“Wind power fails on every count”

[Anonymous No.15676794]

Wind power sucks balls and the science behind it is pure garbage
This according to PDFrel publication from Oxford University mathematician and physicist, researcher at CERN and Fellow of Keble College, Emeritus Professor Wade Allison
>Governments are ignoring overwhelming evidence of the inadequacies of wind power and resorting to bluster rather than reasoned analysis.

Similar publication from nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer.
>While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis
https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/47745
>Abstract
>The emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a tragedy for modern civilization, which depends on relible, economic, and environmentally viable energy. The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none if these qualities. This falsehood is pushed by a powerful lobby which Bjorn Lomborg has called a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists, and legislators. It has somehow managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison. Multiple scientific theories and measurements show that there is no climate crisis. Radiation forcing calculations by both skeptics and believers show that the carbon dioxide radiation forcing is about 0.3% of the incident radiation, far less than other effects on climate. Over the period of human civilization, the temperature has oscillated between quite a few warm and cold periods, with many of the warm periods being warmer than today. During geological times, it and the carbon dioxide level have been all over the place with no correlation between them.
Full PDF available free at the link

[Anonymous No.15676835]

>>15676794
It's a total scam. Those gigantic turbines are pure marketing and use up more electricity than it will ever generate from the wind.

[Anonymous No.15676949]

>>15676794
California is already in the process of replacing all old power plants with wind power despite it being unreliable.

[Anonymous No.15677068]

>>15676794
wind power is backed by gas, which has the net effect of saving gas, when the wind doesnt blow the gas turns out. This solved the problem of instability and gets more GWH from the same gas. Why is this bad?

[Anonymous No.15677079]

>>15677068
I want know this too.
Also notice that the anti-wind guys are nuclear physicists

[Anonymous No.15677137]

yeah, "green" energy is CO2 fraud

[Anonymous No.15677416]

>>15676794
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
>The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom whose aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.
>The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions.
>In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.
Absolutely pathetic source OP. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Anonymous No.15677444]

>>15676794
>Full PDF available free
Free is codeword for "I'm not good enough for a real journal"

[Anonymous No.15677519]

>>15677444

[Anonymous No.15677552]

>>15676794
Anybody with half a brain who digs into "green energy" quickly discovers wind and solar are shit options with good marketing.
The only legitimate option is SMR nuclear and pray that there's a breakthrough in material science or fussion in the next 100 years.

[Anonymous No.15677557]

>>15676794
this garbage makes somebody a ton of fucking money, probably chinese communists
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

[Anonymous No.15677709]

>>15677068
>and gets more GWH from the same gas. Why is this bad?
Let's be optimistic and say your wind has an incredibly high capacity factor so that when you burn gas, you effectively get about 3x power (i.e. you produce 400% of energy from the same mass of gas vs burning it traditionally). This is still over 100 gCO2eq/kWh. For reference, nuclear is about 5 gCO2eq/kWh.
That's why it's still bad; it doesn't decarbonize enough even in the best case.

[Anonymous No.15677919]

>>15676794
>https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/47745

>Spelling mistakes in the abstract

Lol, not looking good.

[Anonymous No.15678251]

>>15677557
>this garbage makes somebody a ton of fucking money
>probably chinese communists
you were on the right track for a second there, but then you veered badly off course

[Anonymous No.15678455]

>>15677709
But there is enough nuclear fuel for all the Countries? Is not uranium a scarce commodity?

[Anonymous No.15678456]

>>15676794
>renewable are an ideological at best and pure corruption by politicians at worst
wow that is a shocking revelation

[Anonymous No.15678774]

>>15677709
If the whole argument is CO2 then i dont give a fuck. I thought it was about economics

[Anonymous No.15678887]

How fucking dumb do you have to be to think that windmills don't work and that they don't turn a turbine
fucking lol
turning a turbine is how nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, geothermal and tidal power work. you literally cannot say that the science behind it is garbage, or you're saying windmills in general don't work.

dumbass shill thread.

[Anonymous No.15679212]

>>15678774
In that case here you go.

[Anonymous No.15679231]

>>15678887
Don’t think it’s that, anon. But arguments wind are as follows:
>It takes a shit ton of land.
>It’s not 100% environmentally because last point and it kills birds flying in the area.
>It’s not as efficient as nuclear and other sources.

[Anonymous No.15679293]

>>15679231
What? No that's not the arguments against at all. Wind has huge flaws but those aren't them; those arguments are the strawmen used to show that wind is good. That said, there is a nugget of truth in the first and third wrapped in a lot of bullshit:
* Wind does use a lot of land but we have a lot and they can also be placed further away such as off shore. Land usage isn't a big problem.
* Efficiency depends greatly on what you are measuring. Typically you're looking at fuel efficiency but that makes no sense with wind. So presumably you're looking instead at material efficiency. However, the two use incredibly different materials so it's not a good comparison.

The issue with wind is that they don't last nearly as long. Every 20-30 years, you're going to have to scrap the entire installed base of turbine + storage and make/install new ones. This fundamentally places an upper-limit on how much energy a single turbine can create. However, it's less than amount needed to make a new turbine AND send out power to make up the cost of the turbine + storage.

[Anonymous No.15679296]

This thread is paid content from BHP.

[Anonymous No.15679304]

>>15679293
Forgot to mention that another big issue with wind is that they cannot be recycled. The materials they use are very energy-intensive to separate which means they'll be going into landfills.

[Anonymous No.15679326]

>>15679231
None of those are relevant, land use and efficiency is factored in the cost and even the "hekkin kekkin birds" is just a meme since building wind saves more birds by replacing things that destroy the bird habitats. I have never yet met a person who unironically thinks wind turbines should be banned because they kill birds who also believes cats should be banned for the same reason despite it being more logical to ban cats if you care about birds than turbines.

>>15679293
Wind turbines pay back the energy used in making them in about a year.

>>15679304
Why is that an issue? Landfills aren't a problem for the same reason as the land use for wind isn't, being that there's a lot of land and the fact that decommissioning cost is baked into the price of wind energy (unlike say nuclear or even hydro). Wind turbine blades are just fiberglass and carbon composites, they are basically inert and half of that is just the same stuff the ground is made off in the first place. Most of the weight of a wind turbine is in the steel tower which can absolutely be recycled anyhow.
Nuclear shills love to use landfills as some kind of "landfill bad" argument without explaining why when in real life landfills are mostly bad because of their cost and things like chemical leaks or biological waste smelling neither of which is issue with inert fiberglass you just bury and forget.

[Anonymous No.15679778]

If you want to know whether anything is a scam or not, just check whether China is building it. Unlike Western democracies which allocate public funds primarily with the objective of enriching politicians and placating the imbecilic masses, China's government actually has its own interests aligned with the long term health of the nation and doesn't need to answer to uneducated voters.

In this case, we observe the China leads the world in the production of wind turbines, and has the largest fleet of the world's largest and most advanced turbines. From this we can conclude that the project is highly efficient and justifiable by science.

[Anonymous No.15679791]

>>15677416
You imagine that most foundations don't take money linked to shady rich people?

[Anonymous No.15680003]

>>15679296
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!

[Anonymous No.15680016]

>>15680003
It's not a very big conspiracy, OP is clearly being paid to post (bots count for this purpose) as he makes this same thread on a schedule.

[Anonymous No.15680183]

>>15679791
It's taking money from a group known to support the same people/orgs they're supposed to be against.

[Anonymous No.15680186]

>>15680016
>thread on a schedule
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.15680234]

>>15680183
Who is supposed to be against certain people/orgs? Do you even realize that the group you cited, openDemocracy, is itself funded by shady billionaires with explicit political motivations, through networks of subsidiary funds, in the exact same way?

[Anonymous No.15680307]

>>15677068
what if we just burned coal and ignored the hippies?
Hippies are free to live without electricity too.

(climate change is a lie)

[Anonymous No.15680330]

>>15680016
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!
paranoid schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.15680382]

>>15678251
Probably some kind of banking people biologically hard wired to harness windpower with their own physiology say maybe a big nose? Yes and this nose would be aerodynamic...like a beak! Like a hawk! A big hawknose banker!

[Anonymous No.15680414]

Actual physicists and engineers of /sci/, (not armchair partisans parroting platform rhetoric)
WHY is it that solar panel toys are popular but wind power toys are not a thing?

[Anonymous No.15680464]

>>15680414
Why not both? https://www.amazon.com/s?k=solar+panel+toy+windmill

[Anonymous No.15680479]

>>15676794
wtf I love russia now?

[Anonymous No.15680484]

>>15676794
Few things have blackpilled me more towards this species than its stance towards nuclear.
Grid energy is literally a solved problem for first world nations.

[Anonymous No.15680500]

>>15679296
not a rebuttal/argument

[Anonymous No.15680512]

>>15679326
>Wind turbines pay back the energy used in making them in about a year.
Who cares when even considering the cost of regulation, nuclear is cheaper per kWh and less carbon intensive? You play these stupid games by leaving out energy storage. You're worse than hydrogen fags with the way you hand wave away the real problems.

[Anonymous No.15680678]

>>15679326
>Wind turbines pay back the energy used in making them in about a year.
Repaying the energy for the turbine takes a year or two. Repaying for the storage takes several more on top of that. You're over 25% of the useful lifecycle just paying back the energy debt. Then on top of that, you have to actually pay back the monetary debt through selling energy. You're left with very little at the end of the lifecycle to actually profit on.

[Anonymous No.15680695]

>>15676794
Right or wrong, OP is a shill

[Anonymous No.15680713]

>>15676794
Simpleton here. Instead of these big structures why cant everyone just have small turbines mounted on their rooftops?
My neighbor ( in town ) has one of these and it makes no noise, not that I can hear anyway and I live right next to it. Always going even in a small breeze. Don't ever see dead birds on his roof. I imagine large commercial building in the city center, like banks and malls, could have at least 4 of these small units on their roofs.
Some small farms and life style blocks also have these for pumping water or small scale power generation.
So why aren't these small units as common as shit rather than having big fucking expensive noisy eyesores all over the place?

[Anonymous No.15680724]

>>15679778
>We can also conclude that China is experiencing explosive population growth based on the number of new apartment buildings they have constructed.

You fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15680786]

>>15680724
Based on china's construction of apartment buildings, you can conclude that the construction of apartment buildings in China has a purpose that's worth the money. Maybe they anticipate that the population will grow in the future but so will the cost of labor, so therefore they'll save money if they build the buildings now. Maybe they have a large amount of people who were displaced from their previous jobs and they have them building buildings as an alternative to being unemployed, because they would be collecting the same income as welfare anyway. In America we have millions of unemployed people collecting full-time salaries from the government just to sit on their ass and smoke crack, which likely dwarfs the amount of Chinese currently employed to construct buildings, but mental midgets like you would actually defend that because Reddit told you that China is bad

[Anonymous No.15680806]

At McMurdo in Antarctica they installed wind power which dramatically cut their diesel usage. There are a lot of details about their power usage and how the system works if you look it up.

[Anonymous No.15680987]

>>15680786
>Brain damaged for life
You been smoking too much of your mother's crack.

[Anonymous No.15681027]

>>15680987
If you don't understand a post, you don't need to lash out. You need to learn to accept that not every conversation is one that you have the ability to join, and that's okay.

[Anonymous No.15681042]

>>15680512
It's simply not true

>>15680678
Sorry, didn't know it was antisemitic to just build wind without storage.
Also it's not "on top of that", it's at the same time. A wind turbine pays back it's physical energy cost in a year often less an it's monetary cost in quite a reasonable time, something like third of it's lifetime. Their economics are quite sound, which is why people invest into them out of their own volition with their own money. Concept I'm sure is completely foreign to you.

>You're left with very little at the end of the lifecycle to actually profit on.
Quick tell that to the business men, they aren't making as much profit as you think they deserve? They must be informed right now!

>>15680713
There's economies of scale in multiple forms with a big turbine. Components like the generator, the foundation, the cabling, the transformer etc. get cheaper the bigger they get, there's more and more consistent wind higher up so bigger turbine can catch that and most importantly wind power scales with the square of the blade length, that is to say that a blade that's twice as long makes 4 times as much power while requiring more than 2 but less than 4 times the materials, which leads to improved efficiency. It's also going to make less noise thanks to spinning slower than a smaller turbine. Basically the conclusion from these factors is that the biggest wind turbine you can reliably build is going to be the most cost efficient.

Small turbines like what you might see on your backyard aren't very efficient and not really suitable for industry grade power production. Solar is much more efficient in small scales like rooftops because it doesn't benefit from scale like wind does.

>big fucking expensive noisy eyesores all over the place?
They might be big but they sure aren't noisy or expensive.

>>15680724
>>15680786
China builds apartments because it's urbanizing, something like a million people move to the cities every year.
/pol/ iq posters.

[Anonymous No.15681054]

>>15681042
>China builds apartments because it's urbanizing
Ok, so you're validating my assumption that there must be a good reason for China to be building the apartments. Not sure how I have a /pol/ IQ for guessing this correctly.

[Anonymous No.15681059]

>>15681054
Because you posted this
>>15680786
Instead of saying that it's urbanizing. They don't "anticipate population growth" and it's not a pointless jobs program nor are they "stocking up on buildings" either.

[Anonymous No.15681074]

>>15681059
Well, I have heard a ton of headlines that China is building a lot of empty and currently useless buildings. For example:
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-empty-homes-real-estate-evergrande-housing-market-problem-2021-10?amp
I have no way of knowing whether this is completely fake propaganda, but it's common enough "knowledge" that I knew exactly what he was referring to.

[Anonymous No.15681076]

>>15681074
>Well, I have heard a ton of headlines
Well obviously, see the /pol/ iq comment.

[Anonymous No.15681078]

10% of all power in the United States isn't fake you are all just very stupid.

[Anonymous No.15681084]

>>15681076
Having seen headlines implies that my IQ is low? What the fuck are you talking about?
I know you're not accusing me of blindly believing the propaganda such as what I linked, because my original comment was literally about why the narrative that China's buildings are useless is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15681093]

>>15681084
Nice bait lmao.

[Anonymous No.15681194]

>>15681078
I thought we were using the kike logic of zero emissions, do you not want to play that game anymore?
What's backing that 10% of electricity when the wind isn't blowing?

[Anonymous No.15681291]

>>15681042
Wind power is profitable because of ESG scores, basically. Wind power is bought on the market, mostly by datacenters but for everyone who wants those sweet carbon bux. In reality, they're using fossil fuels during peaks, which just incentivizes more fossil fuel buildout. This is another game that is played with energy, and this is even ignoring the government bux that is given in the form of incentives to wind power. So basically, it subsides on the government dole, and the increased access to capital that is ESG scores, while not reducing emissions to the degree that people think it does.

[Anonymous No.15681307]

>>15681291
Not sure if you know this but running a fossil fuel power plant during some peak or when there's no wind is in fact better than running a fossil fuel power plant all the time. The idea that wind increases fossil fuel consumption is just ludicrous and I honestly can't believe you are trying to make that argument.
>subsidies
The 2 biggest receivers of government subsidies are fossil fuels and nuclear power. The first quite directly but also because they don't have to pay for pollution or problems they cause, the later explicitly as there are no privately owned, operated and secured nuclear projects and governments have to be a major part in the process for them to even exist.

[Anonymous No.15681310]

>>15676794
just dont let the tree guys know about the clearcutting that is done to put these giant noisy fuckers in just to have them eventually seize and become giant abandoned cocks littering the landscape

[Anonymous No.15681324]

>>15681307
>is in fact better than running a fossil fuel power plant all the time
But, again, it's not. Because it incentivizes the buildout of LNG standby. The logic here is to be completely zero-emission or at least carbon neutral, and both wind and solar cannot provide that. Wind power is pre-paid for. That's why it's profitable. You are again using skewed markets to compare. Sure, if you want to make money, build a wind farm. There's no shortage of datacenters that will buy your electricity to improve their ESG scores, while they use standby during the times that actually matter.
Why are you not including the energy storage in your calculations? We both know why, it's because you're dishonest. You're relying on LNG, coal, and diesel backup while proclaiming that you are "green."
>subsidies
You're talking about deprecation schedules and/or government backing. Meanwhile, private nuclear does not get "clean energy" subsidies. So again, dishonest.

[Anonymous No.15681335]

>>15681324
>But, again, it's not. Because it incentivizes the buildout of LNG standby.
And that's a bad thing why?
90% renewable 10% gas is better than 100% gas.

>The logic here is to be completely zero-emission or at least carbon neutral
That's an arbitrary requirement by you.

>and both wind and solar cannot provide that.
And that's wrong

>Wind power is pre-paid for.
No it's not. A private individual starting a wind project actually has to pay out of their own pocket for it and they have to sell the energy to profit. That's called free market.

>That's why it's profitable.
It's profitable because it costs less to build and maintain a wind turbine than what the power it produces during it's lifetimes is worth. The same way any other machine is profitable.

>You are again using skewed markets to compare
Energy markets are quite free and the most subsidized portions of it are definitely not wind or solar (it's fossil fuels and nuclear)

>while they use standby during the times that actually matter.
Any time energy is consumed matters, that's why people pay for it.

>Why are you not including the energy storage in your calculations?
Is energy storage a legal requirement for a wind project? Is it antisemitic to just build wind and profit?

>You're relying on LNG, coal, and diesel backup while proclaiming that you are "green."
I'm not "relying on" anything. Wind power is green power, weather you like it or not and each turbine lowers carbon emissions of the energy mix as a whole.

>Meanwhile, private nuclear does not get "clean energy" subsidies
There's not a single private nuclear project, it's already 100% subsidized.

[Anonymous No.15681372]

>>15681335
>There's not a single private nuclear project, it's already 100% subsidized.

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

read up because you keep talking out of your ass

[Anonymous No.15681382]

>>15681335
>That's an arbitrary requirement by you.
No, that's what is making it profitable.
>And that's wrong
Oh? Where are the models showing 100% renewable electricity generation using solar and wind alone? I will wait.
>No it's not. A private individual starting a wind project actually has to pay out of their own pocket for it and they have to sell the energy to profit.
Do I need to link to the US (over the last decade) and EU clean energy subsidies that built out wind at the cost to taxpayers?
>It's profitable because it costs less to build and maintain a wind turbine than what the power it produces during its lifetimes is worth. The same way any other machine is profitable.
It's profitable and is paid off in the first few years because it's cheap and people pre-pay for your electricity, along with government subsidies, incentivized deprecation schedules, and RPS.
Meanwhile, government regulation and requirements for overbuilding safety are what add to the tremendous costs.
>Any time energy is consumed matters, that's why people pay for it.
You really have no idea how the energy market works, and it shows.
>Is energy storage a legal requirement for a wind project? Is it antisemitic to just build wind and profit?
Energy storage is a requirement if you want to imply that your energy generation is green, yes, for solar and wind.
>There's not a single private nuclear project, it's already 100% subsidized.
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15681403]

>>15681372
The entire nuclear sector exists due to subsidies, companies of course exist to collect those subsidies, that's how subsidies work.

Just to prove the point, the first entity in that list that actually mentions a nuclear power station is the Electrabel company and it's listed Doel nuclear power plant. Let's look at those.
Well Electrabel is a subsidiary of Engie, which is itself French state owned company, the Doel nuclear plant is fully owned by them with it's newest reactors being partially owned by another state French owned company.
This is of course surface level since even the "private funding" comes in the form of government loans and the government is the one who holds the bags anyways should these projects fail and is responsible for cleaning up the place if the company just decides to peace out.

>>15681382
>No, that's what is making it profitable.
Well in that sense it's true, wind is 100% green.

>Oh? Where are the models showing 100% renewable electricity generation using solar and wind alone?
You make enough of each and add a bunch of storage.

>Do I need to link to the US (over the last decade) and EU clean energy subsidies that built out wind at the cost to taxpayers?
You certainly can, Fossil fuels receive about a trillion in subsidies in 2022 for reference and they also receive big subsides in the form of "pollute for free" cards. If wind or solar could do that they would also be lot cheaper than they are today.

>It's profitable and is paid off in the first few years because it's cheap
Yes, that's called free market. Cheap power sold for good money makes lot of profit unlike expensive power which when sold for good money loses money like nuclear.

>Energy storage is a requirement if you want to imply that your energy generation is green,
That's a false equivalence. Solar and wind are green power regardless if there exist any storage or not.

>But that's wrong, you fucking retard.
Can you name a single one?

[Anonymous No.15681428]

>>15681403
>government loan guarantees are ABOMINABLE subsidies
lmao
>Well in that sense it's true, wind is 100% green.
Yeah, too bad that it can't actually lead to a green energy future.
>You make enough of each and add a bunch of storage.
Okay. Include the storage in your costs, then.
>If wind or solar could do that they would also be lot cheaper than they are today.
They already did that:
>>For every megawatt hour of wind energy generated, the taxpayer paid $56, compared to 64 cents for coal-fired and natural gas-fired generation.
>Cheap power
Derived from government subsidies, that can't actually generate a baseload, and requires more government subsidies to build out energy storage infrastructure, which you conveniently don't include in your costs?
>Solar and wind are green power regardless if there exist any storage or not.
No, they aren't. Because they don't generate the majority of electricity, especially during peaks.
>single one
You're going to have to define your terms here, because I'm sure you'll soon be bitching about time-horizons and government research being subsidies, but TerraPower, NuScale, and CFS.

[Anonymous No.15681478]

>>15681428
>lmao
There's lot more to it than that but what ever makes you cope.

>Yeah, too bad that it can't actually lead to a green energy future.
Each turbine reduces greenhouse emissions

>Okay. Include the storage in your costs, then.
Is energy storage a legal requirement for a wind project? Is it antisemitic to just build wind and profit?

>They already did that:
Wrong

>Derived from government subsidies
Wind and solar recieve far less subidies than fossil fuels and nuclear, by an order of magnitude

>which you conveniently don't include in your costs?
They aren't necessary for operating a wind power plant, producing power that customers use and you profit from.

>No, they aren't.
Yes they are

>Because they don't generate the majority of electricity, especially during peaks.
They generate 100% of the energy they generate, which is all green.

>You're going to have to define your terms here
A single nuclear power station that is funded, operated, secured and carried to the end of it's life cycle by a private operator (doesn't have to be the same one, just a private company operating without subsidies). The same definition I would use if I went to the bank today, got myself a loan and insurance and then built and operated a wind power station in my area till the end of it's life and then cleaned up the site.

>terrapower
Doesn't actually seem to have made any actual nuclear power plants but was planning on doing one at chinese government funding. Also recieving billions in US grants (not even loans lmao), all this for 0 kWh of commercial energy produced. So that's a 100% subsidized company right there.
>NuScale Power
Another 0 kWh company that recieves government subsidies. It's first reactor being a state owned and subsidies venture that may or may not happen.
>CFS
Yet another 0 kWh company, founded and funded by state owned companies and various department of energy subsidies

This is what "pre-paid for" energy looks like, 0 energy billions in subsidies.

[Anonymous No.15681512]

>>15681478
>Each turbine reduces greenhouse emissions
Each turbine incentivizes the buildout of LNG standby and at best is neutral in the context of greenhouse emissions. In reality, it will increase them in the long run.
>Is energy storage a legal requirement for a wind project?
Yes, it is. Deal with it. The whiplash here is almost schizophrenic. Last sentence you said that it reduced emissions, but it cannot wholly reduce emissions without storage in the context of the grid.
>Wrong
The numbers are right there. $56 in tax payer dollars in the US alone per mW generated, versus 64 cents for LNG and coal. Those are government subsidies. You are delusional.
>Wind and solar recieve far less subidies than fossil fuels and nuclear, by an order of magnitude
Not in the context of energy generation.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/wind-energy-subsidies-vs-oil-and-gas-tax-deductions/
https://theconversation.com/wind-costs-more-than-you-think-due-to-massive-federal-subsidies-38804
>They generate 100% of the energy they generate, which is all green.
No, not really. It's backed by LNG. Wind incentivizes LNG buildout. Therefore, it's not green.
>doesn't have to be the same one, just a private company operating without subsidies
Okay, then by the same standards, you cannot claim the same for wind generation. So we're back to square one. How about you name a wind farm or company that builds them that hasn't taken tax payer dollars? Nuclear is very capital intensive, and yet wind cannot exist as an industry without the very incentives you are arguing against.

[Anonymous No.15681544]

>>15681512
>Each turbine incentivizes the buildout of LNG standby
Replacing actively used fossil fuels, reducing greenhouse gas output per watt produced.

>at best is neutral in the context of greenhouse emission
100% green actually

>Yes, it is. Deal with it.
No it's not.

>Last sentence you said that it reduced emissions
Which it does

>but it cannot wholly reduce emissions without storage in the context of the grid.
Arbitrary requirement by you, each turbine individually reduces emissions and 100% green grid is possible with them + storage.

>The numbers are right there. $56 in tax payer dollars in the US alone per mW generated
That's just what you wrote, it's not an actual number, it's also a lot smaller number than the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels. Even your own source points out how the number is simply for one year. Notice how that 5 billion that was used to subsidize wind produced actual measurable increase in wind energy. Meanwhile the 4 billion spent on terrapower produced exactly 0 new energy. The sources calculations are only for building as well, not actual per megawatt subsidies, they spent a lot to massively increase generation, not a lot to pay for the power. The flat number which was again 5 billion pales in comparison to the fossil fuel subsidies paid out in trillions, 2 orders of magnitude larger.

>No, not really. It's backed by LNG. Wind incentivizes LNG buildout. Therefore, it's not green.
That doesn't follow. It can be backed by anything and what it's backed by is itself irrelevant. The power is 100% green

>Okay, then by the same standards, you cannot claim the same for wind generation.
I can, I can right now build, operate and then later decommission a wind power project without receiving massive government subsidies. In fact lot of countries offer exactly 0 subsidies to that effect and I can still build a wind power plant in those countries. The same isn't true for nuclear.

[Anonymous No.15681557]

>>15681544
>100% green actually
Not in the context of the grid. Requires intensive LNG to make up for the intermittent nature.
>That's just what you wrote, it's not an actual number, it's also a lot smaller number than the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels.
Not in the context of electricity generation. And nuclear took less subsidies vis a vis mw generated than wind.
>it's not an actual number
lmao, that's literally a direct comparison vs LNG and coal. LNG and coal fired energy generation took 6 cents of tax payer dollars per mw generated, versus wind which took $56.
You're babbling at this point, which means you are delusional.
>The same isn't true for nuclear.
The same would be true for nuclear if you had the capital to expend. Nuclear is very capital intensive, versus wind. And yet, wind still takes the government subsidies, which hides the true cost. In addition, the electricity is pre-paid thanks to ESG incentives, which is yet another "subsidy" you whine about when a nuclear plant asks for purchase agreements before breaking ground. So that they know someone will buy the electricity. ESG in this case, incentivizes the purchase of wind generation, but in reality they're using LNG-fired generation. That's how the energy market works. You can purchase electricity of another type, yet run on the coal fired plant 5 miles away that's spewing radioactive fly ash and pollution.
>Meanwhile the 4 billion spent on terrapower produced exactly 0 new energy. The sources calculations are only for building as well, not actual per megawatt subsidies, they spent a lot to massively increase generation, not a lot to pay for the power. The flat number which was again 5 billion pales in comparison to the fossil fuel subsidies paid out in trillions, 2 orders of magnitude larger.
No one is talking about nuclear in this context. I'm directly refuting your implication that wind takes zero subsidies. Your implication has been directly refuted. Your babbling won't change the fact.

[Anonymous No.15681569]

>>15681557
>Not in the context of the grid
It's 100% green in the context of the grid

>Not in the context of electricity generation.
It's 100% green in the context of electricity generation

>And nuclear took less subsidies vis a vis mw generated than wind
*more

>lmao, that's literally a direct comparison vs LNG and coal. LNG and coal fired energy generation took 6 cents of tax payer dollars per mw generated, versus wind which took $56.
You can't even read your own source my guy, understandable when it's a fossil fuel blog but still

>The same would be true for nuclear if you had the capital to expend.
Many organizations and even individuals have enough cash to build a nuclear power plant, they choose not to be cause it's not economical without government subsidies. The fact that nuclear is hideously expensive so much so that the richest entities on the planet go "yikes" is also not a great look for nuclear.

>refuting your implication that wind takes zero subsidies. Your
Which isn't a point I made, the point I made was that wind and solar recieve far less subsidies than nuclear and fossil fuels which are the most subsidizes forms of energy generation. Fossil fuels to the order of trillion per year and nuclear as per your own examples received about 5 billion in subsidies for 0 kwh of power making it's subsidy cost infinite but in practice it's 100% since the industry is predicated on subsidies to exist.

>Your implication has been directly refuted.
It was directly confirmed, 1 trillion is a bigger number than 5 billion. I'm sorry that you are schizo but that's how numbers work.

[Anonymous No.15681578]

>>15681569
>It's 100% green in the context of electricity generation
Nope.
>*more
Not per mw generated.
>You can't even read your own source my guy
I did read the source. You started babbling about nuclear and how it's actually orders of magnitude more for fossil-fuel-fired-generation, despite having no source.
>Which isn't a point I made, the point I made was that wind and solar recieve far less subsidies
>> If wind or solar could do that they would also be lot cheaper than they are today.
They take orders of magnitude more subsidies as a percentage.
>1 trillion is a bigger number than 5 billion. I'm sorry that you are schizo but that's how numbers work.
Oh, I see the stupid game you're playing. So, because Wind is dogshit and takes less whole dollars, instead of comparing percentages vs mw generated, you win the argument? That's not how direct comparisons work.
By your own logic, wind relies on subsidies to exist. The wind farms in the EU would not exist without those subsidies. The wind farms in the US would not exist without the subsidies. In spite of the fact that it's far less capital intensive.
So again, name a wind farm or company that has not taken subsidies.

[Anonymous No.15681596]

>>15681578
>Nope.
Yes

>Not per mw generated.
Well your examples haven't generated any megawatts, so kinda bad example, but yes per mw generated.

>I did read the source.
Doubting it

>despite having no source.
https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022
It's well known information. Also notice that it's not a fossil fuel blog.

>They take orders of magnitude more subsidies as a percentage.
*less

>By your own logic, wind relies on subsidies to exist
But it doesn't. Wind exists regardless of subsidies in various countries some of which offer no subsidies. Meanwhile there's no a single nuclear project that isn't subsidies out the ass. There's a qualitative difference between a segment that simply is non feasible and something that is subsidized to promote it, you are operating under false equivalence. These things aren't the same. It's like how food is heavily subsidized but even without subsidies people would still produce food vs moon landing which is subsidized and only happened because of said subsidies.

[Anonymous No.15681609]

>>15681596
>Yes
It literally cannot be, if you are talking about a stable grid.
>https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022
Again, we're talking about LNG and coal fired energy generation plants. That whole category is not directly comparable. Nice reading comprehension. LNG and coal fired generation took 64 cents per mw. Wind took $54 dollars per mw. Again, energy plants.
>But it doesn't. Wind exists regardless of subsidies in various countries some of which offer no subsidies.
So, name them? You are babbling, obviously mad as fuck that your glorified dogshit windmills got exposed as taking a shitload of government subsidies, yet you can't name one.

[Anonymous No.15681634]

>>15681609
>It literally cannot be, if you are talking about a stable grid.
The grid is stable right now and wind is making 100% green power all the time

>Again, we're talking about LNG and coal fired energy generation plants.
I'm talking about fossil fuels, so indeed nice reading comprehension.

>LNG and coal fired generation took 64 cents per mw.
In direct subsidies, the far biggest subsidy is lisence to pollute. The total subsidy was about 1 trillion dollars, which is larger than 5 billion once in 2010.

>So, name them?
You are making a strawman, as your own sources prooved wind subsidies are much lower than fossil fuel or nuclear subsidies which was my point. More to the point you can in fact find lot of wind power without subsides, you can buy a home wind turbine right now off amazon for few hundred bucks and if your location doesn't offer subsidy for this, then there you go subsidy free wind power. You can search for subsidy free wind projects in google and find those as well. But again this is a strawman because I said wind doesn't take subsidies, it just gets lot less than fossil fuels and nuclear and it's a red herring because it's not winds fault it's subsidized. Of course wind projects are going to take subsidies when they are available, why not. The key difference is that wind isn't predicated on subsidies the same way nuclear is. Without subsides nuclear wouldn't exist, without subsides wind would just be more limited in scope when it competes against heavily subsides fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.15681648]

>>15681634
>The grid is stable right now
Thanks to fossil fuels and nuclear.
>I'm talking about fossil fuels, so indeed nice reading comprehension.
...are you fucking retarded? Yes, we are talking about fossil fuel energy generating plants. As well, there are no "credits" for fossil fuels in general. There are tax DEDUCTIONS. It's not the same thing. It figures that a fucking retard like you would mix it up, since you demonstrated that you don't understand deprecation schedules up in the thread.
>the far biggest subsidy is lisence to pollute
>lisence to pollute
lmao, that "lisence to pollute" is the only fucking reason that you can wash your ass in the evening, using electricity to operate the water heater that washes your dumb ass. There doesn't exist a "license to pollute."
>You are making a strawman,
>WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS
Yeah, typical leftist. Name one, or you lost the argument.

[Anonymous No.15681660]

>>15681648
>Thanks to fossil fuels and nuclear.
Concession accepted

>are you fucking retarded? Yes, we are talking about fossil fuel energy generating plants
Which are subsidized to the order of trillion dollars yearly.

>As well, there are no "credits" for fossil fuels in general.
There are huge pollute for free credits for fossil fuels.

>There are tax DEDUCTIONS. It's not the same thing.
That's a subsidy too.

>lmao, that "lisence to pollute" is the only fucking reason that you can wash your ass in the evening
It's fairly significant subsidy. Imagine for a while if nuclear plants could just dump nuclear waste into rivers or just leave nuclear plants as they are and wash their hands off the cleanup and decommissioning. That would significantly reduce costs. Polluting air and causing people to use health services on tax payers dime is a subsidy.

>Yeah, typical leftist. Name one, or you lost the argument.
You are the one arguing for huge subsidies and how private energy generation and profit is antisemitic or how networks have to be considered as huge blocks instead of collections of individual and independent corporation. That's just classic communist talking points, ones which I refuse go collectivize somewhere else. Kinda weird self own desu.

And yes your arguments are not only fallacies but easily destroyed by some words. The fact that I have to explain why you are making a strawman after calling you out on it several times is not a good look for you.

[Anonymous No.15681684]

>>15681660
>Which are subsidized to the order of trillion dollars yearly.
Which are less than Wind receives per mw
>There are huge pollute for free credits for fossil fuels.
>That's a subsidy too.
There are no tax credits for LNG and coal fired power generation. You are simply a moron who wouldn't even be able to run a restaurant, because your brain can't comprehend tax deductions or deprecation schedules.
>You are the one arguing for huge subsidies
No, I'm arguing for equal footing.
>and profit is antisemitic
You are delusional.
>Kinda weird self own desu.
You were the one who brought up subsidies, and it was demonstrated that government subsidies of wind electric plants, per mw, is orders of magnitude HIGHER than LNG and coal-fired electric plants, per mw. You have simply been refuted. Then when asked to find a wind farm or company that produces the turbines, that could survive without government subsidies, you drew a blank. You cannot even point anywhere that does not offer subsidies, where they operate. You are a retard who does not even remotely understand how the energy market works, you are just transfixed upon the idea that WIND IS GOOD BRO, argue against subsidies despite wind taking orders of magnitude more per mw generated, etc.
>destroyed by some words
You have not linked to a single source that refutes the subsidies that wind receives.

[Anonymous No.15681704]

>>15681684
>Which are less than Wind receives per mw
*more

>There are no tax credits for LNG and coal fired power generation
There are subsidies for fossil fuels to the tune of 1 trillion dollars a year.

>No, I'm arguing for equal footing.
So a trillion for everyone? That's communism all right.

>You are delusional.
You have argued against profit at every point, I fail to see any other logical explanation to that than you arbitrarily deciding it's against your values.

>You were the one who brought up subsidies
Yes and they demonstrate my point splendidly.

>and it was demonstrated that government subsidies of wind electric plants, per mw, is orders of magnitude HIGHER than LNG and coal-fired electric plants, per mw.
*lower

>You have simply been refuted.
Yes I simply refuted you.

>Then when asked to find a wind farm or company that produces the turbines, that could survive without government subsidies, you drew a blank
I actually gave you a specific example. There's tons of wind power available at amazon and if your local area doesn't give you subsidy for this specific purchase then that's subsidy free wind power.
More to the point I refuted your central argument, the fact that wind has some subsidies was never contested, it's that wind has lot less subsidies than fossil fuels and nuclear which was thoroughly demonstrated by both your and mine sources.
More over that whole thing was a "no u" on my own argument which was to find a single non subsidized nuclear power plant which was a response to your own argument here:

>>There's not a single private nuclear project, it's already 100% subsidized.
>But that's wrong, you fucking retard.
I never said wind didn't have any subsidies yet you made a strawman that I did, meanwhile you clearly say I'm wrong on there being no nuclear that isn't subsidized and the only evidence you managed to provide was that nuclear was in fact subsidized by infinite dollars per kwh.

>more
*less

And you have not refuted that 5B < 1T

[Anonymous No.15681727]

>>15681660
>And you have not refuted that 5B < 1T
That's not how direct comparisons work, you fucking retard. If you generate 1mW of power with 5 billion in subsidies, when you generate 5+mW for the exact same cost to the taxpayer? Wind takes more subsidies per mW generated.
Comparing 5B to 1T doesn't really fucking matter when you generate less than 10% of the electricity during load on the grid. All it results in is cheaper electricity during the night and morning, and more buildout of LNG fired plants.
Why am I even arguing with some dumb nigger that couldn't run a fucking lemonade stand profitably? Your reddit spacing nigger brain can't even comprehend tax-advantaged deprecation.

[Anonymous No.15681740]

>>15681727
>If you generate 1mW of power with 5 billion in subsidies
But that's not what's happening

>when you generate 5+mW for the exact same cost to the taxpayer?
So far we established that 5 billion single lump sum brought wind generation capacity up massively, meanwhile the same 5 billion invested in nuclear lead to exactly 0 kwh of energy produced and that was the best your fossil fuel blog could come up with, the 1 trillion is a yearly expense and doesn't go to increasing fossil fuel capacity but to subsidizing all existing power. These are not the same things, but I do accept your concession on the point if you are done.

>Why am I even arguing with some dumb nigger that couldn't run a fucking lemonade stand profitably?
Because you are a communist and can't stand free market and profits?

[Anonymous No.15681814]

>>15681740
>But that's not what's happening
That is exactly what's happening?
>Because you are a communist and can't stand free market and profits?
Right, the famous free market economics of wind power generation, where the state 1) pays them to operate through subsidies 2) is advantaged with purchasing agreements from RPS (state)/ESG (corporate) 3) is literally still profiting when they pump electricity onto the grid when the price is negative, i.e. they are paying to pump it onto the grid, and are still turning a profit, because of 1) and 2).
once again, leftists are sick in the head. yes, your precious wind power is definitely a free market success story who never turns electricity prices negative. nope, they definitely aren't receiving $54 in subsidies per mw generated versus 64 cents in the context of fossil fuel generation.
it's funny how you accuse others of being communists when it's so obvious that the state funding is the only reason why wind is economical in this case, yet you argue against the subsidies.
you still can't name a single country or company without subsidies for wind. I wonder why. that's because it does not exist, and you lost the argument.

[Anonymous No.15681830]

>>15681814
>That is exactly what's happening?
Not according to the sources

>Right, the famous free market economics of wind power generation
Fossil fuels enjoy much higher level of subsidies than wind does, so do nuclear. Electricity is subsides to keep it cheap for consumers. They should work to lower subsidies on fossil fuels in particular.

>once again, leftists are sick in the head
Yes you are, the commie brainrot really shines trough.

> your precious wind power is definitely a free market success story who never turns electricity prices negative
That's free market for you, you only see negative prices as negative because you are communist.

>nope, they definitely aren't receiving $54 in subsidies per mw generated
They definitely aren't, this is according to your source btw.
>versus 64 cents in the context of fossil fuel generation.
The total figure is about 1 trillion, which your fossil fuel blog fails to mention. This is without taking into account the free pollution they are allowed to spew out. And yes that's communism.

>it's funny how you accuse others of being communists when it's so obvious that the state funding is the only reason why wind is economical in this case
That's not the case. Even if we accept your number, that's 5 cents per kilowatt hour, which again isn't even the real figure for reasons detailed in your source. That represents less than 25% of the price of power, which isn't nearly enough to make it uncompetitive against the infinite dollars per kwh of nuclear.

>yet you argue against the subsidies.
Because subsidies are a net negative for wind and solar seeing as they are subsides far less than fossil fuels and nuclear.

>you still can't name a single country or company without subsidies for wind
Coldwind makes a snazy looking wind turbine, I can get it here without subsidies. You still can't name a single nuclear power plant without subsidies.
And yes I accept your concession as you lost the argument long ago.

[Anonymous No.15681854]

>>15681830
>Fossil fuels enjoy much higher level of subsidies than wind does,
No, fossil fuel power generation does not receive a higher level of subsidies per mw generated.
>That's free market for you, you only see negative prices as negative because you are communist.
The negative prices are only sustainable because they receive subsidies and are advantaged where the state are GUARANTEED to purchase their power.
>The total figure is about 1 trillion, which your fossil fuel blog fails to mention.
Once again, you are a fucking retard. The "fossil fuel blog" explains the tax deductions of the industry in total, versus the actual profitable subsidies.
Think back to when you and your nigger buddies got a check from the federal government. Versus deductions, which were different.
>Because subsidies are a net negative for wind and solar
But they're not. It's the only reason wind is economical.
>cold wind... I can get it here without subsidies.
Are you fucking retarded? You're talking about chinky hardware off of amazon you mount on your property that most definitely got government subsidies, verus grid-scale power generation, and that's your argument?
lol. lmao, even. now, that's desperate. pov: you right now.

[Anonymous No.15681860]

>>15681854
>No, fossil fuel power generation does not receive a higher level of subsidies per mw generated.
Well yes it does

>The negative prices are only sustainable because they receive subsidies
Wind doesn't need to produce during negative prices and consumes 0 resources when producing, it's far more sustainable at low or negative prices than fossils or nuclear because those things have to choose between burning and meeting their contractual needs or not, wind can just spin and it costs' nothing or stop and it costs nothing.

>which were different.
I know that they are different. What you don't seem to understand is that bigger number is a bigger number than a smaller number.

>But they're not. It's the only reason wind is economical.
Other way around, they are economical despite the massive fossil fuel subsides.

>and that's your argument?
That's my response to your strawman actually, but yes it blows you out as well.

[Anonymous No.15681873]

>>15681860
>Well yes it does
No, it does not. As the link above plainly demonstrates.
>wind can just spin and it costs' nothing or stop and it costs nothing.
Right, the magical free market economics of costing nothing when it just spins. It's just magic. Over 100 years, the wheel just spins, and continues to spin, without maintenance, and the power is delivered to the grid for free from the prime remote locations where wind is the strongest (and those transmission lines were definitely NOT subsidized.) In fact, it was constructed for free, and definitely did not take any government subsidies. Wind is fucking MAGIC bros. fucking MAGIC. It's basically a free market success story. Think, atlas shrugged.
>That's my response to your strawman actually, but yes it blows you out as well.
No, it doesn't. You are a fucking retard who couldn't run a lemonade stand economically.

[Anonymous No.15681880]

Sorry chuddies. Wind and solar just work.
Fission is a meme. Fossil fuels are just solar with extra steps (ergo inefficient).

[Anonymous No.15681882]

>>15681873
>No, it does not. As the link above plainly demonstrates.
Yes the link plainly refutes your claim.

>Right, the magical free market economics of costing nothing when it just spins.
It's not magic, wind is in fact free unlike fossil fuels. Sure there's a maintenance cost but again this is in comparison with fossil fuels, if the price is near 0 wind can and does still make profit, while fossil fuel plant won't and nuclear won't regardless of the price since it's subsidized from the getgo.

>Over 100 years, the wheel just spins, and continues to spin, without maintenance
So a coal plant operates 100 years without coal and maintenance, is that really the hill you want to die on? Why do you make strawmen like this? Oh ye the communist brainrot.

>No, it doesn't.
Yes it absolutely did. lmao

[Anonymous No.15681887]

>>15681882
>So a coal plant operates 100 years without coal and maintenance,
A coal plant gets 6 cents per mw generated, if that. A wind plant gets $54 per mw generated.

[Anonymous No.15681892]

>>15681887
But that's not actually true as per your source.

[Anonymous No.15681939]

>>15681892
>DURRRR THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY GETS $1T IN TAX BREAKS IN TOTAL THAT MEANS ITS $1T IN SUBSIDIES FOR COAL AND LNG POWER GENERATION
That's not what "tax breaks" are #1, you fucking imbecile, and #2, the "industry" as a whole is not directly comparable to fossil-fuel-fired power plants, as fossil fuels in general are not just used for spinning turbines for electricity generation, you retarded monkey.

[Anonymous No.15681960]

>>15681939
See >>15681880 and take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15681976]

>>15681960
>I don't know what LCOE is
now I know you're actually retarded
worth mentioning it's also a great look into the upfront deprecation costs and upfront regulatory requirements of having to have a nuclear plant survive a fucking plane crashing into it, with 50 ft of concrete and having to laboriously x-ray all of that concrete
let me know if you find an "unsubsidized wind installation", with no governments that are forced to buy their electricity thanks to RPS/similar and no tax credits, lmao
imagine being this stupid/pretending to be this stupid

[Anonymous No.15682060]

>>15681976
>I don't know what subsidies are
>Levelized costs bad!
>Nuclear regulation bad!!
Now I know you're actually retarded

[Anonymous No.15682065]

Nuclear shill bros... why do we always get blown out like this... It's not fair...

[Anonymous No.15682089]

>>15678455
Uranium is only about 10x less common than lithium (2.7 ppm vs 20 ppm). The figure of merit is chemical preponderance in earths crust, not proven reserves.

[Anonymous No.15682094]

>>15682060
LCOE is the cost for producing each unit, retard. Since the cost of regulation legally has to be upfront for nuclear, until its end of lifetime, you see the problem. LCOE doesn't include fun things like delivery, either. For example, the subsidized wind in Texas recently where the state built the transmission lines for them, that wouldn't be in LCOE. Just the cost of production.

[Anonymous No.15682099]

>>15682094
>>15682060
also, deprecation. just like I'm sure you were one of the retards whining about the postal service having to pre-pay the retirement, up-front, for employees that aren't even born yet, yet in this context you're probably championing it. even if it's private, you must do so.

[Anonymous No.15682111]

>>15682094
>>15682099
You are straight up retarded. LCoE includes the costs from the entire lifetime, including the initial capital investments. Google is free.

[Anonymous No.15682137]

>>15676794
>Oxford University mathematician and physicist,
Physicist.
>researcher at CERN
He isn't.
> and Fellow of Keble College, Emeritus Professor Wade Allison
Emeritus. The guy is a million years old. He retired 15 years ago. Why should anyone care what a senile guy says about a field not even slightly related to his expertise?
Oh, and why is it always guys in their 80s that don't care about sustainability? Really makes you wonder.

[Anonymous No.15682138]

>>15682111
> LCoE includes the costs from the entire lifetime, including the initial capital investments
Where does my post disagree with that? LCOE does not include the costs of transmission or building out to remote areas where the prime wind power is, or the cost to build the delivery from off-shore. It does not include the costs of intermittency. LFSCOE is the metric you are looking for. It's up in the thread. Your grid is useless if it's not a steady supply. Unless you enjoy blackouts every day. LCOE is not the cost of the full system, i.e. the cost to a stable grid, from the "entire lifetime." It is the cost to produce a unit of energy, nothing more
See
>>15679212
Legally, no one has to deprecate windmills. They can just sit there. Nor do you have to ensure that windmills can withstand a fucking plane crash, and you don't have to laboriously x-ray the entire structure of a windmill to ensure that. And yet, despite all of that, nuclear is still cheaper for grid-scale baseline.

[Anonymous No.15682141]

>>15682099
Gotta love how the commie brain thinks economists haven't heard of depreciation, if anything nuclear is the only one where depreciation and end of life costs aren't fully taken into account thus making the actual costs higher.

[Anonymous No.15682149]

>>15682137
It's a shill, easier to buy out some senile guy to say something stupid.

[Anonymous No.15682158]

>>15682141
You legally have to, you fucking retard.
They're called Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts.
More regulations from hippies in the 2000s accelerated these costs from the SAFSTOR to the DECON approach. Which means, you can't just mothball the plant. No, you must take it apart and make it all nuclear waste, despite the fact that most of the radioactivity will decay in three decades.
That means, accelerated decommissioning, which costs more.

[Anonymous No.15682159]

>>15682158
>what? clean up our own mess? holy shit don't you know what that means for the revolution comrade, don't you understand that this is our shared burden and thus tax payers should handle the clean up!

[Anonymous No.15682161]

>>15682138
>LCOE does not include the costs of transmission
Negligible

>or building out to remote areas where the prime wind power is, or the cost to build the delivery from off-shore.
It does. Those costs are part of the initial capital.

>It does not include the costs of intermittency
Irrelevant.

>LFSCOE
That figure requires a ton of assumptions and can easily be manipulated as a result.

Nuclear is too expensive to attract investors. Stay mad, retard.

[Anonymous No.15682164]

>>15682159
No one said taxpayers handle the cleanup, fucktard. The point is that it's forced upon facilities to accelerate decommissioning. For no reason whatsoever. It's already behind 50 fucking feet of concrete. You aren't going to make a dirty bomb out of some slightly radioactive screwdrivers and heavy water.

[Anonymous No.15682171]

>>15682164
Do they call them something else in the union then if not tax payers?

[Anonymous No.15682173]

>>15682161
>That figure requires a ton of assumptions and can easily be manipulated as a result.
Again, the one that can be gamed is actually LCOE. That's what it actually is, it's a game to get government subsidies, the cheapest way in fact. The government subsidizes wind, and they profit off of taxpayer dollars, while shifting the cost of a reliable grid to fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.15682179]

>>15682171
The power companies pre-pay the decommissioning costs with the NDTs. Accelerated decommissioning when the trusts were not supposed to cover that/are attempting to cover it early are when taxpayers foot the bill. As well, it increases the cost when the regulations require DCON vs SAFCON.

[Anonymous No.15682180]

Wind power is based

[Anonymous No.15682196]

>>15682173
And that's why renewables get a small fraction of the subsidizes going to nuclear, oil, and gas, right? How about we walk through a little example? LFSCOE will include infrastructure improvements. Which infrastructure improvements? More capacity? An HVDC supergrid? Grid storage? What kind of grid storage? Pumped hydro? Are we including the costs of lost ecosystem services that are wiped out by constructing dams and flooding land? Batteries? Which kind? Lithium batteries? Cheaper batteries that take up more space and require a larger facility? Are we using EV batteries to help with load balancing? Gravitational storage? What kind? Are we using trains pulling rocks up and down hills? Is it a massive concrete block supported by a pillar of water? What about other forms of grid storage? Flywheels? Compressed air? Thermal storage? I could go on all day, but by now it should be glaringly obvious that you need to make so many assumptions that your final figure is all but useless.

[Anonymous No.15682207]

>>15682196
>And that's why renewables get a small fraction of the subsidies
You have been proven wrong like 15 times in this thread. Schizophrenically saying "nuh-uh" and flip flopping between that and implying that tax breaks are subsidies doesn't make you correct.
>but by now it should be glaringly obvious that you need to make so many assumptions that your final figure is all but useless.
What's useless is energy generation that would produce blackouts if it weren't for fossil fuels, while proclaiming that they bring stable, green energy to the grid, and also proclaiming that they're "cheap" while taking massive subsidies from governments.

[Anonymous No.15682211]

>>15682207
Fossil fuels and nuclear are the top 2 recipients of subsidies, the second is entirely non viable without them.

[Anonymous No.15682226]

>>15682211
>the top recipients of subsidies
That's great champ. Meanwhile, wind is the top recipient of subsidies per mw generated. Indisputable fact. It's cute that you keep trying to use "TOP" "TOP" "TOP" *in total when really, it just reflects poorly on your dogshit windmills because when looking at it per mw, it's laughable.
Typical for a nigger to worry about total gibs, versus gibs for his chillun. Maybe that will be the analogy to help you best understand. Wind gets more gibs per chillun popped out. Fossil fuel power generation gets the least gibs per chillun popped out. Nuclear gets middle of the road gibs per chillun popped out. For one chillun, wind gets $54 dollars. Fossil fuel power generation gets 64 cents per chillun. Does that help you understand, you retarded nigger?

[Anonymous No.15682228]

>>15682207
>implying that tax breaks are subsidies doesn't make you correct.
Tax breaks are subsidies, retard.

>What's useless is energy generation that would produce blackouts if it weren't for fossil fuels
A second ago you were arguing that the costs should include the infrastructure improvements that our grid requires should be considered part of the cost and now you want to pretend that no improvements will be made at all? Pick a lane.

>proclaiming that they're "cheap" while taking massive subsidies from governments.
The LCoE you were presented was the unsubsidized cost. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.15682231]

>>15682226
But that's just not true, you have been told this multiple times. Are you mentally ill or is that just the communism talking?

[Anonymous No.15682248]

>>15682228
>tax breaks are subsidies
No, they aren't. A subsidy is a direct transfer. Only retarded leftists who think that taxes are good, actually, think tax breaks are a direct transfer.
>the unsubsidized cost
The unsubsidized cost of dogshit energy that is only economical because of subsidies in the first place? The energy that would produce blackouts if it weren't backed by LNG and coal? The energy that is guaranteed to be subsidized and electricity purchased, contractually, by leftists who proclaim "zero-no-matter-what" despite the fact that it only produces intermittently, and at inopportune times like at night and the early morning? Yes, it was the "unsubsidized cost per unit" for that dogshit. I'm glad you agree.

[Anonymous No.15682253]

>>15682248
>communist doesn't understand english anymore and just makes up words and definitions as he goes.

>The unsubsidized cost of dogshit energy that is only economical because of subsidies in the first place?
That's nuclear, all the other forms are economic on their own. The presented cost is without subsidies (except for nuclear cause it wouldn't exist without them)

[Anonymous No.15682262]

>>15682253
That's great that the cost is low for the production of the unit. To get there, they had to subsidize the industry. And to get there, they have to subsidize the transmission lines (Texas) and guarantee purchase (California.) And then the dog shit turbines froze up, and people froze to death (Texas.) You do remember that, don't you? Guess it's not so convenient to talk about.

[Anonymous No.15682267]

>>15682262
>To get there, they had to subsidize the industry.
No they didn't

>And to get there, they have to subsidize the transmission lines (Texas) and guarantee purchase (California.
All power uses transmission lines and california isn't the world, wind is viable outside of california too.

>And then the dog shit turbines froze up, and people froze to death (Texas.)
That was actually mostly the fault of gas, which I hope you remember. I guess the communist brain rot kinda makes you forget things.

[Anonymous No.15682275]

>>15682267
>No they didn't
Yes, they did, you fucking retard. The PTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_wind_energy_policy>>15682267
>All power uses transmission lines and california isn't the world, wind is viable outside of california too.
Not all power has to run transmission lines from the middle of fucking nowhere to get prime generation. Wind is predicated upon location, similar to hydro or geothermal to an extent.
>That was actually mostly the fault of gas, which I hope you remember.
Ah yes the turbines froze up and the gas that's used to cover the ass of the dogshit power generation failed too. I wonder if there's a solution that would keep producing no matter what. Maybe some sort of baseload energy producer. Let's think.

[Anonymous No.15682282]

>>15682275
They did subsidize it (lot less than fossil fuels or nuclear mind you) but they didn't have to.

>Not all power has to run transmission lines from the middle of fucking nowhere to get prime generation.
Nuclear and hydro are prime examples that's often placed in the middle of nowhere due to it's heavy requirements on water and they need transmission just the same. The idea that wind is somehow uniquely far from consumers is just another communist fantasy.

>Ah yes the turbines froze up and the gas that's used to cover the ass of the dogshit power generation failed too.
Objectively speaking gas was at fault, no idea why you try to spin it as failure of wind. Nuclear kills more people than wind ever could simply due to the high cost of power. Gas is baseload and it failed just the same.

[Anonymous No.15682284]

>>15682248
>A subsidy is a direct transfer
And that's the hand waving that allows the real cost to taxpayers of fossil fuels and nuclear to be hidden.

>The unsubsidized cost of dogshit energy that is only economical because of subsidies in the first place?
They're economical without the subsidies. The reason those subsidies exist is to incentive their adoption because of retards like you who dogmatically oppose them without any valid reason. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.15682286]

>>15681335
The problem is that you still need redundant capacity for natural gas and other forms of baseload power when renewables are not producing. So you have to tie up capital in backup power plants that are mostly sitting idle, which means they will cost much more per unit of energy. As we can see in progressive states like California, electricity does not get cheaper after building out solar and wind.

In contrast, you could simply use nuclear which can run constantly as a reliable source of clean baseload power. The physics of nuclear make much more sense, it's orders of magnitude more energy dense and the waste is miniscule. Spent fuel can also be reprocessed, extracting further energy from the waste. Years worth of a country's nuclear fuel can be stored in a warehouse, which is simply not feasible for other forms of energy. In terms of energy independence and scalability, nuclear is by far the best choice.

[Anonymous No.15682292]

>>15682282
>They did subsidize it (lot less than fossil fuels or nuclear mind you) but they didn't have to.
lmao.
>Nuclear kills more people than wind ever could simply due to the high cost of power.
lmao.
>Gas is baseload
No, gas is not a wholly baseload producer. In this scenario the on-demand facilities failed.

[Anonymous No.15682297]

>>15682284
>They're economical without the subsidies.
If they were economical without the subsidies, then why did the capacity only grow with the subsidies? If the economics make sense, then just let the free market speak? The other anon (or you) said that this was a free market success story.

[Anonymous No.15682298]

>>15682286
>The problem is that you still need redundant capacity for natural gas and other forms of baseload power when renewables are not producing. So you have to tie up capital in backup power plants that are mostly sitting idle, which means they will cost much more per unit of energy.
That cost is baked into the price of power, this is only a problem if you want to nationalize the grid. If not each individual actor optimizes their choices and that just so happens to lead to lot of them choosing renewables at todays prices.

>As we can see in progressive states like California, electricity does not get cheaper after building out solar and wind.
So long as markets are free the cost goes down to it's logical minimum. If you think the price is too high set up an electric company.

>In contrast, you could simply use nuclear which can run constantly as a reliable source of clean baseload power.
Yes and pay out of the ass in taxes for it, it's just not economical.

>more energy dense and the waste is miniscule.
These are entirely non benefits, the world has more than enough space to build power plants and the space use is factored into the cost of the power. The fact that nuclear isn't competitive despite being dense is a strike against nuclear not a pro. The amount of waste is similarly a non issue and in fact much bigger issue for nuclear because you can bury infinite inert wind turbine blades and it costs practically nothing while handling nuclear waste is always expensive.

>In terms of energy independence and scalability, nuclear is by far the best choice.
Well yes if you want to nationalize the grid and subsidize the power due to national security reasons it can work, but that's not really a pro for it.

[Anonymous No.15682304]

>>15682292
>lmao
lmao
>lmao
you heard what I said, if you increase the outlet price to make nuclear viable, millions will die early due to various things like rising costs of heating and cooling, lack of access to food and rising cost of things like healthcare. expensive power sucks all around even if the power bill doesn't kill anyone personally and immediately.

>No, gas is not a wholly baseload producer
It is in texas.

>In this scenario the on-demand facilities failed.
In this scenario it is baseload because it objectively is. Or did you forget texas this soon?

>>15682297
If fossil fuels and nuclear are viable without their massive subsidies why are they subsidized?

[Anonymous No.15682307]

>>15682298
>while handling nuclear waste is always expensive.
Yeah, yet some more bullshit. France handles their nuclear waste fine. Nuclear waste is defined with DCON to be fucking everything in the plant since they can't wait two decades for everything to cool down. Yet more regulatory burden placed on it to jack the price up because some dumb hippies think that the nukeular is going to leak from a mothballed plant.

[Anonymous No.15682308]

>>15682307
>Yeah, yet some more bullshit. France handles their nuclear waste fine.
"just fine" isn't the same as cheap. I take that as you conceding?

[Anonymous No.15682313]

>>15682304
The failures were most certainly from lack of on-demand gas generation due to supply chain problems. ERCOT's solution is to add more on-demand generation, not more solar and wind (which is what ultimately led to the failures, lack of on-demand gas generation to fill the gaps vs bullshit like wind and solar.)

[Anonymous No.15682315]

>>15682313
>not more solar and wind (which is what ultimately led to the failures
But that's just not true, did you even read the report on the case? Why do you continue to lie like this? Is it the communist brainrot again?

[Anonymous No.15682317]

>>15682308
Yes, they do it cheap. Because they don't have dumb fucking leftists shitting up the political debates telling us we have to bury it in Nevada 400 ft below in reinforced concrete. They handle more per capita, and much cheaper than we do it.

[Anonymous No.15682318]

>>15682317
>Yes, they do it cheap.
Wrong

>They handle more per capita, and much cheaper than we do it.
Expensive is cheaper than very expensive, doesn't make it not expensive.

Also weird flex with the leftist thing again, if you insist on things like nationalizing the grid and hate profit why do you think leftists are your enemy, or is it more like they don't go far enough communist thing again?

[Anonymous No.15682320]

>>15682297
Because of retards like you. Try reading more than one sentence next time.

[Anonymous No.15682323]

>>15682320
You seem upset. Why didn't the free market speak until the government paid for it? I thought that wind had no subsidies, and continues to have no subsidies? lmao. Very economical, I guess.

[Anonymous No.15682341]

>>15682318
>wrong
ANDRA CIGEO - €25 billion, moving forward
Cost of reprocessing - rolled into the cost of their program

Yucca Mountain - $90 billion, mothballed
Cost of reprocessing - N/A, it's just sitting there doing jack shit, but we'll put expensive commodities that can be used as fuel in the ground just because it makes hippies feel better because they saw a cartoon once with a nuclear waste drum leaking

[Anonymous No.15682347]

>>15682341
>cost of a landfill
like few bucks

[Anonymous No.15682351]

>>15682347
Yeah, because the turbines are useless and can't be recycled. Nuclear fuel can be recycled and turned into terawatts of energy.

[Anonymous No.15682356]

>>15682351
>and can't be recycled
Why is that a problem?

>Nuclear fuel can be recycled and turned into terawatts of energy.
That's not a benefit when it's not economical to do so.

[Anonymous No.15682380]

>>15682323
Nobody has said any of that, you illiterate fool. The subsidies are to increase the rate of installation, not because the market isn't interested in renewables. You have the IQ of a glass of water, and I don't mean equal to it's temperature.

[Anonymous No.15682385]

>>15682356
It's not economical because there is not an infrastructure to do so. Was it economical to build the dogshit windmills without government subsidies? The answer is no. Even the infrastructure for some windmills turned out to be capital intensive. Imagine that.
I'm sure hippies will gush about how one day their fiber composite windmill blades could be turned into some playground equipment that leeches into the ground at great cost to their local municipality and how it means that wind is recyclable. So environmentally friendly. So progressive.

[Anonymous No.15682391]

>>15682380
Half of this thread is some retard arguing that the production tax credit and several before in the US and the tax credits and the incentives in the EU simply did not exist, or pale in comparison to fossil fuel power generation (which is provably wrong.)

[Anonymous No.15682392]

>>15682351
The turbines are metal and can easily be recycled. You're thinking of the blades which are carbon fiber and resin. Putting them in a landfill does very little damage and acts as a form of carbon sequestration.

[Anonymous No.15682400]

>>15682385
>Was it economical to build the dogshit windmills without government subsidies?
Windmills are quite economical, see
>>15681880
For their unsubsidized price.

>Even the infrastructure for some windmills turned out to be capital intensive
And still profitable, same can't be said about nuclear.

> that leeches into the ground at great cost to their local municipality and how it means that wind is recyclable.
How does fiberglass "leach into the ground" I mean shit nigger lot of those fancy playground equipments are already made off pretty much the same stuff as windmill blades.

>So environmentally friendly.
You have failed to explain why it's not. And no it's not communists dream which is why you don't like it.

>>15682391
The guy who claimed that wasn't the case got proven wrong, nuclear and fossil fuels are the top 2 recipients of subsidies.

[Anonymous No.15682404]

>>15682391
And what makes you think that's relevant in any way? Renewables are cheaper and their subsidies only function is to increase the rate of adoption. Full stop.

[Anonymous No.15682415]

>>15682400
LCOE is not the full cost of actual real power delivered to grid.
>>15682400
> the top 2 recipients of subsidies.
Sorry, but no. They're the top 2 recipients of subsidies, but not the top 2 recipients of subsidies per unit of power generated. And to claim that, you had to roll in "fossil fuels" as a category. You might as well claim that the blades on your wind turbine are included in that subsidy because they're made from PAN. Again, you are retarded. Stop referring to yourself in the third person. Your incessant use of "communists" makes you obvious to spot, cringe lord.

[Anonymous No.15682430]

>>15682415
>LCOE is not the full cost of actual real power delivered to grid.
It's exactly that actually, well except for nuclear which shouldn't be on the same chart due to not being viable without subsidies

>Sorry, but no. They're the top 2 recipients of subsidies, but not the top 2 recipients of subsidies per unit of power generated
They are the top 2 recipients of subsidies per unit of power generated. You got blown out on this multiple times already.

>And to claim that, you had to roll in "fossil fuels" as a category.
Fossil fuels receive a lot of group subsidies in the free to pollute tickets and are quite similar. It doesn't really matter that gas is better than oil or coal for that regard, they are subsidized all the same.

>Stop referring to yourself in the third person.
I didn't, I referred to the other guy as third person, who is probably you by how mad you got. So yes half the thread is just you being wrong about subsidies.

[Anonymous No.15682446]

>>15682400
>Renewables are cheaper
They're cheaper because they are garbage that requires another form of energy to plug that gap, due to their intermittent nature. We have already been over this. Seriously man, you are autistic. Nothing you say will ever change the fact that wind can't actually produce, and keep producing. Its only real outputs will be off-peak, and intermittent in the span of days. There's not enough energy storage using all of the metals we have in reserves for batteries to cover a week-long gap, and yet there are many regions where the wind won't blow at a level to produce meaningful energy for that long. You then have to cope with somehow importing energy from another region, which we cannot do with our current grid being overhauled, and some magical technology like superconductivity, but grid-scale.

[Anonymous No.15682455]

>>15682149
Looking at that "GWPF" logo on the cover, you're most likely right.

[Anonymous No.15682457]

>>15682430
>It's exactly that actually
No, it's really not. Because wind and solar is the cheapest, except it doesn't actually produce anywhere in tandem anywhere close to what is needed except for California. Not everyone lives in a needle-laden HIV-infested homeless wonderland where shit covers the streets.

[Anonymous No.15682463]

>>15682446
If we have been over this and you admit to them being cheaper it's a wonder why you keep throwing stuff like "they are dogshit" or "they aren't economic" around. Normally when you concede you are supposed to stop making the same argument that was already blown out.

>Nothing you say will ever change the fact that wind can't actually produce, and keep producing.
It doesn't have to, are you seriously pretending now that people don't know there are times when there's no wind? People are in fact aware of this and still build wind, the same way they build solar despite night existing.

>Its only real outputs will be off-peak
Wind operates just fine on peak hours.

>There's not enough energy storage using all of the metals we have in reserves for batteries to cover a week-long gap
Totally arbitrary requirement by you, kinda shows how desperate you are though. Communism stopped being relevant in 1990's buddy, wake up.

>and yet there are many regions where the wind won't blow at a level to produce meaningful energy for that long
Don't build wind there, there's no regime of comrades to force you to be retarded.

>You then have to cope with somehow importing energy from another region, which we cannot do with our current grid being overhauled
>overhauling the grid is impossible
>it's not possible to use other forms of power
wow


>>15682457
>No, it's really not.
Yes it is, that's literally what the words mean, or are you trying the newspeak again? Love is peace comrade?

>Because wind and solar is the cheapest, except it doesn't actually produce anywhere in tandem anywhere close to what is needed except for California.
If it's economic it's economic. People who operate and build powerplants are in fact aware of consumption of energy and the night and yet they still build these because they are economic.

[Anonymous No.15682479]

>>15682463
They build them because they get government subsidies and incentives. That's the economic incentive, the government subsidizes them and their power is already purchased by the state, so they can still profit despite not having a storage mechanism when the prices turn negative. It's the government tipping the scale towards "renewable." That's why they build them.
Try not reddit spacing and babbling incoherently, you autistic faggot.

[Anonymous No.15682486]

>>15682479
>They build them because they get government subsidies and incentives. That's the economic incentive
Their profit is the actual incentive. Notice how despite getting more subsidies, nuclear and fossil fuels aren't getting this same treatment. The reason being, they just cost more than wind and solar.

>Try not reddit spacing and babbling incoherently, you autistic faggot.
I'm sorry soviets died and your dreams with them but this is the real world lil champ.

[Anonymous No.15682505]

>>15682479
>They build them because they're profitable
Correct. Now why aren't they building nuclear? Could it be because it's unprofitable?

[Anonymous No.15682514]

>>15682486
>Their profit
Yes, they profit off of the taxpayers, who pay for the subsidies. Again, there is a direct transfer, so it is a subsidy. That's how it works.
>The reason being, they just cost more than wind and solar.
Yes, wind is very cheap because it's a shitty renewable that doesn't require as much capital expenditure vs nuclear, and it's very attractive to retards who don't understand its intermittent nature, and attractive to politicans who want to be "green" and claim that everything will be powered by wind all of the time, and everything is green and great, so they subsidize the wind and the taxpayers end up paying $50 per mW for the electricity from the windmills. In the end, the investors for wind make a profit off of government subsidies, and in the end our grid is less robust thanks to green energy. That is how it works, austist. Very astute of you. It is profitable in that case.

[Anonymous No.15682532]

>>15682514
>Yes, they profit off of the taxpayers, who pay for the subsidies.
Well that's just wrong, see
>>15681880
Even unsubsidized they are very cheap.

>it's very attractive to retards who don't understand its intermittent nature
>people who own and operate wind don't realize wind doesn't blow all the time
>people who own and operate solar didn't know night existed
this has always been hilarious argument

>so they subsidize the wind and the taxpayers end up paying $50 per mW for the electricity from the windmills.
That's just false

>In the end, the investors for wind make a profit off of government subsidies
That's just wrong, see above.

>That is how it works, austist.
Well no, that's not how that works at all.

>It is profitable in that case.
It is indeed very profitable, communists hate it.

[Anonymous No.15682536]

>>15682505
>Could it be because it's unprofitable?
Or it could be because it's over-regulated and constantly railroaded by oil and gas companies who have "environmentalists" at the ready to be concerned?
Reminder that the oil and gas conglomerates are the #1 investors in "renewable" and "green" energy.
That's because it's not a threat to their business.

[Anonymous No.15682558]

>>15682532
No one cares, you reddit spacing autist. It must be a really sad existence for you to repeat the same (provably wrong) shit over and over again just to giggle to yourself. What a sad mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15682564]

>>15682558
>No one cares¨
You obviously do, so much so that you are willing to get blown out over and over.

And yes you did get proven wrong and it's sad, but luckily world will just keep on trucking, no matter how much you seethe, no matter how much you pray for papa stalin to save you, private enterprise will simply build wind and you will seethe.

[Anonymous No.15682571]

>>15682514
> the taxpayers end up paying $50 per mW
Do you genuinely believe that a 5MW wind turbine is subsidised with 250 billion dollars? Maybe Zimbabwe dollars. Or did you mean to write MW? In that case, are you butthurt about 250 dollars per turbine?
N. B. I don't know how high subsidies actually are, I'm just trying to make sense of your comment.

[Anonymous No.15682575]

>>15682564
>private enterprise will simply build wind and you will seethe.
What you meant to say was "private" enterprise subsidized by the government with the #1 investors being the oil and gas companies.

[Anonymous No.15682583]

>>15682575
>What you meant to say was "private" enterprise subsidized by the government
see
>>15681880
They are very profitably with or without subsidies.

>with the #1 investors being the oil and gas companies.
How is that a bad thing? People with loads of money want to invest it into profitable things, the fact that oil companies out of all things actually invest into wind is a slam dunk on their economics and kinda proves the whole communist thing if you unironically think it's a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.15682584]

>>15682571
Taxpayers paid $54 per mW of grid-scale generated wind. That's $54 per mW generated.

[Anonymous No.15682587]

>>15682575
>with the #1 investors being the oil and gas companies.
Why are you attacking wind turbines then if your masters profit from them?

[Anonymous No.15682599]

>>15682587
He's a nuclear shill and it absolutely infuriates him how uneconimic they are. To him it's unfair that the rest of us just boil things down to money and that money really shouldn't even exist in his communist utopia.

[Anonymous No.15682619]

>>15682587
Probably because you are, in fact, the delusional faggot who sucks corporate oil dick by defending shitty intermittent "green" power generation that can't keep homes warm in the winter and just leaves our grid unstable, where only LNG standby can fill the gaps? Have you ever considered that? Imagine being retarded.

[Anonymous No.15682648]

>>15682584
>That's $54 per mW generated.
So, with $54 per mW when a single turbine has an output of 5 MW, i.e. five billion times 1 mW, do you unironically believe that the government (which one?) pays several hundred billion US dollars? Per turbine????

[Anonymous No.15682669]

>>15682648
No, that's Firefox auto-correct. The unit is MW. That's $56 in subsidies per MW generated.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/america-s-power-doc-1/6879834f06f3b364/full.pdf
You can see how "economical" it is. Only 380 GW projected expanded capacity if they don't get the gibs, versus 1,080 GW if they get the government gibs. Very economical.

[Anonymous No.15682677]

>>15682669
It's indeed very economical.

[Anonymous No.15682680]

>>15682669
>The unit is MW.
So, $250 for a 5MW wind turbine? And you're upset about that? That's nothing compared to nuclear subsidies.

[Anonymous No.15682682]

to people saying solar is shit, im on pure solar + a battery and off grid. ive never run out of juice. how is it bad then?

to people saying wind is shit, what about in places with consistent currents and good sites for off shore?

[Anonymous No.15682701]

>>15682669
>You can see how "economical" it is.
Wind is the most economical in this document. Is that what you want to tell us?

[Anonymous No.15682714]

>>15682680
>That's nothing compared to nuclear subsidies.
Solar and wind receive almost five times the subsidies that nuclear receives and more than 50 times the subsidies (in terms of dollars of subsidy received per unit of energy.)
https://lifepowered.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-04-RR-Bennett-LP-Federal-Energy-Subsidies-2.pdf
More than half of that is R&D.

[Anonymous No.15682722]

>>15682701
yeah it's pretty economical when you can't actually generate electricity or have to have the government subsidize your lines running to the middle of the nowhere in the desert or the plains and then not include that in the full cost of the system.

[Anonymous No.15682727]

>>15682714
>2010 to 2019
how many nuclear plants did they build in that time?

[Anonymous No.15682729]

>>15682722
Wind isn't substantially further away than other sources of power from consumers, you got blown out on this already.

[Anonymous No.15682735]

elamo
>>15682727
I dunno, maybe the government should've given more gibs to nuclear like solar and wind got, and not have the NRC make the projects stuck in 80 months of regulatory hell versus 8 months in France.

[Anonymous No.15682750]

>>15682735
>I dunno, maybe the government should've given more gibs to nuclear
Well I can answer you that, for that 15 billion dollars of tax payer money, exactly 0 new nuclear plants were finished. It was all life support money.
Meanwhile for that 36 billion? Wind production increased from 95 TWh to 296 TWh yearly. So if we use the fancy math here we can conclude that nuclear got infinitely more subsidies in terms of subsidy received per unit of new capacity. This is why these subsidies aren't the same. Nuclear subsidy exists to support a non viable power production, wind subsidies just make wind adoption faster as it's more than viable on it's own.

[Anonymous No.15682764]

>>15682714
> (in terms of dollars of subsidy received per unit of energy.)
That's not what is shown there. Also, you're forgetting the past subsidies, as your plot only covers 2010 to 2019.

[Anonymous No.15682772]

>>15682722
Can you read? The graph doesn't include subsidies. Even without an subsidies, it's the most economical form. Can you DM me your medical records? I'm fascinated as to how you can look at this and read the opposite of what's written there. Is this schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.15682775]

>>15682714
>>15682750
You should also take into consideration that vast majority of nuclear subsides happen at the construction phase, not in the operations phase. The fact that you still have to keep pouring money into them despite them all being finished is extremely bad look for nuclear.

[Anonymous No.15682790]

el ay em oh
>retards argue that it's the "free market" when prices turn negative yet they still turn a profit
>>15682750
Yeah that's nice. Wind and solar production capacity doesn't mean it actually produces constantly, and then what it does produce in excess is not actually stored, but dumped onto the grid, meaning that everyone else also pays someone else to take their electricity. You can economically do this with government subsidies, as demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.15682797]

>>15682790
>Wind and solar production capacity doesn't mean it actually produces constantly,
You have been blown out on this over and over again.

>and then what it does produce in excess is not actually stored
Fail to see how that's relevant, companies get paid on power consumed and they make a profit.

>but dumped onto the grid, meaning that everyone else also pays someone else to take their electricity.
Which is free markets

>You can economically do this
Yes, as demonstrated wind is very economic.

Communists destroyed again and again.

[Anonymous No.15682798]

>>15682772
Yeah I'm fascinated by retarded autists like you as well who don't understand LCOE. DM me your IQ, it must be nice to be a blissfully retarded autist who giggles to himself.

[Anonymous No.15682929]

>>15682798
> The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It is used for investment planning and to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis.
>LCOE higher = worse

[Anonymous No.15683040]

>>15682929
if lcoe were actually accurate, the expenditures in new nat gas and coal wouldn't be necessary
yet much more capacity is built out of nat gas in the us and coal worldwide
because lcoe does not capture the drawback of intermittent
if renewables were so good and economical why is green germany building out coal despite renewables being the cheapest they ever were

[Anonymous No.15683062]

>>15683040
Has anyone seen the goalposts? They must’ve been moved pretty far.

[Anonymous No.15683072]

>>15683062
yeah no goalposts were moved
if lcoe actually captured the full cost why not just add storage for renewables since it is the most economical instead of building out nat gas and coal

[Anonymous No.15683096]

>>15683072
Why not add droughts and heatwaves to nuclear?
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/13/frances-nuclear-power-stations-to-limit-energy-output-due-to-high-river-temperatures
Because it would be retarded. We’re talking about economic factors, yet you keep trying to move the goalposts to availability and reliability.

[Anonymous No.15683109]

>>15683096
im not talking about nuclear tard
looks like you shit up this thread jerking off lcoe yet its a shit metric and you cant answer
if economic factors are the only metric then why was more nat gas and coal built out than renewables? it has the lowest

[Anonymous No.15683120]

US solar will never get off subsidies. Meanwhile in China the subsidy phase has already passed and the government is banning solar projects that don't have its own energy storage.

[Anonymous No.15683133]

>>15683120
they also permitted 100 new coal plants in 2022 so the whole zero carbon by the mid century is bs

[Anonymous No.15683146]

>>15683109
For the record, this is not me: >>15682669
the anon bitching about subsidies is the one who posted this, accidentally showing that wind energy is more economical than non-renewables, especially nuclear EVEN IF YOU DONT GIVE THEM ANYTHING

[Anonymous No.15683148]

>>15683133
Because China is one of the only major countries where electricity consumption is still growing. US electricity consumption in 2023 dropped 2% YoY YTD compared to 2022 and has been mostly flat since 2005. German electricity consumption dropped 11%. Chinese electricity consumption grew 5%.

[Anonymous No.15683155]

>>15683146
okay retard i dont give a shit
if lcoe and the cost and profit were the only factor you wouldnt see more nat gas and coal be built out than wind and or solar
if lcoe were accurate or the better metric than the only thing that would be built out would be wind and solar by your argument and then storage because its the lowest cost
but its not obviously
you fuckin tard

[Anonymous No.15683160]

>>15683155
> if lcoe and the cost and profit were the only factor you wouldnt see more nat gas and coal be built out than wind and or solar
I never have, nor would I claim the opposite. But that’s not what we were talking about. We were talking about economics and “unfair subsidies” that are not needed for profitable operation. Now that we know that wind power would very much be profitable and does not depend on subsidies, you tried to deflect.
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15683174]

>>15683160
lcoe is leveled you retard
who is deflecting? you are
you in the thread, i read, try to claim that its the lowest cost and most economic metric that gives the best roi
if that were true and it is leveled with normalized subsidies then wind and solar win
but they dont
nat gas and coal win
therefore its a shit metric

[Anonymous No.15683189]

>>15683174
> nat gas and coal win
But they’re not what is being built. I acknowledge the world you constructed inside your schizo brain, but reality is that wind and solar are getting built. Yes, also under bush and trump. Do you want to tell me that they were a bunch of ecosissies handing out money for wind turbines?

[Anonymous No.15683206]

>>15683189
that is what is being built
germany india the us and china are building out more TWH in coal and or nat gas then wind or solar
no one gives a shit about bush retard we are talking about your lcoe metric in the chart that you keep fucking talking about
and the us president doesnt control that are you retarded
the congress controls that spending
since we are talking about the best energy with the best roi it should be wind and solar but its obviously not
fuck you are brain damaged tard

[Anonymous No.15683208]

>>15680307
>climate change is a lie
No it's not. Go back to /pol
Even Bjorn Lomborg which OP >>15676794
cited, says that climate change is real and man made.
He simply says it's not that dangerous and the ways of trying to mitigate it are simply bad.

[Anonymous No.15683230]

>>15683206
> your lcoe metric in the chart
Again, schizo, I didn’t post it. Some retard trying to prove how uneconomical wind power allegedly was posted it.

[Anonymous No.15683241]

>>15683189
nig you spent the majority of the thread talking about how economical wind was and kept referring to lcoe dont think anyone cant read
you are straight up a tard
lcoe is a shit metric and wind is shit too economically thats why china and india dont handicap themselves with it

[Anonymous No.15683244]

>>15683206
>coal
Lmfao you’re so deluded. The US has cheap fracking gas so they’re expanding natural gas. But not coal.

[Anonymous No.15683250]

>>15683244
yeah maybe you have some fucking brain damage there tard
notice how i said nat gas in the us and coal everywhere else earlier
learn to read and follow the conversation you brain damaged plebbitor

[Anonymous No.15683263]

>>15683250
> coal everywhere else
Looked up the first country you listed and you’re wrong again. Kys you pathological liar.

[Anonymous No.15683286]

>>15683263
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fuels-coal-comeback-germany-2022-12-16/
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-energy-u-turn-coal-instead-of-gas/a-62709160
they are also adding gas import terminals
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2022/04/26/coal-to-power-chinas-energy-transition/
the us itself jumped 14% just last year for coal
retarded nog

[Anonymous No.15683294]

>>15683286
None of your links proves your previous statement. Are you trying to waste my time or are we moving the goalposts again?

[Anonymous No.15683307]

>>15683294
>generation from lignite grew by 8.9% to 50 TWh (+8.9%) and hard coal rose by 1.4% to at 7.2 TWh
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/germanys-rwe-generated-157-twh-2022-23-less-2021.html
>The 2022 result equates to a 8.4 percent increase in coal-generated electricity compared to the previous year
https://tvpworld.com/68406569/coal-powered-electricity-on-rise-in-2022-in-germany-as-it-phases-at-nuclear
so again your lcoe metric is shit
glad we could clear that the fuck up moron

[Anonymous No.15683352]

>>15683307
>generation from lignite grew by 8.9% to 50 TWh (+8.9%) and hard coal rose by 1.4% to at 7.2 TWh
If it grew by 9% to 50 TWh, I’ll round that up to +10TWh
At the same time:
> Insgesamt wurden im Jahr 2022 etwa 254,0 Mrd. kWh Strom aus erneuerbaren Energieträgern erzeugt. Dies waren fast 20 Mrd. kWh mehr als im Vorjahr (+9 Prozent).
>+20 Billion kWh, or +20 TWh in renewables. Again, your sources don’t prove your claims and anyone with 2 brain cells or more can see right through your lies. Are you eben trying?

[Anonymous No.15683383]

>>15683307
Here, this is so obvious you might recognise your own lie.
>germany is [is] building out more TWH in coal and or nat gas then wind or solar
Can you admit that you made this up, please? Don’t post three unrelated articles again, the numbers are crystal clear.

[Anonymous No.15683389]

>>15683352
so economically if lcoe actually mattered why are they adding 1/2 the coal of renewables tard? where are the gas terminals added last year and coming online? why are they adding gas and coal when its much more economical to add renewables? how many projects were left over before russia gave them a kick in the balls?
are you going to 'concede' that your lcoe metric is actually shit?
apparently renewables are so economical that they would rather import fracking gas from the us than build out more solar and wind i wonder why china and india are adding hundreds of coal fire plants
you know the reason why its because renewables are shit

[Anonymous No.15683393]

>>15683389
> why are they adding 1/2 the coal of renewables tard?
New goalposts? Not claiming they add more coal than renewables anymore? :^)

[Anonymous No.15683402]

>>15683383
>germany india the us and china are building out more TWH
there is the actual quote you stupid fucking kraut
no i wont because there is no lie
in combination all of those countries are building out much more coal then renewables
notice how i said:
>if renewables were so good and economical why is green germany building out coal despite renewables being the cheapest they ever were
originally
followed up by the collective statistic on coal
now fuck off you dumb kraut kike

[Anonymous No.15683416]

>>15683389
> they would rather import fracking gas from the us than build out more solar and wind
They are literally building as many solar panels and wind turbines as they can. It’s virtually impossible to get technicians to install solar cells on your roof at the moment. It’s so profitable that it’s being maxed out. People are putting their own small solar cells on their balcony and connect them to the grid themselves because it’s so profitable. Depending on your balcony and energy consumption, the amortisation takes 3 to 10 years with the latter being extremely pessimistic. Even if you don’t point the solar cells towards the sun, you’ll get your money back in a couple of years. That’s how economical it is. Also, every technician in the country drowning in work is how much is being built.

[Anonymous No.15683423]

>>15683402
> in combination all of those countries
You’re gonna win the gold medal of mental gymnastics. Combining some unrelated countries, are you kidding me? Next you want to tell me the combined number of designated shitting streets of Luxemburg, Nauru and India, right?

[Anonymous No.15683433]

>>15683416
>It’s virtually impossible to get technicians to install solar cells on your roof at the momen
>on your roof
we are talking about grid capacity retard
some dumbfuck adding panels to your roof is not a concern
we are talking about economic factors, remember?
if economic factors and lcoe are the metric, wind and solar win
but that is obviously not the case as china india germany and the us all increased firing of coal and added capacity and it doesnt take specialized technicians to add a fucking panel to your roof especially in china and india versus cucked germany where they pump out the pvs by the millions
so again your lcoe metric is shit
dumb kraut

[Anonymous No.15683436]

>>15683423
>some unrelated countries
no one gives a shit about your country you dumb fucking kraut other than to illustrate that green germany burned coal when renewables should be much more economical
cry about it you moron

[Anonymous No.15683445]

>>15683433
> we are talking about economic factors, remember?
>Nooooo things on roofs cannot be economical. Office buildings, farms, factories etc. are all nonprofits installing solar panels for completely altruistic reasons

[Anonymous No.15683451]

>>15683445
if grid scale wind and solar according to lcoe are the most economical then china india the us and germany would not be adding coal and nat gas
that is why the metric is shit
you are a retard
heil hitler you cucked kraut kike

[Anonymous No.15683468]

>>15683451
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15683489]

>>15683468
whatever helps you cope with the tism you have where you cant shut the fuck up about renewables despite them obviously being shit and the rapefugees being imported into your kraut shithole
>muh lcoe

[Anonymous No.15683613]

Why not use both?
Atomic power is the most efficient source of power available, however because it's expensive, we don't use it for everything already. So why not use unreliable, inefficient, but extremely cheap power sources like wind and solar in conjunction with atomic power to lessen the economic burden?
Why does it have to be only nuclear or only renewables?

[Anonymous No.15683725]

>>15683613
>Atomic power is the most efficient source of power available
no it isn't coal & natural gas are both far more efficient

[Anonymous No.15683759]

>>15676794

Mining industries are pivoting from coal to copper, which is the element in wind turbines which degrade the most and the fastest

[Anonymous No.15684224]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/coal-mine-demolishes-neighboring-wind-farm-boost-countrys-energy-supply-drawing-climate-activists

picrel worthless sissy windfarm was dismantled so more epic coal could be mined. ppl who think wind power is good rely on ignorance of basic mathematics and science to power their idiotic beliefs

[Anonymous No.15684311]

>>15677416
>"absolutely pathetic source"
>quotes faggot circlejerk wiki
HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.15684318]

>>15677416
Now look up who's funding your climate cult. lol. Bet you won't find that on wikipedia, golem.

[Anonymous No.15684336]

>>15681830
>>15681860
>>15681882
>>15682267
>>15682282
>>15682400
Mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15684393]

>>15683725
Define efficiency.

[Anonymous No.15684396]

>>15683489
The last frame should read "heil hitler you cucked kraut kike"

[Anonymous No.15684491]

>>15684336
>people who own and operate wind didn't know wind doesn't always blow before building them
take your pills my guy

[Anonymous No.15684517]

>>15683208
so climate change is real and man made but it's not dangerous lmao
it's not real, if there is any change in the climate the biggest impact will be because of the Earth and the Sun and not because of humans burning fossils or cows having a fart (literally criticising livestock for 'producing methane').
That really was the straw that broke my back. Imagine actually unironically blaming climate change on cow farts. And their biggest counterargument to it is that 'well akshually it's burps and not just farts!!'

pee pee poo paa kill yourself

[Anonymous No.15684521]

>>15677416
As if anti-big oil isn't supported by Chinese companies and White elites who hate the underclasses.

[Anonymous No.15684536]

>>15684521
>As if anti-big oil isn't supported by Chinese companies and White elites who hate the underclasses.
As if the global network of oligarchs doesn't have its tendrils in every element of the world economy, including elements that seem to be competing each other on the surface. As if these don't understand the concept of hedging their bets. As if you're not talking to a green retard with a kindergarten black-and-white comprehension of the world.

[Anonymous No.15684545]

>>15679212
Why are you posting old data
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.php

[Anonymous No.15684617]

>>15684545
>old data
Why do you think that that other anon's data is older than yours?

[Anonymous No.15684812]

>>15684491
>we knew we don't need power when the wind doesn't blow when we spent that taxpayer money, now take your goypills

[Anonymous No.15685772]

>>15677416

[Anonymous No.15686444]

>>15684545
You're posting LCOE and LCOS, he's posting LFSCOE, you retard.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035

[Anonymous No.15686481]

>>15686444
This is by far the most retarded and goalpost-moving metric I've ever seen. LCOE is king, whatever this braindead "scientist" put out is bunk and will never be adopted by any energy company or policy-maker

[Anonymous No.15686504]

>>15686481
>LCOE is king
Yes, I also ignore the massive amounts of CCGT I will have to build out because the cost of storage is not factored into the wind and solar cost. Agreed. Sound policy decisions.

[Anonymous No.15686519]

>>15677068
Because it would be cheaper just to build coal plants, or bigger gas plants? I think the economics now are that solar is about to become the cheapest power source thanks to Chinese production, so cheap that it may negate much of the problem of intermittent supply by simply building more even if they only run at 5% in a cloudy period.

[Anonymous No.15686530]

>>15679231
>>It takes a shit ton of land.
>>It’s not 100% environmentally because last point and it kills birds flying in the area.
>>It’s not as efficient as nuclear and other sources.

These are lame duck criticisms.

>>>It takes a shit ton of land.
Land not really used for anything else

>>>It’s not 100% environmentally because last point and it kills birds flying in the area.
They don't take up the surface of the land, not really, and these conservitard ex-oil suckers never gave two shits about birds before they saw windmills taking away their money.

>>>It’s not as efficient as nuclear and other sources.
It doesn't matter how efficient it is, what matters is whether it meets our needs.

You can complain about the efficiency of windmills all you want, it doesn't matter, people are already using them and have been for some time. Obviously they're good enough.

[Anonymous No.15686548]

>>15686530
>Obviously they're good enough
They're good enough to encourage the buildout of natural gas plants to cover the fact that it only generates electricity at night and in the morning, until the baseload (nuclear) goes away due to age and decommissioning.
And then we're really good, right? That's how it works.

[Anonymous No.15686552]

>>15686548
You should tell them to dismantle them then
Lucky you're around to tell people that the thing that works for them isn't actually working

[Anonymous No.15686562]

>>15686552

[Anonymous No.15686564]

>>15686562
Good one.
Come to grips with the fact that you don't know what you're arguing.

[Anonymous No.15686574]

>>15686564
>duhhhhh just tell people to dismantle wind cause the grid dont add up in the long run! I showed him!
Yeah, you are the perfect specimen of knuckle dragging retard.

[Anonymous No.15686579]

>>15686574
Why are you quoting yourself?

[Anonymous No.15686584]

>>15686579
No one brought up dismantling wind except for you, retard.

[Anonymous No.15686594]

>>15686584
But you said it's bad and people shouldn't be using it.

[Anonymous No.15686604]

>>15686594
That's not what I said, retard. How is it possible to graduate high school with that reading comprehension? Or didn't you?

[Anonymous No.15686609]

>>15686604
>>>It takes a shit ton of land.
>>>It’s not 100% environmentally because last point and it kills birds flying in the area.
>>>It’s not as efficient as nuclear and other sources.
If these aren't your words, you're defending them by attacking my response to them. No?

[Anonymous No.15686633]

>>15686609
>not that anon
>not that anon
>not that anon
>you're defending them
Wind and solar are shit because it incentivizes the buildout of natural gas plants. Wind and solar cannot handle baseload without expensive grid storage. Therefore, we build out CCGT/on-demand natural gas plants to back the wind and the solar. When you say you support renewables, what you really support is natural gas and or coal fired energy generation. Because that's how it works. So, you, in your incredibly sophisticated reasoning capabilities, claim that it "works for them" so there's nothing wrong with it. Yet if you claim to want reduced carbon emissions, or an economical grid in the long-run with steady electricity supply, it doesn't "just work" for grid security. It works for investors and politicians who will be dead or retired in 20 years, because it's not their fucking problem.
So, to summarize, you are a retarded monkey.

[Anonymous No.15686640]

>>15686633
It sounds like what you're really trying to say is that wind is good, but we dont have enough of them

[Anonymous No.15686651]

>>15686640
Thank you anon. It was in this moment, that I realized, the west is truly fucked. Thank you for removing all doubts.

[Anonymous No.15686659]

>>15686651
>It was in this moment, that I realized, the west is truly fucked.
Everyone's fucked and the only way to save the world is to reduce consumption. That's going to happen one way or another, whether by reducing baseload deliberately or by society collapsing. There is no energy source that will be more efficient than simply not needing to use the energy in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15686670]

>>15686659
>Everyone's fucked and the only way to save the world is to reduce consumption.
Yeah, I'm sure South America, China and India will just reduce consumption for you with their economic transitions and emerging middle classes. Brilliant plan.
I've got a better idea. How about you go live off grid and reduce consumption, and not give your dipshit opinions on energy ever again? You can even have a windmill and solar panels. The electricity is free!

[Anonymous No.15686693]

>>15686670
>Yeah, I'm sure South America, China and India will just reduce consumption for you with their economic transitions and emerging middle classes. Brilliant plan.
Like I said, they'll reduce consumption willingly or through catastrophe. There doesn't have to be a plan.

[Anonymous No.15686697]

>>15686693
>Like I said, they'll reduce consumption willingly or through catastrophe.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I'm sure that fuckin meteor will hit Shanghai any day now and really put an end to all of this consumption.
Why aren't you going off grid? The electricity is free! It's perfect, and you can be one of the first to reduce consumption.
Oh. That's right. Everyone else should reduce consumption. You're good though.

[Anonymous No.15686704]

>>15686697
>Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I'm sure that fuckin meteor will hit Shanghai any day now and really put an end to all of this consumption.

For someone so sanctimonius about the topic you sure have put very little thought into it. When consumption outstrips the ability to supply, there's not going to be anything to consume is there? Then what? Pray to Science to save you with new technology?

[Anonymous No.15686710]

>>15686704
>When consumption outstrips the ability to supply,
China just permitted 150 new coal plants. They have enough coal to last another century with increased energy requirements. That's just considering proven reserves.
They'll fire up 30 more just to build the artificial land and levees around Shanghai for whatever dumbass flavor of climate catastrophe you think is coming.
>For someone so sanctimonius about the topic you sure have put very little thought into it.
Coming from someone who unironically thinks that everyone else should reduce consumption, but won't admit it, that's rich.
> When consumption outstrips the ability to supply, there's not going to be anything to consume is there?
When does consumption outstrip the ability to supply in your scenario? When is the catastrophe? Are you preparing to go off grid and put your money where your mouth is by reducing consumption?

[Anonymous No.15686719]

>>15686710
>China just permitted 150 new coal plants. They have enough coal to last another century with increased energy requirements. That's just considering proven reserves.
>They'll fire up 30 more just to build the artificial land and levees around Shanghai for whatever dumbass flavor of climate catastrophe you think is coming.
Cool, and after 100 years, then what? What happened to all the new coal plants in western countries? Where are they now? What's happening to the birth rate in western countries?

>Coming from someone who unironically thinks that everyone else should reduce consumption, but won't admit it, that's rich.
What do you mean won't admit it? I literally stated that consumption needs to be reduced.

>When does consumption outstrip the ability to supply in your scenario? When is the catastrophe?
It's not a scenario, it's reality. Or do you think the world runs on magic? Do you think fossil fuels are infinite? Do you think Uranium is infinite? Do you think resources are infinite? What happens when two countries decide they both want the same resource?

>Are you preparing to go off grid and put your money where your mouth is by reducing consumption?
How would that reduce consumption? You really haven't thought about this have you?

[Anonymous No.15687358]

>>15686719
>What happened to all the new coal plants in western countries?
Prevented by regulations and made untenable with carbon output regulations and/or cheap natural gas?
>What's happening to the birth rate in western countries?
Lowering, but not because anywhere close to the majority believe that it's due to a need to "reduce consumption"?
>Or do you think the world runs on magic? Do you think fossil fuels are infinite? Do you think Uranium is infinite?
No one even knows, actually, how "fossil fuels" are created. You have a fairy tail about how dinosaurs and/plants/biomass are how it forms. Meanwhile, the wells fill up again and regenerate, but slowly.
Coal itself is obviously not that sort of process.
>Do you think uranium is infinite?
We have enough uranium for 50,000 years to power the entire planet, just using known reserves and by reprocessing fuel, with Fast-Neutron and breeder reactors.
>What happens when two countries decide they both want the same resource?
They cooperate or go to war. What does that have to do with the fact that wind is untenable?
>How would that reduce consumption? You really haven't thought about this have you?
How does living off grid not reduce consumption? You are forced to use less electricity. Weren't you the retard arguing that, actually, it's a good thing that wind and solar doesn't "work" because it would force us to reduce consumption?

[Anonymous No.15687369]

>>15679778
>In this case, we observe the China
Start burning coal then.

[Anonymous No.15687391]

>>15687358
>Do you think fossil fuels are infinite? Do you think Uranium is infinite?
>No one even knows
The absolute state of carbon shills. GEE BILLY I WONDER WHO HID THAT INFLAMMABLE LIQUID UNDERGROUND, MAYBE THE UNDERGROUND KOBOLDS WILL REPLENISH IT AFTER WE GOT IT ALL OUT
>We have enough uranium for 50,000 years to power the entire planet, just using known reserves
We have enough for ~200 years at the current consumption level, which is only 4% of the world's primary energy. So we have less than 10 years in reserves.
>by reprocessing fuel, with Fast-Neutron and breeder reactors
Fairy tales don't count. Come back if these things are real, scalable and economical. No, some university basement doesn't count, we're looking for real-world solutions, not fundamental research.

[Anonymous No.15687423]

>>15687391
>The absolute state of carbon shills
Nigger, wind and solar is the epitome of carbon shilling grift, both "burn as much shit as you can" because it incentivizes the use of natural gas and coal, and "actually we should reduce consumption tee-hee" because in 20 years you'll have blackouts if we don't establish a baseload now as energy sources go offline.
>We have enough for ~200 years at the current consumption level,
Incorrect. Notice how I specified Breeders, Fast Neutron and reprocessing? As well, dumb hippies want to put fuel back in the ground that we can reprocess. Think of light water reactors as burning only 2% of the candle, at best.
>Fairy tales don't count.
We had several working breeder reactor designs in the 90s. Bush cut the funding and then pushed wind, solar, gas and oil. George W Bush was called the "hero" of US wind energy. That's a fun fact that you retards don't fucking know about.

[Anonymous No.15687487]

>>15687369
We should

[Anonymous No.15688149]

>>15687423
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.15688758]

>>15688149
>projection

[Anonymous No.15688781]

>>15688758
>Seething

[Anonymous No.15689122]

>>15688149
Not an argument
t. supposed retard

[Anonymous No.15689311]

>>15676794
>A source of power that is dependent entirely on the weather not being reliable rather than going with the carbon neutral source of power that is proven to be just as safe and not at the mercy of the wind (nuclear power) which would have stopped global warming by now if it was actually used

[Anonymous No.15689331]

>>15689311
nuclear isn't implemented for exactly that reason, so long as (((global warming))) is an unsolved problem it can be used to justify massive amounts of taxes, grifting and other aspects of the jews' white genocide agenda.

[Anonymous No.15689422]

>>15689331
>so long as (((global warming))) is an unsolved problem
its a nonexistent problem, it was invented and is perpetuated to justify all those ongoing grifts and the white genocide agenda

[Anonymous No.15689488]

>>15689422
>what are tides?

[Anonymous No.15689904]

>>15689122
Your dog shit opinions don't warrant an argument

[Anonymous No.15689978]

>>15689904
>opinions
Which parts of my post are opinions?
I'm allowing you to concede before I link the studies and sources for all of my assertions.