Severe Drought in the West Will Greatly Reduce Electrical Production from Hydroelectric Turbines.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

On another Ode to green technology….. Wait for it……

The founder of the much-hyped electric truck manufacturer Nikola Corp. NKLA, -15.22% has been charged with lying to investors about the supposed technological breakthroughs the company had achieved in order to drive up its stock price, federal prosecutors announced Thursday.

Trevor Milton, 39, is accused of claiming that his company had successfully manufactured working prototypes of electric trucks and pickup trucks that would turn the industry on its head, when he had, in fact, never built anything.

“At the bottom, this a very simple case: Milton told lies to generate popular demand for his stock,” said Audrey Strauss,, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Advertisement

At public events, the prototype vehicles were towed into position and were powered by plugs leading from hidden wall sockets, prosecutors said. 

Milton resigned from Nikola in September as it emerged that the justice department had opened a probe into the startup and its founder over possible false claims. Milton has previously tweeted that he intended to defend himself against “false allegations.”

Prosecutors said Milton was taken into custody Thursday in Manhattan and was later released on a $100 million bond. His attorney, Marc Mukasey, said in an email: “Trevor Milton is innocent. He’s been wrongfully accused after a faulty and incomplete investigation. He will be exonerated after trial.” 

In a statement, Nikola said that the indictment was against Milton and not the company, and noted that he had not been involved in the business since last year.

“Nikola has cooperated with the government throughout the course of its inquiry. We remain committed to our previously announced milestones and timelines and are focused on delivering Nikola Tre battery-electric trucks later this year from the company’s manufacturing facilities,” the statement read.

In the indictment, federal prosecutors said Milton had for years overinflated the technological developments the company had achieved, claiming it had built working prototypes of its Nikola One truck and Badger pickup truck out of parts the company had fully manufactured on its own. 

To make it appear the truck prototype was driving, it was towed to the top of a hill and then rolled down to the bottom, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said that, in fact, the prototypes that had been unveiled didn’t function and were Frankenstein monsters cobbled together from parts from other vehicles. At public events, the vehicles were allegedly towed into position and were powered by plugs leading from hidden wall sockets. 

Advertisement

In one instance, in which the vehicle was filmed for a promotional film, tape was used to keep the doors of a truck prototype from opening, prosecutors said. To make it appear the truck was driving, it was towed to the top of a hill and then rolled down to the bottom, according to the indictment.

What the News Means for You and Your Money

Understand how today’s business practices, market dynamics, tax policies and more impact you with real-time news and analysis from MarketWatch. 

 

SUBSCRIBE NOW: $1 FOR 4 WEEKS

Milton allegedly repeatedly said publicly that the prototypes were fully operational and overstated the number of pre-orders the company had received.

Non-traditional IPO

In June 2020, the company went public via a blank-check company, or a SPAC, called VectoIQ Acquisiton. A spokesperson for VectoIQ declined to comment. 

Prosecutors said because the company didn’t go public through a traditional IPO, Milton wasn’t bound by the traditional “quiet period” rulings following the listing, and was able to make outlandish public claims on social media about the company’s success in order to drive up the stock price by attracting retail investors. 

“Among the retail investors who ultimately invested in Nikola were investors who had no prior experience in the stock market and had begun trading during the COVID-19 pandemic to replace or supplement lost income or to occupy their time while in lockdown,” the indictment read.

Prosecutors said in the initial period following Nikola starting to trade publicly, the value of Milton’s shares shot up by $7 billion. After it emerged the company was under investigation, shares tanked causing many retail investors to lose tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars, prosecutors said. In some cases, some investors lost substantial portions of their retirement savings, they said. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission is running a parallel civil complaint. “Having chosen to promote Nikola through social media, Milton was obligated under the securities laws to communicate completely, accurately and truthfully,” Gurbir Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said in a statement Thursday. “That obligation exists for all public company officials, even those whose companies have only recently entered the public markets through SPAC transactions.”

The thing’s they will do for green… More like GREED, All part of the great green energy Ponzi Scam.

 

 

Not news to anyone, except you I guess. Always going to b criminals. In the meantime the renewable march moves forward unabated.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Unabated, come on, let’s get real and get back to reality!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:36 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

No, I don't want one "on my doorstep". I want it away from the shore by at least 12 miles, just like an offshore oil platform.

Whatever is beyond the horizon if you want public support.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 7/29/2021 at 5:19 AM, Rob Plant said:

As I said in my previous post the US has a lot of land but even so you wouldnt be making these for anywhere land based.

You obviously havent seen these yet then and arent up to date on the latest offshore wind turbines, I did post it on Oilprice previously. 260 metres (850ft+) ABOVE sea level. Each blade is 107metres (350ft) long!

No feet/metres translation issue here.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/ge-haliade-x-wind-turbine/

This post was 2018 they are now built and in situ in the North Sea

This link shows a time lapse of the installation if you scroll down

https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine

Enjoy!

Sigh, Wind turbines are measured by HUB height.  You guys are talking apples and oranges comparison in your numbers.  Not tip of blade height.  Why GE decided to do so is odd.  Halide X has a blade length of 110m and a hub height of ~~130m.  Why GE decided to put in TIp height I do not know. 

Most hub heights of wind turbines on land here in USA, just like in Europe are 80m to 100m in height with ~75+m blades for 4-->5MW.  All companies keep pushing hub height higher, so you will see same models with ever increasing hub heights anywhere from 60m for old style 2.5MW turbines which were pulled down and now can also be placed at 120m hub heights.   You know, ~exact same hub height as the largest newest largest Turbine in the world, Halide X.  

The heights of all of these turbines is nearly identical.  So, saying putting them in the ocean allows for larger turbines is, pardon the pun, a tall lie. 

What is true about ocean installation is that the tip speed can be higher making more noise, but collects more power and  hub height can be LOWERED compared to its land brethren for same power output as there is no terrain turbulence problems at sea. 

[specinho + 439]

On 7/29/2021 at 3:52 AM, Eric Gagen said:

I have never heard of the movie you mentioned. 

here is a little bit of highlight about that movie released in 2011 (click on the link to watch):

Rango - stage is waiting, who am I?

 

On 7/29/2021 at 7:43 PM, Eric Gagen said:

This may surprise you if you haven’t been, to the US but you can build wind turbine farms on land here (not dozens but hundreds of them) and the entire project be sited out of sight of the nearest human habitation.

heard about disadvantages of windmill somewhere e.g. they are noisy, hazard to birds, disallow diversity or the existence of animals and plants within vicinity, taken up much space, troublesome after shelf life handling or maintenance (someone suggested selling them to less developed countries as second hand technology or giving them away, instead of destroying or recycling the material) etc

Besides, shall the earth is warming, the temperature differences between two used to be distinct places would be narrowed. This will affect the formation of wind, direction and may be frequency. With much uncertainty, this technology might need to be reconsidered??

There has been a mechanical technology initiated in the 50s called flywheel energy...... I am not familiar but curious, how is it working. Wondering why this technology is not popular?

Saw another video the other day regarding how an old quarry in England invented a delivery belt that does not require energy or electricity but relying solely on gravitational pull and counter action of it to function over 100 years........

Mechanical technology is independent of less controllable or predictable natural factors e.g. availability and intensity of sunlight, wind, water etc. May be, instead of focusing on the existing less ready technologies of solar and wind which could still be highly controversial,  there might be a need for us to look for something else that could be more worthy of the pursue??

[turbguy + 1,391]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

Mechanical technology is independent of less controllable or predictable natural factors e.g. availability and intensity of sunlight, wind, water etc. May be, instead of focusing on the existing less ready technologies of solar and wind which could still be highly controversial,  there might be a need for us to look for something else that could be more worthy of the pursue??

Geothermal.

[nsdp + 449]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:36 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

No, I don't want one "on my doorstep". I want it away from the shore by at least 12 miles, just like an offshore oil platform.

 What planet do you live on. Anywhere from Mobile Bay to the Sabine River, you will see producing and drilling platforms in state waters which extend only 3 miles off shore. Texas is 3 Marine Leagues (12.1 miles) and again filled with platforms. Mexico is as far as you can see.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 7/29/2021 at 7:46 PM, RichieRich216 said:

Unabated, come on, let’s get real and get back to reality!

OK, what in reality has this event slowed down?

[RichieRich216 + 454]

It will never slow down that is what you greenies do not get, the few major EU and this brained President just don’t get the the smaller Countries are not going to give up the only major resources they have! 
 

You read where China’s using more coal now and expect too for the foreseeable future! 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 hours ago, nsdp said:

 What planet do you live on. Anywhere from Mobile Bay to the Sabine River, you will see producing and drilling platforms in state waters which extend only 3 miles off shore. Texas is 3 Marine Leagues (12.1 miles) and again filled with platforms. Mexico is as far as you can see.

Sorry that I was unclear. I was stating my personal preference, which is that the windmills and the oil platforms should be fairly far offshore. Since the reality is that the oil platforms are allowed to be near shore in some places, then the windmills should be allowed near shore in those same places. What irritates me is sanctimonious anti-windmill folks who are not also opposed to near-shore oil platforms. Specifically in regard to interference with commercial fishing, the two are effectively equivalent.

[turbguy + 1,391]

5 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry that I was unclear. I was stating my personal preference, which is that the windmills and the oil platforms should be fairly far offshore. Since the reality is that the oil platforms are allowed to be near shore in some places, then the windmills should be allowed near shore in those same places. What irritates me is sanctimonious anti-windmill folks who are not also opposed to near-shore oil platforms. Specifically in regard to interference with commercial fishing, the two are effectively equivalent.

With the additional observation that the wind turbine doesn't burn anything.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry that I was unclear. I was stating my personal preference, which is that the windmills and the oil platforms should be fairly far offshore. Since the reality is that the oil platforms are allowed to be near shore in some places, then the windmills should be allowed near shore in those same places. What irritates me is sanctimonious anti-windmill folks who are not also opposed to near-shore oil platforms. Specifically in regard to interference with commercial fishing, the two are effectively equivalent.

Having lived, worked or travelled in ALL the places mentioned (Corpus Christi to Mobile Bay) it's not that big a deal.  Most of the gulf coast slopes so gradually to the sea that the first 5-50 miles of 'land' on a map are actually uninhabitable land filled with environmentally sensitive swamps, wetlands, estuaries, etc.  There are only a tiny number of places in a few key areas that are high enough to be buildable, and most of them are artificially constructed and filled with critical dock and industrial infrastructure.  The 'beyond the horizon' limit is already met at the waters edge for 98% of the gulf coast until you get to Mississippi.  The exceptions are parts of Corpus Christi Bay, and parts of Galveston island.  It isn't until you get East of the Mississippi that there is any other residential land of interest on the Gulf of Mexico. 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Why not install Tesla Battery Pack:

Massive Tesla battery on fire at renewable energy plant in Australia

A toxic smoke warning has been issued near Geelong, Victoria, as fire crews wait for the blaze to die down.

A Tesla battery has burst into flames during testing at the site of the southern hemisphere's largest battery project.

A 13-metric-ton lithium battery caught fire on Friday at the renewable energy plant, called the Victorian Big Battery, near Geelong, about 50 miles from Melbourne. The blaze then spread to an adjacent battery bank, Australia's ABC reports, but has since been contained.

A toxic smoke warning has been issued in the area. Fire crews will have to wait up to 24 hours for the blaze to die down.

The site is the second Tesla battery project Down Under, following the 2017 installation in South Australia, a facility which Tesla CEO Elon Musk called the "world's largest" at the time. 

🤣😂 Your green energy agenda at work…

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

11 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

Why not install Tesla Battery Pack:

Massive Tesla battery on fire at renewable energy plant in Australia

A toxic smoke warning has been issued near Geelong, Victoria, as fire crews wait for the blaze to die down.

A Tesla battery has burst into flames during testing at the site of the southern hemisphere's largest battery project.

A 13-metric-ton lithium battery caught fire on Friday at the renewable energy plant, called the Victorian Big Battery, near Geelong, about 50 miles from Melbourne. The blaze then spread to an adjacent battery bank, Australia's ABC reports, but has since been contained.

A toxic smoke warning has been issued in the area. Fire crews will have to wait up to 24 hours for the blaze to die down.

The site is the second Tesla battery project Down Under, following the 2017 installation in South Australia, a facility which Tesla CEO Elon Musk called the "world's largest" at the time. 

🤣😂 Your green energy agenda at work…

This week in coal:

Fire at the coal-fired power station in Brevik

 

However, the fire will not be extinguished and it may take some time. The 110 headquarters says at 11.30 p.m. that they haven’t got the fire under control yet, but the measures taken have lowered the temperature.

– We have the situation under control relatively well. Now we are in a job that will continue for a long time, says Sanda to the police.

The fire had broken out in the coal works.

– Water has entered a control room. Then the system stopped and air entered our fine coal plant and started a fire, industrial manager Geir Møller told VG.https://newsbeezer.com/norwayeng/fire-at-the-coal-fired-power-station-in-brevik-2/

-------------------------------

A coal fire has been burning at the Pawnee Power Plant in Brush for over two weeks, as it was first reported to the Brush Volunteer Fire Department on Monday, July 19 as having started July 14.

As of Sunday, the Morgan County Sheriff’s office released a statement that all operations related to the fire had been turned over to Xcel Energy, Savage Industries and their contracted Emergency Response Team.

In the latest email statement provided by Xcel spokeswoman Michelle Aguayo, the plant began generating power Tuesday, after being taken offline last Friday, July 23. Aguayo stated that the plant would be running again Thursday, July 29 with limited operations, as they continue to bring the plant back to full operations.

“Our crews are working to extinguish the fire and are making good progress,” Aguayo said. “We have not had any impacts to electric service to our customers. While the cause of the fire has not yet been determined, it is most likely spontaneous combustion, which is a risk we, as well as the industry generally, continually work to mitigate using industry best practices. Also, important to note, coal fires are not fast moving but rather burn slowly, for long periods of time, making them harder to extinguish.”

------------------------------

 

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

I cannot begin to count the number of coal bunker fires that I have experienced.

If a coal unit trips with a lot of coal in the bunkers, one of the first questions asked is "How long will we be off line"?

More than, say, 24 hours the bunkers must be emptied via "other means".

Once a coal bunker fire begins, two words describe it's extinquishment...

1. IM
2. POSSIBLE

Try water. CO2, nothing stops it except emptying.

Edited August 2, 2021 by turbguy

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

On 7/31/2021 at 6:57 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

All companies keep pushing hub height higher, so you will see same models with ever increasing hub heights anywhere from 60m for old style 2.5MW turbines which were pulled down and now can also be placed at 120m hub heights.   You know, ~exact same hub height as the largest newest largest Turbine in the world, Halide X. 

Wrong again, 150M hub height so larger than anything else in the world!

So that nearly 100Ft taller than you state.

https://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/turbine-ge-energy-haliade-x-13-mw-tid323.html

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

9 hours ago, turbguy said:

I cannot begin to count the number of coal bunker fires that I have experienced.

If a coal unit trips with a lot of coal in the bunkers, one of the first questions asked is "How long will we be off line"?

More than, say, 24 hours the bunkers must be emptied via "other means".

Once a coal bunker fire begins, two words describe it's extinquishment...

1. IM
2. POSSIBLE

Try water. CO2, nothing stops it except emptying.

Hot N2 purge?

Edited August 2, 2021 by QuarterCenturyVet

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, turbguy said:

I cannot begin to count the number of coal bunker fires that I have experienced.

If a coal unit trips with a lot of coal in the bunkers, one of the first questions asked is "How long will we be off line"?

More than, say, 24 hours the bunkers must be emptied via "other means".

Once a coal bunker fire begins, two words describe it's extinquishment...

1. IM
2. POSSIBLE

Try water. CO2, nothing stops it except emptying.

How expensive is a bunker fire? you lose the coal, the use of the bunker for some amount of time, and the cost of fighting the fire, if any. Does the bunker then need to be refurbished? I'm trying to get an idea of the cost of a bunker fire compared to the cost of a Megapack fire.  To then get a full comparison, we would also need the number of bunker fire per GWh of coal generation, and the number of Megapack fires per GWh of renewable generation (or some other measure of relative deployment of bunkers and Megapacks).

[turbguy + 1,391]

5 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Hot N2 purge?

The issue is the volume of a bunker is so large (even with coal) that you need MANY TONS of any blanketing gas, and even then, it sneaks out through fabrication seams and such.

The problem was even worse after switching from eastern coals to PRB coals.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

17 hours ago, turbguy said:

With the additional observation that the wind turbine doesn't burn anything.

I have never stood on a shoreline and observed either an oil platform or a wind turbine, so I don't have an informed opinion about the relative aesthetics. I personally think the wind turbines I have seen are pretty. Do oil platforms emit obvious steam or smoke plumes? Wind turbines do not increase the chances of oil globs on my beach. Do oil platforms increase the chances? What are the relative differences in the effects on commercial fishing?

All of those are local effects, independent of the larger discussion about the global effects of oil versus wind power.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 minutes ago, turbguy said:

The issue is the volume of a bunker is so large (even with coal) that you need MANY TONS of any blanketing gas, and even then, it sneaks out through fabrication seams and such.

The problem was even worse after switching from eastern coals to PRB coals.

But hey, if you used carbon-captured CO2, you could pretend you were reducing your plant's carbon footprint. 😀

[turbguy + 1,391]

44 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

How expensive is a bunker fire? you lose the coal, the use of the bunker for some amount of time, and the cost of fighting the fire, if any. Does the bunker then need to be refurbished? I'm trying to get an idea of the cost of a bunker fire compared to the cost of a Megapack fire.  To then get a full comparison, we would also need the number of bunker fire per GWh of coal generation, and the number of Megapack fires per GWh of renewable generation (or some other measure of relative deployment of bunkers and Megapacks).

Typically, it's just a real hassle and headache to empty full bunkers. 

Think front end loaders and dump trucks working in areas not designed to operate front end loaders and dump trucks.  It's a real mess!!  

Good coal is returned to the coal pile so it may not be "lost". 

Coal piles must be monitored (CO monitoring, or just your nose) and stirred up now and then to avoid potential fires.  At least coal piles are designed for heavy earth moving equipment.

I get to wonder how they avoid/react to fires when transporting coals in ships, never thought about that hazzard...

Typically the reason you are off-line exceeds the time required to empty a bunker.

The bunkers are typically constructed of mild steels, so some damage may occur, but it's typically localized to hot spots and cheap to repair (if required at all).'

And every now and them, a coal pulverizer tries to do it's "magic" to inadvertant debris (think a chunk of a crowbar,  a piece of railroad, or a dead racoon).

The issue is avoiding fires, not reacting to them.  Plant operators know what to do.  Sometimes fires just happen "anyhow".

Edited August 2, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Inside a power-plant blaze: everybody had trained for it, nobody got hurt, still intense and scary

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/environment/os-ne-ouc-power-plant-fire-20210219-qc3n7wtqwvabhpj4nsb4lr6w4y-story.html

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I have never stood on a shoreline and observed either an oil platform or a wind turbine, so I don't have an informed opinion about the relative aesthetics. I personally think the wind turbines I have seen are pretty. Do oil platforms emit obvious steam or smoke plumes? Wind turbines do not increase the chances of oil globs on my beach. Do oil platforms increase the chances? What are the relative differences in the effects on commercial fishing?

All of those are local effects, independent of the larger discussion about the global effects of oil versus wind power.

Usually there is nothing burning on an oil platform either.  The fuel they produce gets burned somewhere eventually though.

Oil platforms are good for most type of fishing, because they increase fish counts/numbers (they are effectively artifical reefs) but some types of commercial fishers don't like them because they use wide angle trawls or drift nets which can get caught on the facilities.  These are going to be neutral issues with wind turbines though, since the structure of the platforms is in most cases identical.  

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Coal and oil have been around before you, easy to pull up article’s on this, You greenies with all this modern tech available should be doing better…