• 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!

So Europe, how's that green energy thing working out?

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All I hear is how Europe is so green with all its solar and wind power but apparently that is not meeting their needs and they are buying US coal. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. :lol:

"European utilities’ preference for burning coal to generate electricity is pushing up carbon emissions even after the region invested twice as much in renewable energy as the U.S. since 2004. In Europe, gas costs three times as much as in the U.S., cutting competitiveness at industrial users such as Germany’s BASF SE (BAS), the world’s largest chemical maker."

Gas Golden Age Darkens in Europe on U.S. Coal: Energy Markets - Bloomberg
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All I hear is how Europe is so green with all its solar and wind power but apparently that is not meeting their needs and they are buying US coal. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. :lol:

"European utilities’ preference for burning coal to generate electricity is pushing up carbon emissions even after the region invested twice as much in renewable energy as the U.S. since 2004. In Europe, gas costs three times as much as in the U.S., cutting competitiveness at industrial users such as Germany’s BASF SE (BAS), the world’s largest chemical maker."

Gas Golden Age Darkens in Europe on U.S. Coal: Energy Markets - Bloomberg

The US actually has more green energy %-wise in terms of national production than the mean average in Europe. That is, if you disconsider nuclear energy as green energy, which most ppl do.

This is because some countries, like Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finalnd have between 40-50% of their energy requirements met by green energy while countries like Germany, France and the UK slug around 5-12% at best, and these are the most populated countries in the EU and hence, the ones that consume the most energy.

As for Denmark itself... i don't know enough of Denmark in particular to know why this is happening, but they are going on with the green energy program and are actually above the european average. Just because ALL energy requirements' are not met by green energy production, doesn't mean that green energy is bad or that it failed. And just because they have to import energy sources from the USA doesn't mean that green energy has failed. I think Denmark only produces 25% of it's energy from green sources... so it needs to cover the remaining 75% from elsewhere. And coal is a viable option.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The US actually has more green energy %-wise in terms of national production than the mean average in Europe. That is, if you disconsider nuclear energy as green energy, which most ppl do.

This is because some countries, like Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finalnd have between 40-50% of their energy requirements met by green energy while countries like Germany, France and the UK slug around 5-12% at best, and these are the most populated countries in the EU and hence, the ones that consume the most energy.

As for Denmark itself... i don't know enough of Denmark in particular to know why this is happening, but they are going on with the green energy program and are actually above the european average. Just because ALL energy requirements' are not met by green energy production, doesn't mean that green energy is bad or that it failed. And just because they have to import energy sources from the USA doesn't mean that green energy has failed. I think Denmark only produces 25% of it's energy from green sources... so it needs to cover the remaining 75% from elsewhere. And coal is a viable option.

Did you even read the OP? Europe has invested twice as much in green energy as the US but still buys US coal because their green energy has not delivered as promised.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did you even read the OP? Europe has invested twice as much in green energy as the US but still buys US coal because their green energy has not delivered as promised.

Well for one, the euro is much more expensive than the dollar so ofc prices are more expensive.
On the other hand, buying american coal is cheaper than having mining operations in many european countries for local coal reserves, which are plentiful, but due to environmental regulation, it's just not worth it. So why not buy coal to supplement the energy requirement while green energy is in the works.

For me it doesn't make sense NOT to go into green energy market. I think the faster most European countries get to a high degree of green energy production, the better overall. I think the EU 2020 goal to have 20% of all EU energy needs satisfied by green energy sources is too small.. I think it should be 30% or more considering that many european countries have already passed the 20% mark and thus, may end up sitting on their balls till 2020 thinking that they're in the clear. Ofc, as I said, the big EU nations are at best at 12%.. .so they have a lot of work to do.

And the OP bloomberg article doesn't mean crap. It's about natural gas boom and shale gas and generally finite energy resources getting higher prices on the market. Which is to be expected.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well for one, the euro is much more expensive than the dollar so ofc prices are more expensive.
On the other hand, buying american coal is cheaper than having mining operations in many european countries for local coal reserves, which are plentiful, but due to environmental regulation, it's just not worth it. So why not buy coal to supplement the energy requirement while green energy is in the works.

For me it doesn't make sense NOT to go into green energy market. I think the faster most European countries get to a high degree of green energy production, the better overall. I think the EU 2020 goal to have 20% of all EU energy needs satisfied by green energy sources is too small.. I think it should be 30% or more considering that many european countries have already passed the 20% mark and thus, may end up sitting on their balls till 2020 thinking that they're in the clear. Ofc, as I said, the big EU nations are at best at 12%.. .so they have a lot of work to do.

And the OP bloomberg article doesn't mean crap. It's about natural gas boom and shale gas and generally finite energy resources getting higher prices on the market. Which is to be expected.

The point you are trying so hard to ignore is that Europe's commitment to green energy has not panned out. Even though they have spent twice as much on it that the US they are still using old reliable "dirty" coal. Their commitment to green is literally going up in smoke. All they have done is wasted tax dollars with this left wing AGW agenda and driven up the price of what should be relatively cheap energy. Do we really want to follow them down that path?
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The point you are trying so hard to ignore is that Europe's commitment to green energy has not panned out. Even though they have spent twice as much on it that the US they are still using old reliable "dirty" coal. Their commitment to green is literally going up in smoke. All they have done is wasted tax dollars with this left wing AGW agenda and driven up the price of what should be relatively cheap energy. Do we really want to follow them down that path?

As I have pointed out... if you take it country by country you'll find different results.

Norway, Iceland, Sweden, etc. all have no such needs for importing coal, and especially not dirty coal from the US. Countries who haven't reached the 40-50% of their green energy needs are indeed requiring to import something to make more energy. And coal is an alternative.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,818
Reaction score
14,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The point you are trying so hard to ignore is that Europe's commitment to green energy has not panned out.
You're overstating the case (surprise!).

I don't think anyone expected renewables to fully replace fossil fuels by 2013. Meanwhile, Europe has increased production of renewable energy:

Electricity_generated_from_renewable_energy_sources%2C_EU-27%2C_2000-2010.png



And several smaller nations are meeting large portions of their energy needs via renewables:

Proportion_of_electricity_generated_from_renewable_sources%2C_2010_%28%25_of_gross_electricity_consumption%29.png


Europe is using a lot of coal right now because it's cheaper. That doesn't change any of the incentives to develop renewable energy supplies -- reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases, avoid price surges due to increased competition for fossil fuels, and so forth.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're overstating the case (surprise!).

I don't think anyone expected renewables to fully replace fossil fuels by 2013. Meanwhile, Europe has increased production of renewable energy:

Electricity_generated_from_renewable_energy_sources%2C_EU-27%2C_2000-2010.png



And several smaller nations are meeting large portions of their energy needs via renewables:

Proportion_of_electricity_generated_from_renewable_sources%2C_2010_%28%25_of_gross_electricity_consumption%29.png


Europe is using a lot of coal right now because it's cheaper. That doesn't change any of the incentives to develop renewable energy supplies -- reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases, avoid price surges due to increased competition for fossil fuels, and so forth.

You would think that with Europe's exorbitant spending on green energy they would not have to rely on our coal but there it is. The fact that so many refuse to see is the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow and the money invested in those so called power plants is money down the toilet. You are right about one thing though, coal is cheaper not to mention reliable. The bang for the buck thing is what is important here and this so called green energy is a fire cracker for a dollar compared to coal which is a stick of dynamite for a dollar.
 

Heebie Jeebie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
5,016
Reaction score
1,290
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I have pointed out... if you take it country by country you'll find different results.

Norway, Iceland, Sweden, etc. all have no such needs for importing coal, and especially not dirty coal from the US. Countries who haven't reached the 40-50% of their green energy needs are indeed requiring to import something to make more energy. And coal is an alternative.

Why Iceland needs more than 1 nuclear power plant is beyond me. There are only ~325,000 people in the whole country!
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,156
Reaction score
4,939
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're overstating the case (surprise!).

I don't think anyone expected renewables to fully replace fossil fuels by 2013. Meanwhile, Europe has increased production of renewable energy:

Electricity_generated_from_renewable_energy_sources%2C_EU-27%2C_2000-2010.png



And several smaller nations are meeting large portions of their energy needs via renewables:

Proportion_of_electricity_generated_from_renewable_sources%2C_2010_%28%25_of_gross_electricity_consumption%29.png


Europe is using a lot of coal right now because it's cheaper. That doesn't change any of the incentives to develop renewable energy supplies -- reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases, avoid price surges due to increased competition for fossil fuels, and so forth.

The one crucial graph missing here is what all this is costing.

electriccost1.jpg

Why anyone would want to emulate such high profile examples as Denmark and Germany is the ecomics of the madhouse frankly. Its little wonder Denmark is backpeddalling on this given it has been the one with the longest and largest committment to it per capita. Even wealthy nations do not have a fiscal bottomless pit and energy costs have a knock on effect everywhere in an economy
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The one crucial graph missing here is what all this is costing.

Why anyone would want to emulate such high profile examples as Denmark and Germany is the ecomics of the madhouse frankly. Its little wonder Denmark is backpeddalling on this given it has been the one with the longest and largest committment to it per capita. Even wealthy nations do not have a fiscal bottomless pit and energy costs have a knock on effect everywhere in an economy

Same comment applies to you. read below.

You would think that with Europe's exorbitant spending on green energy they would not have to rely on our coal but there it is. The fact that so many refuse to see is the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow and the money invested in those so called power plants is money down the toilet. You are right about one thing though, coal is cheaper not to mention reliable. The bang for the buck thing is what is important here and this so called green energy is a fire cracker for a dollar compared to coal which is a stick of dynamite for a dollar.

Omg dude. There is no god damn silver bullet. There is no quick-fix solution.

Energy production, and green energy production, is a process. A time-consuming process. It's basically revamping the entire energy production network for 500+ mil people. You think you can do that in... what... the 6-7 years that the EU has been really interested in green energy as a EU-wide policy? No, you can't. But it's moving along.

Yes, you need to offset the costs of the fact that constructing the green energy infrastructure is expensive... you need to offset it by making energy from non-green sources cheaper, that means, cheaper coal. Fine. But you're going to be doing this trade for 3-4 more years and then you're going to have to NOT do it anymore because green energy production will increase and it will start gobbling up more and more of the demand.

Bang for your buck is important, but so is the environment and technology and research. Lets take solar. maybe solar energy isn't at the best levels it could be, ok. Maybe it's not economically efficient or as economically efficient as burning petrol or natural gas or coal for energy is. Fine. I'll grant you that this is true because it is true. But you know how much time it took for coal and petrol and natural gas energy production to be as efficient as it is now? DECADES. The first power plants were wasteful. They were horribly inefficient. But they were built in a time where energy needs were so small that it was ok. As technology grew and grew, and energy demands grew and grew, they became better and better, more and more efficient until you get the power plants of the late 1970s and 80s which are really efficient at getting the most Watts/kg of product.

Green energy needs to be more efficient and if you give giving money to R&D and sponsor the industry, it will become more efficient. And it is competing with the established energy sources and so far, it's doing a bang-up job really. Both the US and the EU are on the right track to getting better green energy.

And if there has to be a cost increase, fine, let there be a cost increase. It's not like it will be the end of the world. Government don't go bankrupt because they are trying to sort out their energy needs. They go bankrupt because they fail to do so properly and can't keep up.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,818
Reaction score
14,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You would think that with Europe's exorbitant spending on green energy they would not have to rely on our coal but there it is.
Again:

1) No one expected renewables to completely supplant fossil fuels by 2013.
2) The amount of electricity generated by renewables in Europe has, in fact, increased.

You're not applying reasonable standards, nor are you acknowledging the actual progress to date.


The fact that so many refuse to see is the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow and the money invested in those so called power plants is money down the toilet.
...except that roughly 20% of Europe's electricity is currently generated by renewables. 18% of that is hydropower.

In the US, renewables generate around 12% of electricity, and 58% of that is hydropower -- most of which existed before 2004. So I'd say that Europe has, in fact, had a bit more success than the US in terms of implementing renewables.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,156
Reaction score
4,939
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Omg dude. There is no god damn silver bullet. There is no quick-fix solution.

Why are we trying to fix what isnt broken ? Eco gloomers have been saying we are going to run out of everything over 4 decades ago. Despite that finite reserves are higher today than ever before

Energy production, and green energy production, is a process. A time-consuming process. It's basically revamping the entire energy production network for 500+ mil people. You think you can do that in... what... the 6-7 years that the EU has been really interested in green energy as a EU-wide policy? No, you can't. But it's moving along.

And becoming more and more expensive for the European consumer year on year. As a Briton I have personal experience of this having seen my energy prices rise 40% in just 5 years due to the green levies I'm being forced to pay for all this pointlessness

Yes, you need to offset the costs of the fact that constructing the green energy infrastructure is expensive... you need to offset it by making energy from non-green sources cheaper, that means, cheaper coal. Fine. But you're going to be doing this trade for 3-4 more years and then you're going to have to NOT do it anymore because green energy production will increase and it will start gobbling up more and more of the demand.

This is demonstrably nonsense as Denmarks example bears witness. Despite decades building this infrastructure they now have the highest energy prices in the world

Bang for your buck is important, but so is the environment and technology and research. Lets take solar. maybe solar energy isn't at the best levels it could be, ok. Maybe it's not economically efficient or as economically efficient as burning petrol or natural gas or coal for energy is. Fine. I'll grant you that this is true because it is true. But you know how much time it took for coal and petrol and natural gas energy production to be as efficient as it is now? DECADES. The first power plants were wasteful. They were horribly inefficient. But they were built in a time where energy needs were so small that it was ok. As technology grew and grew, and energy demands grew and grew, they became better and better, more and more efficient until you get the power plants of the late 1970s and 80s which are really efficient at getting the most Watts/kg of product.

Wind and solar already HAVE had decades of development and are still nowhere near economic viability. I dont recall the fossil fuel energy production requiring such massive taxpayer input either. It became successful because it was viable in the free market

Green energy needs to be more efficient and if you give giving money to R&D and sponsor the industry, it will become more efficient. And it is competing with the established energy sources and so far, it's doing a bang-up job really. Both the US and the EU are on the right track to getting better green energy.

Or economic ruin as their industries lose their competitiveness

And if there has to be a cost increase, fine, let there be a cost increase. It's not like it will be the end of the world. Government don't go bankrupt because they are trying to sort out their energy needs. They go bankrupt because they fail to do so properly and can't keep up

'Fine' you say ?? And who pays for the cost increases once the jobs disappear ?
 
Last edited:

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Again:

1) No one expected renewables to completely supplant fossil fuels by 2013.
2) The amount of electricity generated by renewables in Europe has, in fact, increased.

You're not applying reasonable standards, nor are you acknowledging the actual progress to date.



...except that roughly 20% of Europe's electricity is currently generated by renewables. 18% of that is hydropower.

In the US, renewables generate around 12% of electricity, and 58% of that is hydropower -- most of which existed before 2004. So I'd say that Europe has, in fact, had a bit more success than the US in terms of implementing renewables.

So when exactly will so called renewable energy be 100% efficient? When will the wind always blow and the sun always shine? Europe's green energy is a boondoggle, a road to nowhere.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,818
Reaction score
14,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So when exactly will so called renewable energy be 100% efficient?
No one ever expects the sun to shine 24/7, or the wind to be at full strength 365 days a year. Yet another unreasonable and inapplicable standard.

By the same token, fossil fuel plants also don't run at full capacity 24/7/365. We do not, on that basis, declare that "fossil fuel pants are not 100% efficient, therefore a boondoggle."


Europe's green energy is a boondoggle, a road to nowhere.
...except that for the third time, renewables are providing 20% of Europe's electricity, a 6% increase from 2004 to 2010.

Not to mention that fossil fuels receive significant subsidies, to the tune of $523 billion worldwide in 2011.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No one ever expects the sun to shine 24/7, or the wind to be at full strength 365 days a year. Yet another unreasonable and inapplicable standard.

By the same token, fossil fuel plants also don't run at full capacity 24/7/365. We do not, on that basis, declare that "fossil fuel pants are not 100% efficient, therefore a boondoggle."



...except that for the third time, renewables are providing 20% of Europe's electricity, a 6% increase from 2004 to 2010.

Not to mention that fossil fuels receive significant subsidies, to the tune of $523 billion worldwide in 2011.

Green energy requires redundant energy, you will always need fossil to supplement and back up when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. So now you have two energy systems built and maintained instead of one, how green is that?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,156
Reaction score
4,939
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No one ever expects the sun to shine 24/7, or the wind to be at full strength 365 days a year. Yet another unreasonable and inapplicable standard.

Why is it unreasonable to expect energy to be available as required ?

By the same token, fossil fuel plants also don't run at full capacity 24/7/365. We do not, on that basis, declare that "fossil fuel pants are not 100% efficient, therefore a boondoggle."

Indeed they dont, but they can when they need to and thats the big difference

...except that for the third time, renewables are providing 20% of Europe's electricity, a 6% increase from 2004 to 2010.

Before holding up Europe as some sort of shining example that needs to be followed perhaps you should read whats actually going on there starting with its largest economy

The wheels are falling off of Germany’s green energy revolution. In recent years Europe has attempted to position itself as a first mover and global leader in renewable energy, and Germany has led the way with ambitious domestic programs to boost solar and wind energy. But green hopes are giving way to economic realities: Europe is now considering walking back from some of its stated green goals, (rightly) concerned that the costs of renewable energy will make European industry less globally competitive. This is especially true in Germany, where some of Europe’s highest electricity prices have many companies considering jumping ship to cheaper locales like shale-rich America.

Businessmen say the Energiewende [Germany's energy revolution] will kill German industry. Power experts worry about blackouts. Voters are furious about ever higher fuel bills. The chaos undermines Germany’s claim to efficiency, threatens its vaunted competitiveness and unnecessarily burdens households. It also demonstrates Germany’s curious refusal to think about Europe strategically.

And it’s not just German businesses that are suffering:

The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users. Household fuel bills have gone up by a quarter over the past three years, to 40-50% above the EU average. And because the contracts guaranteeing renewables prices are set for 20 years, the problem will get worse as more such supplies come on stream. Thomas Vahlenkamp of McKinsey reckons that the cost of the Energiewende will double over the next decade. Rising electricity bills will dampen German consumers’ spending, exactly the opposite of what is needed to rebalance the economy.


Germany’s struggles with green energy should be a warning to leaders and policymakers around the world. Renewable energy isn’t ready for primetime, and no amount of government subsidies or green pie-in-the-sky hopes are going to change that.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/06/15/germanys-green-plan-is-crumbling/

And lets put those fossil fuel subsidies into some kind of proper context windpower gets around 80 times the the subsidy per MwH generated and solar far more still
 
Last edited:

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
39,548
Reaction score
13,568
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So when exactly will so called renewable energy be 100% efficient? When will the wind always blow and the sun always shine? Europe's green energy is a boondoggle, a road to nowhere.
It will never be 100% efficient, but neither will fossil fuels.
Your question does bring up the central point, and that is without a method of storage,
alternative energies will likely remain a niche market.
The man made hydrocarbons, I think are the path forward, but the environmentalist have spent
a lot demonizing hydrocarbons.
Some of the European countries are much more pragmatic than Americans, and so could
see beyond the earlier propaganda, to a future where wind and photovoltaic energies
are stored as un-natural Gas.
Generated in Summer, used in Winter, extra maybe providing petrol credit.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It will never be 100% efficient, but neither will fossil fuels.
Your question does bring up the central point, and that is without a method of storage,
alternative energies will likely remain a niche market.
The man made hydrocarbons, I think are the path forward, but the environmentalist have spent
a lot demonizing hydrocarbons.
Some of the European countries are much more pragmatic than Americans, and so could
see beyond the earlier propaganda, to a future where wind and photovoltaic energies
are stored as un-natural Gas.
Generated in Summer, used in Winter, extra maybe providing petrol credit.

If and when we can store green energy I will be less resistant to it but right now we are putting the cart ahead of the horse. First you figure out a way to store power THEN you build these huge solar and wind power plants. Did they build cars before they invented the wheel, same thing.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
39,548
Reaction score
13,568
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If and when we can store green energy I will be less resistant to it but right now we are putting the cart ahead of the horse. First you figure out a way to store power THEN you build these huge solar and wind power plants. Did they build cars before they invented the wheel, same thing.
Sorry Sawyer, I thought you had seen these links before.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Germans plan to make 'synthetic natural' gas from CO2
They can now make gas and liquid fuels from electrical power, water, and air.
Once created Un-natural gas could last..forever.
Nature has shown us an almost perfect way to store energy.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,156
Reaction score
4,939
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If and when we can store green energy I will be less resistant to it but right now we are putting the cart ahead of the horse. First you figure out a way to store power THEN you build these huge solar and wind power plants. Did they build cars before they invented the wheel, same thing.

This electrical storage question has actually been a serious technological problem that has already had massive defence R & D monies thrown at it for more than a century vs diesel electric submarine battery capacity for lttle return . Submarines powered in such a manner are today still inherently limited by battery capacity. Just like technological problems facing renewables themselves this is another cul de sac that no end of additional R & D will resolve :(
 
Last edited:

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,818
Reaction score
14,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Green energy requires redundant energy, you will always need fossil to supplement and back up when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. So now you have two energy systems built and maintained instead of one, how green is that?
If you succeed in reducing the amount of fossil fuel plants required? Reasonably green.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,818
Reaction score
14,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Why is it unreasonable to expect energy to be available as required ?
It isn't. The problem is that sawyer is setting up a series of false standards, and crowing about "failures" when the misleading standards aren't met.

In addition, there are many forms of renewable power which are fairly consistent and reliable, such as river turbines.


Before holding up Europe as some sort of shining example that needs to be followed perhaps you should read whats actually going on there starting with its largest economy....
I'm not saying that it is a 100% screaming success. I'm saying it is not a failure solely because coal is cheaper.


"The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users...."
The increase in the cost of energy is not solely a result of investing in renewables. It's also due to increases in fossil fuel costs, due to increased competition for those resources as a result of the rapid industrialization of China and India.

Nor are renewable contracts the only ones fixed at high prices -- so are prices for natural gas. For example, the EU is investigating Gazprom for price gouging, for barring customers from reselling NG bought from Gazprom, and pegging the price of NG to oil. Gazprom, by the way, supplies around 25% of the EU's NG.


And lets put those fossil fuel subsidies into some kind of proper context
Or, we could gradually phase them out. Heck, the IMF puts subsidies at $1.4 trillion a year.

There is no question that at this time, renewable is more expensive. That does not mean it will never be viable, that it has no advantages at all, or that it is a permanent failure because an existing and mature technology is currently or still cheaper.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,156
Reaction score
4,939
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It isn't. The problem is that sawyer is setting up a series of false standards, and crowing about "failures" when the misleading standards aren't met.

I would not say energy reliability is any kind of misleading standard

In addition, there are many forms of renewable power which are fairly consistent and reliable, such as river turbines

Which are fine if you live near them. Fossil fuel plants can be built near the cities

I'm not saying that it is a 100% screaming success. I'm saying it is not a failure solely because coal is cheaper.

I,m afraid it is a failure and is likely to become an even bigger one if we Europeans ever get our act together on gas fracking which will increase the cost differential between renewables and fossil fuels even further. Why subsidize what we know doesnt work when we know gas fracking most certainly does ?

The increase in the cost of energy is not solely a result of investing in renewables. It's also due to increases in fossil fuel costs, due to increased competition for those resources as a result of the rapid industrialization of China and India.

It is primarily due to green taxation within the EU not any squeeze on commodity prices. Gas prices in the US have actually gone down due to their embracing of gas fracking technologies

Nor are renewable contracts the only ones fixed at high prices -- so are prices for natural gas. For example, the EU is investigating Gazprom for price gouging, for barring customers from reselling NG bought from Gazprom, and pegging the price of NG to oil. Gazprom, by the way, supplies around 25% of the EU's NG.

Whatever is happening there it will still be substantially cheaper than renewables

Or, we could gradually phase them out. Heck, the IMF puts subsidies at $1.4 trillion a year

It doesnt matter citing big figures on fossil fuels . It matters what the cost of subsidy is per unit of power generated

ED-AP639_1energ_NS_20120817170303.jpg

There is no question that at this time, renewable is more expensive. That does not mean it will never be viable, that it has no advantages at all, or that it is a permanent failure because an existing and mature technology is currently or still cheaper

Wind and solar have been around for decades and yet are still nowhere near any kind of economic viability. If they dont work its time to remove the taxpayer tit
 
Last edited:

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry Sawyer, I thought you had seen these links before.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Germans plan to make 'synthetic natural' gas from CO2
They can now make gas and liquid fuels from electrical power, water, and air.
Once created Un-natural gas could last..forever.
Nature has shown us an almost perfect way to store energy.

So why isn't that being done in these big power plants, there must be some reason. Cost maybe?
 
Top Bottom