Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Green Energy by the numbers
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 52
| visibility 1

Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 1:00 PM

So I was mulling about this weekend, and after a sudden spark of enlightenment triggered by another post here, decided to run some numbers on some of this green energy rhetoric I've seen posted about. It's my understanding that there are many prominent T-netters and public figures claiming that oil (aka Earl), gas (assuming gasoline, but let's group Nat Gas in here), and coal will be gone in ten years.

In order to accomplish this, we'd need to be able to replace energy production from legacy systems at a rapid pace, right?

So I tried to wrap my head around this. I stuck with residential energy requirements, only, and focused on the solar panel (PV cells) capacity and energy production, only.

Let's assume there are 55 million households across the US. The average energy consumption for homes is ~900kWh, which in today's solar panel terms, is roughly 30 panels per house (assuming 300W/ panel). If we conservatively assume that 10% of the homes in the US are powered by solar already, that leaves us with 1.485 billion panels that are required.

Note: this assumes no charging of EVs, and I think I assumed 6 hours of daylight to get the 30 panel / house number.

I thought that was pretty interesting. So then I thought - hey, how many friggin panels can us red blooded americans make in a year? I found a site that said in 2019, we produced ~6850 MW worth of solar panels, which I'm going to round up to about 23M panels per year.

Under these broad assumptions, I concluded it would take around 65 years to manufacture the solar panels required to have residential properties energized through solar at our current capacity. This does not include battery technology, nor labor to install. These numbers get even more fun to play with if you assume that we won't have gas powered vehicles in 20 years, or start lumping in industrial and commercial energy requirements.

SO THEN...I'm thinking....how the hell do these people see this as a conceivable plan? Then I thought, #### man, we got Xiden in da house! Of course! Why not place an order of 750 M solar panels from our good buddies across the pacific!

So those who are in this industry, and/or have strength of conviction that this is the way, is the only way to accomplish this on such an aggressive timeline to continue to export GDP opportunities to the Chinese? Is this why Xiden reversed Donnie Pump's EO saying they can't be involved in our power grid?

I don't see us being able to quadruple the American manufacturing capacity in such a short timeline, but I'm a simpleton with zero knowledge of this industry and was just running some numbers with crayons while baked.

I'm still convinced nuclear is the superior strategy, btw. Tough sell to dispute it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 1:06 PM

since we are printing so much money now

why not throw some at the unfinished nuclear power plant in jenkinsville?

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 1:07 PM

.



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-willmo.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up




Cat on a tin roof, dogs in a pile,
Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile!!!!


We’ll need a crap ton of poisonous Lead


Feb 2, 2021, 1:08 PM

For all these solar panels and battery banks ..

Bye, bye fishes and salamanders

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We just need to either rewrite the first law


Feb 2, 2021, 1:17 PM

of thermodynamics, or invent cold fusion. Because until that happens, it's going to proliferate as long as the money flows.

Heck, make all cars electric and we need to add roughly 40% to our electrical capacity. And since you can't build a ###, or a nuclear plant, or burn coal, or......that's a LOT of solar panels, a lot of windmills, and a lot of BS.

But hey, we've cleared millions of acres of land to plant corn fields to grow food we can then use to fuel cars. An oil well uses what, maybe 10 acres of land? It can produce the same fuel as thousands of acres of corn plants. Now which is more damaging to the environment?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 1:32 PM

It turns out your spark didn’t result in much enlightenment.

I’m well acquainted with the grid, your logic is great for the 1980s, but even conservative senior management in US utility companies have moved well beyond your numbers and logic.

You’re ignoring wind, you’re ignoring hydrogen, you’re ignoring other technologies.

Stick with mulling around, try to avoid the sparks of enlightenment.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

glad that wind energy doesn't cause any issues


Feb 2, 2021, 1:42 PM

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


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Good talk, Big House


Feb 2, 2021, 1:47 PM [ in reply to Re: Green Energy by the numbers ]

You didn't answer a single one of his concerns. What you did do is belittle legitimate concerns.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsonrulez08.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Please forgive me, @IneligibleUser


Nice, witty response there. Sick burn, bro.


Feb 2, 2021, 1:51 PM [ in reply to Re: Green Energy by the numbers ]

Feel better?

So help me understand. As that's the intent here, to have discussions around potential policy decisions that will impact the energy market.

It's good to hear that senior management officials have moved beyond my numbers considering I postulated over them with a miller lite and a doobie, lol. We're in good hands, it seems.

I'm not ignoring wind, I just don't see it as a viable solution in many parts of the country. Care to share a similar exercise on what it would take to ramp up energy production from wind turbines here in the US to help? Reason I stuck to solar is I'm not too familiar with how to calculate energy loss through transportation, and have no idea what the costs would be to set up appropriate stations to distribute the newly created energy onto the existing grid. Care to elaborate there?

Care to share what hydrogen projects are in the works for residential, commercial, and/or industrial energy? Or are you talking fuel cells?

Care to share some insider information on why nuclear is off the table?

It doesn't seem as though you punched any holes in the numbers I ran, though. If we put our eggs in the solar basket, we're either going to need to outsource the manufacturing or start drastically ramping up our production capacity.

And I'll stay sparky. Sounds like you should try it, hombre. Maybe put on Cornell 5/8/77 and realize we're not mortal enemies fightin over the last piece of poontang on the island.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

When you discuss the data you do know, and someone


Feb 2, 2021, 2:39 PM

responds with snark rather than other data, you're onto something.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Dawghater23: mic drop***


Feb 2, 2021, 4:42 PM [ in reply to Nice, witty response there. Sick burn, bro. ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 1:39 PM

well that settles it then. I am going to install a coal furnace.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Logistics denier ^^^***


Feb 2, 2021, 1:47 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Logistics denier ^^^***


Feb 2, 2021, 1:56 PM

Geez, you would think that we would increase production and that solar panels becoming increasingly more efficient would factor into this amazingly creative assumption.

Our Third largest client over the last 6 months is an alternative energy company partnered with tesla. I already know what is happening now, and what is projected over the next few years asfar as growth in this market. What you will see in about 5 years will be quite astounding.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't know a lot about this industry


Feb 2, 2021, 2:14 PM

but typically, when we go and look at a system for customers, we establish a baseline. Let's call it, a do nothing strategy. So that's where I tried to go.

Obviously there would be efficiency gains in production, technology gains on how much energy each PV cell can generate, blah blah blah. But I figured this would be a good convo starter based on my calcs with crayons.

Having said that...don't get a coal furnace man, b/c the CO can kill you.

But seriously - what are we going to see in 5 years? Can you elaborate, at a high level?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I would be interested in knowing what you know. If going to


Feb 2, 2021, 2:55 PM [ in reply to Re: Logistics denier ^^^*** ]

EVs will require 40% more electricity (his numbers, I am assuming is close to correct, because sh**load of cars), that is a huge amount of electricity if coal and nuclear are already off the table. How in the world is that going to be pulled off in the 10 years AOC says we have? Or double that? California can't keep the lights on 365 days a year even now.

Back in the Iraq run up, I said to anyone who would listen that the prospect of a multi trillion dollar war was stupid, that we could invest a few measly - in comparison - hundred billion in research and infrastructure for fuel cells, liquified NG, whatever, and tell the A Rabs to eff themselves. Win win. So, you have me on your side from a what-if point of view. You want a convert, I'm your guy.

But I can't find anyone who has proposed exactly how it will happen. There are a lot of "denier!" accusations, but deny what, exactly? If we are going to have no gas cars in 20 years:
- Where is the power coming from?
- Whatever that answer is, what makes us think that source will produce that much power?
- From whom will we buy whatever is needed?
- What wastes are produced?
- What technology does not yet exist, and what is the reason for assuming it will come?

I hear people say, "You don't know what we know." Okay, tell me.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 1:43 PM

dawg,

1. Are you saying that some people believe that we will run out of oil, gas, and coal in ten years ? Because that is quite the straw man to build you argument upon.

No one that I know believes that, although it is becoming obvious that we will resort to more and more dangerous methods to extract those fuels (deep sea drilling and fracking ring a bell ?)

2. I love all of these people who think America is the greatest country on the planet, but pepper there conversations with all of thee things that we CAN'T do. (dawg, I do not automatically lump you in here). America and Americans can do whatever WE set their minds to.

I figure that we should be able to do at least as well as Germany (ignoring your ridiculous ten year time line).

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewables-generated-a-record-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week#:~:text=Germany%20recently%20increased%20its%20renewable,percent%20of%20the%20country's%20electricity.&text=For%20more%20on%20Germany's%20clean%20energy%20transformation%2C%20click%20here.

And in the long run, it will be far more economically sound to start working on renewables in a major way than to bear all of the drastic consequences that will arise from ignoring climate change. The longer we wait, the more drastic will be the consequences and the necessary adjustments.

3. Nuclear sounds real nice until someone asks you what you are going to do with all of the radioactive waste - or making nuclear plants safe from terrorism - or making decommissioned plants safe in perpetuity - or what happens if we have a major nuclear accident (anyone know the half-life of enriched uranium ?)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 2:03 PM

1. I'm not saying that at all. I've read it a couple of places which led me to wondering how that could be achieved.

2. I agree. Hence the conversation starter to rationally discuss how this could be implemented and hopefully boost American GDP.

3. I've got a buddy pretty high up in our nuke labs. We've had extensive conversations around the advancements in reactors that have minimized the nuclear waste due to their ability to continue extracting uranium and plutonium. I'll see if he can point me to a good article on it. The issue is the regulations have not caught up with the technology, from my understanding in talking to him...and he can't really talk about much detail.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 5:26 PM

dawg,

1. Sorry, but I am still not clear - the people you hear talking - are they saying that we will run out or that we can wean ourselves off of it in ten years ??

2. I would look at what Germany and some other successful countries have done. It seems like, with a little investment and incentive, we could start to make some more serious progress. I am also of the opinion that whatever we invest now will more than pay off by ameliorating the costs of dealing with climate change.

3. I have a former student who is a nuclear engineer at a local plant. He can't tell me much detail either, which is especially frustrating since the devils in the details. If you find something, would you pass it on ?? TIA

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 4:51 PM [ in reply to Re: Green Energy by the numbers ]

"last week" is when this happened.

I'm suspicious. Was it the most windy week in the history of Europe maybe?

Also, you know what will happen if all countries generate 50% of their electricity from wind? Global wind patterns will be shifted permanently. Research shows these wind patterns will exacerbate global warming. Not only that, the Audubon Society estimates more than a dozen species of birds will be lost and millions of others killed. This will affect ground and airborne insect populations around the world. Amphibians such as frogs will benefit, but it will change the delicate balance of the food chain. Ultimately, we all die in this scenario.

Next up: Fusion.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Photovoltaic cells


Feb 2, 2021, 1:44 PM

The panels are made out of thin-film solar cells from a combination of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium. Most of these come from mining in China.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

an article that is a bit aged, but you get the point


Feb 2, 2021, 1:59 PM

it all has to be mined. Which always opens up exploitation, just as it did in the US.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/deadly-mines-linked-to-child-labor-thrive-in-rush-for-batteries


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I think your look at the issue is too simplistic...


Feb 2, 2021, 1:45 PM

(and I don't mean that in an offensive manner).

This issue is a lot more complicated than what you listed.

For starters, you're only looking at residential load...I didn't look it up, but I believe residential and commercial are typically about 40% combined of total electricity usage. Industrial usage is almost all of the rest (~60%). But you don't just add it all up, because the usages occur at different times, seasons, etc...there are load factors that utility planners use to calculate all of that and put it in real demand terms.

Anyways, on the renewable subject...as I've posted on here before, the 1st problem/limiting factor isn't how much solar panels or wind turbines we can produce, but rather there is no economical solution for energy storage yet. That's the problem that has to be solved before we can increase renewable generation percentages too much more.

Coal, nuclear, and nat gas electricity generation aren't going to go away. Coal will likely be reduced, but not nuclear and nat gas right now.

People talk about oil for electricity generation, but it's a really small part of the generation portfolio and what generation oil is mostly comprised of back-up diesel generation...which also isn't going away.

My plan would be to build more nuclear base-load, have natural gas as stand-by generation, have existing hydro as small base load, and build more solar/wind to handle the peaks as energy storage technology becomes available.

In certain areas of the country, we're pretty close to having about as much wind and solar as we can manage without the system becoming unstable.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

no offense taken


Feb 2, 2021, 2:10 PM

and I figured the problem magnifies in complexity as you start to add various pieces of the country into the equation. I only know manufacturing and supply chain and math, so I dumbed it down to that.

I knew the storage constraint was an issue, but did not know it was a limiting factor, per se, so appreciate that. Is it more of a battery technology issue, or similar issue with respect to scaling it nationwide due to materials and production capacities?

And I agree 100% with your plan.



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: no offense taken


Feb 2, 2021, 2:20 PM

Battery tech is about to get massively better. Two main things in the pipeline there are dovetailing - graphene tech, and then John B. Goodenough (the same guy who invented the lithium-ion battery back in the '70's) has been filing some interesting new patents...for a solid state "glass" battery. Big-time game-changer according to most everybody for a lot of reasons.

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/john-b-goodenough


The sky, as they say, is raining soup...what's long been needed is a better bucket. The better bucket is on its way.

You are correct though that the grid needs a big bump. One big proposal is nuclear - with the caveat that it's thorium nuclear, which has a bunch of advantages over uranium plants. As is usual the Chinese are ahead of us on this; they're starting to build those whereas we're dragging our feet; we need to kick on because time's a-wasting here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjYwxrUERg

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It a technology issue...battery or otherwise...


Feb 2, 2021, 2:44 PM [ in reply to no offense taken ]

to store the amount of energy that needs to be stored.

It is basically available on a micro-grid level now. If you're interested, we make some components that go into these by S&C:

https://www.sandc.com/en/solutions/energy-storage-for-microgrids/


Large-scale storage is another matter all together. The main large-scale storage available now is hydro / pumped storage...pump the water above the ### when energy prices are low / excess electricity is available...then run it through the hydro plant when prices are high / electricity demand is high.

I participate (or used to before covid) in a lot of conferences / panels on this and other grid issues and it's my understanding that it's going to take technology that is beyond batteries to solve this issue. Something like power-to-gas on a really wide scale as an example...but the devil is in the details. power-to-gas is where electricity is used to split water and the hydrogen is stored. I think the main issue there is containment safety. The other PTG uses electricity to convert carbon dioxide into methane (nat gas). This method is not as efficient, but could use the existing natural gas pipelines as a mass storage system. I think it's been done somewhere in Europe already.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The Bahama's, Curacao, and just about every other


Feb 2, 2021, 2:48 PM [ in reply to I think your look at the issue is too simplistic... ]

Caribbean island say "HEY!! Don't shut off the oil tap yet!!"

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm in. You are the first person I have heard actually say


Feb 2, 2021, 3:10 PM [ in reply to I think your look at the issue is too simplistic... ]

1. the required storage is not available (and maybe not around the corner).
2. for base energy production, we have to get out heads out of the sand about nuclear.

Of course we would love to have the storage, and cold fusion. But too many people want to back political solutions (partisan is maybe more accurate) that assume such things are one more white board meeting away, and will call someone a denier who questions it.

What I know about this won't fill a thimble, so I have to listen to credible people. Thank you..

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Dawghater


Feb 2, 2021, 1:56 PM

I hope you see in the responses here that no one actually twerking for the methods you analyzed actually cares to provide a logical response to your concerns. It's much easier to stay in a fairytale rather than face the real world.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsonrulez08.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Please forgive me, @IneligibleUser


i know man...first I was all like


Feb 2, 2021, 2:24 PM



then I read some stuff and was like:


then it hit me:


but turns out i'm really like:


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Easy: Nuclear.***


Feb 2, 2021, 3:55 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I think we should be building more nuclear, but nuclear....


Feb 2, 2021, 4:09 PM

can't be used alone.

There has to be a mix with other types of generation for grid operation reasons.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I think we should be building more nuclear, but nuclear....


Feb 2, 2021, 11:47 PM

Nuclear makes sense but it’s a pretty tough sell politically and financially. The construction cost overruns in South Carolina were not pretty. Construction cost overruns in Georgia are well over 10 billion and they are not finished. The most recent cost overrun in GA was 1 billion. It’s tough to promote nuclear with this recent financial experience.

Some people would say it’s not a fair comparison, and I would disagree, but we don’t see such cost overruns with solar, wind, batteries, etc.

Nuclear could play an increasing role, but the SC and GA experience delivered bit of a black eye to the industry.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Solyndra.***


Feb 3, 2021, 12:01 AM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If we want to have a real national energy policy, then...


Feb 3, 2021, 10:01 AM [ in reply to Re: I think we should be building more nuclear, but nuclear.... ]

there would have to be serious reform done at the NRC. I agree, trying to build a cost-effective nuclear plant now under current regulatory conditions isn't easy/possible. But that is a problem that can be fixed.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Green Energy by the numbers


Feb 2, 2021, 11:34 PM

If u want data go to www.eia.gov. Decent data on all generation sources.

Residential solar will be a piece of the puzzle but keep in mind utility companies see residential solar as a nuisance or breadcrumbs. A utility company’s cost for utility scale solar is less than 25% of your cost for residential solar, ie 2.5 cents vs 11 cents. Substantial economies of scale.

A utility company’s cost for utility scale solar is fixed over 25 years. All their cost is upfront at the time of construction. They will have no fuel cost for 25 years. They will spend less than 1% of the initial project cost in annual operations and maintenance. Once operating, these things are bulletproof. Very few variables and all can be predicted with a high degree of confidence. A coal facility on the other hand has a higher cost of generation today, unknown fuel costs in the future and all the baggage associated with coal ash and a long list of other horrible things like black lung disease.

Would you like to have a fixed rate mortgage at 2 1/2% or a variable rate mortgage at 5%? Adiós coal.

Coal is being replaced by wind, solar, natural gas and batteries. Add hydrogen to that list over the next 10 years.

Batteries do pencil out right now. Solar accompanied by a battery has been cheaper than coal in some not rare instances. You’re gonna start seeing huge utility scale batteries.

The move away from coal is not being done by AOC, liberal Democrats, Obama, Biden or the deep state. This is economics. The decisions have been made by senior executives at utility companies, and increasingly more so by senior executives at oil and gas companies. These folks tend to be on the conservative side of the political spectrum. This is not a green new deal. This is business.

OP was correct in stating we r gonna need lots of solar panels. Not for residential, but gonna need em. It’s up to each country to compete secure market share. We r not gonna go back to coal just because most panels are in PRC. We gotta build the industry in the US. Look at stock in US panel cos FSLR and SPWR.

If u really want to dig into data, after a quick look at www.eia.gov, spend your time researching NEE, PLUG, BLDP, HYSR, ITMPF, NLLSF, CPWHF. The more you read you will see that the legacy gas companies are setting themselves up to have the ability to bet on 1) natural gas and hydrogen or 2) in the future maybe only hydrogen. BTW, the above mentioned stocks are for long term investing, not trading. Sorry Reddit gang.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

This response was much better in terms of having a discussio


Feb 3, 2021, 4:02 PM

thanks.

I was never questioning the economics of the shift, and in fact I'm for it. I'm simply questioning the feasibility of this shift in the timeline that I've read numerous places.

This seems to me like a topic that is pushed from people on their respective sides of the aisle with zero idea what the technologies are, how to implement them while mitigating economic impacts, or your typical "can't get out of the way of pre-conceived notions of their "enemies" on the other side of the aisle" (i.e. your original response).

My high level ask is that we can form a solution that is independent of foreign countries that provides an economic, reliable, and sustainable energy strategy moving forward. An even higher level ask would be for Americans to have intelligent conversations around this topic (and others) so we can educate each other on the end goal.

It seems the consensus is that:
- Renewables will obviously play into the future landscape (duh)
- We don't have the supply chain to handle this growth domestically (huge red flag)
- Nuclear needs to be brought closer to the forefront of discussions as the solution, both from a public perception perspective and from a policy perspective
- There are still gaps with respect to what is feasible versus what is needed (smart grid technology, economical methods of storing energy at scale, for example).

I have no idea how to design a circuit, much less a power grid for a neighborhood, county, state, or country. However, I do know how to scale up a distribution network to satisfy demand as quickly and cheaply as possible. So at some point, without a doubt, this world will cross into mine (as did the vaccine crap and all the #### your wife/husband orders off of Amazon).

I'm long solar, without a doubt, as that's where we're heading. I was never really advocating for coal, and after re-reading my original highdea, I have no clue where you got that from. My mistake if it came across as such.

I will tell you, if we sub this #### out to China I'm gone be madder than a gay dude at a ##### house, and will come back and say I told you so. Hopefully in your position of upper management in the energy sector, you can help boost American GDP the good old fashioned way, by making some #### here!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Who cares if it actually works man?


Feb 2, 2021, 11:54 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Who cares if it actually works man?***


Feb 3, 2021, 12:02 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Who cares if it actually works man?


Feb 3, 2021, 12:05 AM [ in reply to Who cares if it actually works man? ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Who cares if it actually works man?


Feb 3, 2021, 12:06 AM [ in reply to Who cares if it actually works man? ]

That’s right, u can bet against renewables by going long on coal stocks. Go for it. Let us know how that goes.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Are you one of these call center scammers


Feb 3, 2021, 12:23 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Are you one of these call center scammers


Feb 3, 2021, 8:56 AM

Not me, that’s trump’s MAGA hucksters that call you, they’re trying to get ya to “save America” by funding his various legal teams and cush lifestyle. I suggest you keep sending him money and also throw some money into coal stocks since lil don was gonna make coal great again.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Are you one of these call center scammers


Feb 3, 2021, 9:39 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't follow how renewable electricity generation...


Feb 3, 2021, 10:14 AM

"weakens us".

As I've said on here many times, I think a lot of rhetoric on renewables doesn't match the engineering/science yet, but I don't see how investing in renewables makes us weaker as a country.

If we lessen our dependence on oil (meaning more electric cars powered by renewable or whatever kind of generation) that has to be a positive thing over the long term and would give us a lot more freedom regarding middle east/Russia policy.

Also, China is investing heavily in renewables. If we say they are our biggest geo-political threat, how would expanding renewables here weaken us against them if they are doing it as well and on a larger scale?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I don't follow how renewable electricity generation...


Feb 3, 2021, 10:23 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What industry is being shut down and what constraints...


Feb 3, 2021, 10:29 AM

are in place.

Did you switch subjects from the electricity generation point of this thread into some commentary on the "Green New Deal"?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: What industry is being shut down and what constraints...


Feb 3, 2021, 10:36 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If you think it's me changing subjects, then...


Feb 3, 2021, 10:49 AM

well...I think you're the only one.

Frankly, you don't seem to be able to follow a topic well. You tie things together that aren't directly related. The OP and all of this thread was about the ability to move more electricity generation to renewables...mainly solar in the OP.

The EO shutting down the oil pipeline is not at all related to electricity production and move to renewable generation sources. The opposition by the left to the pipelines is the environmental impact of the pipeline itself. You get that right?

Yes they are "against oil" and fossil fuels, but the fight against the pipeline dating back to Obama isn't that they don't want us getting oil. It's that the don't want a pipeline built. It's a position that I think is stupid, btw.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If you think it's me changing subjects, then...


Feb 3, 2021, 11:24 AM

Flow, don’t bother responding to T3. His brain is all twisted up with make believe economics and nut case rhetoric. He’s just throwing out nonsense. He has no clue what is going on in the energy markets. Zero. Don’t waste your time.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If you think it's me changing subjects, then...


Feb 3, 2021, 11:27 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If you think it's me changing subjects, then...


Feb 3, 2021, 12:00 PM

If it makes you happy here’s another post you can TD.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If you think it's me changing subjects, then...


Feb 3, 2021, 12:37 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 52
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic