13 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Well, I asked Grok (AI) about that and here's the conclusion:

Hope this clarifies things for you.

 

 

I dont need AI to think for me, and if I do use it, I ask the right questions.

27 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

1600bht/month.

Decent savings, you are just prepaying it. Too bad you dont get longer lifespan.

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I dont need AI to think for me, and if I do use it, I ask the right questions.

Too bad. If you got help from AI the quality of your diversions might improve.

How much battery is needed to provide uninterrupted energy to power London for a week when the Sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing?

 

!f solar is so cheap, why is electricity so expensive where areas with a large percentage of power comes from solar?

 

 

Just now, Yellowtail said:

How much battery is needed to provide uninterrupted energy to power London for a week when the Sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing?

 

!f solar is so cheap, why is electricity so expensive where areas with a large percentage of power comes from solar?

 

 

Solar needs daylight....every electrical supply system needs maintenance, staff, routing etc,

and doesn't all means of supply go to the same grid.........🤗

Why is Trump killing clean energy?

Because the grifter promised oil executives he would.

At a private Mar-a-Lago dinner, Trump told oil CEOs to raise $1 billion for his campaign and called it a ‘deal’ because of the taxes and regulation they’d avoid.

What he promised them:

• Kill offshore wind, especially on the East Coast.

• Stop all new environmental and clean-energy regulations.

• Reverse dozens of Biden environmental rules that make renewables competitive.

• End EV incentives and charging support.

• Gut emissions standards, keeping fossil fuels artificially cheap.

• Fast-track drilling, pipelines, and LNG terminals.

• Lift the pause on LNG export permits immediately.

• Open more federal land and offshore areas to drilling.

That’s not energy policy.
That’s clearing the field for oil by kneecapping clean energy.

https://climatepower.us/research-and-polling/trump-promises-and-payments-tracker

15 hours ago, connda said:

Because "Clean Energy" isn't clean.  That's marketing hype.  Nor is it efficient, nor is it cost effective.  The money that was shoved into so-called "clean energy" would have been a better value by investing it in nuclear and fusion energy.  Once fusion energy is commercially viable, all of this "clean energy" will be shoveled into a landfill where the components that they are made of will leach into the soil and water supplies and create toxic nightmares.
"Clean energy"   <laughs>

‘Once fusion energy is commercially viable.’   <laughs>
 

Along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, viable experimental fusion energy does not exist.

Yes, fusion is physically possible — we proved that in 1952 with the hydrogen bomb.
But we have never succeeded in turning fusion into a repeatable, controlled, net-energy experiment or system since.

57 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Why is Trump killing clean energy?

Because the grifter promised oil executives he would.

At a private Mar-a-Lago dinner, Trump told oil CEOs to raise $1 billion for his campaign and called it a ‘deal’ because of the taxes and regulation they’d avoid.

What he promised them:

• Kill offshore wind, especially on the East Coast.

• Stop all new environmental and clean-energy regulations.

• Reverse dozens of Biden environmental rules that make renewables competitive.

• End EV incentives and charging support.

• Gut emissions standards, keeping fossil fuels artificially cheap.

• Fast-track drilling, pipelines, and LNG terminals.

• Lift the pause on LNG export permits immediately.

• Open more federal land and offshore areas to drilling.

That’s not energy policy.
That’s clearing the field for oil by kneecapping clean energy.

https://climatepower.us/research-and-polling/trump-promises-and-payments-tracker

What you're saying is, that without huge subsidies, mandates, and higher energy costs, wind and solar are not viable, yes?

 

So how did trump kill offshore wind power?

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

But there's hardly any sun in the UK, so it's just wasting equipment.

And the wind farms are so far from the users, the national grid can't transport the electricity.

 

The point of Brexit was to keep worthless 3rd world foreigners out of the UK, not gas!

Wasn't it to keep Europeans out? Poles taking plumbers' jobs, etc?

Now your 'worthless' 3rd world foreigners dominate the scene, lol.

From AI-

Since Brexit, immigration to the UK has shifted dramatically from EU to non-EU countries, with non-EU nationals making up over 80% of arrivals (2021-2024), primarily for work and study, especially from India, Nigeria, and the Philippines, with significant numbers in Health & Care, leading to record highs in overall net migration, though recent policy changes (like higher salary thresholds) are now causing declines, particularly in the work visa category. 

 

16 hours ago, connda said:

Because "Clean Energy" isn't clean.  That's marketing hype.  Nor is it efficient, nor is it cost effective.  The money that was shoved into so-called "clean energy" would have been a better value by investing it in nuclear and fusion energy.  Once fusion energy is commercially viable, all of this "clean energy" will be shoveled into a landfill where the components that they are made of will leach into the soil and water supplies and create toxic nightmares.
"Clean energy"   <laughs>

 

‘The money shoved into clean energy should have gone to nuclear and fusion.’

That’s the direction Trump is pushing — but not as a serious energy plan.
He isn’t delivering new nuclear this decade.
Fusion isn’t an energy technology; it’s a speculative future concept.

At the same time, Trump’s media company is merging with a nuclear fusion startup in a multi-billion-dollar deal. Fusion is useful precisely because it promises everything later and delivers nothing now.

What Trump is actually doing is blocking wind and solar that already work and are among the cheapest sources of power, raising prices by pausing offshore wind, while pointing to technologies that can’t replace that capacity for decades, if ever.

That isn’t strategy.
It’s a grift.

Who pays?
Consumers pay higher bills, taxpayers absorb the delays, and late investors carry the risk.

Trump Media to Merge With TAE Technologies, a Nuclear Fusion Firm, in a $6 Billion Deal - The New York Times
https://archive.md/Fs9RY#selection-699.0-707.180

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

What you don't seem to realize is that the easily obtainable oil and gas is running out, and the reserves are finite. Much of the oil and gas that has yet to be discovered is deep under sea or deep underground, and difficult and expensive to extract. 

 

That is the biggest reason why alternative erergy makes sense in the long term, besides some of it being environmentally sustainable. 

 

But Trump wouldn't know anything about that, and with the band of amateur and very, very low grade advisors and cabinet members that he has, it wouldn't be expected that anybody would try to convince him of that either. Besides he has lobbyists from Big Oil and major corporations whispering in his ear, and God forbid that he disappoints one of them. 

You may want to re-read my post. Don't think your reply has much to do with what I said. With all due respect. 

10 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

‘The money shoved into clean energy should have gone to nuclear and fusion.’

That’s the direction Trump is pushing — but not as a serious energy plan.
He isn’t delivering new nuclear this decade.
Fusion isn’t an energy technology; it’s a speculative future concept.

At the same time, Trump’s media company is merging with a nuclear fusion startup in a multi-billion-dollar deal. Fusion is useful precisely because it promises everything later and delivers nothing now.

What Trump is actually doing is blocking wind and solar that already work and are among the cheapest sources of power, raising prices by pausing offshore wind, while pointing to technologies that can’t replace that capacity for decades, if ever.

That isn’t strategy.
It’s a grift.

Who pays?
Consumers pay higher bills, taxpayers absorb the delays, and late investors carry the risk.

Trump Media to Merge With TAE Technologies, a Nuclear Fusion Firm, in a $6 Billion Deal - The New York Times
https://archive.md/Fs9RY#selection-699.0-707.180

You do not really care that consumers and taxpayers pay more, do you? 

 

Again, if solar is so cheap, why is electricity so expensive where areas with a large percentage of power comes from solar?

 

And why, in arguably the most technologically advance area of the world, a billion-dollar battery storage facility is being abandoned after a few years, and after never reaching even 10% of its capacity?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

You do not really care that consumers and taxpayers pay more, do you? 

 

Again, if solar is so cheap, why is electricity so expensive where areas with a large percentage of power comes from solar?

 

And why, in arguably the most technologically advance area of the world, a billion-dollar battery storage facility is being abandoned after a few years, and after never reaching even 10% of its capacity?

If I were presented with evidence that showed some states with a large percentage of energy coming from solar had high electric rates and other states with large amounts of electric power coming from solar had low electric rates, rational thinkers would look elsewhere to explain the discrepancy. 

14 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

If I were presented with evidence that showed some states with a large percentage of energy coming from solar had high electric rates and other states with large amounts of electric power coming from solar had low electric rates, rational thinkers would look elsewhere to explain the discrepancy. 

I agree. Do you know of some such states?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I agree. Do you know of some such states?

Texas

16 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

If I were presented with evidence that showed some states with a large percentage of energy coming from solar had high electric rates and other states with large amounts of electric power coming from solar had low electric rates, rational thinkers would look elsewhere to explain the discrepancy. 

Oh, I see what you did there, you switched from large percentage to large amount.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Texas

Texas gets less than 10%

Here is an example of how the left lies, and the dummies eat it up:

 

"Nobody knows wind like I do."

 

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Texas gets less than 10%

Actually,  it's more like 14%. But do you think Texas is adding massive amounts of solar and storage to raise its rates?

Even though Texas is now subsidizing the construction of gas power plants, solar power and storage is still increasing rapidly. What does that tell you?

 

Also, I've noticed that you've disparaged wind as a reliable source of power. Or is Texas wind special?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually,  it's more like 14%. But do you think Texas is adding massive amounts of solar and storage to raise its rates?

Even though Texas is now subsidizing the construction of gas power plants, solar power and storage is still increasing rapidly. What does that tell you?

 

Also, I've noticed that you've disparaged wind as a reliable source of power. Or is Texas wind special?

Actually, it's about 14% at peak, much less than 10% annually, 

 

Solar makes a lot of sense in Texas, where they have a lot of Sun, a lot of space close to urban areas, and they use a lot more power during the day than during the night. 

 

Everything being built now is from the "Inflation Reduction Act". 

 

Again, if solar is so cheap, why is electricity so expensive where areas with a large percentage of power comes from solar?

 

And why, in arguably the most technologically advance area of the world, a billion-dollar battery storage facility is being abandoned after a few years, and after never reaching even 10% of its capacity?

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

What you're saying is, that without huge subsidies, mandates, and higher energy costs, wind and solar are not viable, yes?

 

So how did trump kill offshore wind power?

He banned it because he claimed that it was a threat to national security. He didn't invoke economic reasons.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

He banned it because he claimed that it was a threat to national security. He didn't invoke economic reasons.

He had some beef with windmill farms close to his golf courts in Scotland. 

 

And it falls in to his personality type, where everything becomes personal, 

 

Donald Trump's strong opposition to wind farms stems from a long legal battle to block the 

Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm near his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, viewing turbines as visual blight, which intensified his general disdain for wind energy, calling them "ugly windmills" and "monsters" interfering with views and potentially radar, despite their energy generation. 

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

He banned it because he claimed that it was a threat to national security. He didn't invoke economic reasons.

He only froze leases and permits. 

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

He had some beef with windmill farms close to his golf courts in Scotland. 

 

And it falls in to his personality type, where everything becomes personal, 

 

 

Donald Trump's strong opposition to wind farms stems from a long legal battle to block the 

Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm near his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, viewing turbines as visual blight, which intensified his general disdain for wind energy, calling them "ugly windmills" and "monsters" interfering with views and potentially radar, despite their energy generation. 

You attack not his policy, but him personally, and then claim he makes everything personal. Huh. 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You attack not his policy, but him personally, and then claim he makes everything personal. Huh. 

I guess you do not see how much have become personal, especially everything the democrats have done before him, he puts either on hold, dismiss or cancel. 

 

So good luck convincing me 

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He only froze leases and permits. 

Really?

 

The Trump administration on Monday said it would pause leases for five wind farms under construction off the east coast, essentially gutting the country’s nascent offshore wind industry in a sharp escalation of President Trump’s crusade against the renewable energy source.

The decision injected uncertainty into $25 billion worth of projects that were expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses across the Eastern United States, according to Turn Forward, an offshore wind advocacy group. The five wind farms were projected together to create together about 10,000 jobs.

https://archive.ph/JUym8

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I guess you do not see how much have become personal, especially everything the democrats have done before him, he puts either on hold, dismiss or cancel. 

Yes, he closed the border they opened, and is deporting the criminal illegal aliens they let in. 

He is reversing the DEI programs they pushed

He is kicking the men out of girls' showers and sports they let in.

And he is cancelling energy boondoggles 

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

 

So good luck convincing me 

You don't vote in the US. 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, he closed the border they opened, and is deporting the criminal illegal aliens they let in. 

He is reversing the DEI programs they pushed

He is kicking the men out of girls' showers and sports they let in.

And he is cancelling energy boondoggles 

You don't vote in the US. 

 

Unfortunately for Americans we do not vote 😉 

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Really?

 

The Trump administration on Monday said it would pause leases for five wind farms under construction off the east coast, essentially gutting the country’s nascent offshore wind industry in a sharp escalation of President Trump’s crusade against the renewable energy source.

The decision injected uncertainty into $25 billion worth of projects that were expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses across the Eastern United States, according to Turn Forward, an offshore wind advocacy group. The five wind farms were projected together to create together about 10,000 jobs.

https://archive.ph/JUym8

Really, I said he paused leases, yes? 

 

And why do you make it all about Trump?

 

Again, if solar is so cheap, why is electricity so expensive where areas with a large percentage of power comes from solar?

 

And why, in arguably the most technologically advance area of the world, a billion-dollar battery storage facility is being abandoned after a few years, and after never reaching even 10% of its capacity?