Linking energy efficiency with renewable energy is a huge mistake which Germany realizes.

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
I have you caught on Iceland. I traveled through out Iceland last year on a visit. I did not see one industrial wind turbine or one solar farm. There are non. You are confusing geothermal generation with wind and solar. I was in a Geothermal power station there. So you need to get your facts right
Buahahahaha.

So geothermal doesn't count as renewable, does it?
 


CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
Buahahahaha.

So geothermal doesn't count as renewable, does it?
Wait until he finds out you are in Germany, they make all these dastardly windmills, you know!
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
Buahahahaha.

So geothermal doesn't count as renewable, does it?
It does you lug, but not the type we are talking about here. Iceland is unique in having it. It can't be used as a measure of wind or solar
sources, its a firm reliable constant source of power. Its more reliable than river hydro.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
Nimbyism will stall on shore development (sometimes with genuine cause)
Off shore windfarm might just get going a lot quicker
We have 2,900 MW in the republic already. Its more than average summer demand.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
It does you lug, but not the type we are talking about here. Iceland is unique in having it. It can't be used as a measure of wind or solar
sources, its a firm reliable constant source of power. Its more reliable than river hydro.
But you said you'd "caught" the poster who mentioned Iceland. That poster never claimed that there was substantial wind, biomass, tidal, solar or any other non-geothermal generation capacity installed in Iceland, so you hadn't "caught" him at all, had you?

You didn't even bother to put up a straw man to knock it down.

You lug!
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
The danes make a few too you know.
The Danes import huge amounts of coal and produce a lot of oil for sale. Between 1981 and 2007 oil production increased from 15,000 barrels per day to 314,000 barrels per day. In the same period renewables more than doubled
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Meh.

Matteradam.

Countries will make poor or bad policy decisions. Not even clear if Germany did make a bad decision.

That will not stop the Energy Revolution.

Wall Street Journal: Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels: In 2016, about $297 billion was spent on renewables—compared with $143 billion on new nuclear, coal, gas and fuel-oil power plants

"Global spending on renewable energy is outpacing investment in electricity from coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, driven by falling costs of producing wind and solar power."
That is like someone bragging about paying €10 million for a flat in Ballymun.


Yes, ridiculous amount of money is being wasted on projects that will contribute virtually nothing to our energy needs (all that capacity needs 100% duplication by reliable, Despatchable, invariable fossil fuel sources. Making it a waste and financial dead loss).
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
But you said you'd "caught" the poster who mentioned Iceland. That poster never claimed that there was substantial wind, biomass, tidal, solar or any other non-geothermal generation capacity installed in Iceland, so you hadn't "caught" him at all, had you?

You didn't even bother to put up a straw man to knock it down.

You lug!
The poster claim Iceland was an example of successful transition to renewable energy. I fully support exploitation or river hydro and Geothermal generation. So it is no example at all. That is unless you can tell us where else it can be found in Europe.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
The poster claim Iceland was an example of successful transition to renewable energy. I fully support exploitation or river hydro and Geothermal generation. So it is no example at all. That is unless you can tell us where else it can be found in Europe.
These posters know this. Everything they post is twisting or misrepresenting facts. Just like Owed's "but look how much money is being wasted on wind farms!"


We have no geothermal sources. We have no fjords or major river basins we could dam. That just geology/geography for you.

We also don't have oil or coal deposits, but these are transportable fuel sources.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
The poster claim Iceland was an example of successful transition to renewable energy. I fully support exploitation or river hydro and Geothermal generation. So it is no example at all. That is unless you can tell us where else it can be found in Europe.
The poster claimed that: Scotland, Iceland and Norway produced over 68% of their energy needs from renewable last year.

You went off on one about windmills, again, because you're an obsessive nut.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Solar energy has yet to overcome one considerable technical limitation.

A limitation that severely impacts its usefulness.



It is called "night".
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
The poster claimed that: Scotland, Iceland and Norway produced over 68% of their energy needs from renewable last year.

You went off on one about windmills, again, because you're an obsessive nut.
If the poster includes Iceland he is entitles to be pulled up on it. If the earth was hit by a meteorite which resulted in the sun being blanked out for 10 years, geothermal would still be there. It not relevant to a discussion on Scotland and Denmark which don't have this resource. It shows blissful ignorance.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
If the poster includes Iceland he is entitles to be pulled up on it. If the earth was hit by a meteorite which resulted in the sun being blanked out for 10 years, geothermal would still be there. It not relevant to a discussion on Scotland and Denmark which don't have this resource. It shows blissful ignorance.
Pulled on what?

In response to this post:
With the whole renewable energy idea in its infancy ,I would imagine that import is much greater than renewable across the board and it will be only through a gradual shift that there will be change.

https://www.statista.com/chart/4284/the-economies-most-dependent-on-oil/
I said that Iceland, Norway and Scotland generated over 68% of their energy needs from renewable sources. That is a fact.

I didn't mention geothermal, or any specific type of renewable energy generation, nor did I mention anything about Denmark. You fúcking idiot.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
Prices always go up. Interesting that the price of gas is going up twice as much as electricity in your link.
How can you blame renewable energy for an increase in the price of fossil fuels?
The price of renewable electricity is fixed at a floor price (about 72 euors) except where the conventional price (about 57 euros) goes above that price, in which case the (renewables and conventional) get the higher price. (say 200 euros). When there is a lot of renewable output , the cost to the consumer rises to near the REFIT price. (fropm 57 to 72). Where there is poor renewable output, the cost falls back down to the conventional price. (57). If the fuel price rises (gas is the most relied on), the cost is delayed but is passed on to consumers. There is no connection between the conventional price and the renewable price, but there is a connection the other way around.

Should the price of gas rise above the REFIT Price (say 200), the price of renewabes rises in line with it. (200). This means that low fuel prices tend to reduce consumer prices whereas higher fuel prices increase all the costs. Say for the sake of clarity the price of fuel rose so high that a MWh would cost 200 euors, the renewables would get this also. So renewabes cannot offset an increase in fuel costs.

The 200 figure is exaggerated for make it stand out.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Solar energy has yet to overcome one considerable technical limitation.

A limitation that severely impacts its usefulness.



It is called "night".
That's actually an issue it's not going to overcome. There are, of course, various ways of storing power to make the consequences of that issue less of a problem, though. It takes imagination, infrastructure and technology, but it can be done.

The Spanish, for example, have been buying cheap, cheap* French nuclear power at night for many decades now to pump huge amounts of water uphill so that it's ready to throw back down the hill again when everyone in Madrid turns on their hobs on in the morning (they often have no kettles at home -- how they live without one is what I want to know).



* Under some circumstances they're actually paid to take the power (or used to be anyway).
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,708
Linking energy efficiency with renewable energy is a huge mistake which Germany realizes.
haven't seen you round for a while.
were you banned, or what ?
anyway - good to see that you haven't kicked the bucket.

"energy efficiency" & "renewable energy" are both essential,
if we are to reduce CO2 emissions & Global Warming.

thought that even you would know that much.
 


Most Replies

Top