Two-thirds of world's new energy capacity in 2016 was renewable

[Unum]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113115_two-thirds-of-worlds-new-energy-capacity-in-2016-was-renewable-iea

For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for fully
two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.

That represents not just a healthy share, but a shift in behavior among energy
producers, though fossil fuels still dominate generation today.

The International Energy Agency's renewable-market analysis showed solar
energy as the largest gainer in 2016, according to an NBC report on Wednesday.

In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any
other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth—the first time a renewable source
has ever achieved such year-over-year growth.

In total, 165 gigawatts worth of renewable energy came online in 2016, and the
sector will grow 43 percent by 2022, according to the report.

Cost is the biggest factor, and the IEA expects the solar energy costs to be
halved in the next three years.

[R Kym Horsell]

In alt.global-warming Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
> http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113115_two-thirds-of-worlds-new-energy-capacity-in-2016-was-renewable-iea
>
> For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for fully
> two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.

...

The share of electricity produced by renewables is also
going up fairly quick.

From wiki:

%US elec gen
renewables
2000 9.38
2002 8.90
2004 8.85
2006 9.49
2008 9.25
2010 12.52
2012 12.22
2014 13.19
2016 14.94
2020 20 (IEA projected)
(prior to 2001 US lost ~100 TWh hydro capacity)

Not counting the projection the
beta (exp model) is 0.0330373 +- 0.0111359 90% CI
I.e. ~3% pa compound growth.
IOW a doubling time of log(2)/.0330373 ~= 21 years.

Needless to say if renewables have been expanding 3% pa for the past
16 years fossils have been losing 3% share pa for the past 16 years.
(Need to state this for the hillbillies in da reedin orduns).

--
The Latest: Hurricane Nate Heads to Mouth of Mississippi
U.S. News & World Report, 07 Oct 2017 21:38Z

Rich Johnson @richjohnsonwx 07 Oct 2017 21:40Z
#HurricaneNate - Eye visible on radar south of Mouth of Mississippi River
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkMtzjVwAAtfQF.jpg>

Mary Gagen @maryhgagen 07 Oct 2017 22:16Z
Mary Gagen Retweeted Victor Venema
Cloud-temp feedback is one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate
prediction. Maybe honing in on a global net +ve, unfortunately.
<https://twitter.com/VariabilityBlog/status/916780569006149632>

Mike Hudema @MikeHudema 07 Oct 2017 22:24Z
Another worst ever record broken. Massive rain, worst flooding on record
hits southern Norway https://buff.ly/2y1UXWi #ActOnClimate #StopKM
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkT-jjUMAA8mSu.jpg>

NWS New Orleans @NWSNewOrleans 07 Oct 2017 22:36Z
Life-threatening storm surge expected on the Mississippi Gulf Coast this
evening! Do NOT travel as Hurricane #Nate comes ashore. #MSwx
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkXvDcU8AAkqn7.jpg>

BreakingNNow @BreakingNNow 07 Oct 2017 22:39Z
#BREAKING: If you live in low lying areas of Gautier, Mississippi. GET OUT
NOW say's Police #HurricaneNate

NWS New Orleans @NWSNewOrleans 07 Oct 2017 22:48Z
28ft wave height reported from buoy 40 in the Gulf!!! #Nate #GoMwx
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42040
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkeEYdXcAEfUya.jpg>

Cory Pippin TV @CoryPippinTV 07 Oct 2017 23:15Z
No beach access anymore, just water. Evacuations recommended in west Gulf
Shores. Curfew begins at 8. #HurricaneNate# @mynbc15
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkhiSqU8AA8fzn.jpg>
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkhiSpVwAAwiEz.jpg>
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLkhiSqVoAA-sku.jpg>

[Health benefits of a warm climate:]
Thailand tops the list of deadly destinations for Australian travellers
ABC News, 06 Oct 2017 at 8:52am
Thailand is the most dangerous destination for Australian tourists, with 203
deaths recorded in the last year.
Philippines was next with 126 deaths, followed by Indonesia, the United
States and Vietnam.
The main causes of death were illness, natural causes and accidents.
The figures are part of an annual Consular State of Play report, issued by
the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Ryan Maue @RyanMaue 08 Oct 2017 00:39Z
Great figure of landfalls in Gulf from 1979-2008 (Rappaport et. al. 2010)
<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010WAF2222369.1#/doi/full/10.1175/2010WAF2222369.1>
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLky0pEUEAEyzZy.jpg>

NWS New Orleans @NWSNewOrleans 08 Oct 2017 00:41Z
Tide levels increasing as storm surge from Hurricane Nate approaches the
Gulf Coast. #lawx #mswx
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLk3asMWAAIgGfO.jpg>

Australian Nathan Walker set for historic NHL debut on Sunday
Fox Sports, 06 Oct. 2017
Australian sporting history will be made on Sunday morning (AEDT) when
Nathan Walker becomes the nation's first NHL player.
[But what about the PREVIOUS 13 billion years??!!]

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:38:24 -0500, Unum wrote:

>http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113115_two-thirds-of-worlds-new-energy-capacity-in-2016-was-renewable-iea
>
>For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for fully
>two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.

That would be power (GW).

What are the numbers for energy production (GWh)?

Also, how have the utilization ratios done over the same period for
"renewable" and conventional sources?

How much of the time have PV panels and windmills been idle while
fossil fuel plants did the heavy lifting?

Doesn't it make a black-and-white thinking greenie's head 'splode to
tell half-truths?

>That represents not just a healthy share, but a shift in behavior among energy
>producers, though fossil fuels still dominate generation today.
>
>The International Energy Agency's renewable-market analysis showed solar
>energy as the largest gainer in 2016, according to an NBC report on Wednesday.
>
>In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any

>other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth葉he first time a renewable source

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:38:24 -0500, Unum says...

>
> http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113115_two-thirds-of-worlds-new-energy-capacity-in-2016-was-renewable-iea
>
> For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for fully
> two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.

What OTHER "new energy capacity" is there, nerdo?

[george152]

A nuclear source that could be produced and sold as a sealed unit would
be the best idea.
So far the 'renewables' only work when the suns shining and the winds
blowing or the batteries don't fail.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:12:26 +1300, george152 wrote:

>On 10/8/2017 6:57 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:38:24 -0500, Unum says...
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113115_two-thirds-of-worlds-new-energy-capacity-in-2016-was-renewable-iea
>>>
>>> For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for fully
>>> two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.
>>
>> What OTHER "new energy capacity" is there, nerdo?
>>
>
>A nuclear source that could be produced and sold as a sealed unit would
>be the best idea.
>So far the 'renewables' only work when the suns shining and the winds
>blowing or the batteries don't fail.

And using nuclear power preserves fossil fuels for use as chemical
feedstock.

There are no good uses for uranium other than nuclear power or nuclear
medicine.

The latter use seems to be rare. Uranium isn't in the lists of
commonly used substances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine

[Unum]

So you're pretty sure no other forms of energy generation were added
in 2016, you pathetic little moron? They would have been the one-third.
It was fully explained in the article you were tooo stooopid to read.

There's dumb, and then there's so dumb it isn't even ever embarrassed
about showing how dumb on the internet over and over.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 17:10:37 -0500, Unum says...

> > What OTHER "new energy capacity" is there, nerdo?
>
> So you're pretty sure no other forms of energy generation were added
> in 2016
>

Name them, liar.

Chances are, no one's ever HEARD of them, or their not even "on the
radar" yet.

Solar and wind have been around for decades, moron... it's about TIME they
started pulling some weight.

[Bob F]

And they are, which really seems to drive you batty.

[Unum]

On 10/8/2017 8:00 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 17:10:37 -0500, Unum says...
>
>>> What OTHER "new energy capacity" is there, nerdo?
>>
>> So you're pretty sure no other forms of energy generation were added
>> in 2016
>>
>
> Name them, liar.

They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.

> Chances are, no one's ever HEARD of them, or their not even "on the
> radar" yet.
>
> Solar and wind have been around for decades, moron... it's about TIME they
> started pulling some weight.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:17:16 -0700, Bob F says...

> > Solar and wind have been around for decades, moron... it's about TIME they
> > started pulling some weight.
> >
>
> And they are, which really seems to drive you batty.
>

No. I'm FOR alternate energy. I just don't wanna pay taxes to subsidize
it. I already pay enough on all the other forms of energy that work quite
well, and DON'T change the climate.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:50:12 -0500, Unum says...

> > Name them, liar.
>
> They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.

"They"? Please list "them", liar.

LOL... the ONLY other "form of energy generation" mentioned, was coal, and
they compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago, like we
had the technology to grow coal's "energy capacity" the same as we would
today.

Gah... you're a special kind of stupid. You believe ALL of the propaganda
coming out these days.

=====

Some quotes of note, that you CONVEEEEENIENTLY left out:

"Cost is the biggest factor, and the IEA expects the solar energy costs to
be halved in the next three years."

"Birol conceded renewables likely can't and won't provide every single
kilowatt-hour the world consumes."

"He stressed the role of "traditional" fossil fuels in providing
uninterrupted power to national energy grids 24 hours a day, seven days a
week."

=====

If you can post 13 lines PLUS blanks (18), you can post the whole article,
which is only about twice as much. Did you get a hand cramp, pussy?

No... you just didn't want us seeing the quotes above, in case we didn't
follow your stupid propaganda link.

[Bob F]

Do you equally oppose the new proposed subsidies for coal and oil?

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:38:24 -0500, Unum wrote :

> For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for
> fully two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.

A solar plant has a load factor of ~10%. So a solar plan needs a capacity
ten times greater than a conventional one. For wind, it is two or three
times. Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce
on demand. And they are highly variable, particularly wind. So for each
installed MW of wind you need a MW of fast ramping capacity.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 05:25:41 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote :

> Needless to say if renewables have been expanding 3% pa for the past 16
> years fossils have been losing 3% share pa for the past 16 years. (Need
> to state this for the hillbillies in da reedin orduns).

Exponential extrapolation over a period of a few year are highly
unreliable.

[Wally W.]

I plotted the values in Excel with log scale.

An exponential fit seemed dubious.

An exponential model doesn't include the negative effects of grid
instability (and disincentive for further adoption) as the percentage
of flaky power sources increases.

But Kymmie gave the exponential fit parameters to seven decimal places
anyway.

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:37:32 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

>On 09 Oct 2017 19:21:27 GMT, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 05:25:41 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote :
>>
>>> Needless to say if renewables have been expanding 3% pa for the past 16
>>> years fossils have been losing 3% share pa for the past 16 years. (Need
>>> to state this for the hillbillies in da reedin orduns).
>>
>>Exponential extrapolation over a period of a few year are highly
>>unreliable.

Note that the same people who are obstructionists when it comes to
actually building a hydro power plant are quick to take credit for
them as "renewable energy sources."

Glossing over the fact that hydro plants are rock-solid base-load
generators, while wind and solar are not.

Because AGW greenies spew so many half-truths, it is disappointing
that anyone listens to them.

It is ridiculous that MSM gives them a platform from which to spew
their doom and gloom.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:35:19 -0700, Bob F says...

> > No. I'm FOR alternate energy. I just don't wanna pay taxes to subsidize
> > it. I already pay enough on all the other forms of energy that work quite
> > well, and DON'T change the climate.
> >
>
> Do you equally oppose the new proposed subsidies for coal and oil?

Yes.

I believe in the free market, but I can not change the behaviours of
Senators and Representatives.

Like Democrats NOT denouncing Harvey Weinstein, because he gives them
money, helping them with their problems, I'm not going to denounce my
Senator because he votes to give money to coal and oil companies, that
will most likely keep prices down.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:35:19 -0700, Bob F says...

> > I already pay enough on all the other forms of energy that work quite
> > well, and DON'T change the climate.
> >
>
> Do you equally oppose the new proposed subsidies for coal and oil?

What part of, "I already pay enough on all the other forms of energy that
work quite well", do you not understand? WHO made it law, that I, and
others, should fund startups' and inventors' products, getting NONE of our
"investment" back for our troubles?

I believe in the free market. Since when is the government SUPPOSED to
fund invention? If you have a better mousetrap, then YOU need to come up
with the money to develop it. This socialist way of doing things is going
away, thank GOD, but it can't go away fast enough.

Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?

None.

The government needs to get out of the business of business. It's just
another way of controlling everyone... you included, but then, you WANT to
be controlled, don't you, slave?

[Bob F]

On 10/9/2017 3:46 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:

> The government needs to get out of the business of business. It's just
> another way of controlling everyone... you included, but then, you WANT to
> be controlled, don't you, slave?
>

Youy really are a moron, along with your buddy Trump.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:08:52 -0700, Bob F says...

Moron? Really?

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/is-our-government-just-another-
corporation/

http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

http://truthisscary.com/2010/11/8-examples-of-how-the-government-is-
trying-to-take-total-control-of-our-food-health-money-and-even-our-
dignity/

Whatsa matta, boy... logic get in the way of you wanting the government to
do EVERYTHING for you?

Since the 60's, we've called people like you, pinko commie fags.

I see nothing's changed.

Do you work? Do you LIKE the government giving your money to people who
use it and give NOTHING back?

NO taxation without representation!

Don't like it, more to Germany and start beating off Muslims.

[Unum]

What forms of dirty energy don't change the climate, and why are you
willing to pay taxes to subsidize them?

[Unum]

On 10/9/2017 12:24 AM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:50:12 -0500, Unum says...
>
>>> Name them, liar.
>>
>> They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.
>
> "They"? Please list "them", liar.

ratboy finally read the article, hilarious!

> LOL... the ONLY other "form of energy generation" mentioned, was coal, and
> they compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago, like we
> had the technology to grow coal's "energy capacity" the same as we would
> today.

So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as dirt?

[Unum]

On 10/9/2017 5:46 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:35:19 -0700, Bob F says...
>
>>> I already pay enough on all the other forms of energy that work quite
>>> well, and DON'T change the climate.
>>>
>>
>> Do you equally oppose the new proposed subsidies for coal and oil?
>
> What part of, "I already pay enough on all the other forms of energy that
> work quite well", do you not understand? WHO made it law, that I, and
> others, should fund startups' and inventors' products, getting NONE of our
> "investment" back for our troubles?

You mean like this?

https://www.usnews.com/news/opinion/articles/2016-04-21/the-senate-is-wasting-taxpayer-dollars-on-clean-coal-technology

> I believe in the free market. Since when is the government SUPPOSED to
> fund invention? If you have a better mousetrap, then YOU need to come up
> with the money to develop it. This socialist way of doing things is going
> away, thank GOD, but it can't go away fast enough.
>
> Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
> fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
> money did we get BACK?

All of it and more, apparently.

> None.

Outright lie.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/

The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the
U.S Treasury to date. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few
decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to
date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to
Solyndra.

[Bob F]

On 10/9/2017 8:24 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:08:52 -0700, Bob F says...
>
>>
>> On 10/9/2017 3:46 PM, Hillbilly Davis wrote:
>>
>>> The government needs to get out of the business of business. It's just
>>> another way of controlling everyone... you included, but then, you WANT to
>>> be controlled, don't you, slave?
>>>
>> Youy really are a moron, along with your buddy Trump.
>
> Moron? Really?
>
> https://anticorruptionsociety.com/is-our-government-just-another-
> corporation/
>
> http://www.economist.com/node/21547789
>
> http://truthisscary.com/2010/11/8-examples-of-how-the-government-is-
> trying-to-take-total-control-of-our-food-health-money-and-even-our-
> dignity/
>
> Whatsa matta, boy... logic get in the way of you wanting the government to
> do EVERYTHING for you?
>
> Since the 60's, we've called people like you, pinko commie fags.

Which says nothing about me, and everything about you.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:38:44 -0700, Bob F says...

> > Whatsa matta, boy... logic get in the way of you wanting the government to
> > do EVERYTHING for you?
> >
> > Since the 60's, we've called people like you, pinko commie fags.
>
> Which says nothing about me, and everything about you.

Yeah, that I think you're a pinko commie fag, who's a taker not a maker.

Your "leader" will NEVER be president, Meathead.

[Bob F]

Thanks for again verifying my last comment.

[BumbleBee]

On 10/10/2017 3:23 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> Your "leader" will NEVER be president, Meathead.
>>
> Thanks for again verifying my last comment.

I'll confirm his claim as well, meathead.

[Hillbilly Davis]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:23:21 -0700, Bob F says...

You're welcome, Pinko.

You must be just ANOTHER weak-upper-body liberal, so yeah... OK... gotcha.

;-)

You're just another pretend head crusher, right?

vimeo.com/211559729

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:38:24 -0500, Unum wrote :
>
> > For the first time in history, renewable energy sources accounted for
> > fully two-thirds of the new energy capacity added worldwide in 2016.
>
> A solar plant has a load factor of ~10%. So a solar plan needs a capacity
> ten times greater than a conventional one. For wind, it is two or three
> times.

What is the comparable efficiency of producing “conventional” fuels?
That is to say, how much solar radiation is needed over a square meter
of land to produce something (e.g., biodiesel) that can power a
generator to produce 1kWh?

> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce
> on demand.

Neither do conventional fuels. And if you want to produce a genuine
*fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!

> And they are highly variable, particularly wind. So for each
> installed MW of wind you need a MW of fast ramping capacity.

Where is new fossil fuel capacity being created? I only see stories
of it being extracted and used up. I know a lot of coal workers would
*love* for you to tell them the great news.

Which is all to say: don’t conflate storage and generation.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[Paul Aubrin]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :

>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce on
>> demand.
>
> Neither do conventional fuels. And if you want to produce a genuine
> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!

False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:37:32 -0400, Wally W. wrote :

Seven decimals only. I hope he will recover from his temporary illness.

[Unum]

That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand". They may or
may not be able to fire up and produce at any given time for a variety
of reasons. NG peaker plants are generally capable of spinning up
quickly, but there's no guarantee and the power is relatively expensive.

Also, there are many reported instances of renewable energy generation
in excess of 60% of the total production for extended times. Nothing
"fatal" about that.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:11:50 -0500, Unum wrote :

> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".

Fossil fuel plants, hydro plants produce on demand. By comparison, solar
plants produce when the sun reach the panels, and wind plants produce
when the wind blow (not too low, not to high). You cannot throttle up a
wind farm at will.

[BumbleBee]

On 10/11/2017 2:11 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 2:45 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :
>>
>>>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce on
>>>> demand.
>>>
>>> Neither do conventional fuels.  And if you want to produce a genuine
>>> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!
>>
>> False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
>> plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.
>
> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".

Of course they do!

> They may or
> may not be able to fire up and produce at any given time for a variety
> of reasons.

But most produce a steady baseline flow.

> NG peaker plants are generally capable of spinning up
> quickly, but there's no guarantee and the power is relatively expensive.

That's for brownout and emergency needs, duh.

> Also, there are many reported instances of renewable energy generation
> in excess of 60% of the total production for extended times. Nothing
> "fatal" about that.

Talk to Germany, it has fucked them all up.

[Unum]

On 10/11/2017 5:37 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 2:11 PM, Unum wrote:
>> On 10/11/2017 2:45 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :
>>>
>>>>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce on
>>>>> demand.
>>>>
>>>> Neither do conventional fuels.  And if you want to produce a genuine
>>>> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!
>>>
>>> False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
>>> plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.
>>
>> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".
>
> Of course they do!

Prove it.

>> They may or
>> may not be able to fire up and produce at any given time for a variety
>> of reasons.
>
> But most produce a steady baseline flow.

That isn't 'on demand'.

>> NG peaker plants are generally capable of spinning up
>> quickly, but there's no guarantee and the power is relatively expensive.
>
> That's for brownout and emergency needs, duh.

You don't know a damn thing about this.

>> Also, there are many reported instances of renewable energy generation
>> in excess of 60% of the total production for extended times. Nothing
>> "fatal" about that.
>
> Talk to Germany, it has fucked them all up.

Sounds like the usual brainless personal opinion.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

Say it with me: fossil fuels *are* solar power.

As I said, it is a mistake to conflate generation with storage. Fossil
fuel has to *come* from somewhere, and you’re trying to externalize
that cost (or perhaps pretend that power from the wind or sun cannot be
stored). There is *nothing* “on demand” about having to wait millions
of years for organic material to turn into energy-rich fossils just so
you can pull it out of the ground and ship it to a plant that can burn
it to spin a turbine and make electricity. Biodiesel is a shorter time
frame, but you don’t seem to offer up any efficiency numbers on that
type of fuel production.

[BumbleBee]

On 10/11/2017 8:08 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 5:37 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/11/2017 2:11 PM, Unum wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2017 2:45 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce on
>>>>>> demand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither do conventional fuels.  And if you want to produce a genuine
>>>>> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!
>>>>
>>>> False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
>>>> plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.
>>>
>>> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".
>>
>> Of course they do!
>
> Prove it.

Ave you visited any coal plants, ever?

Nat. gas?

Nuke?

Flip the fuggin' switch, moron.

>>> They may or
>>> may not be able to fire up and produce at any given time for a variety
>>> of reasons.
>>
>> But most produce a steady baseline flow.
>
> That isn't 'on demand'.

Of course it is.

Customers demand energy all day.

They can't demand solar at night, now can they?

>>> NG peaker plants are generally capable of spinning up
>>> quickly, but there's no guarantee and the power is relatively expensive.
>>
>> That's for brownout and emergency needs, duh.
>
> You don't know a damn thing about this.

You get your ass handed to you than retreat to accuse.

>>> Also, there are many reported instances of renewable energy generation
>>> in excess of 60% of the total production for extended times. Nothing
>>> "fatal" about that.
>>
>> Talk to Germany, it has fucked them all up.
>
> Sounds like the usual brainless personal opinion.

Or MIT's:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables

Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid,
the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world
learn from its lesson?

by Richard Martin May 24, 2016
88
At one point this month renewable energy sources briefly supplied close
to 90 percent of the power on Germany’s electric grid. But that doesn’t
mean the world’s fourth-largest economy is close to being run on
zero-carbon electricity. In fact, Germany is giving the rest of the
world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce
carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.

After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in
2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it
needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables
can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of
those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in
Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants
primarily burn dirty coal.

Now the government is about to reboot its energy strategy, known as the
Energiewende. It was launched in 2010 in hopes of dramatically
increasing the share of the country’s electricity that comes from
renewable energy and slashing the country’s overall carbon emissions to
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (see “The Great German Energy
Experiment”). What happens next will be critical not only for Germany,
but also for other countries trying to learn how to best bring more wind
and solar online—especially if they want to do it without relying on
nuclear power.


Germany has struggled to manage its surge in solar and wind capacity.
Some aspects of the Energiewende have been successful: renewable sources
accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany in
2015. The country is now the world’s largest solar market. Germany’s
carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.

However, an expert commission appointed by the country’s minister of
economy and energy has said the 40 percent target probably won’t be
reached by 2020. And the energy revolution has caused problems of its
own. Because fossil-fuel power plants cannot easily ramp down generation
in response to excess supply on the grid, on sunny, windy days there is
sometimes so much power in the system that the price goes negative—in
other words, operators of large plants, most of which run on coal or
natural gas, must pay commercial customers to consume electricity. That
situation has also arisen recently in Texas and California (see “Texas
and California Have Too Much Renewable Energy”) when the generation of
solar power has maxed out.

In hopes of addressing such issues, Germany’s Parliament is expected to
soon eliminate the government-set subsidy for renewable energy, known as
a feed-in tariff, that has largely fueled the growth in wind and solar.
Instead of subsidizing any electricity produced by solar or wind power,
the government will set up an auction system. Power producers will bid
to build renewable energy projects up to a capacity level set by the
government, and the resulting prices paid for power from those plants
will be set by the market, rather than government fiat.

[BumbleBee]

On 10/11/2017 8:30 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> fossil fuels*are* solar power.

No, they're NOT!

You MORON.

[Unum]

On 10/12/2017 11:26 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 8:08 PM, Unum wrote:
>> On 10/11/2017 5:37 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2017 2:11 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2017 2:45 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce on
>>>>>>> demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither do conventional fuels.  And if you want to produce a genuine
>>>>>> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!
>>>>>
>>>>> False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
>>>>> plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".
>>>
>>> Of course they do!
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Ave you visited any coal plants, ever?
>
> Nat. gas?
>
> Nuke?
>
> Flip the fuggin' switch, moron.

So you can't prove it.

>>>> They may or
>>>> may not be able to fire up and produce at any given time for a variety
>>>> of reasons.
>>>
>>> But most produce a steady baseline flow.
>>
>> That isn't 'on demand'.
>
> Of course it is.
>
> Customers demand energy all day.
>
> They can't demand solar at night, now can they?

Fossil fuel plants have an average capacity factor of about 55%.

>>>> NG peaker plants are generally capable of spinning up
>>>> quickly, but there's no guarantee and the power is relatively expensive.
>>>
>>> That's for brownout and emergency needs, duh.
>>
>> You don't know a damn thing about this.
>
> You get your ass handed to you than retreat to accuse.

Merely pointing out the obvious.

>>>> Also, there are many reported instances of renewable energy generation
>>>> in excess of 60% of the total production for extended times. Nothing
>>>> "fatal" about that.
>>>
>>> Talk to Germany, it has fucked them all up.
>>
>> Sounds like the usual brainless personal opinion.
>
> Or MIT's:
>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
>
>
> Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
>
> Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the
> country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from
> its lesson?

So what is the "fucked them all up" part, genius? Germany shut down their
nuke plants, renewables have taken up the slack.

> Germany has struggled to manage its surge in solar and wind capacity.
> Some aspects of the Energiewende have been successful: renewable sources
> accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany in 2015.
> The country is now the world’s largest solar market. Germany’s carbon
> emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/24/denmark-generated-enough-wind-energy-power-power-needs-wednesday/

"varying production is not affecting our world-class security of supply
that we have in Denmark"

[Unum]

So where did it all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?

[BumbleBee]

On 10/12/2017 4:20 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 11:26 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/11/2017 8:08 PM, Unum wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2017 5:37 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2017 2:11 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2017 2:45 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't
>>>>>>>> produce on
>>>>>>>> demand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither do conventional fuels.  And if you want to produce a genuine
>>>>>>> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
>>>>>> plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".
>>>>
>>>> Of course they do!
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Ave you visited any coal plants, ever?
>>
>> Nat. gas?
>>
>> Nuke?
>>
>> Flip the fuggin' switch, moron.
>
> So you can't prove it.

Are you for real?

Ever toured a power plant?

Perhaps a hydro plant?

http://globalenergyobservatory.org/geoid/592

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dW4d7LMr1E

>>>>> They may or
>>>>> may not be able to fire up and produce at any given time for a variety
>>>>> of reasons.
>>>>
>>>> But most produce a steady baseline flow.
>>>
>>> That isn't 'on demand'.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>>
>> Customers demand energy all day.
>>
>> They can't demand solar at night, now can they?
>
> Fossil fuel plants have

Non responsive - next!

>>>>> NG peaker plants are generally capable of spinning up
>>>>> quickly, but there's no guarantee and the power is relatively
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>
>>>> That's for brownout and emergency needs, duh.
>>>
>>> You don't know a damn thing about this.
>>
>> You get your ass handed to you than retreat to accuse.
>
> Merely pointing out the obvious.

Yes I did, and?

>>>>> Also, there are many reported instances of renewable energy generation
>>>>> in excess of 60% of the total production for extended times. Nothing
>>>>> "fatal" about that.
>>>>
>>>> Talk to Germany, it has fucked them all up.
>>>
>>> Sounds like the usual brainless personal opinion.
>>
>> Or MIT's:
>>
>> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
>>
>>
>> Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
>>
>> Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric
>> grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the
>> world learn from its lesson?
>
> So what is the "fucked them all up" part, genius? Germany shut down their
> nuke plants, renewables have taken up the slack.

Uh are you insane?

http://www.phillip-butler.com/its-putins-turn-what-hell-do/

Europe depends on Russian natural gas now because of two key
infrastructure elements. First, Russia is closer in proximity and via
hard distribution lines. Saudi Arabia (see Obama deals) Qatar, and
especially the United States, they cannot quickly boost production of
any energy source, let alone natural gas, by means such as liquefied
natural gas (LNG) container capacity (see regasification etc.). The
United States will have to build a fleet of LNG tankers just to try and
eliminate Russia. The only pipelines leading into Europe at the moment,
they come from Norway, Tunisia and Libya (civil war) Morocco and other
countries in North Africa, and via Turkey (which Russia is dealing
with). Now you might think Russia’s part in pipelines is the big rub for
getting gas to Europe. Think again though. Storage facilities and
production capacities play the big role in my plan. You see continual
flows are only mitigated via massive storage capacity for LNG and pipe
gas. Europe simply does not have enough built yet. No matter how much
the Saudis and American energy interests would love to, there’s simply
no way to meet the demand. But they’ll try.

Second, when Putin does this, several things will happen. After the
backlash, which Russia could care less about now, Germans, Italians, the
French, and especially (take note) Croatia, Czech Republic, and the
smaller EU nations, they’ll be forced to A – use alternatives, B – buy
from other suppliers (who won’t be able to meet the demand), or C – pay
the new Russia (Gazprom) price. On the global scale, the Saudis and
other suppliers, already maxing out their production to help bleed
Gazprom and Russia in the first place, their capability will be taxed.
Supply will not meet demand, and this will drive world prices (see
Forbes war here) back up. On top of this, the aforementioned
“investments” by Russians in “alternative futures,” they will render
dividends. And so forth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/21/germanys-gas-pact-putins-russia-endangers-atlantic-alliance/

There is one basic point to remember about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
from Russia to Germany: it does not add any extra natural gas supply to
the European market for the foreseeable future.

This Molotov-Ribbentrop 2 pipeline - as the furious Poles call it -
diverts the same Siberian gas from existing pipelines on land: the Yamal
link through Belarus and Poland; and the ill-named Brotherhood link
through Ukraine to South-East Europe.

These pipelines are in working order and running well below full
capacity. They need updating but are essentially sunk costs, and require
no ecological upheaval.

The Nord Stream 2 venture creates a sweetheart arrangement with Germany
while undermining the security and economic interests of Eastern and
Central Europe, and leaves Ukraine at the mercy of Kremlin blackmail.

> > Germany has struggled to manage its surge in solar and wind capacity.
> > Some aspects of the Energiewende have been successful: renewable sources
> > accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany
> in 2015.
> > The country is now the world’s largest solar market. Germany’s carbon
> > emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.
>
>
> https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/24/denmark-generated-enough-wind-energy-power-power-needs-wednesday/

The size of Delaware, LOL!

[BumbleBee]

You think a photon is organic, fossilized?

Really?

Damn.

[Unum]

On 10/12/2017 9:16 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 4:20 PM, Unum wrote:
>> On 10/12/2017 11:26 AM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2017 8:08 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2017 5:37 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2017 2:11 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 2:45 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57:06 +0000, Doc O'Leary wrote :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides that wind and solar are fatal energies: they don't produce on
>>>>>>>>> demand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither do conventional fuels.  And if you want to produce a genuine
>>>>>>>> *fossil* fuel, oh *buddy* do you have a big lag on that demand!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False. Fossil fuel powered plants produce /on demand/. Wind and solar
>>>>>>> plants cannot. You can't turn on the wind when you need it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a lie, fossil fuel plants don't produce "on demand".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they do!
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Ave you visited any coal plants, ever?
>>>
>>> Nat. gas?
>>>
>>> Nuke?
>>>
>>> Flip the fuggin' switch, moron.
>>
>> So you can't prove it.
>
> Are you for real?

So you can't prove it. Keep on running.

> Ever toured a power plant?
>
> Perhaps a hydro plant?

The claim was that fossil fuel plants are always 'on demand'. Are hydro
plants powered by fossil fuels, boy?

So renewable energy doesn't have Germany fucked up, and you are full of shit?

[Unum]

On 10/12/2017 9:16 PM, BumbleBee wrote:

So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?

[BumbleBee]

Already did!


http://globalenergyobservatory.org/geoid/592

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dW4d7LMr1E

>
>> Ever toured a power plant?
>>
>> Perhaps a hydro plant?
>
> The claim was

http://globalenergyobservatory.org/geoid/592

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dW4d7LMr1E

Sure does!

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

Sustainable Energy

[BumbleBee]

There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.

It is called _ Sun.

Do study it, MORON.

[Unum]

Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are* solar power."

[Bob F]

Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago, reducing the CO2 in the
atmosphere and oceans, thereby cooling the planet enough that we can
exist on it. When we release them into the atmosphere, we risk reversing
that process.

[BumbleBee]

Unfucking believable, do you think the sun is a "fossil"?

Seriously?

[BumbleBee]

On 10/14/2017 5:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 2:02 PM, Unum wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 2:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>>>
>>> There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.
>>>
>>> It is called _ Sun.
>>>
>>> Do study it, MORON.
>>
>> Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are*  solar power."
>
> Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago,

No ya MORON!

Photons are not "stored" carbon compounds, you IDIOT!

[Bob F]

On 10/14/2017 7:38 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 5:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 2:02 PM, Unum wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2017 2:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>>>>
>>>> There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.
>>>>
>>>> It is called _ Sun.
>>>>
>>>> Do study it, MORON.
>>>
>>> Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are*  solar power."
>>

>> Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago, reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, thereby cooling the planet enough that we can exist on it. When we release them into the atmosphere, we risk reversing that process.
>

> No ya MORON!
>
> Photons are not "stored" carbon compounds, you IDIOT!
>

Please do show me where I said any such thing, you Moron!

[Bob F]

http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2001-news/Hedges8-2001.htm

[BumbleBee]

OK:

http://in5d.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/fbdabet.jpg

http://image.slideserve.com/175995/photon-energy-l.jpg

[BumbleBee]

"...plants paved the way for the evolution of land animals by
simultaneously increasing the percentage of oxygen in the Earth's
atmosphere and decreasing the percentage of carbon dioxide..."

Plants =/ photons.

http://image.slideserve.com/175995/photon-energy-l.jpg

HTH, dolt.

[Unum]

[BumbleBee]

Good GRIEF!!!

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/sun-heat/en/

Every 1.5 millionths of a second, the sun releases more energy than all
humans consume in an entire year. Without the sun there would be no
light, no warmth, and no life.

Its heat influences the environments of all the planets, dwarf planets,
moons, asteroids, and comets in our solar system.

How does a big ball of hydrogen create all that heat? The short answer
is that it is big. If it were smaller, it would be just be a sphere of
hydrogen, like Jupiter.

But the sun is much bigger than Jupiter. It would take almost 1,000
Jupiters to fill it up!

That’s a lot of hydrogen. That means it’s held together by a whole lot
of gravity. And THAT means there is a whole lot of pressure inside of it.

In fact, the pressure is so intense, and the density so great, that the
hydrogen atoms collide with enough force that they literally meld into a
new element—helium.

This process—called nuclear fusion—releases energy while creating a
chain reaction that allows it to occur over and over and over again.

That energy builds up. It gets as hot as 27 million degrees Fahrenheit
in the sun’s core. The energy travels outward through a large area
called the convective zone. Then it travels onward to the photosphere,
where it emits heat, charged particles, and light.

That heat powers the chemical reactions that make life possible on
Earth, allows gases and liquids to exist on many planets and moons, and
causes icy comets to form fiery halos.

Those particles create a ‘solar wind’ that pushes against the fabric of
interstellar space billions of miles away.

And that light travels far out into the cosmos—just one star among
billions and billions.

Not too bad for a big ball of gas, no?


http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/3-where-does-energy-come-from-and-go.html

The plant made the molecules by using light energy from the Sun. The
Sun's light energy came from electrons in its atoms lowering energy
states, and releasing energy. The energy in the atoms came from the
nuclear reactions in the heart of the Sun. What started the nuclear
reactions? Physicists think the Big Bang did.

[Unum]

On 10/14/2017 11:36 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 10:32 PM, Unum wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 9:38 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2017 5:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:02 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is called _ Sun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do study it, MORON.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are*  solar power."
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago,
>>>
>>> No ya MORON!
>>>
>>> Photons are not "stored" carbon compounds, you IDIOT!
>>
>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>
> Good GRIEF!!!

Response time down to 4 minutes now? Keep checking, I may post
again shortly, lol.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:07:11 -0500, Unum wrote :

> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?

Gravitational forces and nuclear fusion.

[Bob F]

Can you really be this clueless? Plants use light to combine carbon from
CO2 into complex molecules which are the source of all of the fossil
fuels. without the sun (photons), there would be no fossil fuels to
burn, and most of the original CO2 would still be cooking this planet.

[Bob F]

On 10/14/2017 9:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 9:59 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 7:38 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2017 5:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:02 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is called _ Sun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do study it, MORON.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are*  solar power."
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago, reducing the CO2 in the
>>>> atmosphere and oceans, thereby cooling the planet enough that we can
>>>> exist on it. When we release them into the atmosphere, we risk
>>>> reversing that process.
>>>
>>> No ya MORON!
>>>
>>> Photons are not "stored" carbon compounds, you IDIOT!
>>>
>>

>> Please do show me where I said any such thing, you Moron!

>

> OK:
>
> http://in5d.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/fbdabet.jpg
>
> http://image.slideserve.com/175995/photon-energy-l.jpg

Pretty pics don't show anything of the sort. Moron!

[BumbleBee]

On 10/14/2017 10:47 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 11:36 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 10:32 PM, Unum wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2017 9:38 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2017 5:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:02 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy
>>>>>>>> dust?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is called _ Sun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do study it, MORON.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are*  solar power."
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago,
>>>>
>>>> No ya MORON!
>>>>
>>>> Photons are not "stored" carbon compounds, you IDIOT!
>>>
>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>>
>> Good GRIEF!!!
>
> Response time

Again:

On 10/14/2017 10:32 PM, Unum wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 9:38 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>> On 10/14/2017 5:00 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2017 2:02 PM, Unum wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2017 2:12 PM, BumbleBee wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is this orb in our universe that giveth many, many photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is called _ Sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do study it, MORON.
>>>>
>>>> Dimwit finally admitting that "fossil fuels*are* solar power."
>>>
>>> Yes. Carbon compounds stored away ages ago,
>>
>> No ya MORON!
>>
>> Photons are not "stored" carbon compounds, you IDIOT!
>
> So where did the energy all come from, insect? Compacted fairy dust?

Good GRIEF!!!

[BumbleBee]

He can't hear you!

[BumbleBee]

Can you really not know the difference between a photon and a plant?

I guess you don't.

[BumbleBee]

You really are an idiot's idiot.

[Bob F]

I never suggested they were they same. But you must be a BOT and just
can't understand that light was needed to produce the plants that are
now our fossil fuels, and removed CO2 from the atmosphere, cooling the
earth so we can live on it, in the process.

[Bob F]

LOL!

[BumbleBee]

WTF do you think I POSTED????

"...plants paved the way for the evolution of land animals by
simultaneously increasing the percentage of oxygen in the Earth's
atmosphere and decreasing the percentage of carbon dioxide..."

Do you even bother to read for comprehension????

[BumbleBee]

Yes, people are truly laughing out loud at you.