Leaderboard

From your article "All new car sales in the European Union car market dropped by 5.2% year-on-year" And this "Among the three largest BEV markets, Belgium (+23.8%) and France (+10.9%) enjoyed double-digit increases, while Germany faced a significant decrease of 28.9%, ACEA said. The EU saw a total of 332,999 new battery-electric cars registered during the first quarter of 2024, up by 3.8% compared to the same quarter last year. Despite the general market decline, hybrid-electric car registrations in the EU jumped by 12.6% in March 2024, with France and Italy driving the increase. The share of hybrid car sales rose to 29% of the new sales last month, up from 24.4% in March 2023.

Generally, many supporters of the old order can't get their head around the new. This is true whether it was sail vs coal in ships, telegraph vs telegram etc. It is a particular problem where the old order is dominated by large companies whose whole history has been built on the old ways and many of the executives have spent many years in the industry and can't imagine their life without it. Renewables present two challenges to these industries a) their technology and business model needs to be upended and b) the decentralised model of renewables means that the possibility of a large business ever achieving a dominant position in the industry even if it can make a successful transition is very low. People like Mark Lawson love to highlight the current limitations of renewables, forgetting the compromises needed to make the old, centralised system work and the time it took to build it. The whole concept of Base Load is not the minimum 24/7 demand from customers that they like to claim. It is the minimum load to make nuclear, coal and combined cycle gas plants reliable and economic. Thus, we had "offpeak" power prices which are often below the cost of production, simply to keep the boilers warm. In many cases even that was not enough, so most of the pumped hydro schemes around the world were built to smooth the loads on nuclear and coal as Mr. Lawson should know. All Australia's existing pumped hydro schemes were built to support coal power. In the late 1990's German nuclear operators published ads saying that the German grid could not absorb more than 1.5% wind power. This year-to-date Germany has one of the most reliable grids in the world and has supplied over 29% of demand from wind and of course zero from nuclear. It does import about 1.5% of its electricity but it is building new wind and solar fast enough to overcome the deficit by next year. Coal, gas and nuclear output combined have fallen from 55.2% of electricity in 2019 to 36.2% this year so there is a slight mismatch. Further Scandinavian countries have excess renewable capacity so despite declining nuclear output in Sweden, Germany is favouring imports of clean power rather than imports of coal and gas to fuel its own power plants. As renewables in other countries are also increasing, Germany may choose to continue importing power for the next few years and thus reduce coal and gas consumption even faster than it would by its own efforts. Danish wind and Swedish/Norwegian hydro is much cheaper than American LNG or South African coal. As for the speed of transition, it took global nuclear power 45 years to go from supplying 40 TWh/y to 2,700 TWh, it took wind and solar 17 years. Further nuclear power has virtually stopped growing. Final 2023 figures are not available, but they are unlikely to exceed 2006 when 2,740 TWh was supplied by nuclear power. Wind and solar will be around 4,000 TWh (Electricity Data Explorer | Open Source Global Electricity Data | Ember (ember-climate.org). Many people claim that India and China are paying lip service to renewables but between them they are installing 60% of the world's wind and solar. In the last 15 months China has installed more wind and solar than the US has ever installed, and India is catching up to Germany. Between India and China, they are buying more than 50% of the world's electrified transport, particularly trains, trucks, busses and 2 and 3 wheelers which are much better value for decarbonisation than private cars, which are the Western face of transport electrification. Many opponents of renewables confuse primary energy demand with energy needs or energy services. Only about 15-20% of the energy in oil at the bottom of a well ends up delivering power at the wheel of a vehicle and about 25% of the energy in coal delivers lighting to customers. Even if solar is coupled with a battery, about 90% of the energy generated from the solar system and 85% of the output from windfarms ends up delivering useful energy. Further some of the energy delivered from fossil fuels is double counted. The energy used to refine and deliver liquid fuels is counted as useful work, 40% of global shipping is moving fossil fuels around, energy from gas cooking has to be offset by fume extraction systems and air conditioning in kitchens. The conventional wisdom is that primary energy demand is 3-4 times that of the energy services (heat, light, transport). In practice in a fully electrified economy energy demand per unit of GDP could be less than 25% of the peak use a decade ago. Finally, coal, gas and oil used to be very much cheaper than they are now, so energy efficiency makes financial sense. Consequently, we don't have to build twenty times as much wind and solar as we have now. There are estimates that a fully electrified world would have living standards close to what we have now in the West with half the electricity the world generates now.

These renewable power projects all have common problems. They are the same problems that fossil or nuclear generation face. 1. FINANCING. All of these projects require substantial funds to plan, permit, construct, start-up, and commission before paying off the mortgage. Nuclear is very good at financing, but the unanticipated cost overruns can be massive, multiple times the original budget. Fossil projects are somewhat better at staying close to budget. Renewable power ain't cheap at first, even though those capital cost can be higher in a $/Kw basis than fossil . When you consider that most renewable systems require zero fuel, practically zero water (sans hydro), produce zero operating wastes to dispose of, and require less "heads per MWh generated", the mortgage payoff occurs faster. 2. TRANSMISSION AND FUEL ACCESS Any new generating facility needs a connection to the market. The potential exception would be a facility built on (or near) a retired fossil facility, where the cost of connection is significantly reduced. Many renewable projects tend to be located remotely to any existing transmission, and typically require building NEW connections. Any new connections also requires planning, permitting, construction, start-up, commissioning, and capital. Even then, the connection of ANY new generating facility to existing transmission may be subject to congestion (limits on the existing transmission network). A new fossil facility requires a fuel supply. Mine-mouth coal plants may just require a mile or three of bulk conveyors, which are not to expensive else they require a rail spur, or barge unloading facilities, or both (some small units, on the order of 5-10 MW, can use over-the-road trucks, but that is rare). Natural Gas fired plants require at least a large pipeline (and potentially fuel compressors, but that is also rare). Wind and solar don't bother with such fueling "stuff". BTW, if you are ever involved with blow-downs on new gas pipelines, exercise EXTREME care, or stay well at a distance. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) attempts to take all of this into consideration. The LCOE of Renewable projects typically are either at par, or well below, fossil and nuclear. An exception would be sea-based wind facilities. Those are particularly capital intensive. Keep these issues in mind for any new fossil, nuclear, and renewable project.

"Solar is a joke outside of a desert" 12.2% of Germany's electricity last year vs 10.2% from gas. Even Denmark got 9.2% from solar vs 5.9% from gas. Didn't realise Germany and Denmark were deserts. Solar in the US over the last 12 months has exceeded hydro, and wind and solar combined have exceeded coal. Globally solar output is on track to exceed nuclear power output late this year or early next year, while wind and solar combined will surpass gas power generation sometime in 2027

I can see that adding additional petroleum supplies on the world market "should" impact "price" of those commodities, unless processing/transport costs are impediments, impacting a more local market. It seems natural gas might be somewhat of a "fit" for that situation. For overseas transport, It ain't very dense until someone liquefies it, adding additional costs and energy consumption to the delivered product. However, that world market is complicated by the absolute fact of a concerted effort by OPEC (and others) to exercise control over the market to "stabilize" price at a level closer to that desired by those actors. Petroleum does not strike me as a free market. With these actors, It seems like a type of price fixing. YMMV. Thus, large and CONCERTED market players work to keep price under their control, while the immediate impact of "drill, baby, drill", is that corner of the industry obtains an immediate financial benefit (more product to sell into a controlled market), with no regard to ANY externalities. You can chose whatever, or even if, externalities apply. I must ask, what is the thing of top value to you? If you respond with anything other than your personal health, you probably should reflect on a bigger picture. And those externalities, even if you ignore or refute them, have a measurable and deleterious affect on the health of us all. ...and add that energy is SOOOOOOO addicting! The withdrawal symptoms are something to behold. I call that HUMAN, not MAGA.

thanks for your graphics.... Ecochump, of course will ignore the facts and keep advocating for coal use as I believe he really could care less about clean air or the health of the planet and all life that exists on it. He is no different than one who smokes cigarettes and ignores the impacts The environmental footprint of a smokerA total carbon footprint of 5.1t CO2 equivalent emissions, which to offset, would require 132 tree seedlings planted and grown for 10 years. A water footprint of 1,355 m3, which is equivalent to almost 62 years' water supply for any three people's basic needs. Tobacco and the Environment - ASH Action on Smoking and Health - ASH https://ash.org.uk › Resources › All Resources About featured snippets• Feedback WHO raises alarm on tobacco industry environmental impact World Health Organization (WHO) https://www.who.int › News › item May 31, 2022 — The WHO report “Tobacco: Poisoning our planet” highlights that the industry's carbon footprint from production, processing and transporting ...

The scientific consensus is overwhelming: on any realistic like-for-like comparison a battery car will be cleaner than its petrol or diesel equivalent. Burning fossil fuels to make and drive electric cars will still cause emissions, but at a lower level than inefficient fossil fuel engines. Do electric cars really produce fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles? | Business | The Guardian I'd like to thank Footinmouth for confirming coal was the prevalent source of powergen in Poland. As the above graph shows its only Poland from a European perspective where the issue you claim Eco is actually a problem, but even then Polish EV's arent anywhere near as bad as FF. Your point is BS unless you can show me concrete evidence to the contrary and not your opinion. Fortunately Poland's renewables are growing fast as I posted a couple of days ago, so that situation will soon be rectified. Also Poland's population is less than 5% of Europe so not a great deal to worry about there! If you like people dying then keep advocating coal use. Enjoy the transition and clean air, it will save millions of lives!!

The sun doesn't shine in Poland?

I agree any energy project needs to be objectively viewed. However you cannot deny what has already been achieved so far with fully operational renewable installations, such as below. In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar photovoltaic capacity as the rest of the world combined, then went on in 2023 to double new solar installations, increase new wind capacity by 66 percent, and almost quadruple additions of energy storage. china doubles its renewable energy - Google Search And this is the tip of the iceberg for what China is planning. And there's these in my own backyard. Hornsea offshore wind farms - where are they? | Ørsted (hornseaprojects.co.uk)

Solar at least adheres to KISS assuming you get a VERY large inverter and only use a small fraction of its claimed Wattage throughput with proper cooling exceeding spec as all the inverter manufacturers are liars. As long as your remember that, solar can work--> where it is sunny. A good portion of the world is sunny. Still not a universal solution so will always be a bit side piece.

I'm not so sure. I've observed many open pit surface coal mines that have been reasonably restored to greenfields. Then, mountain tops in West Virginia seem to be scrapped away, which is REALLY expensive to rehabilitate I don't know how you can "rehabilitate" an underground coal mine, since it wasn't "green" to start with. A real "non-green" issue with most coals is "where do you put the residuals" (ash)? Clean ash (such as fly ash) can be useful, and actually sold if the un-burned carbon content is really low. If it is "clean enough", it can be a reasonable substitute for Portland cement. Bottom ash (the "real estate" that falls or drips to the bottom of the firebox), not so much...but some use it for a substitute for more expensive grit blasting media. Wear your PPE when using it! After using it for a grit substitute, it's STILL THERE (plus whatever it strips off a substrate), just much finer.

Hubble's Law is a robust principle in cosmology. There's ongoing refinement in measuring the exact value of H₀ (Hubble's Constant). Different methods provide slightly different results, leading to a current range around 70 (km/s)/Mpc (kilometers per second per megaparsec). One megaparsec (Mpc) is equivalent to roughly 30,856,775,815,000 Astronomical Units (AU). Jupiter is about 5.2 AU distant from the Sun. So, Jupiter is 0.000000000000017 of a Mpc away from the sun. Thus, 0.000000000000017 x 70 Km/sec = 0.000000000012 Km/s. Over a year (which has about 32 billion seconds), Hubble's Law, using the current constant, = about 380 meters/year for Jupiter's "recession" from the Sun, based on a simplified application of Hubble's Law. Observation of Jupiter doesn't provide relevant information to challenge Hubble's Law, due to the vast difference in scale and the nature of the phenomena involved. These are REALLY small angle differences over time in triangulation, particularly with observation of an EXTENDED object, like a planet. For sure, astronomers/cosmologists are famous for "extrapolating on a point" (Hubble's Law is a good example). That's why I never go beyond two significant digits in any astronomical analysis. YMMV about this. Triangulation of Jupiter may be a valid method of challenging Hubble's Law, given enough years of observation and fully considering the orbital mechanics of our Solar System that could interfere with Hubble's Law recession. Earth-based measurements require taking atmospheric effects into consideration, which can EASILY overwhelm small angular measurements. We ain't have had space-based measurements long enough to make use of triangulation of local objects to challenge Hubble's Law. Even then, it's a real challenge to measure such small angular changes due to the orbital mechanics of the space-based platform. Cepheid variable stars represent a very valuable "standard candle" (I hate that term) for distance measurements. They are a remarkable example of how different astronomical tools work together to unveil the "secrets of the universe". "Science as a cult"? Yeah, I'm sure that's how past Popes dealt with it. "Religion as a cult" makes more sense to me. Again, YMMV. . .

Its the economy stupid, you are right. German companies are signing long term contracts for solar power at 5-7c/kWh. Try building a new gas plant and supplying power at that price It is why China is installing so much wind and solar because it provides energy for half the cost of coal and nuclear. Denmark's GDP per person is 20% higher than the US, without nuclear, without hydro and with very little coal and gas. Their government is running a trade and budget surplus, and debt to GDP of less than 30%, they are a net exporter of electricity. Denmark and Germany tax energy use and therefore use half as much per dollar of GDP as the US. Danes have less than 1/10th of the lost time per customer as US customers and despite higher prices, typically spend less on energy than US customers because they don't waste it. The US has a budget deficit of 7% of GDP, a trade deficit and debt to GDP of over 100%.

Really??? Is that in the bubble you live in? WHO data show that almost all of the global population (99%) breathe air that exceeds WHO guideline limits and contains high levels of pollutants, with low- and middle-income countries suffering from the highest exposures. Air quality is closely linked to the earth's climate and ecosystems globally. Air pollution is one of the world's leading risk factors for death Air Pollution - Our World in Data This is an interactive live data map World Live Air Quality Map | IQAir

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-2000-2025 Worldwide coal use by year graphed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FfIfvcM7So From Joe Blogs: China and India stop buying coal from Russia. Worldwide coal usage is now higher than ever before, if I heard this right.

Your answer is to increase Chinese pollution levels? You really need a mind refresher.

Equally as stupid and even more uneconomic! How many projects have you got off the ground? sorry I mean underground! You proposed underground train systems in the countryside, what moron is going to pay for that? Your math is an absolute joke as are your tunnels!

Hmmm Wrong again! Generation from renewable energy sources increased by 117%, from 17 TWh in 2013 to 36.8 TWh. In 2022, 36.8 TWh of electricity was produced from RES – 20% more than in 2021. Wind power was responsible for more than half of the production from RES (53%) in 2022, solar PV accounted for 22%, and biomass for 12%. Poland - Energy Sector (trade.gov)

Coal is doomed UK dumped it Poland is dumping it (it seems you are bothered with facts.........my my) Germany is almost done dumping it....enjoy the transition Green Age is here today....Coal Age is a thing of the past Does UK have coal to use? No???? you are wrong again (as usual) The UK has identified hard coal resources of 3 560 million tonnes, although total resources could be as large as 187 billion tonnes. About 80 million tonnes of the economically recoverable reserves are available in shallow deposits capable of being extracted by surface mining. Does Germany? No, but they are using lignite currently.????? you are wrong again (as usual) 36.1 billion tonnes Germany – 36.1 billion tonnesHolding the biggest coal reserves in Europe, Germany hosts 3.4% of the world's total proved coal reserves. The Ruhr Coal Basin in the North Rhine-Westphalia state and the Saar Basin in the south-west Germany account for more than 75% of the country's hard coal production.Nov 14, 2021 Countries with the biggest coal reserves - Mining Technology Poland Poland – 26.4 billion tonnes Poland’s proven coal reserves at the end of 2018 accounted for approximately 2.5% of the world’s total proved coal reserves. Most of the country’s hard coal reserves are located in Upper Silesia and in the Lublin basin in eastern Poland, while the Belchatow lignite basin in central Poland accounts for more than half of Poland’s total lignite production. The Belchatow lignite mine provides coal supply for the 5.29GW Belchatow power plant, which is the biggest coal-fired power plant in Europe. Poland is the world’s ninth biggest and Europe’s second biggest coal producer. It produced 122Mt of coal in 2018, accounting for 1.2% of the world’s total coal output. It also accounted for 1.3% of the world’s total coal consumption during the same year. Approximately 80% of the country’s electricity generation is based on coal.

There is an essential problem with the EU market for CO2 permits on the ETS. The market does not internalize the CO2 emissions of products imported into the EU, and we know that the vast majority of CO2 emissions related to EV production is from Chinese sources which are not reflected in the EU carbon permit market. Thus there is a fundamental design flaw in the mechanism to push the carbon transition forward, the basic mechanism has been to simply export the CO2 problem to another jurisdiction which is increasing its coal and CO2 profile in recent years. That is just playing a shell game with the issue, moving the source of CO2 around the board into different locations. This is a gigantic exercise in public deception, worthy of the worst aspects of political chicanery. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Carbon-Price-Crash-Threatens-EU-Transition-Funds.html

Why would anyone buy an EV? For $30k I can buy a NEW(I never would) Toyota Camry which will get well in excess of 200,000 miles at 50mpg(4000 gallons over its life for a cost of ~$16,000), Miles/year ~15,000(wife), ~8000(me) average ~10,000 for ease of calculation = lifetime costs of 20 years. Tires will also last 25% longer as car weigh less than EV. Insurance cost of a mere $500/year, an EV will set you back at LEAST 2X this cost a year in insurance alone, or $10,000 saved by buying an ICE vrs EV over 20 years, and a lower license tag as well as it weighs LESS(savings in my state compared to an EV would be $40/yr which more than offsets the cost of an oil change so call it a wash) Total Cost of Camry ICE over 20 years(they run much longer than this) is ~$51,000 if you buy new. An EV which will actually last 20 years and is not crap charging etc(Only Tesla qualifies) is $45,000 new(Long range model 3 only EV model worth contemplating buying currently), will cost $1000/yr in insurance(never seen it this low, and many claiming their insurance is $1500+ a year, but round numbers) for a total operating expense of $65,000+ charging costs + higher tire wear so ~somewhere around ++$70,000+ for 20 years of ownership. $51,000 vrs $70,000 It is a no brainer and you can drive anywhere anytime wherever you want without fear of a rock hitting the bottom of your battery Deep sixing your entire investment. PS: EDIT: Oh yeaa paying taxes on that extra $20,000 which ANOTHER cost of ~$5000--> Pure stupidity to buy an EV from a financial perspective of long term ownership and even WORSE at short term ownership. EDIT: What EV religious nuts do not admit is that ~10% of range is lost within the first year of ownership, so what is claimed can automatically be reduced by 10% right from the start and still SUCKSs turds in the winter. EDIT: Oh yea, and the Camry is the better vehicle for comfort than the Shitla Model 3LR

Too bad it is well into 2024, leaving only 66 months to reach many foolish goals for 2030! A lot of unrealistic people will be looking like even worse prognosticators than more objective observers expected.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/climate-fail-new-york-scrap-most-its-offshore/ CLIMATE FAIL: New York to Scrap Most Its Offshore Wind Projects, Not Economically Viable By Ben Kew Apr. 20, 2024 6:40 pm133 Comments The state of New York has confirmed that it will be scrapping most of its signature offshore wind projects, in a major blow to all those pushing the climate change hoax. The projects were intended to help the state achieve its goal of 70 percent renewable energy by 2030 while becoming a nationwide leader in renewable energy, although they have now been deemed unviable. Politico reports: The report adds that while New York is not giving up on wind power entirely, the decision does represent a serious setback: Survival Beef Company CEO: “No Lab-Grown Meat, No mRNA Jabs, and No ‘Beef Crumbles’ Ever” Such news underlines the growing body of evidence that wind power and other forms of renewable energies are not practical alternatives to meeting America’s long term energy needs, all while the Biden regime wages war on the country’s vast natural energy reserves.

Hey Dumbass, How is your grand tunnel construction scheme working out????? did you bother to look at the numbers out of Europe for coal and nat gas????? Germany???.......Poland???? Belguim???? the UK????? they all have coal and yet they are on the path to zero Coal consumption in the next few years German coal consumption....off a cliff.....Love to see you eat shit...next time you open your piehole...try doing a little research DUMBASS I do see you support coal....only Morons support coal.............. The amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels across the European Union (EU) fell to its lowest level since records began in the first six months of 2023, according to a new report from energy analysts Ember. Electricity generated from coal collapsed by 23% and gas fell by 13%, compared with the same period a year earlier. At the same time, solar generation increased by 13% and wind power output by 5%. This allowed 17 EU countries to generate record shares of power from renewables. Greece and Romania both passed 50% renewables for the first time, while Denmark and Portugal both surpassed 75% renewables. The fall in the reliance on fossil fuels was driven mainly by a “significant” drop in electricity demand amid high gas and power prices, according to Ember. It adds that the EU will need to accelerate the deployment of low-carbon power to accommodate for demand recovering while keeping on track for climate goals. The report shows that over the first six months of 2023: The structural decline of coal has continued, despite the volatility in the power market in the EU. Solar generation increased 13% in comparison to the same period the previous year. Wind capacity expansion has been hit by policy challenges and increased prices. Nuclear generation fell by 3.6%, but French nuclear output has increased since April and is expected to continue to rebound throughout the year. Electricity demand fell by 5% to a record low of 1,261TWh, largely due to high power prices. Fossil fuel falls Across Europe, fossil-fuel generation fell over the first six months of 2023. Generation from coal and gas decreased by 86 terawatt hours (TWh, 17%), with fossil fuels generating 410TWh (33%) of demand, according to Ember. Germany Poland Belgium coal consumption

Why do you personally care about coal demand? Why would you thank anyone? Do you have significant financial investment in coal mining? That would be an understandable bias. If you just promote coal out of some ideology that would be strange. You routinely say that EV's adoption will fail, if that is the case why would there be a "projected demand for EV's" leading to greater coal usage? You have to pick one side. You can't simultaneously say there is no demand for EV's and that EV demand will drive up coal prices.

By "do more with their life," do you mean they won't have to fix their own cars anymore?

How can the UK have the 2nd highest when you then say in the same sentence only surpassed by Denmark and Germany? Surely 3rd is the highest they can be! Actually Italy pay the highest at €63.73/Kwh The European Countries with the Highest End User Electricity Prices In comparison, we’ve also discovered which of the 27 European countries analysed have the highest end user electricity prices by comparing HEPI and ONS data. Country Average full time adjusted annual salary per employee (Euros) Average full time adjusted annual salary per employee (GBP) HEPI end user electricity price (c€/kWh) Average electricity bill Italy € 29,951 £26,638 63.73 £2,209.41 Germany € 44,404 £39,492 54.18 £1,878.33 Denmark € 63,261 £56,264 52.82 £1,831.18 UK € 37,464 £33,320 47.49 £1,646.40 Sweden € 46,934 £41,743 44.42 £1,529.97

I may be at odds with people I normally agree with here, but I cant for the life of me understand why it makes economic sense to install solar panels in the UK. Please see article below in today's press Do solar panels work in Britain's wet and cloudy climate - and can they power your home? We've all heard consumer advice that's repeated so often it almost becomes cliché. So, every Friday the Money team will get to the bottom of a different "fact" and decide whether it's a myth or must. This week it is... 'Solar panels in the UK are pointless given the weather' For this one, we've got the help of George Frost, UK manager for sustainable energy advice firm iChoosr. "With cloudy and colder days in the winter, it is natural for people to think that solar energy may not be as effective in this country - but this is simply false," he says. Let's dive into it... The basics So how do solar photovoltaic (PV) systems work? George explains: "Solar panels are composed of PV cells, which contain electrons that are energised upon contact with light particles, or photons. "This energy is then directly converted into an electric current to generate electricity." In simple terms: solar panels rely on the sun's light and not its heat to generate energy. Like most electrical equipment, solar panels perform better in colder temperatures, as excessive heat can reduce efficiency. "Solar panels will generate more energy on a crisp and chilly sunny day than on a hot, sunny day," George says. The issue really lies not with temperature but with cloud cover. Solar panels receive less sunlight if there is a high density of clouds. Cloudy days can be a regular sight in the UKPics: Reuters Data suggests the energy generated drops significantly under heavy cloud cover, but George says that even on less clear and bright days, solar panels can still generate a "substantial" amount. Battery storage can help make up for effects of cloud cover. "By installing a battery alongside solar panels, any excess energy generated can be stored and utilised later in the day when the panels are no longer generating due to the absence of sunlight," George says. "Although the winter months have fewer daylight hours, it's important to note that solar PV systems do not completely shut down on shorter and darker days." The numbers The ideal temperature for solar panel efficiency is between 1C and 20C. National Energy Action data shows that the average solar panel can generate up to 3kWh of electricity on a sunny day. A mildly cloudy day will produce 0.55kWh and a heavily overcast day 0.24 kWh, according to the Ecoexperts. The typical UK solar panel system (3-4kW system, typically made up of eight to 12 panels) produces between 2,450 and 3,000+ kWh a year, depending on orientation, location and weather conditions - according to Solar Together data. The average British home uses around 2,700kWh of electricity a year, Ofwat estimates. Myth or must? It's a myth that British solar panels are pointless - and data shows the average panel system could in theory power your home almost entirely. Solar Together caveats that by saying: "In practice, it's difficult for the average homeowner to install enough solar panels to power their entire home. "They can, though, generate enough energy to power household appliances such as your TV and fridge-freezer." Consider this myth busted - and think of the green impact too! Pics: iStock This is all very nice but in my opinion a biased viewpoint. Also the payback from installation costs is roughly 14 years for the average house "A 3-bedroom house typically requires a 4kW solar panel system, which costs around £9,000 – £10,000 (with a break-even period of about 14 years). Solar panels can cost between £5,000 and £13,000. You can expect to save roughly between £440 and up to £1,005 on electricity bills annually." The problem here is that how many people live at a property for much more than 14 years? Therefore you dont ever get your payback. Also what isnt discussed are birds. There are many houses in the suburb I live in that have solar panels and whenever i look at the solar panels they are covered in pigeons. These birds then leave their guano all over the panels so not only does their body lessen the effective sunlight the panels can absorb but the guano does also. The efficiencies in the article arent real life IMO let alone the eyesore that these panels turn your house into. Happy for other to prove me wrong on this but it will take some argument.

Clean energy accounted for 10% of global GDP growth in 2023Our new country-by-country and sector-by-sector analysis finds that in 2023, clean energy added around USD 320 billion to the world economy.20 hours ago Clean energy is boosting economic growth – Analysis - IEA IEA – International Energy Agency Clean electricity accounted for around 80% of new capacity additions to the world’s electricity system in 2023, and electric vehicles for around one out of five cars sold globally. At the same time, global investment in clean energy manufacturing is booming, driven by industrial policies and market demand. Employment in clean energy jobs exceeded that of fossil fuels in 2021 and continues to grow. Clean energy accounted for around one-fifth of China’s 5.2% GDP growth in 2023. Each of the three categories assessed grew strongly, with the largest increase coming from investment in clean power capacity, followed by clean equipment sales, particularly EVs. Expansion in clean energy manufacturing accounted for around 5% of China’s GDP growth in 2023

No, nobody listens to you.

It's not like the USA doesn't have volcanoes. Mount St. Helens is active; Yellowstone is a giant one. I wonder how much energy could have been drawn from the Old Faithful if some sort of power plant was put on it a long time ago. There have been more than 1,000,000 measured eruptions. It varies but it is around 25,000L of boiling water per hour.

the past week in the UK

This weeks powergen by industry type in the UK A paltry 11.8% from FF! Please also note the cost and emissions when its predominantly renewables (free energy).

Now this is quite interesting..VW, Ford, GM & Tesla all have either curtailed production, significantly reduced the work force and just like that there is a market decline. EXTRAORDINARY IS IT NOT! Weak EV Market Dragged Down European Car Sales in March By Tsvetana Paraskova - Apr 18, 2024, 6:00 AM CDT In the EU, new electric vehicle sales slumped by 11.3% to 134,397 units in March, led by a major 29% decline in EV sales in the biggest European market, Germany. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Weak-EV-Market-Dragged-Down-European-Car-Sales-in-March.html

These days most cars have "sealed units" and even spark plugs are inaccessible for many unless you buy expensive tools. Also these days you have to do "engine diagnostics" to determine what exactly is wrong with the car. The manufacturers have stopped the layman being able to service their own vehicle like many used to 10-20 years ago. They arent stupid it means $$$$ for the dealership in extortionate maintenance costs, or you have to take to a private mechanic who again wont be cheap. At 17 my first car a Ford Escort mark II the engine seized (after it had been stolen), I went to the local scrap yard stripped the engine back to the head gasket removed the pistons cleaned all the crap out and put it back together and then fitted the engine all by using a manual with no previous experience of doing any car maintenance. It worked on the first turn of the key! I really enjoyed doing that and it was satisfying doing the work and then having a car (although it was an old beater) to see my girlfriend in. Happy times, but very different times to today unfortunately.

Rich the statement above is opinion only when you look into some facts then you will see for example FF made up only 33% of the total power generation in the UK last year.

You've never been to Texas then! In 5 years there's been a huge increase in wind and a huge reduction in coal. I think we'll all agree Texas is very much a red state and definitely NOT a "hard-line democrat state". In 2023, wind represented 28.6 percent of Texas energy generation, second to natural gas (41.8 percent). There are 239 wind-related projects in Texas and more than 15,300 wind turbines, the most of any state. Texas wind power generation surpassed the state's nuclear generation in 2014 and coal-fired generation in 2020. How the Texas power grid is changing, according to 6 charts (houstonchronicle.com)

This comment shows you have no clue what utter rubbish your are spouting! Growth is growth it isnt negative! I presume you are trying to articulate that the growth rate percentage is reducing. Either you struggle with the English language or your struggle with math, or maybe its both! Ive highlighted the word "grow" for you from your own post. Show me how you can have "negative growth" Growth dropping to a huge 19% in 2025 is still exceptional growth in what is now becoming a market with many players, increasing competition and driving costs down. This is from your own post FFS! Is the company you work for experiencing growth of 19%? if so wow thats amazing, well done!

In hot areas a lot of electricity goes to running air conditioners. You might only need 2/3rds the power on a cool / cloudy day. On very hot sunny days the panels produce lots of electricity at the same time as peak AC demand. You don't need to run AC all night, so not as much storage is needed as you portray.

China wishes it achieved a capacity factor or 33% on their wind turbines... By their OWN published numbers It is 25% capacity factor. Average capacity factor in the USA even with all those ancient wind turbines is ~40%. All new wind turbines have a capacity factor ~50%. Europe has an average capacity factor of ~30%-->35%(region dependent of course) in their wind turbines where their new ones achieve 40% or so. Only a few RARE new ocean placement wind turbines in Europe have now hit 50%. Solar is a joke anywhere not named a desert, but at least those in the tropic zone have a chance. The problem? Winter, or seasonal rainy season for several months dropping output by at least 2/3 from whatever it was before. What is humorous is the Middle east with all its oil actually could go Solar along with Australia of course as they can average 10 hours of sun a day so "only" HAHAHAHA need battery backup of 20 hours or so. Of course you need more due to a thing called storms... but hey, one can dream of utopia right...

The bigger picture..............."Central Asian states........ only a fool , such as yourself , would buy your BS babble Central Asian states???????Are we talking Kansas....ha ha ha as we were discussing the United States and you are trying to paint Central Asian states as the bigger picture......Only a Russian would believe your BS Comrade .....the Central Asian states are diddly if you have been to any of the Central Asian states you would know they are ex soviet states that were left to rot and die..... the collective generation capacity has doubled........ 2 times diddly is double diddly Here is a good example of real power demand Power plants in Uzbekistan generated over 74 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2022, up three billion kilowatt-hours in the previous year. The production increased each year under consideration.Aug 7, 2023 Electricity generation in Uzbekistan 2016-2022 - Statista Statista https://www.statista.com › ... › Energy Compare the capacity of one the Central Asian States to one of the US States How about Iowa in 2022..................... Iowas consumption was 72,982,198 MWH or 78982 Billion WH or 79 Billion KWH Iowa itself is bigger than the biggest Central Asian State of Uzbekistan so move to one of your big Central Asian States and go all coal. We will not miss you Edited 22 hours ago by notsonice

Meltdown in progress.

Have you ever seen a bubble? It looks very much like a cell. There are known forces that produce bubbles. We know amino acids can be produced by inorganic processes and they can form simple peptides.

So what is your proposed theory if the universe is not expanding? A static universe? Creation? Quantum mechanics works very well. It is weird but has been tested by numerous experiments. Photoelectric effect, atomic emission spectroscopy, vibrational and rotational spectroscopy, etc. Energy and space is absolutely quantized. If you have no other plausible explanations maybe leave these topics to the real scientists. Many much greater minds have considered these questions.

Electrek Texas installs another big solar + battery storage project Power-hungry Texas needs solar and battery storage to help meet demand and balance the grid, so its largest utility-scale storage operator... . 9 hours ago PV Tech US DOE to invest US$475 million into clean energy projects at mine sites West Virginia's Model for Transition project will involve the construction of a 250MW project, at a cost of US$120 million. . 19 hours ago Canary Media Ohio greenlights massive solar, storage and… The Ohio Power Siting Board has given the go-ahead to what will be one of the largest solar farms in the United States,... . 1 day ago Electrek Pennsylvania's largest solar farm will replace its largest coal plant Pennsylvania's largest solar farm has been awarded $90 million and will sit on 2700 acres of the shuttered Homer City coal plant's land. . 1 day ago Successful Farming Common offer to lease farmland for solar panels: $1,000 an acre More than half of large U.S. farmers say they have been offered at least $1000 an acre during discussions about planting solar panels... . 2 weeks ago

https://renews.biz/92052/us-installed-4236mw-of-storage-in-q4-2023/ 'US installed 4.2GW of storage in Q4 2023' Wood Mackenzie and ACP report finds capacity doubled compared to third quarter March 2024 Energy Storage The US energy storage market saw 4236MW installed in the final quarter of 2023, an 100% increase from Q3, according to a new report.For the first time, the grid-scale segment exceeded 3GW deployed in one quarter and nearly topped 4GW, according to Wood Mackenzie and the American Clean Power Association’s (ACP) latest US Energy Storage Monitor report.With 3983MW of new capacity additions, the quarter saw a 358% increase compared to the same period in 2022.

As opposed to an army of 100,000 trolls working for the Russian government and 1,000,000 trolls working for the CCP. George F. Kennan was the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1948, and wrote the 'containment' long telegram that was influential in the formation of the Truman Administration Cold War policies. One quote was 'fight words with words and bullets with bullets'. Russian/Soviet Union propaganda efforts began with the Czar in the 19th century, and had a lot of effect on Europe, particularly Germany/Austria, in the 1910's/1920's. Much of this was motivated by the Swedish/German proposals for 'lebensraum', or 'Living Room', the idea that 'superior' races in Western Europe would 'expand eastwards' and (in some cases), simply eliminate the Slavs. Since Russia didn't have the resources to fight Western powers it used disinformation campaigns to sow division, and sponsored partisans in the target countries to resist and sabotage Western government and military operations. The US, via the CIA in some cases and through other organs as well, responded in-kind following the end of WW II. Some of our family friends worked for RFE in the 1950's, and later on they admitted it was CIA funded. I have run into a number of individuals since then that have all but admitted they were on the CIA payroll at one time or another, however most of these people have now died of old age. RFE/RL might have been funded by the CIA, however a lot of their reporting was timely and accurate. A lot of people in the Soviet Union/Russia would listen to RFE broadcasts to get some sense of what they weren't being told by their own media outlets. This included, at various times, the Gorbachevs. There is very little doubt now that the US, China, and Russia are all running massive clandestine services. Actually, China's aren't all that clandestine. In many cases the cost of this is getting to the point where such operations are underfunded and understaffed, partly because (particularly in the West) people have better things to do, but partly because the costs of 'distractions' (the Ukraine war) and the debt and bankruptcy of the CCP are leaving roles unfilled.

I LOVE the CIA every day against Russian GRU and KGB. People please wake up, your CIA is 100 times better than GRU. I know my country had a lot to do with GRU and KGB.