World’s ‘solar and wind capital’ freezing due to snow ‘blanketing millions’ of solar panels

We'll be fine, so long as your kind of thinking is held in check.

 

~ Well geeez wiz ! I guess they don't have those heated solar panels and wind turbines like "other countries" do ... ? ´
Wind / solar are the most ridiculous thing to come out of government in the last century.
" Your tax dollars at work "

 

So what do you want to use to maintain our society when the energy it takes to extract fossil fuels is greater than the energy they provide? When we hit that point, what is left to power anything? The energy return on investment continues to drop for fossil fuels. What gave us a 30-1 ratio in 1970 has dropped to around 6-1, and continues to fall. We are very close to the point where it will no longer be practical to extract fossil fuels at all. So, what's next?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711114846.htm

 

Money Josh, Money.

 

Oh I know it will, we'll make sure it does, despite your best efforts.

 

Whatever you are taking you need to increase or decrease the dosage.

 

~ Don't " play Doctor " on the internet ! We already have enough of those .

 

I wasn't playing doctor I was playing comedian. But then I expect there's plenty of those as well.
Nonetheless you comment was ridiculous.

 

~ So are yours. That's why we are here.

 

Thank you for your kind assistance

 

The Futility of "Renewable" Energy in Two Easy Charts

". . . In 1949, 9% of our primary energy consumption came from real renewable energy (hydroelectric power). In 2019, the share has only grown to 11% as the result of massive “investments” in “renewables” (mostly wind & solar). Over the same time period, the fossil fuel share has only dropped from 91% to 80%, with most of this due to to the growth of nuclear power generation from 1970-1990."

 

Well if you pick 1949 as your start point some 50 years before wind and solar were even considered then odds are you'll get the figures you fished for. But in the last year the UK got nearly 35% of its energy from wind.
Hydroelectric is tricky because of the increasing other pressures on water supply. Nuclear has missed the boat and will be replaced by cheaper and safer wind and solar.

 

The start point doesn't really matter.

 

Oh but it did. If I want to look at the percentage of energy from various sources and play one down. Pick a period when that one didn't exist at all.

 

Nope. The percentage isn't different decades later. That's the point.

 

Then I suggest your information is inaccurate as it clearly is different. The UK currently produces over 50% of it energy from non fossil fuels.
Here's a live link for you.
https://grid.iamkate.com/

 

Since my information (and link) was about the US, I don't think a link to UK power generation is germane.
The Futility of "Renewable" Energy in Two Easy Charts

And of course there's the matter of cost.
Failure of UK renewable energy policy to minimise costs, deliver meaningful emissions cuts, and maintain security of supply.
Excess costs of UK Weather Dependent Renewable Energy: 2020

 

Fair enough, here's one for the states.

As you can see Wind Solar and Other renewables equal more than hydro, So your claim of only a 2% increase must be wrong.

However it does seem a shame that the great modern nation of America is slowly becoming a third world country. Attitudes towards ecology, disease, nationalism would better match Iran that Europe.

 

The total against which the percentage is drawn is quite a bit larger in 2019 compared to 1949. So no, my claim is confirmed by your link.
I spent six years living in Europe and have visited countless times beyond that. We'll be fine, thanks.

 

So your argument is that because the US uses more power then an increase in clean energy of more than double doesn't count. That's creative accounting taken to a new level.
I've spent 62 years living in Europe and I say you need to catch up with the 1st world.

 

Have you lived in the US?
I don't see anything to be gained by trading insults across the Atlantic.
I don't think you're following the argument. Here's an excerpt.
". . . Despite an “investment” of about $380 billion from 2004-2015, “renewable” energy consumption only increased by 3.6 quadrillion BTU. That’s $105.56 per million BTU (mmBTU). The wellhead price for natural gas is currently around $3.30/mmBTU and the US residential price has averaged $10.55/mmBTU since 2014.

If it was actually possible to replace fossil fuels with “renewables,” at $105.56/mmBTU, it would cost just under $8.5 trillion to replace 80.4 quadrillion BTU of fossil fuels. Depending on when he was misstating his own agenda, Mr. Biden says this must be done by 2025, 2035 or 2050… periods of 5, 15 and 30 years… $1.7 trillion/yr, $566 billion/yr and $283 billion/yr respectively.

If that isn’t funny enough, here are the same data as percentages of total primary energy consumption.


Figure 2. US primary energy consumption (1949-2019). EIA
In 1949, 9% of our primary energy consumption came from real renewable energy (hydroelectric power). In 2019, the share has only grown to 11% as the result of massive “investments” in “renewables” (mostly wind & solar). Over the same time period, the fossil fuel share has only dropped from 91% to 80%, with most of this due to to the growth of nuclear power generation from 1970-1990. . . ."

 

Do these costs you list include development?

 

Read the link.

 

German Energy Expert Agrees: “Fission/Fusion Plus Hydrocarbs Only Realistic Energy Transition Next 50 Years”
By P Gosselin on 14. March 2021

Share this...
Today, German energy expert Dr. Lars Schernikau comments on hydrogen, and what’s really the best energy carrier for the next 50 years.

First, recall that hydrogen is NOT a source of energy such as uranium, coal, gas, oil, wind, solar, etc., but rather it is an energy carrier that needs to be produced by applying energy.

Bossel 2009 said: “Hydrogen is a synthetic energy carrier: High-grade energy is required to produce, compress, liquefy, transport, transfer or store H2 (in most cases this energy could be distributed directly to the end user from wind or solar).”

Hydrogen energy and what is the world’s best energy carrier
By Dr. Lars Schernikau

Green hydrogen (everyone is talking about it) can be produced via electrolysis from excess wind and solar electricity generation or in theory from any “green” source of power. Other than in desert states, such excess only exists in summers if at all. . . .

 

SPREADING MISINFORMATION: NY Times Spread Fake News that East Coast Beaches Would Be ‘Gone’ by 2020.