Larry Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Northern is a totally different critter than the whole He said, without providing any support whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 He said, without providing any support whatsoever. why should I support it? there is no need to convince anyone is the excess baja capacity going to go north or east Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 why should I support it? Why indeed? Credibility obviously isn't important. is the excess baja capacity going to go north or east Why provide support for a claim, when you can simply run to a different claim (and not support it, either)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 credibility?.....is that something you can grant ? a popular vote? Select committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Vertical axis windmills don't take as much wind to operate and they don't take as much space and horizontal axis windmills. I hope to have my own mini-wind farm when I move to TX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 why should I support it?there is no need to convince anyone is the excess baja capacity going to go north or east The excess capacity has nowhere to go except north..... Let us review... In 2007 Mexico hit their peak electrical consumption of 2.2 billion KW's.... Since that time Mexico's electrical consumption has shrunk to 1.8 billion KW's or by 20%. Since 2008 Mexico has brought online new production facilities capable of alone generating more electricity than all of Mexico consumed during it's peak consumption years 2.6 billion KW's. And they have another 1.5 billion KW's capacity in the works. So all together that 4.1 billion KW's capacity Mexico will have built over above the capacity which supported their peak consumption of 2.2 billion KW's in 2007... Or stated another way... Mexico will shortly have more than three times the electrical generation capacity than they required Nationally in 2007 when they were consuming 20% more electricity than they currently are . Mexico is incapable of consuming triple their peak consumption today, or anytime soon. Mexico is incapable of consuming at their 2007 levels!! That capacity wasn't built by Mexico, or for Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 you do know they supply Belize and California? where and what type matter in electricity why would imported electricity be on the rise with your facts Amigo? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=mx&v=83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Northern is a totally different critter than the whole No it's really not. You are correct that the US power grid is not contiguous. It is broken up into three distinct grids and the connection between these grids is not significant.. Thus Eastern and Texas electricity could not be used to help California in the 1990's. Only production capacity on California's grid could assist her. Likewise while California was paying thousands of dollars per KWH the eastern seaboard and Texas were still uneffected by that paying a fraction of what California was paying. But Mexico's power grid is contiguous, so power plants even in southern Mexico could be used to export electricity to the United States... The real problem has been there aren't a lot of power lines between the US and Mexico. That has been the last afterthought hurdle to be accomplished. And that is why folks are suspicious when huge power lines are run right up to the boarder with Mexico on the auspicious to connecting a "wind farm" which could never utilize a fraction of the capacity of the lines being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 you do know they supply Belize and California? Yes currently electricity trade with Mexico is relatively small. We import more into California, than Texas exports into Mexio. why would imported electricity be on the rise with your facts Amigo? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=mx&v=83 Because the graph is misleading. They are talking about gross imports, not net imports. The US imports net more electricity from Mexico than we export. The real story begins when they get the transmission lines in place. Every transmission line basically becomes a gold mine in the coming years. Electricity trade between the United States and Mexico has existed since 1905, when privately owned utilities located in remote towns on both sides of the border helped meet one another's electricity demand with a few cross-border low voltage lines. Over the years, both countries developed highly regulated and structured electricity sectors and a number of major and minor cross-border transmission lines were constructed. However, for a variety of technical and market reasons, U.S.-Mexico electricity trade has remained small. Existing electrical interconnections between Mexico and the United States are relatively limited in capacity and operationally constrained by non-synchronous cross-border ties, except in the Southern California-Baja California region. Mexico has been a very small net exporter of electricity to the United States since 2006. Power sales from Mexico to California more than offset exports from Texas to Mexico in 2010, though preliminary 2012 data suggest that Mexico has begun to import more electricity from the United States. Electricity sales from Mexico to the United States could increase in the mid-term, as the Department of Energy recently issued a Presidential permit to a subsidiary of Sempra International for construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of a 230,000-volt transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border. When completed, the transmission line will supply electricity from a Mexican wind farm to the California market. http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=MX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 interested the scenario you painted for Texas is actually in Cali? even FLOR compliant generation has to flee the state. gonna be interesting anyhoo... Another Solar Company Can't Take The Heat, Closes Despite $10 Million In Stimulus http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/another-solar-company-cant-take-heat-closes-despite-10-million-stimulus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 ahh cool thanks to both of you !...... although.. that second graph really DOES just point out that Texas has alot of dustbowl and tbleweed conditions...right? it is funny that you see yet and Germany sees it as a renewable energy source Do we get carbon credits for selling mesquite wood to the Germans to burn?:evilg: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/04/28/europe-energy-found-in-corpus/ and ya'll thought W was just wasting time clearing brush, when he was really just advertising Texas renewable energy for export:ols: some West Texas ranchers will be ROTFLTAO while collecting the Greens cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 At this point I think its safe to say that investment in green energy during a recession and a domestic oil and natural gas boom was not a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 At this point I think its safe to say that investment in green energy during a recession and a domestic oil and natural gas boom was not a great idea. wise investment would be, but ya need to filter out the distractions foisted by the Peak Oil and Global Warming apologists to find them. mesquite wood from Texas to Europe = green goodness (not even the Onion would have thought of that LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 wise investment would be, but ya need to filter out the distractions foisted by the Peak Oil and Global Warming apologists to find them.mesquite wood from Texas to Europe = green goodness (not even the Onion would have thought of that LOL) somehow I doubt shipping wood from the U.S. to Europe makes any economic sense. It might make sense if it was in Europe, but shipping stuff from the Gulf of Mexico to the Mediterranean Sea is expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 it makes economic sense to the AGW crowd,just like shipping oil here from the ME does to the no drilling/no pipeline crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 The collapse of the solar energy industry in the US has little to do with the boom in domestic production. Look gas and oil prices are still pretty high. It has more to do with China dumping EVEN MORE money into solar energy companies/technoloy and their already in place advantage in terms of labor costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 It has more to do with China dumping EVEN MORE money into solar energy companies/technoloy and their already in place advantage in terms of labor costs. amazing with high fuel costs that solar is not cost efficient.....and that China is buying fossil fuel rights left and right. they can always make things cheaper than us, just not better .......but then cost matters a lot with energy because of volume added http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/What-the-US-can-Learn-from-Chinas-Solar-Industry.html What the US can Learn from China's Solar Industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 GERMAN ECONOMIC EXPERTS READY TO PULL THE PLUG ON COSTLY CLEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY Germany’s top economic advisers and business leaders are saying it’s time to stop pouring money into “clean energy” production. Their reason: It’s too expensive and there’s little return on investment. “We need a drastic policy shift,” said Christoph Schmidt, chairman of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts. “They haven’t paid any attention to costs. These are now huge.” Germany has long vowed to wean itself off of fossil fuels, but the cost of doing so has soared and it is expected to top roughly $1.3 trillion by 2030. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/20/german-economic-experts-ready-to-pull-the-plug-on-costly-clean-energy-industry/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 But the biggest thing for Germany is that they are trying to non-nuclear. They are a country that's pretty far north (straight across is Canada) so not a light of warm sun light, and not a large agricultural base (cellulosic ethanol) and no real ocean front coast line (they do sit on the north sea so they can get some wind there, but not a true ocean coast line. They were heavily nuclear, but after the incident in Japan they decided it to give that up. It isn't hard to find countries in Europe that are working on going non-fossil fuels and doing pretty well at it: http://www.swedishwire.com/economy/15839-sweden-a-success-story-for-clean-energy- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 But the biggest thing for Germany is that they are trying to non-nuclear. They are a country that's pretty far north (straight across is Canada) so not a light of warm sun light, and not a large agricultural base (cellulosic ethanol) and no real ocean front coast line (they do sit on the north sea so they can get some wind there, but not a true ocean coast line. They were heavily nuclear, but after the incident in Japan they decided it to give that up. Space based solar power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Not hard when Sweden generates 43% of electricity from hydropower and 39% from nuclear according to your linkcare to guess what the elect rates are doing there as they have phased out nuclear and limited new hydro?add Germany heavily nuclear ?...I think you confuse them with France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Not hard when Sweden generates 43% of electricity from hydropower and 39% from nuclear according to your link care to guess what the elect rates are doing there as they have phased out nuclear and limited new hydro? add Germany heavily nuclear ?...I think you confuse them with France Eliminating how you generate 23% of your electricity isn't a trivial thing. They aren't as far over as France, but at 23% they are higher than the US and much of the rest of the world. Look at your graph, the nuclear is as big a piece as any other. There aren't many countries in the world that look like that. And Sweden abondonded plans to eliminate the nuclear power plants years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Space based solar power. I saw this recently while looking at some other things: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6482164 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Eliminating how you generate 23% of your electricity isn't a trivial thing. They aren't as far over as France, but at 23% they are higher than the US and much of the rest of the world. Look at your graph, the nuclear is as big a piece as any other. There aren't many countries in the world that look like that. And Sweden abondonded plans to eliminate the nuclear power plants years ago. Germany has not eliminated nuclear power yet and coal is still king there Sweden has seen a reduction in Nuclear power...and a rise in rates I am glad you agree eliminating coal here is a major feat to try to accomplish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Your posting data from 2010 that shows decreasing nuclear energy production as evidence that they didn't cancel their plans to phase nuclear energy production years ago (data that actually shows it up in the last year)? Especially considering that nuclear power plants to need to be up graded and things like that, which can cause short term fluctuations. And electricity prices vary for a lot of reasons too and generally go up because of inflation. (Swedish electricity prices up due to issues with snow and nuclear plants being updated (not being shut down).) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/swedish-power-prices-may-rise-as-nuclear-outage-duration-doubles.html Who has said anything about eliminating coal power from the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.