Except for Lieberal politicians and cult members. Ones who never have to work outside.
Quick Dick turned to a beta male pretty quick when Gormley and the rest of the bought and paid for Saskatchewan media started noticing him.
There is no time and place for solar and/or wind as a power source in Saskatchewan.
He’s wrong. There ISN’T a place and time for solar/wind. They are failed technologies for power generation that are being propped up by government subsidies. They horrible for the environment except in one very specific area of C02 emission.
But, but, but … it’s cozy warm in your Parliament chambers. By “magic”
It’s so cold out there she had to change her name to Slow C***McC***
Solar and wind are useless to feed the grid. They are pretty handy on a micro-scale for rural off-grid applications, though.
Do you have some examples? You are basically talking about certain applications that can be powered by a battery, right? Anything that draws a significant amount of amps from a battery will literally drain that battery in minutes. That’s why we have a grid that is fed by fossil fuel.. because the energy can be stored for long periods of time and then used when necessary. I would LOVE there to be a battery that I could use in my home that could store enough power to comfortably live disconnected from the grid, but they don’t exist and won’t exist in my lifetime. Closes thing to it is Musk’s power wall, which I think is just a bunch of lithium ion batteries stacked one on top of the other in columns. No thanks. I love Musk, but the’s a charlatan or a troll when it comes to getting government subsidies.
Lift mass (a volume of water, for instance) to a high place while the wind blows. Release it to a lower place when you need power. Store energy, not electricity.
They actually use that in some places with reservoirs, pump up water and fill the reservoir during low-demand periods, and let it fall through turbines for more juice during high-demand periods.
I use it in my living room to power a clock.
The pumped storage concept has been around for many ( 75 ? ) years but is intended to assist the grid to level out peak demand periods not as a base generation system. If the base grid experiences a demand it can supplement within seconds by switching from return pumping to generation and back again but only for such time as available by the limited size of the reservoirs. I watched as they built the Stwlan dam in Snowdonia in the late fifties and was commissioned in the early sixties. There is another system at Dinorwic at Llanberis also in Snowdonia built in 1973. They are inobtrusive installations.
Storage of excess output is one shortcoming of renewable systems. Pumping water into a tank is one idea that’s been examined but that’s pretty much where it’s stayed. Batteries still provide the quickest, easiest, and, probably, the cheapest solution but they, too, have their drawbacks due to their operating characteristics.
BADR, it is effectivly used on a grid scale, its called “pumped storage”.
The principle is same for any mass, say a brick ( my recommendation to improve the One Laptop Per Child was to add a piece of string and a brick), or a boxcar full of bricks. Things that don’t freeze.
When high intensity LEDs first came out in the 90s I picked some up to try with an optical data acquisition system I was developing. Sitting at my desk I thought of my grandfather clock (bought by my grandfather, go figure), looked at the collection of small DC motors and gears that were on my workbench, and knocked up a crude proof of concept gravity powered lamp.
A few years ago I saw an ad claiming to have recently been the first to do that. I’ll at least give them points for for developing it past the proof of concept stage. I guess it’ll serve me right if I ever have to pay a patent license for my own 20 years prior work.
That’s why things called “battery banks” exist, and you can get them with several kWhrs capacity. LiFePO are probably the best energy density/safety tradeoff-wise, but they are pricey. Musk’s cars/battry banks (aka power walls) just use plain old 18650 LiIon cells, not very safe at all.
With a half decent solar/wind setup, you can get lights and refrigeration, TV, music, radio and even AC done, occasional power tool use, etc, but heating is out of the question. For heating, you’d need either propane, heating oil, natural gas, wood, or a grid hookup.
Wind power aerating a pond. Compact solar panel in a back pack for personal comms and navigation devices, mostly off grid, recreational applications. Very limited and specialized, certainly not relevant to public utility power generation.
There is a place for it, but limited. Okay on your house roof in the summer to reduce your total take from the grid saving a few bucks. But what is the payback timeline? In the winter with the low sun angle and covered in snow? Nope.
The panels would need replacing before you made your initial investment back.
More than likely. When they first came out in Ontario, the payback was 30 years.
And that probably doesn’t include the maintenance costs over those 30 years.
Still, for off-grid, there is nothing better than solar/wind+battery bank unless you gots the big money and correct location for geothermal. I guess if you have big money, and have the right climate and geography, pumped storage could be a good option as well.
life of the panels is in the 20 year range
Canada is a big country with a relatively sparse population. Our land cover including managed and unmanaged forests, lakes, tundra and prairies, all act together to absorb all the co2 we Canadians could possibly emit. It is the dirty little secret those with an agenda try to brush off and dismiss. It is why the IPCC (which is dominated by EU countries) where adamant that natural co2 sinks not be used as a bargaining chip at the annual Kyoto protocol parties. They figured it would have given unfair advantage to countries like Canada with large land masses, to use these sinks in calculating emission totals. No consideration was given the other way. EU countries are mostly smaller or warmer than Canada, and when calculating emissions reduction commitments and strategies, these would put Canada at an economical disadvantage.
My personal opinion is that co2 mitigation strategies such as carbon taxes are criminal. The taxes harm the poorest, by driving up inflation. In a country as large and as cold like Canada, without any meaningful replacement energy source (unicorn and fairy dust tech – wind and solar) fossil fuel burning in Canada makes perfect sense and is carbon neutral.
Its to bad the world has to go to hell in a handbasket, before the masses wake up, and discover they are reduced to serfdom again.
Every use of taxes for social engineering purposes is criminal, from drugs, alcohol and tobacco, to guns and energy.
Wrong and evil, but not criminal unless there is a law against it. Not everything that is a crime is wrong (e.g. punching Justin Trudeau in the nose,) and not everything that is wrong is a crime (e.g. having Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister.)
You are presuming that CO2 is a problem. It isn`t. It does not cause “global warming” or “climate change”. Consider the corrupt IPCC organisation and report were the creations of the most odious, mendacious individual ever to be born in Canada, the lovely Maurice Strong. The thankfully deceased conductor of the Climate Change Orchestra.
We stopped using wind to power ships and mills a long time ago. It wasn’t because we ran out of wind, it’s because we invented better and more efficient way to do those things.
A good example, because wind is still works for driving ships, but it’s relatively difficult to apply and not reliable, so sailing is now a recreational activity.
Do some people not recognize sarcasm or satire when they see it? Or did some simply not watch Quickdicks vid before commenting.
“Solar and wind are the energies of the Middle Ages”.
Doesn’t Sask. have uranium?
Only a lot. But nuclear power mustn’t be discussed because it doesn’t emit “greenhouse gases” and that illuminates suspicious aspects of the motives of the “green” faction.
this is a map of projected reliability of solar power in north america:
Isolated beach in the Caribbean would be the place for a good time. And that solar thing might work out too.
There may be a time and place for electricity powered by unicorn farts, as all the woke lunatics insist. But that time is not now, and the place is not in this universe.
Except for Lieberal politicians and cult members. Ones who never have to work outside.
Quick Dick turned to a beta male pretty quick when Gormley and the rest of the bought and paid for Saskatchewan media started noticing him.
There is no time and place for solar and/or wind as a power source in Saskatchewan.
He’s wrong. There ISN’T a place and time for solar/wind. They are failed technologies for power generation that are being propped up by government subsidies. They horrible for the environment except in one very specific area of C02 emission.
But, but, but … it’s cozy warm in your Parliament chambers. By “magic”
It’s so cold out there she had to change her name to Slow C***McC***
Solar and wind are useless to feed the grid. They are pretty handy on a micro-scale for rural off-grid applications, though.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, the warming continues…
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/record-breaking-snowstorm-wreaks-havoc-in-tennessee/1121498
Do you have some examples? You are basically talking about certain applications that can be powered by a battery, right? Anything that draws a significant amount of amps from a battery will literally drain that battery in minutes. That’s why we have a grid that is fed by fossil fuel.. because the energy can be stored for long periods of time and then used when necessary. I would LOVE there to be a battery that I could use in my home that could store enough power to comfortably live disconnected from the grid, but they don’t exist and won’t exist in my lifetime. Closes thing to it is Musk’s power wall, which I think is just a bunch of lithium ion batteries stacked one on top of the other in columns. No thanks. I love Musk, but the’s a charlatan or a troll when it comes to getting government subsidies.
Lift mass (a volume of water, for instance) to a high place while the wind blows. Release it to a lower place when you need power. Store energy, not electricity.
They actually use that in some places with reservoirs, pump up water and fill the reservoir during low-demand periods, and let it fall through turbines for more juice during high-demand periods.
I use it in my living room to power a clock.
The pumped storage concept has been around for many ( 75 ? ) years but is intended to assist the grid to level out peak demand periods not as a base generation system. If the base grid experiences a demand it can supplement within seconds by switching from return pumping to generation and back again but only for such time as available by the limited size of the reservoirs. I watched as they built the Stwlan dam in Snowdonia in the late fifties and was commissioned in the early sixties. There is another system at Dinorwic at Llanberis also in Snowdonia built in 1973. They are inobtrusive installations.
Storage of excess output is one shortcoming of renewable systems. Pumping water into a tank is one idea that’s been examined but that’s pretty much where it’s stayed. Batteries still provide the quickest, easiest, and, probably, the cheapest solution but they, too, have their drawbacks due to their operating characteristics.
BADR, it is effectivly used on a grid scale, its called “pumped storage”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg
Make sure there’s lots of glycol in that water.
That would tend to kill the fish.
The principle is same for any mass, say a brick ( my recommendation to improve the One Laptop Per Child was to add a piece of string and a brick), or a boxcar full of bricks. Things that don’t freeze.
When high intensity LEDs first came out in the 90s I picked some up to try with an optical data acquisition system I was developing. Sitting at my desk I thought of my grandfather clock (bought by my grandfather, go figure), looked at the collection of small DC motors and gears that were on my workbench, and knocked up a crude proof of concept gravity powered lamp.
A few years ago I saw an ad claiming to have recently been the first to do that. I’ll at least give them points for for developing it past the proof of concept stage. I guess it’ll serve me right if I ever have to pay a patent license for my own 20 years prior work.
That’s why things called “battery banks” exist, and you can get them with several kWhrs capacity. LiFePO are probably the best energy density/safety tradeoff-wise, but they are pricey. Musk’s cars/battry banks (aka power walls) just use plain old 18650 LiIon cells, not very safe at all.
With a half decent solar/wind setup, you can get lights and refrigeration, TV, music, radio and even AC done, occasional power tool use, etc, but heating is out of the question. For heating, you’d need either propane, heating oil, natural gas, wood, or a grid hookup.
Wind power aerating a pond. Compact solar panel in a back pack for personal comms and navigation devices, mostly off grid, recreational applications. Very limited and specialized, certainly not relevant to public utility power generation.
There is a place for it, but limited. Okay on your house roof in the summer to reduce your total take from the grid saving a few bucks. But what is the payback timeline? In the winter with the low sun angle and covered in snow? Nope.
The panels would need replacing before you made your initial investment back.
More than likely. When they first came out in Ontario, the payback was 30 years.
And that probably doesn’t include the maintenance costs over those 30 years.
Still, for off-grid, there is nothing better than solar/wind+battery bank unless you gots the big money and correct location for geothermal. I guess if you have big money, and have the right climate and geography, pumped storage could be a good option as well.
life of the panels is in the 20 year range
Canada is a big country with a relatively sparse population. Our land cover including managed and unmanaged forests, lakes, tundra and prairies, all act together to absorb all the co2 we Canadians could possibly emit. It is the dirty little secret those with an agenda try to brush off and dismiss. It is why the IPCC (which is dominated by EU countries) where adamant that natural co2 sinks not be used as a bargaining chip at the annual Kyoto protocol parties. They figured it would have given unfair advantage to countries like Canada with large land masses, to use these sinks in calculating emission totals. No consideration was given the other way. EU countries are mostly smaller or warmer than Canada, and when calculating emissions reduction commitments and strategies, these would put Canada at an economical disadvantage.
My personal opinion is that co2 mitigation strategies such as carbon taxes are criminal. The taxes harm the poorest, by driving up inflation. In a country as large and as cold like Canada, without any meaningful replacement energy source (unicorn and fairy dust tech – wind and solar) fossil fuel burning in Canada makes perfect sense and is carbon neutral.
Its to bad the world has to go to hell in a handbasket, before the masses wake up, and discover they are reduced to serfdom again.
Every use of taxes for social engineering purposes is criminal, from drugs, alcohol and tobacco, to guns and energy.
Wrong and evil, but not criminal unless there is a law against it. Not everything that is a crime is wrong (e.g. punching Justin Trudeau in the nose,) and not everything that is wrong is a crime (e.g. having Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister.)
You are presuming that CO2 is a problem. It isn`t. It does not cause “global warming” or “climate change”. Consider the corrupt IPCC organisation and report were the creations of the most odious, mendacious individual ever to be born in Canada, the lovely Maurice Strong. The thankfully deceased conductor of the Climate Change Orchestra.
We stopped using wind to power ships and mills a long time ago. It wasn’t because we ran out of wind, it’s because we invented better and more efficient way to do those things.
A good example, because wind is still works for driving ships, but it’s relatively difficult to apply and not reliable, so sailing is now a recreational activity.
China’s Green New Deal.
https://www.powermag.com/first-1-gw-unit-of-major-china-coal-fired-plant-comes-online/
Do some people not recognize sarcasm or satire when they see it? Or did some simply not watch Quickdicks vid before commenting.
“Solar and wind are the energies of the Middle Ages”.
Doesn’t Sask. have uranium?
Only a lot. But nuclear power mustn’t be discussed because it doesn’t emit “greenhouse gases” and that illuminates suspicious aspects of the motives of the “green” faction.
this is a map of projected reliability of solar power in north america:
https://content.bartleby.com/tbms-images/9781305112100/Chapter-25/images/12100-25-1ct-question-digital_image_001.png
and that’s best case…
Isolated beach in the Caribbean would be the place for a good time. And that solar thing might work out too.
There may be a time and place for electricity powered by unicorn farts, as all the woke lunatics insist. But that time is not now, and the place is not in this universe.