NoDohNuts Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Yes, uninformed. Yes, new programs. They exceeded 25% last year. Pay attention, bitch ! China has twice the amount of the US installed in renewable gigawatts. They are actually dominating in renewables (and creating jobs due to it. The US is missing out bigtime !). At the same time, they are revising their old coal-fired plants, shut down some of them and built highly modern new coal-fired plants with steam turbine efficiencies in excess of 93.5-94% and single cycle efficiencies greater than 45%. Not to mention the investments in H-class gas turbines with combined cycle efficiencies larger than 60%. This is expensive state-of-the-art technology with minimized emissions. What else are they supposed to do ?! It's simply not possible to shut down all coal-fired plants in short time, whether it is China, the US, Germany or anyone else. But China is definitely working on it at a fast pace, as well as Europe. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the US say fuck you to the world and future generations. Edited June 5, 2017 by NoDohNuts titansfb, pat, and OILERMAN 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 15 minutes ago, Titans_Win_Again said: More non sequiturs and pointless tangents while avoiding the core points. Your posts are like a mirage, wearing the facade of an earnest attempt to debate in good faith while being only a vacuous cloud of deflection and contradictions.  And you are removed from reality. At best we produce approximately 11% of our power from renewables. 26% of that is hydro. Fully half of it is from biomass, much of which took a quarter century or more to grow, and is burned in much the same way coal is. Only 22% of that 11% in renewables, or roughly 2% of our total grid, is powered by wind and solar. So if wind and solar are the future, the future is a helluva long ways off.  So, any progress on the downside argument? Or are you just going to cap it with the talking point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyitsmeallen Posted June 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 Just now, TitanDuckFan said: And you are removed from reality. At best we produce approximately 11% of our power from renewables. 26% of that is hydro. Fully half of it is from biomass, much of which took a quarter century or more to grow, and is burned in much the same way coal is. Only 22% of that 11% in renewables, or roughly 2% of our total grid, is powered by wind and solar. So if wind and solar are the future, the future is a helluva long ways off.  So, any progress on the downside argument? Or are you just going to cap it with the talking point? You should see the size of the solar farms being build all around my area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, heyitsmeallen said: You should see the size of the solar farms being build all around my area. Great, so we're well on our way to 2.5%? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, NoDohNuts said: Yes, uninformed. Yes, new programs. They exceeded 25% last year. Pay attention, bitch ! China has twice the amount of the US installed in renewable gigawatts. They are actually dominating in renewables (and creating jobs due to it. The US is missing out bigtime !). At the same time, they are revising their old coal-fired plants, shut down some of them and built highly modern new coal-fired plants with steam turbine efficiencies in excess of 93.5-94% and single cycle efficiencies greater than 45%. Not to mention the investments in H-class gas turbines with combined cycle efficiencies larger than 60%. This is expensive state-of-the-art technology with minimized emissions. What else are they supposed to do ?! It's simply not possible to shut down all coal-fired plants in short time, whether it is China, the US, Germany or anyone else. But China is definitely working on it at a fast pace, as well as Europe. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the US say fuck you to the world and future generations. You gonna cite any references for these fantastic claims of yours, or just keep venting? And BTW, you know where the technology for those H-Class gas turbines came from? Who did the R&D? Who deployed them 1st? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoDohNuts Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said: You gonna cite any references for these fantastic claims of yours, or just keep venting? And BTW, you know where the technology for those H-Class gas turbines came from? Who did the R&D? Who deployed them 1st? Siemens, Mülheim, Germany. I am from Germany. I am one of the people who did that R&D. But they also bought that crap from GE, I'll give you that ... I assume you are intelligent enough to google yourself. pat 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, NoDohNuts said: Siemens, Mülheim, Germany. I am from Germany. I am one of the people who did that R&D. But they also bought that crap from GE, I'll give you that ... I assume you are intelligent enough to google yourself. Actually, my primary point was that it wasn't developed in China. It's my understanding that none of the new G, H, or J Class designs were. They were all either Japan, Germany or the US.  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, ben4titans said: I see no problem with cities adopting some Paris Accord goals but it gets murky on what they can and can't actually commit to. Well you know they aren't going to pick up the $100B tab obama had us lined up for. But if they want to shoot for the energy benchmarks, that's fine. But only time and politics will tell if/when electric bills skyrocket, if those mayors stay in office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoDohNuts Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said: Actually, my primary point was that it wasn't developed in China. It's my understanding that none of the new G, H, or J Class designs were. They were all either Japan, Germany or the US.  That is correct. China has a program for an own development of an G/H-class gas turbine. They won't succeed, they haven't even mastered E/F-class, yet. Technology is too difficult from an R&D and even manufacturing point of view. You can't just learn it in 5, 10 or even 15 years. They should start with smaller machines, learn and gain experience, just like Siemens, GE and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did. But at least they are trying :D, while the US, well, you know... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, NoDohNuts said: That is correct. China has a program for an own development of an G/H-class gas turbine. They won't succeed, they haven't even mastered E/F-class, yet. Technology is too difficult from an R&D and even manufacturing point of view. You can't just learn it in 5, 10 or even 15 years. They should start with smaller machines, learn and gain experience, just like Siemens, GE and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did. But at least they are trying :D, while the US, well, you know... But I think we can take that as a sign of the level of China's commitment to the process. They are a communist government after all, and they've devoted plenty of time, money and materiel into their manufacturing, stealth aircraft program, and navy etc. They send their kids to colleges all over the world and have for 20+ years. Yet their primary claim to fame is duplication and production. When they start innovating I'll believe they're in it for cooperation's sake, and not just their own economic interests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Titanjuicy said: Of course, if you take Murray's 80 yard run out of the equation, the rest of his yards drops to a paltry 18 or so. See how stupid that sounds? Actually no, I don't. When we talk about "renewable energy" in the US, Hydro power gets set aside because nobody wants that stain on their "ecology." Just ask any California politician about building new dams, and see how far you get. Yet, people that talk about "renewable energy," love to include it in the tally. Until someone else brings up the idea of expanding its contribution. And the secondary crime of that is, for those that are fully invested in making the AGW argument, is dams also hold the lifeblood of humans and food production. Fresh water. Yet nobody wants to build new ones, even in areas prone to drought. I wonder why that is? So to me, that's the part that sounds stupid. Really stupid. It seems to me, if you REALLY believed in AGW, you'd be more than willing to build dams for both water storage and power. But we hear that idea so seldom these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishTitansFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 I love the far right members  of this board. It's funny seeing a genuinely articulate and seemingly well educated guy with such strong (often wrong, or at least sourced from dodgy places) partisan views (Duckie), and then a complete fucking retard with many of the same views (Tux)! Titansfan920, and freakingeek 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, TitanDuckFan said: Actually no, I don't. When we talk about "renewable energy" in the US, Hydro power gets set aside because nobody wants that stain on their "ecology." Just ask any California politician about building new dams, and see how far you get. Yet, people that talk about "renewable energy," love to include it in the tally. Until someone else brings up the idea of expanding its contribution. And the secondary crime of that is, for those that are fully invested in making the AGW argument, is dams also hold the lifeblood of humans and food production. Fresh water. Yet nobody wants to build new ones, even in areas prone to drought. I wonder why that is? So to me, that's the part that sounds stupid. Really stupid. It seems to me, if you REALLY believed in AGW, you'd be more than willing to build dams for both water storage and power. But we hear that idea so seldom these days. How do you go from China removing hydro they are left with only 5% to the USA not worried about hydro? You totally missed the point of my post. The point was that hydro is a massive part of China's renewable energy. You can't just remove something and then say they are doing nothing. Same with the Murray comparison. If you removed his 80 yard run. Are you just going to claim he had a bad day? That run may net a win. Hydro is netting a win for China. It can't just be thrown out of the conversation and then in the rebuttal use the USA as the example of not doing enough for hydro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Titanjuicy said: How do you go from China removing hydro they are left with only 5% to the USA not worried about hydro? You totally missed the point of my post. The point was that hydro is a massive part of China's renewable energy. You can't just remove something and then say they are doing nothing. Same with the Murray comparison. If you removed his 80 yard run. Are you just going to claim he had a bad day? That run may net a win. Hydro is netting a win for China. It can't just be thrown out of the conversation and then in the rebuttal use the USA as the example of not doing enough for hydro. Hydro is such a huge part of China's power infrastructure because of the 3 Gorges Dam. Which took roughly 14 years to complete. It's not exactly like slamming out a housing development where every multi-family structure has a roof covered with solar panels, and is completed in 18 months. Or building a new co-gen that's completed in 2-3 years. I agree that all hydro should be included and actually be increased. But in that earlier reply, TWA was telling me wind and solar is the future, and betting on that. I removed Hydro from the equation to highlight the small contribution PV and Wind actually make. So even if hydro is a portion of every country's power supply, it's not only not popular with environmentalists, it's time consuming and expensive, even though it pays for itself in a relatively short time. Using your earlier analogy, yes Murray is capable of breaking off an 80yd run on any given snap, but we don't like to run the ball, so he's in there to block because we'd rather pass the ball. It's not that we can't, we just lack the political will. Solar and wind are fashionable. Somebody said so,.... Edited June 5, 2017 by TitanDuckFan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleytolar Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 22 hours ago, Titanjuicy said: ....including Trump telling the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. This "act" is a useless argument in this case. That was an off-the-cuff quip not a request. Oh my.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.