Strait Of Hormuz As a Breakpoint: Germany Not Taking Part In U.S. Naval Mission

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 8/8/2019 at 8:52 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

1)  Hydro: high capital costs, zero fuel costs, dispatchable, weather dependent: makes sense everywhere, but it's a limited resource.  Weather dependence (no rain = no hydro) creates risks. 

But keep in mind that there are hydro situations where the supply of water is not weather-dependent, or as a practical matter not weather-dependent.  As an example I offer you the hydro power plants at Niagara Falls, where the water supply is the entire volume of the four Great Lakes, and where the overflow never stops.  Those hydro plants can run at 100% output every day all year long and never flicker.  The same is true of the downstream plants that are run-of-river at Beauharnois, Quebec, with 38 monster generators harnessing the St. Lawrence River that drains all five Great Lakes to the sea.  That power never stops.  And you have analogous outputs on the rivers that drain the massive Quebec Plateau, including up at James Bay and over at Churchill Falls, Labrador, where the vertical drop down the standpipe is a stupendous one thousand feet.  Power so cheap it sells at one tenth of one cent. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Tommie77 + 29]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:59 PM, BALBOA said:

hmm, don't protect their ship then.

There won’t be any need, of course, because with this move, the Germans express their disagreement with Trump’s Iran policy. Hence, Iran won’t confiscate or attack German ships.

As per one of the other quotes, allied forces’ toppling of Khadaffi promoted the continuation of The Arab Spring that turned out a disaster for the Middle East and Europe.

Diplomacy works, not mindless tweeting & war.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

12 hours ago, Boat said:

Sigh, google Texas wind consumption please and explain how 19% of consumed electricity from the leading consumer of electricity in the states is a small amount. And the prices are still historically cheap. I believe that data to be valid. 

I have read that at present with todays technology wind alone can supply up to 40% of the ERCOT grid without a lot of additional cost. Wind continues to expand and now solar is beginning to take off.

My post was about Texas electricity. You can call it cherry picking but hey, I live here and that is why I track it somewhat. Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, N Dakota and now Wyoming all seem to disagree with your assement.

The silly worry about to many renewables causing grid instability. How is that possible when electricity has/had a pretty healthy margin of extra grenetation capability on standby. Anything less than an adequate amount is just stupidity by somebody in charge. In an emergency situation where there is a blackout there better be plenty of extenuating circumstances or off to court they go. 

Total Cost is always factored in future development. If renewables grow to a point it is to expensive to have backup power at scale you simply quit adding renewable capacity. Silly  So far that hasn’t happened in Texas. 

Yes, I'm aware.  Now tell me what percentage of global demand all of that adds to. 

Also, tell me what happens to your need for excess generation when 20+% of your grid is intermittent.  When all your generation can be turned on like a switch, an extra 10% will do.  When half your generation has a mind of its own, that could be as much as 60%.  How much does that cost? 

And as @Jan van Eck noted, grid stabilization is a thing - and no, "stabilization" doesn't mean having generation available.  It refers to the quality of that energy in terms of frequency and voltage.  Are those costs accounted for in the price of wind farms? 

And how much does it cost to build grid out to those West Texas wind farms?  Did they include those costs when they declared renewables economical?

And how many of those Texas wind farms took advantage of subsidies?  Would they still have been built if the US government didn't pay 20-30% of the cost up front? 

Again, reports of a renewable victory are premature.  Show me renewables taking 30+% market share without subsidy or price guarantees in a market whose prices are untouched by renewables, and I'll be impressed. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Properly tagged someone I was referring to so they knew I was referencing their statement.

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 8/5/2019 at 12:40 PM, NickW said:

If Trump wants to keep a military presence in Europe and has any sense he will withdraw all forces to the one country that does actually meet its NATO obligations.

USS Great Britain 🇬🇧 Royal Britania, we’ve got your back brothers 🇺🇸🇬🇧❤️❤️

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Yes, I'm aware.  Now tell me what percentage of ...

And how many of those Texas wind farms took advantage of subsidies?  Would they still have been built if the US government didn't pay 20-30% of the cost up front?

100% of those wind farms were built with the PTC subsidies and zero will be built when the subsidy runs out.  The PTC subsidy runs out in 2020 or is it 2021?  In either case LOTS of wind projects are being started this year to get the last remaining little bit of federal subsidy.  Projects post federal subsidy elimination is ZERO new wind farms. 

There is a massive caveat.  With the MUCH higher new tower design, the old designs which used to get ~30% Capacity factor are now hitting 50% Capacity factor and old  turbines are being mounted on new towers achieving vastly superior operating parameters.  Wind percentage of total will go up.  New projects?  Slowly, if at all, until a couple more years of maintenance data for longer term operation roll in for investors to get behind wind. 

[DocManfred + 42]

On 8/5/2019 at 5:40 PM, NickW said:

If Trump wants to keep a military presence in Europe and has any sense he will withdraw all forces to the one country that does actually meet its NATO obligations.

US direct in investment in Europe amounted to more than 3.6 Trillion USD in 2018 (see below). As a result of this a lot of money from profits of these investments flows from Europe to US every year.

Nasty people argue that this is the main reason for the US military presence in Europe. Seems reasonable, isn`t it ?

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/fdici0719-chart-01.png

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 8/14/2019 at 3:32 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

And how many of those Texas wind farms took advantage of subsidies? 

Texas Monthly has a good article on Texas power.  Because Texas has it's own grid, and excellent access to natural gas, plus it's wide (critical for solar having generation later in the date from west Texas), the overall mix works. 

Texas electricity is deregulated on the wholesale level, for those that don't know. It's not that hard to build a plant and sell on the open market. There is a daily bidding process, and as weather forecasting has gotten better, it's become quite accurate with wind and solar.

As for the subsidies on renewables, when you factor in the tax and land policies concerning oil and gas, there is a strong argument oil and gas gets quite a boost as well. 

The real lesson, have a strong grid, multiple players selling on the open market. They keep each other in check. And you want a lot of gas for it's ability to ramp up and down. You need nuclear, and renewables, for stability. Oil and gas has a nasty habit of going up and down in cost.

[JR EWING + 123]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:03 PM, Pavel said:

I'm afraid the whole EU will not take part of a naval US mission. They will just let Uncle Sam take care of 

I hope it bre asks their bank

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 8/14/2019 at 6:17 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I was discussing this with a friend in the energy business recently. His guesstimate was that Europe would build out renewables to the point that is practically possible (and storage will likely push this limit) and then replace baseload with nuclear and NG. What happens in the medium to long term I dare not guess about. 

That sounds correct to me. 

Where I disagree with most renewables advocates is the extent to which renewables are "practically possible".  I think we're close to that limit around the world, and I would argue that storage technology favors base-load generators more than it favors renewables.  I could be wrong though; there are things I don't know. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 8/25/2019 at 4:50 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That sounds correct to me. 

Where I disagree with most renewables advocates is the extent to which renewables are "practically possible".  I think we're close to that limit around the world, and I would argue that storage technology favors base-load generators more than it favors renewables.  I could be wrong though; there are things I don't know. 

I think from an engineering / scientific point of view you are rigth, but the anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe is strong (basically any born before 2000 is staunchly anti nuclear) and the belief in renewables is also strong. I have seen some business plans to produce hydrogen from excess renewables - that might move the needle. I don't know. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think from an engineering / scientific point of view you are rigth, but the anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe is strong (basically any born before 2000 is staunchly anti nuclear) and the belief in renewables is also strong. I have seen some business plans to produce hydrogen from excess renewables - that might move the needle. I don't know. 

Hydrogen from renewables will be incredibly expensive and inefficient.  I don't see it making a significant contribution when straight electricity is a more economical alternative. 

I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the US, belief in various things is strong right up to the moment the bill is presented.  Our politicians take this as a given, which is why they attempt to hide taxes behind various schemes.  E.g. the average consumer never sees a line item on their electricity bill that says "wind power feed-in tariffs".  The cost can't be hidden forever though.  Faced with stagnating wages and high energy bills, I suspect young Europeans will tire of renewables.

Then again, countries like Germany would probably like to avoid importing technology and fuel.  They might stomach a little more cost to avoid defending supply chains.  Or maybe they'll hold out until the next generation of nuclear reactors is available. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Then again, countries like Germany would probably like to avoid importing technology and fuel.  They might stomach a little more cost to avoid defending supply chains.  Or maybe they'll hold out until the next generation of nuclear reactors is available. 

I think it will be a combination. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think from an engineering / scientific point of view you are rigth, but the anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe is strong (basically any born before 2000 is staunchly anti nuclear) and the belief in renewables is also strong. I have seen some business plans to produce hydrogen from excess renewables - that might move the needle. I don't know. 

I almost forgot: why are Europeans so opposed to nuclear?  Is it fallout (pun intended) from Chernobyl, or did something else change their minds? 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I almost forgot: why are Europeans so opposed to nuclear?  Is it fallout (pun intended) from Chernobyl, or did something else change their minds? 

cold war scare; Chernobyl; make love not war; Fukushima meltdown... 

The debate about nuclear in Europe seems very un-scientific. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

cold war scare; Chernobyl; make love not war; Fukushima meltdown... 

The debate about nuclear in Europe seems very un-scientific. 

So the same crap we deal with in America.  I'm glad these people also refuse to have large families.  In time, conservatism will reassert itself. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 8/28/2019 at 5:50 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

So the same crap we deal with in America.  I'm glad these people also refuse to have large families.  In time, conservatism will reassert itself. 

Ironically, I think it will climate change fear that will push Europe to nuclear again... 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

5 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Ironically, I think it will climate change fear that will push Europe to nuclear again... 

I've met some interesting leftists, but I've never met one capable of critical thought.  They'll come around to nuclear when their Thought Leaders decide that's best. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 8/28/2019 at 7:06 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I almost forgot: why are Europeans so opposed to nuclear?  Is it fallout (pun intended) from Chernobyl, or did something else change their minds? 

At least in Cold War days, Europe was the probably biggest loser.

For a few decades the Soviet bloc military could, in a conventional war, probably beat the west. So when the West starts losing, you counter with a tactical nuke. And pretty soon, tit for tat and that is that for Europe. The USA was very clear not to rule out first use, because backed into a corner, we had to use them. Now if it led to toe to toe ICBMs, well than the MAD strategy, mutually assured destruction, failed.

Carter killed the neutron bomb because Germany would let it be placed on their soil, and so what was the point in having it. Germany rightfully thought using it would force the Soviets into full on nuke.

Oh the good old days of proper enemies and war games.