Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Ciaran, Apr 20, 2020.
It is probably kimchi they are eating
It’s estimated that of the grid’s total winter capacity, about 80% of it, or 67 gigawatts, could be generated by natural gas, coal and some nuclear power. Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state.
Most of North America isn’t really fit for human habitation. Which is why, away from the East Coast and the frozen north, most of the indigenous population was nomadic.
Oh dear in deed. You really should open your mind, and not just search for something that you think supports your cock eyed bullshit, you clueless cretin.
This is from 2019, so renewables will have increased.
Renewable energy sources contribute nearly one-fifth of the net electricity generated in Texas.
About 5,000 megawatts of Texas coal-fired generating capacity have been retired since 2016.103 As a result, coal-fired power plants supplied less than one-fifth of state generation in 2019, down from about one-third as recently as 2014.104 Wind-powered generation in Texas has rapidly increased during the past two decades.105 In 2019, wind energy provided more than one-sixth of Texas' generation.106 The state's two operating nuclear power plants typically supply almost one-tenth of the state's electricity net generation.107,108 Most of the capacity added in Texas since 2010 is fueled by natural gas or wind.109
Now, as I predicted that you would hide behind asking questions in the hope of finding something to desperately cling to, why don't you prove me wrong, and post some views of your own, that you haven't scammed from google.
I bet you daren't.
So out of the 10 mainland countries in North America, most of them aren't really fit for human habitation?
Gas and nuclear power stations also failed due to the cold. Is that also the fault of renewables?
you can determine a Relative Global Poverty Line(RGPL) by a function of the regional salary and the Full English Breakfasts(FEBs) theoretically purchasable in a calendar year
a citizen is said to be in poverty if his salary scores less than the RGPL on the FEB scale
A constant factor salary increase of 10 would move all citizens above the RGPL on the FEB scale
let m = the minimum salary p.a in a region, and let P = the average price of an FEB in the region, and let y = the average global salary p.a and let g = the average global price of an FEB
please log in to view this image
please log in to view this image
hence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Saxton and Lochrie are wrong
Again, he's trying to hide behind questions, rather than offer anything of his own. It wouldn't be as bad if they were sensible questions.
You're wriggling Toby, and it's dull. You should try to see discussions as just that, and use them for enlightenment, rather than hunting for the 'victory' you never achieve anyway.
Yes, there were reductions in the supply from the traditional sources, but there was a total outage from the renewables that had replaced the other traditional sources. Had they been replaced in a more considered fashion rather than emotional ideology, there's a very good chance that the deaths that occurred as a consequence, would not have happened. The death rate was reduced as key sectors (such as hospital operating theatres) had emergency back ups, powered by tried and tested methods. Had the full green deal been in place, they would quite likely not have had that option.
We’re not counting Central America here.
I would say most of Canada and the USA have pretty inhospitable climates for large parts of the year. Large land masses tend to be freezing cold in winter, baking hot in summer, prone to freak winds, prolonged droughts etc; hence most human civilisations have prospered in coastal areas, or in temperate climates along fertile river valleys.
This is not exclusive to North America. it’s taken the Russians several generations to colonise Siberia, but still no one wants to live there.
What is your suggestion then? 'Replaced in a more considered fashion' makes no sense.
You're the one that's wriggling btw. You blamed renewables for the shortage of power, they weren't to blame. You just lapped up the right wing propaganda like a servile little mong.
Still he's there with silly questions, and no credible view of his own, despite being challenged to disprove the claim that it's all he's got.
The shortage of power was down to the change to renewables. The sites claiming otherwise are more your sort of daft floppy leaning logic. The solution is a more staged approach to the changes, that has due consideration to the limitations of the alternatives.
"Central America" as you call it, is part of the continent of North America though, you can't just leave it out. Are you leaving Mexico out too even though it is very much part of North America? The fact it is part of NAFTA kind of gives it away. You should just have said USA and Canada instead, that would have been far more relevant.
Another non-answer. The change you suggest is basically 'something that wouldn't have caused the power shortages'. Give an example or you're just chatting ****.
Why are you talking to your fellow gammons instead of me? Seems to me like you're desperate to point-score instead of admitted you're chatting bollocks.
Antiquated power supply infrastructure designed and built for a temperate climate fails to cope with unusual extreme weather conditions.
ItS tHuM RanoOaBlE EnGeRy FiNgyS FaULt!
Fùcking moronic pish!
Oh dear, more silly questions, no credible opinion, and a smattering of abuse.
Let's put it in terms a simpleton may just start to grasp. Can you spot the flaw in a plan to produce the energy to provide heating and lighting that uses a method that won't work when it's cold and dark?
Are you seriously trying to claim that they built the Texas power infratructure on a design for somewhere else, and used antique wind turbines?
Texas don't only rely on solar, they rely on wind power too. Wind and solar both work in wintery conditions, Texas hadn't prepared for these extreme weather events as their grid is the only one in the US that's fully privatised.
As I said earlier, and you ignored, the 'traditional' energy generation plants also failed. They were not suited to the cold either. This had a higher impact on energy production than wind/solar, yet you ignore this. Why is that?
Greta is a lazy bint, she should have built them properly.
The traditional plants didn't totally fail, they had reduced capacity, which would have been taken up had the traditional sites not been taken up by alternatives. The weather was something that has occurred plenty of times in the past, so should have been factored in to their considerations. Replacing proven, reliable technology, with equipment that by design cannot operate at those conditions and with no contingency plan results in the outcome seen.
It shows the risks of following politics and ideologies rather than basing decisions on the facts that inform engineering and science.