My list of recommended renewable energy technologies

Scottish Scientist wrote:
The links are to my blog where I have published about the technology item in the list.

Scottish Scientist recommends -

Hydro-electric / Geothermal / tidal where appropriate

Land-based wind turbines

Offshore wind turbines

Solar power for local supply, recommended where there's winter sunshine

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)
- Comment

Pumped-storage hydro for energy storage with on-land generation
- World's biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro scheme for Scotland?
- Wind turbine & Pumped-storage hydro computer modelling

Undersea hydrogen storage for energy storage with offshore generation

Carbon-neutral bio-fuels for transport such as dimethyl-ether (DME) from steam-reformed biomass

Convert old vehicles, for transport by land, sea & air to run on bio-fuels

New vehicles powered by hydrogen / electrical batteries / bio-fuels

Nuclear-powered mega-ships – container & bulk transport, cruise liners etc

Nuclear-powered tugs for high-power pulling of ships long distance (rather than low-power navigation)

Scottish Scientist does not recommend -

Forget new nuclear plant for the grid. Portable nuclear only.

Forget carbon-capture and storage from fossil-fuel burning power stations
___________
Who pays?

Pay for this by governments directing their central banks to create new money for such infrastructure investments - there's no need to burden tax-payers, electricity bill-payers, travellers, hauliers, shipping companies etc.

More power?

When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Scottish Scientist
Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Into the Night wrote:
Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances.

Into the Night wrote:
With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

Into the Night wrote:
The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)

Tim the plumber wrote:
...There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody...Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

Tim the plumber wrote:

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)

Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

UK Government to investigate Scotland-Iceland renewable energy network

Common Space, 30th October 2015

Subsea cables to bring volcanic energy from Iceland to power a "green battery"

THE UK government is set to announce plans for a new scheme to transport Icelandic geo-thermal energy to the UK via Subsea cables to create a "green battery", with previous plans presenting the first port of call as Scotland.

If found to be viable, the development would increase Scotland's energy security, diversify its energy market and create jobs and infrastructure.

The subsea cable would be a multi-billion pound investment and will transport both geo-thermal and hydro-electricity directly to Britain. A UK-Icelandic energy task force will report on the viability of the scheme in six months.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Scotland isn't in the Euro because the UK isn't in the Euro and we are still in the UK, having voted against Scottish independence in 2014, and therefore Scotland is not doing as well as we could be doing outside the UK, depending on how well we governed Scotland.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
But my list was not for Scotland or the UK alone but for all the world to consider.

Printing money is appropriate where there is slack in the economy and there is certainly that in Europe, because the European Central Bank has been timid in the use of money printing or quantitative easing methods of investing.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances.

The longest power transmission line in the world is the Rio Madeira HVDC system in Brazil.
The length of the Rio Madeira line is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi).

Consider the distances which might be required supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn - Namib Desert, Atacama Desert, Australia to the northern hemisphere.

The distance from the Tropics to the Equator is 2,630 km.
The distance from the Equator to the Poles is 10,000km.

So the worst case would be supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn to the North Pole over 2,630 + 10,000 = 12,630 km, which is a factor of 12,630/2,375 = 5.32 times further than the length of Rio Madeira transmission line.

So to keep the losses the same over that "worst case" distance would require the transmission voltage to be increased by a factor of only (the square root of 5.32) = 2.31.

The voltages used on the Rio Madeira transmission lines are ±600 kV DC.

So designing for transmission voltages of 2.31 x 600 = ±1380 kV DC would be all that is required to supply the North Pole from the Tropic of Capricorn!

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

Well the components for higher voltages are made bigger and with greater radiuses of curvature which reduces the electric field for the same voltage or allows a higher voltage for the same electric field.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.

There is also the option of damming at the wider but shallower Camarinal Sill

Not that I am in any hurry to design the Gibraltar dam as I have pencilled its construction in for after the world is fossil-fuel free.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)

Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

A Scotland - Iceland subsea cable is being considered already.

UK Government to investigate Scotland-Iceland renewable energy network

Common Space, 30th October 2015

Subsea cables to bring volcanic energy from Iceland to power a "green battery"

THE UK government is set to announce plans for a new scheme to transport Icelandic geo-thermal energy to the UK via Subsea cables to create a "green battery", with previous plans presenting the first port of call as Scotland.

If found to be viable, the development would increase Scotland's energy security, diversify its energy market and create jobs and infrastructure.

The subsea cable would be a multi-billion pound investment and will transport both geo-thermal and hydro-electricity directly to Britain. A UK-Icelandic energy task force will report on the viability of the scheme in six months.

IMAGE - Iceland to Scotland shortest distance - 820 km - 510 miles

Considering that there is a plan already to build the longest undersea power cable from Norway to the U.K. which will be about 740 kilometers (460 miles) long, then we can confidently say that such a subsea power cable from Iceland to Scotland would be a practical possibility.

I agree that such a cable could provide useful back-up renewable power from Iceland when the UK grid is low on power because of wind calms.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

There seems to be a complete lack of practicality here. Scotland must doing well indeed to even begin funding any of these projects.

You say use government money. Where do you think that money comes from?
You say just print it. What do you think happens to the money of a country that just prints it willy-nilly? Is Scotland going to leave the Euro to do this?

Scotland isn't in the Euro because the UK isn't in the Euro and we are still in the UK, having voted against Scottish independence in 2014, and therefore Scotland is not doing as well as we could be doing outside the UK, depending on how well we governed Scotland.

Ok.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
But my list was not for Scotland or the UK alone but for all the world to consider.

Printing money is appropriate where there is slack in the economy and there is certainly that in Europe, because the European Central Bank has been timid in the use of money printing or quantitative easing methods of investing.

Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Transmitting power such long distances is going to require high tension lines far higher than we have now, and over longer distances.

The longest power transmission line in the world is the Rio Madeira HVDC system in Brazil.
The length of the Rio Madeira line is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi).

Consider the distances which might be required supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn - Namib Desert, Atacama Desert, Australia to the northern hemisphere.

The distance from the Tropics to the Equator is 2,630 km.
The distance from the Equator to the Poles is 10,000km.

So the worst case would be supplying power from the Tropic of Capricorn to the North Pole over 2,630 + 10,000 = 12,630 km, which is a factor of 12,630/2,375 = 5.32 times further than the length of Rio Madeira transmission line.

So to keep the losses the same over that "worst case" distance would require the transmission voltage to be increased by a factor of only (the square root of 5.32) = 2.31.

The voltages used on the Rio Madeira transmission lines are ±600 kV DC.

So designing for transmission voltages of 2.31 x 600 = ±1380 kV DC would be all that is required to supply the North Pole from the Tropic of Capricorn!

The trouble is the length.

Into the Night wrote:
While HVDC lines are great at long distances, there are still losses.

Into the Night wrote:
It's far more economical to construct shorter lines to available power supplies.

Into the Night wrote:
Lengths like you are talking about will still lose a lot of power to cumulative losses.

Into the Night wrote:
I am not saying it's impossible to build such a line, I am saying it's not necessary.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
With such a line, tension leakage is going to be a real problem. The stuff just doesn't stay on the wire with such high tension. Air is the insulator on such a line, and it begins to break down.

Well the components for higher voltages are made bigger and with greater radiuses of curvature which reduces the electric field for the same voltage or allows a higher voltage for the same electric field.

Straight line losses are still there. Wind is still there. Sag is still there.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The Straits of Gibraltar are about 490 fathoms (900 meters or approx 3000 ft) deep and 14 km (9 miles) wide. To construct such a dam would prove to be a daunting task to say the least. The loads it would have to withstand would be far bigger than anyone has ever remotely engineered before.

There is also the option of damming at the wider but shallower Camarinal Sill

Not that I am in any hurry to design the Gibraltar dam as I have pencilled its construction in for after the world is fossil-fuel free.

This would create an even longer dam. No matter where you put it in the Straits, this is going to be one hell of a project.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)

Or build the cable half way and stop at Etna. Use geothermal.

There are plenty of volcanoes which can supply loads of electricity all day, all year for everybody.

Etna, Iceland, Yellowstone etc...

A Scotland - Iceland subsea cable is being considered already.

UK Government to investigate Scotland-Iceland renewable energy network

Common Space, 30th October 2015

Subsea cables to bring volcanic energy from Iceland to power a "green battery"

THE UK government is set to announce plans for a new scheme to transport Icelandic geo-thermal energy to the UK via Subsea cables to create a "green battery", with previous plans presenting the first port of call as Scotland.

If found to be viable, the development would increase Scotland's energy security, diversify its energy market and create jobs and infrastructure.

The subsea cable would be a multi-billion pound investment and will transport both geo-thermal and hydro-electricity directly to Britain. A UK-Icelandic energy task force will report on the viability of the scheme in six months.

IMAGE - Iceland to Scotland shortest distance - 820 km - 510 miles

Considering that there is a plan already to build the longest undersea power cable from Norway to the U.K. which will be about 740 kilometers (460 miles) long, then we can confidently say that such a subsea power cable from Iceland to Scotland would be a practical possibility.

I agree that such a cable could provide useful back-up renewable power from Iceland when the UK grid is low on power because of wind calms.

1, Why just when the wind is calm??? If it can supply the power then it can do so all the time and there is no need at all for the silly wind farms.

Landsvirkjun - The National Power Company of Iceland - Submarine Cable to Europe

Through bi-directional flows, IceLink could potentially reduce the cost of managing constraints between northern GB and the major consumption centres further south as energy is directed to Iceland at times of excess wind power generation in the north, stored in hydro reservoirs, and returned at times of lower wind output.

By providing flexible energy in near term spot markets and the balancing mechanism, IceLink can lower the cost of balancing, in particular in a system with a high penetration of intermittent generation.

IceLink increases diversity of power supply at both ends and enhances further deployment of renewables through coupling highly flexible hydro generation with that of intermittent wind and solar generation.

IceLink delivers reliable and flexible energy into the GB system at times of thin supply margins.

The UK National Grid - Interconnectors - Iceland - Icelink

The project will make a positive contribution to European energy policy objectives helping Great Britain towards a minimum 10% interconnection target, facilitating renewables integration and resulting in socio-economic welfare benefits – for example consumer electricity prices in Great Britain should be reduced if it has access to increased imports of lower price energy from its neighbours and Iceland should derive greater value from its renewable resources.

Tim the plumber wrote:
2, As a boast, I think it was my idea. I first put it on a forum a few years ago and tried to fire it into the right ears. 8 months later there was the beginnings of noise about it. Nice to see that I have had some sort of influence on the world.

Landsvirkjun - The National Power Company of Iceland - Submarine Cable to Europe
Overview of IceLink

The first proposal to connect Iceland's electricity grid with Scotland's, via a submarine cable was first introduced over 60 years ago. The feasibility of such a project has been regularly assessed over the last 30 years.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

But you apparently do not have any economic knowledge. You also fail the test of history when these things have been tried before.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Transmitting power over global distances present an engineering challenge certainly.

Definitely. One that is beyond our current engineering.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
It's far more economical to construct shorter lines to available power supplies.

Well of course it is.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Higher voltages mean greater capital expenditure costs for the same length.

Longer lines mean greater capital expenditure costs, in proportion to the length assuming voltage is a constant.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Lengths like you are talking about will still lose a lot of power to cumulative losses.

Wrong. As I have explained, the power losses can be made independent of the length of the transmission line, if the design voltage is raised in proportion to the square root of the length.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I am not saying it's impossible to build such a line, I am saying it's not necessary.

Well it is not necessary for Iceland, sure, which has all the renewable energy they need. Scotland may not need to go further than our own land for hydro-electric power and our own waters, to collect all the energy we need from wind and tidal power.

For China and others, however, long distance transmission of solar power - from Tibet and Australia - does appear to me to be necessary or at least advisable if China is going to stop pumping ever increasing quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Straight line losses are still there. Wind is still there. Sag is still there.

Pardon?

Jakob wrote:
­@Scottish Scientist

No wave energy..?

Jakob wrote:
I think I remember Scotland has bought a huge vanadium battery.
If you know about it you will perhaps say something about how it is going with the project..?

Jakob wrote:
Nuclear power is not renewable energy.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

Not correct.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing money is always inflationary.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't just make value out of thin air.

Into the Night wrote:
The only reason money has value is because of it's relative rarity.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing wholesale to fund a mega project of any kind is just wallpaper.

Into the Night wrote:
The costs of the mega project will spiral out of control

Into the Night wrote:
and the government printing the money can't catch up with it. You can cause a real crisis of faith in the currency that way. The rest of the economy goes along for the ride to the bottom.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:
The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.

I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

But you apparently do not have any economic knowledge.

Into the Night wrote:
You also fail the test of history when these things have been tried before.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:
Transmitting power over global distances present an engineering challenge certainly.

Definitely. One that is beyond our current engineering.

ABB develops world's most powerful high-voltage direct current converter transformer

UHVDC converter transformer can operate at over a million volts and enable efficient and reliable transmission of larger amounts of electricity across longer distances

Zurich, Switzerland, July 3, 2012 – ABB, the leading power and automation technology group has successfully developed and tested an 1,100 kilovolt (kV) ultrahigh-voltage direct current (UHVDC) converter transformer breaking the record for the highest DC voltage levels ever, and facilitating more power to be transmitted efficiently over longer distances.

The Xiangjiaba-Shanghai link, commissioned by ABB was the world`s first commercial 800 kV UHVDC connection. It has a capacity of 6,400 MW and covers a distance of just over 2000 kilometers (km), making it the longest of its kind in operation. The new 1,100 kilovolt (kV) converter transformer technology will make it possible to transmit more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of power across distances as long as 3,000 km.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Printing money is always inflationary.

No it isn't.

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Keynesian economics works most of the time, but there are exceptions to when it works, and there are costs associated to each time it is applied. It will not work to construct mega projects like this.

Printing money for spending on mega projects takes up a cost-related amount of the productive slack in the economy every time, without exception.

Once all the productive slack has been taken up, and unless more slack can be created (by importing labour, say) printing even more money than is required to take up the slack is inflationary and pointless.

Not correct.

It is absolutely correct.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing money is always inflationary.

No it isn't.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't just make value out of thin air.

That's what professional musicians do, by creating valuable sound vibrations in thin air, we call "music".

Into the Night wrote:
The only reason money has value is because of it's relative rarity.

Half a bank-note is just as rare but has no value without the other half.

Into the Night wrote:
Printing wholesale to fund a mega project of any kind is just wallpaper.

No it isn't. People don't work for wallpaper but they will work for banknotes.

Into the Night wrote:
The costs of the mega project will spiral out of control

Costs spiralling out of control are a symptom of a bad project of any size, either badly conceived, badly designed, badly managed or badly worked.

Into the Night wrote:
and the government printing the money can't catch up with it. You can cause a real crisis of faith in the currency that way. The rest of the economy goes along for the ride to the bottom.

Investing in a bad project whose costs spiral out of control will lead to a crisis of faith in the investors yes. That's true for any size of project, however funded.

A crisis of faith in a government which is not investing in any mega-projects at all can lead to a crisis of faith in the currency too.

You are conflating and confusing unrelated factors.

Into the Night wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:
The choice of the mega project and how well it is designed and managed, is what determines whether it "works" in terms of achieving valuable progress towards a stated aim - in our discussion, a technological solution to the climate change problem.

I have the scientific knowledge to advise on those mega projects which will work in those terms and those which won't.

So Scottish Scientist economics works and will work, without exception, if my advice is followed, if my agreement is sought and granted.

But you apparently do not have any economic knowledge.

It is apparently to me that you are the one here who doesn't know economics.

Into the Night wrote:
You also fail the test of history when these things have been tried before.

Printing money for investment has been done successfully many times in history. So you don't know your history either.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
///
When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Scottish Scientist wrote:
The links are to my blog where I have published about the technology item in the list.

Scottish Scientist recommends -

Hydro-electric / Geothermal / tidal where appropriate

Land-based wind turbines

Offshore wind turbines

Solar power for local supply, recommended where there's winter sunshine

Solar power for long-distance transmission supply (for example, Namib Desert -> Europe, Atacama Desert -> North America, Tibet & Australia -> Asia)
- Comment

Pumped-storage hydro for energy storage with on-land generation
- World's biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro scheme for Scotland?
- Wind turbine & Pumped-storage hydro computer modelling

Undersea hydrogen storage for energy storage with offshore generation

Carbon-neutral bio-fuels for transport such as dimethyl-ether (DME) from steam-reformed biomass

Convert old vehicles, for transport by land, sea & air to run on bio-fuels

New vehicles powered by hydrogen / electrical batteries / bio-fuels

Nuclear-powered mega-ships – container & bulk transport, cruise liners etc

Nuclear-powered tugs for high-power pulling of ships long distance (rather than low-power navigation)

Scottish Scientist does not recommend -

Forget new nuclear plant for the grid. Portable nuclear only.

Forget carbon-capture and storage from fossil-fuel burning power stations
___________
Who pays?

Pay for this by governments directing their central banks to create new money for such infrastructure investments - there's no need to burden tax-payers, electricity bill-payers, travellers, hauliers, shipping companies etc.

More power?

When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Scottish Scientist
Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland

StarMan wrote:

Scottish Scientist wrote:
///
When the world is fossil-fuel free and if Europe & Africa still need much more power then make a mega tidal race by damming the Gibraltar Strait, installing water turbines and sea locks for shipping.

Delusional rhetoric.

Where does the steel come from to build this huge dam? Oh that's right. Lots of mirrors reflecting on iron ore. That should do it, right "scientist"?


Then we'll "colonize Mars" with, oh, solar powered spaceships. And everything will be all better.

James_ wrote:
What is being over looked are the rivers and water falls in the oceans. Massive amounts of untapped power.

ChristianC123 wrote:
Renewable energy has the potential to reduce pollution,

ChristianC123 wrote:
slow global warming,

ChristianC123 wrote:
create new industries and jobs,

ChristianC123 wrote:
and move America toward a cleaner, healthier energy future.

ChristianC123 wrote:
But renewable energy is not without its challenges and impacts.

ChristianC123 wrote:
Solar energy—power from the sun—is a vast and inexhaustible resource that can supply a significant portion of our electricity needs.

ChristianC123 wrote:
A range of technologies is used to convert the sun's energy into electricity, including solar collectors and photovoltaic panels.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluff: .... in Washington...the wind farms....you will not equal one tenth of the power produced.... at our ONE functioning nuclear power plant.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluff: .... in Washington...the wind farms....you will not equal one tenth of the power produced.... at our ONE functioning nuclear power plant.

Ah.... the "closed for 2 weeks" power plant because of:
The Tri-City Herald reports (http://bit.ly/2gvMItr ) the plant was shut down Aug. 20 when an air removal valve in the plant's turbine building closed.
/////////
& its so good that the nuclear plant has such a nearby disposal site at Hanford for its nuclear waste..... NOT!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527605496/emergency-declared-at-nuclear-contaminated-site-in-washington-state
/////
Hey, just dump the nuclear waste in the Columbia River. Nature will take care of it.
////////
Meanwhile, wind & solar accomplished 10% of U.S. energy production.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Wind-solar-surpasses-10-percent-of-power-11219008.php#photo-13060194

AGW denier liar whiners & renewable energy poo-pooers used to say renewables would NEVER produce 1% of energy needs.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" continues as an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.

ChristianC123 wrote:
Renewable energy

ChristianC123 wrote:
slow global warming,

ChristianC123 wrote:
...deleted remaining Holy Quote and Link...