources for that claim? That EU already gets more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels and Denmark gets 64 percent of their electricity from wind and solar power without barely and storage.


That you already have many ways to regulate supply and demand and you can also have a surplus of renewable energy that can be used to produce green hydrogen.
You are arguing against yourself, green hydrogen is a type of energy storage.
If they are already planning energy storage, then they already understand the issue, which you seem unable to grasp!
 
Sources for that claim? That EU already gets more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels and Denmark gets 64 percent of their electricity from wind and solar power without barely and storage.


That you already have many ways to regulate supply and demand and you can also have a surplus of renewable energy that can be used to produce green hydrogen.
Excellent point. Denmark, with 64% of power from renewables, has shown that we do not yet need a lot of storage for renewable power. Innovation is the key. Closer to home, the state of Iowa is getting 45% of their power from wind energy, using no storage techniques.
 
You are arguing against yourself, green hydrogen is a type of energy storage.
If they are already planning energy storage, then they already understand the issue, which you seem unable to grasp!

Of course storage can be one of many ways to regulate supply and demand for electricity. While you still have provide no sources for why would need massive amount of long term storage between seasons.

It can also be good to remember that solar power produce the most during sumer time there this can be really good in areas there you need a lot of air conditioners during sumer time. While in areas like Northern Europe wind power produce the most power during winter time then the demand for electricity is the highest in those areas.

While with fossil fuels you would need power stations that would stand idle most of the year. Also that power stations risk breaking down during hot summer days than the demand is the highest.

 
Last edited:
Excellent point. Denmark, with 64% of power from renewables, has shown that we do not yet need a lot of storage for renewable power. Innovation is the key. Closer to home, the state of Iowa is getting 45% of their power from wind energy, using no storage techniques.

There the key is also to combine many different types of renewable energy and ways to regulate supply and demand of electricity. There you can also combine those resources and create virtual power plants.


There exporting both electricity and for example also green hydrogen can also be important. Like for example Tasmania that aims for 200 percent renewable energy through exports.

 
Of course storage can be one of many ways to regulate supply and demand for electricity. While you still have provide no sources for why would need massive amount of long term storage between seasons.

It can also be good to remember that solar power produce the most during sumer time there this can be really good in areas there you need a lot of air conditioners during sumer time. While in areas like Northern Europe wind power produce the most power during winter time then the demand for electricity is the highest in those areas.

While with fossil fuels you would need power stations that would stand idle most of the year. Also that power stations risk breaking down during hot summer days than the demand is the highest.

What you are not getting is that energy storage is the ONLY way that wind and solar can get to 100%.
Also those power plants standing at idle, will still need to be there, not for if the alternate cannot meet demand,
but when they cannot meet demand!
 
What you are not getting is that energy storage is the ONLY way that wind and solar can get to 100%.
Also those power plants standing at idle, will still need to be there, not for if the alternate cannot meet demand,
but when they cannot meet demand!

You stil have provided no sources for your claims. Also you will likely not see any or few countries or regions that will get 100 percent of their electricity from wind power and solar panels. Instead you will likely combine those sources with other renewables there many can also produce electricity on demand. Like for example green hydrogen power plants, concentrated solar power with thermal storage, biofuels and hydropower. There US have great opportunities with very sunny areas perfect for solar panels and concentrated solar power there you can also produce hydrogen like for example Australia plan to do.


While also great opportunity to build massive off shore wind farms like Denmark plan to do.


While also have great opportunities then it comes to for example hydropower, pump storage hydro, biofuels and imports from Canada.
 
You stil have provided no sources for your claims. Also you will likely not see any or few countries or regions that will get 100 percent of their electricity from wind power and solar panels. Instead you will likely combine those sources with other renewables there many can also produce electricity on demand. Like for example green hydrogen power plants, concentrated solar power with thermal storage, biofuels and hydropower. There US have great opportunities with very sunny areas perfect for solar panels and concentrated solar power there you can also produce hydrogen like for example Australia plan to do.


While also great opportunity to build massive off shore wind farms like Denmark plan to do.


While also have great opportunities then it comes to for example hydropower, pump storage hydro, biofuels and imports from Canada.
I do not need sources for my claim that wind and solar cannot achieve 100% without storage, they are both poor duty cycle
sources and even combined cannot guarantee, the lights will always be on.
Energy storage can be pumped storage, but the fact that they are already building as much storage as possible,
shows that my conclusion is correct, wind and solar cannot get to 100% without energy storage!
 
I do not need sources for my claim that wind and solar cannot achieve 100% without storage, they are both poor duty cycle
sources and even combined cannot guarantee, the lights will always be on.
Energy storage can be pumped storage, but the fact that they are already building as much storage as possible,
shows that my conclusion is correct, wind and solar cannot get to 100% without energy storage!
Not sure why you shifted the narrative in post #57 to "100% power from renewables". The previous post talked about Denmark getting 65% of their power from renewables. This has little to do with the title and subject of the thread.
 
Not sure why you shifted the narrative in post #57 to "100% power from renewables". The previous post talked about Denmark getting 65% of their power from renewables. This has little to do with the title and subject of the thread.
The point is that while the percentage can be high, it cannot fill all of our energy requirements without energy storage.
all being 100%.
 
I do not need sources for my claim that wind and solar cannot achieve 100% without storage, they are both poor duty cycle
sources and even combined cannot guarantee, the lights will always be on.
Energy storage can be pumped storage, but the fact that they are already building as much storage as possible,
shows that my conclusion is correct, wind and solar cannot get to 100% without energy storage!

The important part is that Denmark already gets 64 percent of their electricity from wind and solar power. While at the same time you can combine those energy sources with many other forms of renewable energy and ways to regulate supply and demand of electricity. So there are great potential for a transition towards renewable energy.

There also consumers of electricity can be part of a transition. For example that electric cars can also be used for energy storage and also electric charging stations are installing batteries.



There even supermarkets can help to regulate the supply and demand.


Also that you will see a massive increase in the production of hydrogen. There it can be adapted to the supply and demand of electricity.
 
The important part is that Denmark already gets 64 percent of their electricity from wind and solar power. While at the same time you can combine those energy sources with many other forms of renewable energy and ways to regulate supply and demand of electricity. So there are great potential for a transition towards renewable energy.

There also consumers of electricity can be part of a transition. For example that electric cars can also be used for energy storage and also electric charging stations are installing batteries.



There even supermarkets can help to regulate the supply and demand.


Also that you will see a massive increase in the production of hydrogen. There it can be adapted to the supply and demand of electricity.
Still deflecting the main point!
You cannot get to 100% with only wind and solar, without some form of massive energy storage.
Other carbon free sources like Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, ect would help a lot,
load balancing tricks, will not cover the large swings in duty cycle without storage!
 
Still deflecting the main point!
You cannot get to 100% with only wind and solar, without some form of massive energy storage.
Other carbon free sources like Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, ect would help a lot,
load balancing tricks, will not cover the large swings in duty cycle without storage!

Why do you believe that wind and solar power with massive energy storage is the only way to reach hundred percent renewable energy? For example Scotland is on track to reach getting 100 percent of their electricity from renewable energy with little storage.


That the solutions to reach hundred percent renewable energy will vary between regions and countries. There it aslo can not only be interesting to discuss how you can reach hundred percent renewable energy in the future but also how you today can speed up the shift towards hundred percent of renewable energy. Because you have both the threat from climate change as well as the toxic pollutions from fossil fuels.



There it already great opportunities to invest in renewable energy all across the world.


There even red states are acknowledging the great opportunities with renewable energy.

 
Why do you believe that wind and solar power with massive energy storage is the only way to reach hundred percent renewable energy? For example Scotland is on track to reach getting 100 percent of their electricity from renewable energy with little storage.


That the solutions to reach hundred percent renewable energy will vary between regions and countries. There it aslo can not only be interesting to discuss how you can reach hundred percent renewable energy in the future but also how you today can speed up the shift towards hundred percent of renewable energy. Because you have both the threat from climate change as well as the toxic pollutions from fossil fuels.



There it already great opportunities to invest in renewable energy all across the world.


There even red states are acknowledging the great opportunities with renewable energy.

I know you like throw out these links, but let's consider Scotland for a second.
Scotland ‘will soon generate 100% of its power through renewables’
"Wind, solar and hydropower are now Scotland’s main source of electricity, providing around three-quarters of all generation"
So when Scotland says renewable, they are not only speaking about wind and Solar, but include hydro power.
 
The friend of mine from Vancouver posted his energy chart for March of 2019. He was excited, because he exceeded a MegaWattHour for the month. Let me put this in perspective. I have a 2.8 KW system in sunny Colorado. If I produce at rating, which very seldom happens, for 10 hours of sunshine, I will produce 28 KWH (10 x 2.8). This gentleman has a larger system, and he's sometimes producing over 50 KWH per day. You can also easily discern the cloudy days. Note that even on most cloudy days, he is close to, or exceeding my rated 28 KWH. He is averaging about 35 KWH per day. Yes, his system would perform better in the sunbelt, but he's doing pretty darn good!

View attachment 67320091
It isn't the month of March when sunlight is an issue in Vancouver. If you live above 45°N, then from November through February is when you will be getting the least amount of sunlight. By March, and the Spring Equinox, the entire planet is getting around 12 hours of daylight per day. There is very little difference in the duration of the sunlight between the Equator and the Arctic Circle during March. The differences come during the Solstice, not the Equinox.

Get him to post his November, December, January, and February power production results and you will notice a significant difference. Solar panels are also not going to collect much sunlight when they are covered by three feet of snow.
 
Last edited:
I know you like throw out these links, but let's consider Scotland for a second.
Scotland ‘will soon generate 100% of its power through renewables’
"Wind, solar and hydropower are now Scotland’s main source of electricity, providing around three-quarters of all generation"
So when Scotland says renewable, they are not only speaking about wind and Solar, but include hydro power.
Hydroelectric power always seems to be short-changed for some reason. The Climate Marxists never seem to include that in their list of "alternative energy sources." Maybe because it requires building a dam, and we all know how leftist freaks absolutely hate any kind of development.

The city of Anchorage has been using hydroelectric power since 1929, and there is no dam involved. They cleverly built a huge drain in the bottom of Eklutna Lake, just outside of Anchorage. The lake is refilled every year from glacial and snow melt. The 47 MW of power can still be generated all Winter long, even when there is several feet of ice on the surface of the lake. It does look a bit odd during the Summer months because there is a very large whirlpool that could easily suck down small boats or swimmers in the middle of the lake.

The city of Anchorage also has wind generators on the 5.5 mile long Fire Island, just off the coast of Anchorage. But they can't be used during high winds or in freezing temperatures, so they have very limited use.

Anchorage is powered primary by natural gas from off-shore oil platforms in the Cook Inlet, which is running out. They may have to revert back to coal power-plants. We have lots of coal, which we currently export to China.
 
I know you like throw out these links, but let's consider Scotland for a second.
Scotland ‘will soon generate 100% of its power through renewables’
"Wind, solar and hydropower are now Scotland’s main source of electricity, providing around three-quarters of all generation"
So when Scotland says renewable, they are not only speaking about wind and Solar, but include hydro power.

That's my point that you don't just have wind and solar power but also many other forms of renewable energy. There with solar power you also have concentrated solar power with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand. While also both off shore and on shore wind power that can produce the most during different time of the day. There off shore wind power also give a more reliable out put of electricity. There you can also use cheap solar and wind power to produce hydrogen.
 
That's my point that you don't just have wind and solar power but also many other forms of renewable energy. There with solar power you also have concentrated solar power with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand. While also both off shore and on shore wind power that can produce the most during different time of the day. There off shore wind power also give a more reliable out put of electricity. There you can also use cheap solar and wind power to produce hydrogen.
You still will need something like hydro, or nuclear waiting to pick up the slack, for the poor duty cycle sources.
 
You still will need something like hydro, or nuclear waiting to pick up the slack, for the poor duty cycle sources.

Hydro is just one of many ways to regulate the supply and demand. Also why do you believe so much in nuclear then it so much more costly and cost so much more?

 
I googled and found this source and the pay back time can be less than six year in New York. So it seems like solar panels can be profitable in many places in the US:


This is horse shit.

Just an FYI. Not trolling, just giving you a heads up.
 
How so?
Farming and transport are very dependent on the 33KWh per gallon of hydrocarbon fuels

18a0460-e1528364547600.jpg


SPECS & RESOURCES
Class
8
Horsepower
360 - 525 HP
Max GCW
82,000 lbs.
Mile Range
250
Usable Capacity
Up to 475 kWh
Recharge
80% in 90 min.

Real Customers. Real Miles
Driven today by our customer-partners in electric truck development, the electric Freightliner eCascadia is rapidly approaching a million miles* on North American roads, with zero emissions.

Freightliner gaining on Tesla as their Electric semi truck hits the actual road
https://cdllife.com/2021/freightlin...eir-electric-semi-truck-hits-the-actual-road/
 
Back
Top Bottom