It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: C0bzz
P.S. Liberalism is too far right for my taste. I am a Socialist and god damn proud of it.
By Caleb Maupin- RT Op-Edge
Jun 4th 2014 at 2.54pm
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has just announced its plan to fight climate change. Claudia Salerno, Vice Minister for North America at the Venezuelan Mission to the United Nations, explained her country's proposals fight climate change at a special meeting with the press May 30. She summed up the plan saying: "Venezuela's contribution is to change the system, not the climate."
This is false. It was Obama and his administration who closed coal mines and yes the excuse given was because of "environmentalism."
Then move to Venezuela and live what you claim "helps people..."
People only have a few hours of electricity, and the excuse for this was "to combat climate change."
The SDS presents an energy transition where renewables and energy efficiency lead the charge in reducing CO2 emissions as well as reducing pollutants that cause poor air quality. Renewables become the dominant force in power generation, providing over 65% of global electricity generation by 2040. Wind and solar PV, in particular, soon become the cheapest sources of electricity in many countries and provide nearly 40% of all electricity in 2040. Emissions reduction in transport, industry and buildings are achieved largely through greatly enhanced energy efficiency and increasing levels of electrification of end-uses. Overall, achieving the vision of the SDS would require an increase of only around 13% in energy investment globally, relative to NPS.
I personally have read enough to know that a blend of technologies is what is appropriate now and that coal is going nowhere but up in use on the world market.
Warren Buffett trades for four solar plants, retiring a coal unit
All six power purchase agreements (PPAs) have prices below $30/MWh:
1. Sempra Renewables’ 250 MW Copper Mountain farm starts at $21.55/MWh, with a 2.5% annual escalation over the 25-year term of the contract.
2. 8minuteenergy’s 300 MW Eagle Shadow Mountain facility has a fixed PPA price of $23.76/MWh. This plant represents the lowest solar PPA price in the United State’s currently.
3. 174 Power Global’s 50 MW Techren V will sell power at $29.89/MWh with no escalation.
4. NextEra Energy’s 200 MW Dodge Flat solar plant includes a 50 MW / 200 MWh battery storage system, priced its PPA $26.51/MWh.
5. NextEra’s 100 MW Fish Springs Ranch solar farm is also priced at $26.51/MWh and comes with with 25 MW / 100 MWh of storage.
6. Cypress Creek’s 101 MW Battle Mountain Solar project also includes 25 MW / 100 MWh of storage, and is priced at a flat price of $26.50/MWh.
India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low
India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.
I can tell by your posts that you are more than likely about 20 or more years younger than me. I have seen people saying the same things you are saying going back at least that many years ago. Since when the internet started. How old were you in 1996? Well whatever that age is, I heard people claiming renewable energy should be forced on the population to save the planet. Similar to what you are saying now. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. When I start seeing renewable technology that actually works as good as a coal plant in energy production then I will accept it - but until then I will watch people like you claim the impossible.
"Green" energy is expensive, does not avert climate change.
I really don't understand some peoples love stories with Wind and Solar.
- They statistically generate power most often when clients need it the least.
- They are located far away from the grid and thus require long and expensive transmission lines.
- They are enormously expensive. While all forms of energy require subsidies wind and solar take the cake for getting the highest per kilowatt hour of energy generated, far more than the much talked about Nuclear.
- They have extremely low capacity factors simply because the sun doesn't shine all the time, and the wind doesn't blow all the time. A 1000 kilowatt Wind Mill will on average generates 300 kilowatts of energy. This means they need enormous amounts of space, are unreliable, need backups and are expensive.
- They supply poor quality energy due to fluctuations in wind speed, therefore most often are limited to a maximum of 20% of the grid, and usually require dirty natural gas generators in order to smooth out these fluctuations. Without subsidies, some energy companies have to be payed to accept wind energy into the grid.
- Coal power stations cannot change energy outputs quickly. If wind is used to replace Coal, then the coal power stations have to be ran in "hot-standby" as a backup. This means they are burning the Coal anyway and bypassing steam from the turbines.
- They cannot provide base load power, like coal, for example, can.
- Spreading out the generating capacity of a large geographical area to get rid of the aforementioned problems is enormously expensive as it requires a massive, complex grid, and has never been demonstrated.
- Energy storage designed to fix the aforementioned problems is enormously expensive, but does not help the capacity factor.
- Wind and Solar need enormous amounts of physical recourses (concrete, steel), to build. Storage makes this significantly worse.
- The cleanest countries are Nuclear, Hydro, or Geothermal, the worst are ones attempting to implement wind.
- In some countries, Nuclear PROFITS are paying to subsidize WIND because it is so expensive.
- Per unit of electricity generated, Wind kills as many people as Coal (not including air pollution related deaths). This is far worse than Nuclear.
If you would take the time to see what your original retort to me was, it was NPR and Slate links that you used. If you used other resources that is fine by me, but it does seem to me that you pick and choose sources that accept your claims.
Well whatever that age is, I heard people claiming renewable energy should be forced on the population to save the planet.
You appropriated the term "snowflake". We all know that was a term first applied to socialist and SJW types by the hard and vicious right.
My username means that we are all fools. Including yourself and me.