Six ways renewables increase your electricity bill

[brenthutch 444]

5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

One of coal's main "externalities" are the long-ignored facts that it pollutes the air, even the supposedly clean plants, thereby increasing health costs; also that its extraction can be dangerous and also devastating to property and health, as well as its terminal nature - as population increases, along with increased power demands per capita, it will become scarce and more expensive. So investing in multiple strategies now, while we have options, makes perfect sense, instead of waiting for it to be an emergency for our descendents

Wendy P. 

Obviously you didn’t read/understand the article 

Edited September 30, 2023 by brenthutch

[olofscience 480]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

So?  If you have a problem with that, explain why their analysis is wrong.  

It's an excellent trolling strategy, spew a torrent of lies then say "PROVE ME WRONG" - Slim King does it, you do it too.

Until you realise that the burden of proof is actually on you.

[brenthutch 444]

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's an excellent trolling strategy, spew a torrent of lies then say "PROVE ME WRONG" - Slim King does it, you do it too.

Until you realise that the burden of proof is actually on you.

The article lays out the way renewables increase electricity costs. It is up to you to to rebut.  Given you are unable to do so, I recommend you stay on the porch.

Woof woof!

Edited September 30, 2023 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,447]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Obviously you didn’t read/understand the article 

I was commenting only on your post. No I didn't read the article, I'm on vacation from retirement

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I was commenting only on your post. No I didn't read the article, I'm on vacation from retirement

Wendy P. 

The article does not advocate for coal, in fact it demonstrates how coal, when used as a backup/supplement to gas, results in higher energy costs.  Then it lays out how the gas and wind combination result in the same outcome.

[olofscience 480]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is up to you to to rebut.

I did, by invalidating the source as extremely biased.

This is really low effort for you, you need an article to lay out your arguments for you, then you command us to rebut it? You didn't even make their arguments to begin with, you're just riding on their biased coattails.

 

You can't even do the simplest maths billvon asked you to.

Edited September 30, 2023 by olofscience

[olofscience 480]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The article does not advocate for coal, in fact it demonstrates how coal, when used as a backup/supplement to gas, results in higher energy costs.  Then it lays out how the gas and wind combination result in the same outcome.

Go on then, lay it out for us here so we don't have to keep going to the article.

 

Pick out the most important points that leads to their conclusion, then post it here. Use the quote function.

 

Then I can pick it apart.

Edited September 30, 2023 by olofscience

[brenthutch 444]

15 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Go on then, lay it out for us here so we don't have to keep going to the article.

 

Pick out the most important points that leads to their conclusion, then post it here. Use the quote function.

 

Then I can pick it apart.

So you didn’t read it either 

[olofscience 480]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So you didn’t read it either 

No, I looked up the source, and they were a climate-denying organization with shadowy funding sources.

 

If you want me to refute your arguments, make them here. It's almost like you're too ashamed to cut and paste how they arrived at their conclusions.

 

But really, it's just a stupid trap you keep setting to make your opponent do a lot more work than you. It's not like you've ever argued here in good faith.

[brenthutch 444]

24 minutes ago, olofscience said:

No, I looked up the source, and they were a climate-denying organization with shadowy funding sources.

Perhaps this source won’t make you so butt hurt. I will even cut and paste for you.
 

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/10/26/lets-come-clean-the-renewable-energy-transition-will-be-expensive/

 

“The reality is that wind and solar are only cheap during the early stages of transition. Until now, renewables have been viable because of the massive base of fossil fuel generation that supplies most of our electricity needs and also stands in for intermittent wind and solar. But this changes as renewable penetration increases. Relying on more and more fossil fuels to shore up a growing share of intermittent renewables becomes increasingly costly and risky, as Europe is finding out. Then, moving to the next stage of the energy transition requires massive spending to get past using fossil fuels for baseload and balancing electricity”

BTW this is an alarmist site so it should be right up your alley.

[Phil1111 1,149]

41 minutes ago, olofscience said:

.....But really, it's just a stupid trap you keep setting to make your opponent do a lot more work than you. It's not like you've ever argued here in good faith.

Brent learned this from Slim and they use it because it works.

[ryoder 1,590]

5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Brent learned this from Slim and they use it because it works.

Doesn't work so well when they are both on your Ignore List.

[Phil1111 1,149]

22 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Doesn't work so well when they are both on your Ignore List.

Perhaps some day AI will be able to put republicans on an ignore list. I don't get FOX but their stupidity still taints everything.

[olofscience 480]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

BTW this is an alarmist site so it should be right up your alley.

So... the best you can do is an opinion piece, written by a student in Columbia University?

You clearly didn't read until the end where the disclaimer was.

 

You've clearly forgotten how you lost the argument a few months ago - the IEA announced that solar was now the cheapest energy available:

Quote

Utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind are the cheapest options for new electricity generation in a significant majority of countries worldwide. Global solar PV capacity is set to almost triple over the 2022-2027 period, surpassing coal and becoming the largest source of power capacity in the world.

https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security

Not an opinion piece - just a news piece from the IEA. With numbers to back it up.

[brenthutch 444]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So... the best you can do is an opinion piece, written by a student in Columbia University?

You clearly didn't read until the end where the disclaimer was.

You wanted a non biased source and I gave you one. You dismiss the author while failing to address any of his points. The article you linked to is full of “expected to” “projected” and “set to” hardly hard numbers.  Even taken at face value, it does nothing to refute my two articles demonstrating the increasing costs of integrating intermittent renewables into the grid.  BTW the growth in renewables your article is the easiest and least expensive phase in the transition.  It gets much more expensive as more and more renewables come online, just ask California and Germany.

[olofscience 480]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You dismiss the author while failing to address any of his points.

And yet again you fail to highlight HOW he got to his conclusions.

 

Then the same trap - making it my responsibility to refute his points which you don't really support with any evidence here. YOU need to do some work to build credibility, right now it's non-existent.

 

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

full of “expected to” “projected” and “set to” hardly hard numbers.

The "solar is cheapest" claim is taken from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2020, which is FULL of hard numbers.

Quote

Our analysis of solar PV financing costs indicates that, despite monetary policy measures, the weighted average cost of capital edged up in 2020 after years of going down. Even so, policy support frameworks enable very low financing costs, making new solar PV more cost effective than coal- and gas-fired power in many countries today, including in the largest markets (United States, European Union, China and India). For projects with low cost financing that tap high quality resources, solar PV is now the cheapest source of electricity in history.

Source:

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a72d8abf-de08-4385-8711-b8a062d6124a/WEO2020.pdf

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

31 minutes ago, olofscience said:

...Then the same trap - making it my responsibility to refute his points which you don't really support with any evidence here. YOU need to do some work to build credibility, right now it's non-existent.

You keep engaging him.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You keep engaging him.

He can’t help himself, I set that hook so hard he will never get off.

Edited September 30, 2023 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,991]

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

For a moment let’s forget about coal’s externalities  . . .

Heck, if you forget about externalities, smoking is good for you, and crime pays.

[brenthutch 444]

Just now, billvon said:

Heck, if you forget about externalities, smoking is good for you, and crime pays.

Yet another person who failed to read my link. Nowhere does it advocate for coal. In fact it shows how coal, as a backup to gas, results in higher prices. Hardly an endorsement of coal.

[wmw999 2,447]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

He can’t help himself, I set that hook so hard he will never get off.

Are you saying you’re trolling?

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,991]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yet another person who failed to read my link. 

The link didn't say it.  You did.  Are you backpedaling now?

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

The link didn't say it.  You did.  Are you backpedaling now?

 

Yet another person who failed to read his link.

 

[brenthutch 444]

30 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Are you saying you’re trolling?

Wendy P. 

Until you actually read what I post,I have no time for you. 
You are dismissed.

Edited September 30, 2023 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,192]

44 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Are you saying you’re trolling?

Wendy P. 

Around here there is no need to troll. He catches all the fish he wants still fishing.