Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 8:50 am

Buffy,

Less Buffy, more citations.

Here is another take on why intermittent "renewable energy" is absolutely unworkable. The Manhattan Contrarian article is lengthy but well worth the read as it is a different take on the non-viability of the "renewable energy" of wind and solar.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... -their-own

From the article:

"And the bottom line is:

The storage capacity needed to align power generation from solar or wind is around 25% of the annual energy consumption.

In other words, you need three months worth of storage to try to make this work. Previous studies that I highlighted in my energy storage Report — for example, those of Roger Andrews and Ken Gregory — had calculated storage needs in the range of one to two months. However, those studies only used one year’s worth of data for each calculation, and allowed running the storage balance right down to zero. If you think that it’s too risky to run the storage right down to zero before the balance starts to refill, then three months of storage is a much more reasonable figure. Indeed, it’s still rather conservative.

Fekete, et al., don’t get into the specifics of cost of any possible storage solution. But then, they don’t need to. The potential costs are so enormous as to completely rule out any attempt even to start down this road. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, total U.S. electricity consumption in 2022 was just over 4 trillion kWh. So one-quarter of that would be just over 1 trillion kWh. Just to get an idea of the cost of that much energy storage, this site (Tesla fans) gives a (highly optimistic) cost for Tesla batteries of just over $100 per kWh. So a trillion of those will run you about $100 trillion. That’s four times the entire U.S. economy. Meanwhile, a Tesla-style battery is not remotely up to the job of the energy storage needed to back up wind/solar electricity generation, which would necessarily include the ability to save up power over a year or more and discharge over a year. But then, the economics are so wildly out of line that it’s hardly worth worrying about such technicalities.

Fekete, et al., in a very understated manner, put it this way:

In the absence of energy storage technology that can store several months worth of energy, one has to conclude that all studies suggesting that solar or wind are price competitive with other forms of energy should be retracted."

**** YOU!!!

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 8:52 am

Hey, Hole!

Jessie told you to believe that Biden caused inflation and gas prices to rise.

Now inflation is at 2% and we're pumping more oil than ever.

Why do you still watch FOX?

Hey ****, liberal prick...

More proof of your ****!!!

If the price of a particular good went up because of a10% inflation rate, the price is still going up at a 2% inflation rate (which is a lie), just slower, you **** idiot!!!  The real rate of inflation is more like 3.7%.
 

Buffalo » 28 Dec 2023, 8:56 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 8:56 am

Here is another take on why intermittent "renewable energy" is absolutely unworkable. The Manhattan Contrarian article is lengthy but well worth the read as it is a different take on the non-viability of the "renewable energy" of wind and solar.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blo ... -their-own

From the article:

"And the bottom line is:

The storage capacity needed to align power generation from solar or wind is around 25% of the annual energy consumption.

In other words, you need three months worth of storage to try to make this work. Previous studies that I highlighted in my energy storage Report — for example, those of Roger Andrews and Ken Gregory — had calculated storage needs in the range of one to two months. However, those studies only used one year’s worth of data for each calculation, and allowed running the storage balance right down to zero. If you think that it’s too risky to run the storage right down to zero before the balance starts to refill, then three months of storage is a much more reasonable figure. Indeed, it’s still rather conservative.

Fekete, et al., don’t get into the specifics of cost of any possible storage solution. But then, they don’t need to. The potential costs are so enormous as to completely rule out any attempt even to start down this road. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, total U.S. electricity consumption in 2022 was just over 4 trillion kWh. So one-quarter of that would be just over 1 trillion kWh. Just to get an idea of the cost of that much energy storage, this site (Tesla fans) gives a (highly optimistic) cost for Tesla batteries of just over $100 per kWh. So a trillion of those will run you about $100 trillion. That’s four times the entire U.S. economy. Meanwhile, a Tesla-style battery is not remotely up to the job of the energy storage needed to back up wind/solar electricity generation, which would necessarily include the ability to save up power over a year or more and discharge over a year. But then, the economics are so wildly out of line that it’s hardly worth worrying about such technicalities.

Fekete, et al., in a very understated manner, put it this way:

In the absence of energy storage technology that can store several months worth of energy, one has to conclude that all studies suggesting that solar or wind are price competitive with other forms of energy should be retracted."

**** YOU!!!

Well, if some random blogger you were led to by Google says so...

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:02 am

Well, if some random blogger you were led to by Google says so...

Dispute those facts then ASSHOLE!!!  The cost of the storage capacity needed to storing enough "alternative energy" is not economically feasible.
 

Buffalo » 28 Dec 2023, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:02 am

Hey ****, liberal prick...

More proof of your ****!!!

If the price of a particular good went up because of a10% inflation rate, the price is still going up at a 2% inflation rate (which is a lie), just slower, you **** idiot!!!  The real rate of inflation is more like 3.7%.

Buffy,

You're a **** idiot.
 

Buffalo » 28 Dec 2023, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:07 am

Dispute those facts then ASSHOLE!!!  The cost of the storage capacity needed to storing enough "alternative energy" is not economically feasible.

Buffy,

Do you miss whale oil?

No one else does.
 

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:07 am

Buffy,

You're a **** idiot.

YOU are the goddamn ****, libersl idiot!!!  The dismal US economy and the hurt it has caused MILLIONS of families because of braindead biden's inflationary spending and policies will be his ultimate defeat in the 2024 election!!!
 

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:09 am

Buffy,

Do you miss whale oil?

No one else does.

No, but I enjoy a diesel pickup and a gas powered V8 SUV.  
 

Fuelman » 27 Dec 2023, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 3:10 pm

It's amazing anyone has ever bought a home over the last 50 years, what seems like high rates today is really just average. The days of cheap money are gone for awhile, in the meantime your income still has to be sufficient enough to meet your mortgage lenders DTI ratio.

"30 Year Mortgage Rate in the United States averaged 7.74 percent from 1971 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 18.63 percent in October of 1981 and a record low of 2.65 percent in January of 2021."

My kids freaked out when I told them we took out a "low interest" loan at 13pts to add on to our first house...  

Fuelman » 27 Dec 2023, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 4:01 pm

JMO, if you have to wait for interest rates to change a few points to afford the payment, you can't afford the house!

I have an issue with banks telling people what they can afford and people stupid enough to believe them.

I know, right? I remember back when we were looking and the banks / realtors told us what we qualified for and what the payment would be...I'm thinking, ya, we can afford that, but we won't eat, the house will be cold and no one will have any clothes...

Bidencrimefamily » 27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm

You can only do such in three years. It's a good start but Rome wasn't built in a day. The only thing I remember Trump passing was the hugest tax cut ever in American history for the ultra rich. They are doing just fine.

I benefited...apparently you need to work to benefit, eh welfareboi?

ROG62 » 28 Dec 2023, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:44 am

I benefited...apparently you need to work to benefit, eh welfareboi?

How, Rog?

Bidencrimefamily » 27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm

You can only do such in three years. It's a good start but Rome wasn't built in a day. The only thing I remember Trump passing was the hugest tax cut ever in American history for the ultra rich. They are doing just fine.

You might want to rethink that.  The top bracket was cut 2.6%, and the 2nd highest received no tax cut.  The lower brackets had a bigger cut. 


https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:47 am

How, Rog?

No questions...specifically stupid ones...
 

ROG62 » 28 Dec 2023, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:42 am

I know, right? I remember back when we were looking and the banks / realtors told us what we qualified for and what the payment would be...I'm thinking, ya, we can afford that, but we won't eat, the house will be cold and no one will have any clothes...

It's a financial trap way too many people fall in to.
We have all been through the process, get some debt paid down, have some savings, bump your credit report as much as possible, stable jobs, all in an effort to raise how much you qualify for. It's really difficult to explain to someone the long term burden they put on themselves. Then life happens, money gets tight and all the pressure that comes with being in that position.

We have always worked the equation backwards. We are comfortable with a payment of X, how much house can we get. The last time we went through the process in 2014, the bank said we qualified for $650k, we took $350k.

I read an article awhile back stating how many people had buyers remorse over the last 2 years, can't remember the number but it was really high, over 50% I believe.

ROG62 » 28 Dec 2023, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 9:52 am

No questions...specifically stupid ones...

Remember this, Rog

R.Suave » 28 Dec 2023, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 10:46 am

Remember this, Rog

What would be more memorable would be you actually answering questions on a regular basis.  Say, answering as many as you ask.

Bidencrimefamily » 27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm

You can only do such in three years. It's a good start but Rome wasn't built in a day. The only thing I remember Trump passing was the hugest tax cut ever in American history for the ultra rich. They are doing just fine.

As ROG said, you got to have a job and pay taxes to have benefited from Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The middle and working class received benefits from Trump's act.

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most (yahoo.com)

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: 12 Myths Debunked | The Heritage Foundation

Huey » 28 Dec 2023, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 10:56 am

What would be more memorable would be you actually answering questions on a regular basis.  Say, answering as many as you ask.

You have no reason to know that I don't...

We should at least give Biden a soft golf clap for the record market highs.