On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:44:30 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 3:38:26 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:28:23 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:12:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 9:27:03 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:58:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 7:46:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 5:09:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 3:54:45 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:30:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:44:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:04:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:13:03 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 2:25:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 8:49:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 12:34:24 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 7:40:36 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 2:07:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 8:11:06 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 11:08:30 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 8:44:42 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GnatTurd <maggot...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > news:aa9484b4-4967-467a...@googlegroups.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, GnatTurd wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > And your claim that he has "no plan" is essentially a statement that you don't like the plan he has laid out and refuse to take it seriously - not that you could understand it if you did try to take it seriously.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, when I say that Joe Biden has no plan I mean that there IS NO WRITTEN PLAN to accomplish what he has MANDATED to do by 2030.
> > >
> > > None that you can understand.
> > >
> > > > Joe Biden HAS NOT "laid out a plan" to make this happen; what he has done is to release PRESS STATEMENTS about this. A REAL PLAN MUST include Congressional Action that AUTHORIZES funding to for this action. WHERE IS THE FUNDING??????
> > >
> > > Your idea of what might constitute a real plan might be of interest to you. Nobody else takes the ravings of an incoherent idiot like you seriously.
> >
> > Hey, it is VERY SIMPLE: if Joe Biden has a FUNDED PLAN, then PRODUCE !!!!
>
> I did produce a plan. It doesn't meet you bizarre and unrealistic criteria. The problem here is simply and only that you are a half-wit.

The "plan" you posted was for ONLY $2B, a tiny fraction of what will be required to achieve senile pervert Lyin' Biden's stated goal.

On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Why should I be expected to remember bogus statistic dredged from your failing memory? Find a link to something more reliable.
>> I don't expect your demented mind to REMEMBER ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Of course you don't. You are totally out of touch with reality.
>
>>> I'm perfectly happy to accept that you are in some kind of hysterical panic, but I don't see any need to take you seriously.
>> You are perfectly happy to DELUDE YOURSELF with your provably wrong LIBTARD FANTASIES.
> Gnatguy imagines that he can prove something. He can demonstrate that he looks exactly like a demented idiot, but that's the limit of his capabilities.
>
>> You can't produce a plan you say exists <snip>
> I did, but you claim that it isn't a plan. Much easier than explaining why you think that is inadequate (which it isn't).
>
Bill, according to the EIA Us Energy Information Administration Solar
from large and small scale production has increased 22% a year since
2015 to 2021. Sounds great, until you look at the drop in production
from other sources. Coal, Petroleum liquids, Petroleum Coke, Nuclear and
other gases have all fallen in their electric generation. Wind
production is thrown in with all renewables and new easily figured out,
but I believe it provide a bit more than solar. Natural gas is up, but
has only grown 2.4% a year, the last 7 years. In those 7 years total
electric production has only grown 0.9%, not per year, but for all 7
years!!!  No wonder we have rolling brownouts. Where is the power to
charge those mandated electric vehicles going to come from?
> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01

The greenies have really putus in a bind.

  The demented idiot we need to worry about is not here, we all know
where he is.

<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQlsHn8I36AhVpKkQIHbawB-cQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw11Upg0IHh1VvSSIEKy3nu_>

On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Why should I be expected to remember bogus statistic dredged from your failing memory? Find a link to something more reliable.
>>>> I don't expect your demented mind to REMEMBER ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Of course you don't. You are totally out of touch with reality.
>>>
>>>>> I'm perfectly happy to accept that you are in some kind of hysterical panic, but I don't see any need to take you seriously.
>>>> You are perfectly happy to DELUDE YOURSELF with your provably wrong LIBTARD FANTASIES.
>>> Gnatguy imagines that he can prove something. He can demonstrate that he looks exactly like a demented idiot, but that's the limit of his capabilities.
>>>
>>>> You can't produce a plan you say exists <snip>
>>> I did, but you claim that it isn't a plan. Much easier than explaining why you think that is inadequate (which it isn't).
>>>
>> Bill, according to the EIA Us Energy Information Administration Solar
>> from large and small scale production has increased 22% a year since
>> 2015 to 2021. Sounds great, until you look at the drop in production
>> from other sources. Coal, Petroleum liquids, Petroleum Coke, Nuclear and
>> other gases have all fallen in their electric generation. Wind
>> production is thrown in with all renewables and new easily figured out,
>> but I believe it provide a bit more than solar. Natural gas is up, but
>> has only grown 2.4% a year, the last 7 years. In those 7 years total
>> electric production has only grown 0.9%, not per year, but for all 7
>> years!!!
> Electricity is generated when it is needed, and only as much as is needed. There is a bit of pumped storage and we are starting to see some investment in grid scale batteries, but they are used to buffer short term difference i supply and demand - over hours not weeks.
>
> So what you are complaining about is cheap renewable generation being used rather than more expensive alternative supplies.
>
> Why US energy demand has been more or less static since about 2000 isn't clear. The fact that the US has off-shored a lot of it's manufacturing to China since them may come into it.
>
>> No wonder we have rolling brownouts. Where is the power to
>> charge those mandated electric vehicles going to come from?
>>> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
> You will just have to build even more solar farms and wind turbines. It isn't difficult or all that expensive.
>
>> The greenies have really put us in a bind.
> It isn't the greenies who have made renewable electricity generation cheaper than any other source of electric power, and moving your electricity generation system to relying on the cheapest source of power isn't putting you in any kind of bind. Not investing enough in new generators and not adjusting the transmission grid to handle to the new generators is putting you in a bind, but the greenies can't be blamed for that.

 If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my
electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?

>
>> The demented idiot we need to worry about is not here, we all know where he is.
> Mar-a-Lago? Trump doesn't believe that climate change is real, which is to say he believes the climate change denial propaganda pushed out by the fossil-carbon extraction industry, which does lie about about the cost of renewable energy - anything to sell more fossil carbon as fuel, and make more money out of it.
>
>> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQlsHn8I36AhVpKkQIHbawB-cQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw11Upg0IHh1VvSSIEKy3nu_>

amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote in news:tfn626$28f97$1@dont-email.me:

> ��If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my
> electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
>

If you are popping off even 1000kWhr a month on a residential service,
you are excessive.

Switch your grow lamps over to LED.

And there is your answer. They are making the grow community pay
more. "A little piece of the action" as it were.

Oh, wait... I assumed California. Nevermind.

Just examine your usage numbers. That seems excessive (the amount
you use, not the amount they are charging), but I do not know the size
of your ranch/shack/etc either.

On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
>> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should I be expected to remember bogus statistic dredged from your failing memory? Find a link to something more reliable.
>>>>>> I don't expect your demented mind to REMEMBER ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>> Of course you don't. You are totally out of touch with reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm perfectly happy to accept that you are in some kind of hysterical panic, but I don't see any need to take you seriously.
>>>>>> You are perfectly happy to DELUDE YOURSELF with your provably wrong LIBTARD FANTASIES.
>>>>> Gnatguy imagines that he can prove something. He can demonstrate that he looks exactly like a demented idiot, but that's the limit of his capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't produce a plan you say exists
> <snip>
>
>>>>> I did, but you claim that it isn't a plan. Much easier than explaining why you think that is inadequate (which it isn't).
>>>>>
>>>> Bill, according to the EIA Us Energy Information Administration Solar
>>>> from large and small scale production has increased 22% a year since
>>>> 2015 to 2021. Sounds great, until you look at the drop in production
>>>> from other sources. Coal, Petroleum liquids, Petroleum Coke, Nuclear and
>>>> other gases have all fallen in their electric generation. Wind
>>>> production is thrown in with all renewables and new easily figured out,
>>>> but I believe it provide a bit more than solar. Natural gas is up, but
>>>> has only grown 2.4% a year, the last 7 years. In those 7 years total
>>>> electric production has only grown 0.9%, not per year, but for all 7
>>>> years!!!
>>> Electricity is generated when it is needed, and only as much as is needed. There is a bit of pumped storage and we are starting to see some investment in grid scale batteries, but they are used to buffer short term difference i supply and demand - over hours not weeks.
>>>
>>> So what you are complaining about is cheap renewable generation being used rather than more expensive alternative supplies.
>>>
>>> Why US energy demand has been more or less static since about 2000 isn't clear. The fact that the US has off-shored a lot of it's manufacturing to China since them may come into it.
>>>
>>>> No wonder we have rolling brownouts. Where is the power to
>>>> charge those mandated electric vehicles going to come from?
>>>>> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
>>> You will just have to build even more solar farms and wind turbines. It isn't difficult or all that expensive.
>>>
>>>> The greenies have really put us in a bind.
>>> It isn't the greenies who have made renewable electricity generation cheaper than any other source of electric power, and moving your electricity generation system to relying on the cheapest source of power isn't putting you in any kind of bind. Not investing enough in new generators and not adjusting the transmission grid to handle to the new generators is putting you in a bind, but the greenies can't be blamed for that.
>>>
>> If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
> Half of my electricity bill covers the cost of the grid that delivers it.
>
> If your utility company hasn't invested enough in the grid that supplies you they may be slugging high volume users in the hope of getting them to consume less , and devoting the extra money to beefing up the grid between you and the place where that cheap extra power is being generated.
>
> It isn't just the cost of generating the power - you are also paying for the cost of transporting from where it is generated to you.
>
My bill has a breakout 'ENERGY CHARGE' category. Since January it hasa
28.7% increase for any use over 1000kWhs. While the 'NON FUEL ENERGY CHARGE'
has only increased 9.3% for any use over 1000kWhs. The bill states,"The
fuel charge represents the cost of fuel used to generate
electricity. It is a direct pass-through to customers, FPL does not
profit from fuel."

On 9/12/2022 1:48 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote in news:tfn626$28f97$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> ¶ÿIf it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my
>> electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
>>
> If you are popping off even 1000kWhr a month on a residential service,
> you are excessive.
>
> Switch your grow lamps over to LED.
>
> And there is your answer. They are making the grow community pay
> more. "A little piece of the action" as it were.
>
> Oh, wait... I assumed California. Nevermind.
>
> Just examine your usage numbers. That seems excessive (the amount
> you use, not the amount they are charging), but I do not know the size
> of your ranch/shack/etc either.
 Huh! our peak usage was 1,778 kWhs for June 19 to July 19.
We keep the thermostat at 78*F. The house is 1600 sqft. All electric home.
                         Mikek

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 6:43:16 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:55:34 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:44:30 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 3:38:26 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:28:23 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:12:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 9:27:03 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:58:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 7:46:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 5:09:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 3:54:45 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:30:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 8:44:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:04:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 10:13:03 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 2:25:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 8:49:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 12:34:24 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 7:40:36 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 2:07:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 8:11:06 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 11:08:30 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 7:32:14 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 27, 2022 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 8:44:42 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GnatTurd <maggot...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > news:aa9484b4-4967-467a...@googlegroups.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, GnatTurd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > And your claim that he has "no plan" is essentially a statement that you don't like the plan he has laid out and refuse to take it seriously - not that you could understand it if you did try to take it seriously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, when I say that Joe Biden has no plan I mean that there IS NO WRITTEN PLAN to accomplish what he has MANDATED to do by 2030.
> > > > >
> > > > > None that you can understand.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Joe Biden HAS NOT "laid out a plan" to make this happen; what he has done is to release PRESS STATEMENTS about this. A REAL PLAN MUST include Congressional Action that AUTHORIZES funding to for this action. WHERE IS THE FUNDING??????
> > > > >
> > > > > Your idea of what might constitute a real plan might be of interest to you. Nobody else takes the ravings of an incoherent idiot like you seriously.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, it is VERY SIMPLE: if Joe Biden has a FUNDED PLAN, then PRODUCE !!!!
> > >
> > > I did produce a plan. It doesn't meet you bizarre and unrealistic criteria. The problem here is simply and only that you are a half-wit.
> >
> > The "plan" you posted was for ONLY $2B, a tiny fraction of what will be required to achieve Joe Biden's stated goal.
>
> Which is to say that you have a different plan - to which you can't provide a link - which would cost trillions to implement. You are an idiot, so we aren't going to take it seriously.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, then I will ASK again: WHAT "plan" are you talking about, and provide a link to the CONGRESSIONAL BILL authorizing it.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:49:04 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote in news:tfn626$28f97$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > ś˙If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my
> > electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
> >
> If you are popping off even 1000kWhr a month on a residential service,
> you are excessive.
>
> Switch your grow lamps over to LED.
>
> And there is your answer. They are making the grow community pay
> more. "A little piece of the action" as it were.
>
> Oh, wait... I assumed California. Nevermind.
>
> Just examine your usage numbers. That seems excessive (the amount
> you use, not the amount they are charging), but I do not know the size
> of your ranch/shack/etc either.

Hey fucking dimwit 1000 kwh per month DOESN'T cover the needs of an ALL electric home - not even close.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:01:15 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > >> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > >>>> Bill, according to the EIA Us Energy Information Administration Solar
> > >>>> from large and small scale production has increased 22% a year since
> > >>>> 2015 to 2021. Sounds great, until you look at the drop in production
> > >>>> from other sources. Coal, Petroleum liquids, Petroleum Coke, Nuclear and
> > >>>> other gases have all fallen in their electric generation. Wind
> > >>>> production is thrown in with all renewables and new easily figured out,
> > >>>> but I believe it provide a bit more than solar. Natural gas is up, but
> > >>>> has only grown 2.4% a year, the last 7 years. In those 7 years total
> > >>>> electric production has only grown 0.9%, not per year, but for all 7
> > >>>> years!!!
> > >>>>
> > >>> Electricity is generated when it is needed, and only as much as is needed. There is a bit of pumped storage and we are starting to see some investment in grid scale batteries, but they are used to buffer short term difference i supply and demand - over hours not weeks.
> > >>>
> > >>> So what you are complaining about is cheap renewable generation being used rather than more expensive alternative supplies.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why US energy demand has been more or less static since about 2000 isn't clear. The fact that the US has off-shored a lot of it's manufacturing to China since them may come into it.
> > >>>
> > >>>> No wonder we have rolling brownouts. Where is the power to
> > >>>> charge those mandated electric vehicles going to come from?
> > >>>>> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
> > >>>
> > >>> You will just have to build even more solar farms and wind turbines.. It isn't difficult or all that expensive.
> > >>>
> > >>>> The greenies have really put us in a bind.
> > >>>
> > >>> It isn't the greenies who have made renewable electricity generation cheaper than any other source of electric power, and moving your electricity generation system to relying on the cheapest source of power isn't putting you in any kind of bind. Not investing enough in new generators and not adjusting the transmission grid to handle to the new generators is putting you in a bind, but the greenies can't be blamed for that.
> > >>>
> > >> If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
> > >
> > > Half of my electricity bill covers the cost of the grid that delivers it.
> > >
> > > If your utility company hasn't invested enough in the grid that supplies you they may be slugging high volume users in the hope of getting them to consume less , and devoting the extra money to beefing up the grid between you and the place where that cheap extra power is being generated.
> > >
> > > It isn't just the cost of generating the power - you are also paying for the cost of transporting from where it is generated to you.
> > >
> > My bill has a breakout 'ENERGY CHARGE' category. Since January it has a
> > 28.7% increase for any use over 1000kWhs. While the 'NON FUEL ENERGY CHARGE'
> > has only increased 9.3% for any use over 1000kWhs. The bill states,"The
> > fuel charge represents the cost of fuel used to generate
> > electricity. It is a direct pass-through to customers, FPL does not
> > profit from fuel."
> But if they have to burn expensive fossil carbon to supply high volume consumers they would charge more for that extra current.
>
> Because the solar cells and the wind turbines generate power cheaply, they will sell as much of that as they can.
>
> If the greenies had persuaded them to over-invest in cheap renewable generation, they wouldn't need to charge high volume consumers more for consuming more power, so presumably they haven't. In fact it takes time and money to buy and install new generating plant, and while the old fossil-carbon fueled year is still working it makes sense to squeeze it for some last dregs of output, particularly when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If they hadn't invested much - so far - in pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, they wouldn't have a lot of choice.
>
> The greenies have been less vocal about pumped storage and grid batteries, which is bit silly, but the argument for that investment is less obvious, and people like Gnatguy can't understand it at all.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).

amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote in news:tfpogs$2ikkl$1@dont-email.me:

> On 9/12/2022 1:48 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
> wrote:
>> amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote in
>> news:tfn626$28f97$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> ¶ÿIf it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in
>>> my
>>> electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
>>>
>> If you are popping off even 1000kWhr a month on a residential
>> service, you are excessive.
>>
>> Switch your grow lamps over to LED.
>>
>> And there is your answer. They are making the grow community
>> pay
>> more. "A little piece of the action" as it were.
>>
>> Oh, wait... I assumed California. Nevermind.
>>
>> Just examine your usage numbers. That seems excessive (the
>> amount
>> you use, not the amount they are charging), but I do not know the
>> size of your ranch/shack/etc either.
>  Huh! our peak usage was 1,778 kWhs for June 19 to July 19.
> We keep the thermostat at 78*F. The house is 1600 sqft. All
> electric home.
>                          Mikek
>

That is way too much consumption. Too many lights left on?
Toasting bread? Boiling water? You probably use more in a day than
I do in half a month.

GnatTurd <maggot2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f44dc07e-8ffe-48d7-b6a6-8235c8f0c606n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:49:04 AM UTC-7,
> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>> amdx <am...@knology.net> wrote in
>> news:tfn626$28f97$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> > ś˙If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in
> my
>> > electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
>> >
>> If you are popping off even 1000kWhr a month on a residential
>> service, you are excessive.
>>
>> Switch your grow lamps over to LED.
>>
>> And there is your answer. They are making the grow community pay
>> more. "A little piece of the action" as it were.
>>
>> Oh, wait... I assumed California. Nevermind.
>>
>> Just examine your usage numbers. That seems excessive (the amount
>> you use, not the amount they are charging), but I do not know the
>> size of your ranch/shack/etc either.
>
> Hey fucking dimwit 1000 kwh per month DOESN'T cover the needs of
> an ALL electric home - not even close.
>

That depends on one's usage, you pathetic, know nothing Trumpanzee
dumbfuck.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

> ... "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).

Russian oil and gas are also unreliable, this year. So is Tuesday rain. We DO depend on unreliable events,
all the time. The Brits remember Dunkirk as a kind of miracle: not reliable, but
certainly worthwhile.

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
>
>> ... "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended
>> upon (just ask the Brits).
>
> Russian oil and gas are also unreliable, this year. So is Tuesday
> rain. We DO depend on unreliable events, all the time. The Brits
> remember Dunkirk as a kind of miracle: not reliable, but certainly
> worthwhile.

whit3rd, can you please block Flyguy? You are wasting your time replying to
him, and our time reading your post.

We have blocked him long ago. Just look at the number of posts from other
members regarding Flyguy. There are none.

--
MRM

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
>
> > ... "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).
>
> Russian oil and gas are also unreliable, this year. So is Tuesday rain. We DO depend on unreliable events,
> all the time. The Brits remember Dunkirk as a kind of miracle: not reliable, but
> certainly worthwhile.

No, the oil and gas are reliable - it is RUSSIA that isn't reliable.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:57:16 PM UTC-7, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> >
> >> ... "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended
> >> upon (just ask the Brits).
> >
> > Russian oil and gas are also unreliable, this year. So is Tuesday
> > rain. We DO depend on unreliable events, all the time. The Brits
> > remember Dunkirk as a kind of miracle: not reliable, but certainly
> > worthwhile.
> whit3rd, can you please block Flyguy? You are wasting your time replying to
> him, and our time reading your post.
>
> We have blocked him long ago. Just look at the number of posts from other
> members regarding Flyguy. There are none.
>
>
>
> --
> MRM

Why don't YOU block the BOTH of you???

ShitBird <moreturds2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:d83f18ed-0d47-43b1-856e-7f3928b963cfn@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-7, whit3rd
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
>>
>> > ... "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be
>> > depended upon (just ask the Brits).
>>
>> Russian oil and gas are also unreliable, this year. So is Tuesday
>> rain. We DO depend on unreliable events, all the time. The Brits
>> remember Dunkirk as a kind of miracle: not reliable, but
>> certainly worthwhile.
>
> No, the oil and gas are reliable - it is RUSSIA that isn't
> reliable.

You ain't real bright, shitbird.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 9:14:33 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> ShitBird <moreturd...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:d83f18ed-0d47-43b1...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-7, whit3rd
> > wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:38:14 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> >>
> >> > ... "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be
> >> > depended upon (just ask the Brits).
> >>
> >> Russian oil and gas are also unreliable, this year. So is Tuesday
> >> rain. We DO depend on unreliable events, all the time. The Brits
> >> remember Dunkirk as a kind of miracle: not reliable, but
> >> certainly worthwhile.
> >
> > No, the oil and gas are reliable - it is RUSSIA that isn't
> > reliable.
> You ain't real bright, shitbird.

....as declared by a BRAINDEAD FUCKTARD!

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:19:34 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:38:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:01:15 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > >> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill.....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > >>>> Bill, according to the EIA Us Energy Information Administration Solar
> > > > >>>> from large and small scale production has increased 22% a year since
> > > > >>>> 2015 to 2021. Sounds great, until you look at the drop in production
> > > > >>>> from other sources. Coal, Petroleum liquids, Petroleum Coke, Nuclear and
> > > > >>>> other gases have all fallen in their electric generation. Wind
> > > > >>>> production is thrown in with all renewables and new easily figured out,
> > > > >>>> but I believe it provide a bit more than solar. Natural gas is up, but
> > > > >>>> has only grown 2.4% a year, the last 7 years. In those 7 years total
> > > > >>>> electric production has only grown 0.9%, not per year, but for all 7
> > > > >>>> years!!!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Electricity is generated when it is needed, and only as much as is needed. There is a bit of pumped storage and we are starting to see some investment in grid scale batteries, but they are used to buffer short term difference i supply and demand - over hours not weeks.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So what you are complaining about is cheap renewable generation being used rather than more expensive alternative supplies.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Why US energy demand has been more or less static since about 2000 isn't clear. The fact that the US has off-shored a lot of it's manufacturing to China since them may come into it.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> No wonder we have rolling brownouts. Where is the power to
> > > > >>>> charge those mandated electric vehicles going to come from?
> > > > >>>>> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You will just have to build even more solar farms and wind turbines. It isn't difficult or all that expensive.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> The greenies have really put us in a bind.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It isn't the greenies who have made renewable electricity generation cheaper than any other source of electric power, and moving your electricity generation system to relying on the cheapest source of power isn't putting you in any kind of bind. Not investing enough in new generators and not adjusting the transmission grid to handle to the new generators is putting you in a bind, but the greenies can't be blamed for that.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> If it's cheaper, why did I recently have a 38% increase in my electricity rate for anything over 1000kWhs?
> > > > >
> > > > > Half of my electricity bill covers the cost of the grid that delivers it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If your utility company hasn't invested enough in the grid that supplies you they may be slugging high volume users in the hope of getting them to consume less , and devoting the extra money to beefing up the grid between you and the place where that cheap extra power is being generated.
> > > > >
> > > > > It isn't just the cost of generating the power - you are also paying for the cost of transporting from where it is generated to you.
> > > > >
> > > > My bill has a breakout 'ENERGY CHARGE' category. Since January it has a
> > > > 28.7% increase for any use over 1000kWhs. While the 'NON FUEL ENERGY CHARGE'
> > > > has only increased 9.3% for any use over 1000kWhs. The bill states,"The
> > > > fuel charge represents the cost of fuel used to generate
> > > > electricity. It is a direct pass-through to customers, FPL does not
> > > > profit from fuel."
> > > But if they have to burn expensive fossil carbon to supply high volume consumers they would charge more for that extra current.
> > >
> > > Because the solar cells and the wind turbines generate power cheaply, they will sell as much of that as they can.
> > >
> > > If the greenies had persuaded them to over-invest in cheap renewable generation, they wouldn't need to charge high volume consumers more for consuming more power, so presumably they haven't. In fact it takes time and money to buy and install new generating plant, and while the old fossil-carbon fueled year is still working it makes sense to squeeze it for some last dregs of output, particularly when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If they hadn't invested much - so far - in pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, they wouldn't have a lot of choice.
> > >
> > > The greenies have been less vocal about pumped storage and grid batteries, which is bit silly, but the argument for that investment is less obvious, and people like Gnatguy can't understand it at all.
> >
> > Hey Bozo, "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).
> They aren't. They are intermittent sources but the sun rises pretty reliably every day. You do need grid storage to bridge the gaps, and we haven't got enough of that yet. We do know that your failing mind can't grasp this idea, and there's no need for you to remind us that your senile dementia is getting worse.

Intermittent = UNRELIABLE, Bozo

Neither sunlight or wind is predictable. Just look at the short term variation of both.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:44:26 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:00:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:19:34 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:38:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:01:15 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill.....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill.....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > > If the greenies had persuaded them to over-invest in cheap renewable generation, they wouldn't need to charge high volume consumers more for consuming more power, so presumably they haven't. In fact it takes time and money to buy and install new generating plant, and while the old fossil-carbon fueled year is still working it makes sense to squeeze it for some last dregs of output, particularly when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If they hadn't invested much - so far - in pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, they wouldn't have a lot of choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > The greenies have been less vocal about pumped storage and grid batteries, which is bit silly, but the argument for that investment is less obvious, and people like Gnatguy can't understand it at all.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Bill, "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).
> >
> > > They aren't. They are intermittent sources but the sun rises pretty reliably every day. You do need grid storage to bridge the gaps, and we haven't got enough of that yet. We do know that your failing mind can't grasp this idea, and there's no need for you to remind us that your senile dementia is getting worse.
> >
> > Intermittent = UNRELIABLE.
>
> So plants can't be relied to grow and feed us? Grow up.

HA HA HA HA!!! Hey Bozo, are you FUCKING SERIOUS??? Since when do PLANTS provide any power?????

> > Neither sunlight or wind is predictable. Just look at the short term variation of both.
> But the long term variation - which is what matters - is a lot smaller. You have to scale your storage to match the expected - and largely predictable - variation, but that's something you can design for, if you have enough sense to comprehend what's going on, which you clearly don't. You are far gone in dementia.

Hey Bozo, LONG TERM we are all DEAD!!!!!!! We need resources BEFORE THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 4:08:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:44:26 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:00:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:19:34 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:38:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:01:15 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > > If the greenies had persuaded them to over-invest in cheap renewable generation, they wouldn't need to charge high volume consumers more for consuming more power, so presumably they haven't. In fact it takes time and money to buy and install new generating plant, and while the old fossil-carbon fueled year is still working it makes sense to squeeze it for some last dregs of output, particularly when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If they hadn't invested much - so far - in pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, they wouldn't have a lot of choice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The greenies have been less vocal about pumped storage and grid batteries, which is bit silly, but the argument for that investment is less obvious, and people like Gnatguy can't understand it at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Bill, "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).
> > > >
> > > > > They aren't. They are intermittent sources but the sun rises pretty reliably every day. You do need grid storage to bridge the gaps, and we haven't got enough of that yet. We do know that your failing mind can't grasp this idea, and there's no need for you to remind us that your senile dementia is getting worse.
> > > >
> > > > Intermittent = UNRELIABLE.
> > >
> > > So plants can't be relied to grow and feed us? Grow up.
> >
> > HA HA HA HA!!! Hey Bozo, are you FUCKING SERIOUS??? Since when do PLANTS provide any power?????
> Every time you stand up you do it by expending power derived from eating plants - either directly, when you yourself ate the plants involved - or indirectly when you have eaten animals that were fed by plants. Even the fossil carbon you are so enthusiastic about burning for fuel started off as plants, a very long time ago.
> > > > Neither sunlight or wind is predictable. Just look at the short term variation of both.
> > >
> > > But the long term variation - which is what matters - is a lot smaller. You have to scale your storage to match the expected - and largely predictable - variation, but that's something you can design for, if you have enough sense to comprehend what's going on, which you clearly don't. You are far gone in dementia.
> >
> > Hey Bozo, LONG TERM we are all DEAD!!!!!!! We need resources BEFORE THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> The sun comes up every day. We could hope that you would be dead before then, but we are unlikely to be quite that lucky.
>
> Grid storage is aimed at bridging relatively short intervals - from one day to the next - or over a couple of days of bad weather at most. If you had a working brain you'd adjust your rhetoric to reflect that obvious reality, but instead you recycle a line that may have worked for John Maynard Keynes, but doesn't work in this context.
>
> --
> Bozo Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, forget about storage for days, they can't even store energy for HOURS! Show me ANY utility level battery system that can store energy for days.

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:55:10 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 2:05:54 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 4:08:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:44:26 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:00:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:19:34 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:38:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-7, bill.....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:01:15 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > If the greenies had persuaded them to over-invest in cheap renewable generation, they wouldn't need to charge high volume consumers more for consuming more power, so presumably they haven't. In fact it takes time and money to buy and install new generating plant, and while the old fossil-carbon fueled year is still working it makes sense to squeeze it for some last dregs of output, particularly when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If they hadn't invested much - so far - in pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, they wouldn't have a lot of choice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The greenies have been less vocal about pumped storage and grid batteries, which is bit silly, but the argument for that investment is less obvious, and people like Gnatguy can't understand it at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey Bill, "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > They aren't. They are intermittent sources but the sun rises pretty reliably every day. You do need grid storage to bridge the gaps, and we haven't got enough of that yet. We do know that your failing mind can't grasp this idea, and there's no need for you to remind us that your senile dementia is getting worse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Intermittent = UNRELIABLE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So plants can't be relied to grow and feed us? Grow up.
> > > >
> > > > HA HA HA HA!!! Hey Bozo, are you FUCKING SERIOUS??? Since when do PLANTS provide any power?????
> > >
> > > Every time you stand up you do it by expending power derived from eating plants - either directly, when you yourself ate the plants involved - or indirectly when you have eaten animals that were fed by plants. Even the fossil carbon you are so enthusiastic about burning for fuel started off as plants, a very long time ago.
> > > > > > Neither sunlight or wind is predictable. Just look at the short term variation of both.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the long term variation - which is what matters - is a lot smaller. You have to scale your storage to match the expected - and largely predictable - variation, but that's something you can design for, if you have enough sense to comprehend what's going on, which you clearly don't. You are far gone in dementia.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Bozo, LONG TERM we are all DEAD!!!!!!! We need resources BEFORE THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > The sun comes up every day. We could hope that you would be dead before then, but we are unlikely to be quite that lucky.
> > >
> > > Grid storage is aimed at bridging relatively short intervals - from one day to the next - or over a couple of days of bad weather at most. If you had a working brain you'd adjust your rhetoric to reflect that obvious reality, but instead you recycle a line that may have worked for John Maynard Keynes, but doesn't work in this context.
> >
> > Hey Bill, forget about storage for days, they can't even store energy for HOURS! Show me ANY utility level battery system that can store energy for days.
>
> They all do. Pumped hydroelectric storage can store energy for years. The Hornsdale grid scale battery in South Australia is build with electric car batteries off Tesla's production line. Electric cars lose about 2% of 3% of their stored charge per month. Vanadium flow cells should do even better.
>
> Making them big enough to supply the whole grid on their own would be a different problem., but it isn't one we need to solve.
>
> The green hydrogen enthusiasts figure that we can store big enough volumes of liquid hydrogen to do that job, but that does throw away 75% of the energy used to create the liquid hydrogen. Batteries and pumped storage only throw away about 15%.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, how much pumped storage is their and is it scalable to the size required? I doubt it. Also, it is located far away from the load and generation, requiring transmission lines.

And you NEVER answered the critical question: HOW MUCH do transmission lines COST PER MILE???

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

> ... the critical question: HOW MUCH do transmission lines COST PER MILE???

That's easy; cat5 wire has four transmission lines, and Digikey has it for circa $1 per foot,
so... a kilobuck or so.

As for power transmission, that depends on terrain, capacity, etc. It would have to
be determined by asking for engineering outfits to submit bids.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 6:44:49 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
>
> > ... the critical question: HOW MUCH do transmission lines COST PER MILE???
>
> That's easy; cat5 wire has four transmission lines, and Digikey has it for circa $1 per foot,
> so... a kilobuck or so.
>
> As for power transmission, that depends on terrain, capacity, etc. It would have to
> be determined by asking for engineering outfits to submit bids.

I would call you a fucking idiot, but you have not yet achieved that level of intelligence.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 10:51:37 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 1:38:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 11:55:10 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 2:05:54 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 3:28:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 4:08:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:44:26 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:00:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:19:34 PM UTC-7, bill.....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 1:38:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:01:15 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/12/2022 7:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:44:14 PM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/11/2022 9:04 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:50:57 AM UTC+10, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 8/26/2022 2:58 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:39:44 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 10:09:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:20:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 12:57:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 9:39:26 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > If the greenies had persuaded them to over-invest in cheap renewable generation, they wouldn't need to charge high volume consumers more for consuming more power, so presumably they haven't. In fact it takes time and money to buy and install new generating plant, and while the old fossil-carbon fueled year is still working it makes sense to squeeze it for some last dregs of output, particularly when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If they hadn't invested much - so far - in pumped storage and grid-scale batteries, they wouldn't have a lot of choice.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The greenies have been less vocal about pumped storage and grid batteries, which is bit silly, but the argument for that investment is less obvious, and people like Gnatguy can't understand it at all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Bill, "renewables" are also known as UNRELIABLES - they can't be depended upon (just ask the Brits).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They aren't. They are intermittent sources but the sun rises pretty reliably every day. You do need grid storage to bridge the gaps, and we haven't got enough of that yet. We do know that your failing mind can't grasp this idea, and there's no need for you to remind us that your senile dementia is getting worse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Intermittent = UNRELIABLE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So plants can't be relied to grow and feed us? Grow up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HA HA HA HA!!! Hey Bozo, are you FUCKING SERIOUS??? Since when do PLANTS provide any power?????
> > > > >
> > > > > Every time you stand up you do it by expending power derived from eating plants - either directly, when you yourself ate the plants involved - or indirectly when you have eaten animals that were fed by plants. Even the fossil carbon you are so enthusiastic about burning for fuel started off as plants, a very long time ago.
> > > > > > > > Neither sunlight or wind is predictable. Just look at the short term variation of both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the long term variation - which is what matters - is a lot smaller. You have to scale your storage to match the expected - and largely predictable - variation, but that's something you can design for, if you have enough sense to comprehend what's going on, which you clearly don't. You are far gone in dementia.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Bozo, LONG TERM we are all DEAD!!!!!!! We need resources BEFORE THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > The sun comes up every day. We could hope that you would be dead before then, but we are unlikely to be quite that lucky.
> > > > >
> > > > > Grid storage is aimed at bridging relatively short intervals - from one day to the next - or over a couple of days of bad weather at most. If you had a working brain you'd adjust your rhetoric to reflect that obvious reality, but instead you recycle a line that may have worked for John Maynard Keynes, but doesn't work in this context.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Bill, forget about storage for days, they can't even store energy for HOURS! Show me ANY utility level battery system that can store energy for days.
> > >
> > > They all do. Pumped hydroelectric storage can store energy for years. The Hornsdale grid scale battery in South Australia is build with electric car batteries off Tesla's production line. Electric cars lose about 2% of 3% of their stored charge per month. Vanadium flow cells should do even better.
> > >
> > > Making them big enough to supply the whole grid on their own would be a different problem., but it isn't one we need to solve.
> > >
> > > The green hydrogen enthusiasts figure that we can store big enough volumes of liquid hydrogen to do that job, but that does throw away 75% of the energy used to create the liquid hydrogen. Batteries and pumped storage only throw away about 15%.
> >
> > Hey, how much pumped storage is there and is it scalable to the size required? I doubt it.
>
> So does everybody else. That's why there's so much interest in grid scale batteries. When we fully go over to electric cars the batteries in the parked cars could supply something like three times the full grid output, if not for all that long, so it is clearly capable of scaling up to the power output required.
>
> Vanadium flow batteries would probably be a better solution, but they aren't yet manufactured in that kind of volume
> >Also, it is located far away from the load and generation, requiring transmission lines.
> We've got them and can build more.
> > And you NEVER answered the critical question: HOW MUCH do transmission lines COST PER MILE???
> Since you didn't specify the amount of power to be transmitted or the nature of the terrain over which the line has to run, it wasn't a well-formulated question.
>
> A 500kV direct current link is more expensive per mile than an 11kV AC local link.
>
> Do some more work on finding out the sort of questions you ought to be asking, and don't come back until you can do better.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Well, DUH, Bozo, you MUST tell us what EACH type of transmission line costs, which you STILL refuse to do.

GnatTurd <maggot2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3d4a1b8f-4ef2-4302-ab82-2379ca39b401n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 6:44:49 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-7, GnatTurd wrote:
>>
>> > ... the critical question: HOW MUCH do transmission lines COST
>> > PER MILE???
>>
>> That's easy; cat5 wire has four transmission lines, and Digikey
>> has it for circa $1 per foot, so... a kilobuck or so.
>>
>> As for power transmission, that depends on terrain, capacity,
>> etc. It would have to be determined by asking for engineering
>> outfits to submit bids.
>
> I would call you a fucking idiot, but you have not yet achieved
> that level of intelligence.
>

You are a piece of shit. The bacteria in the massive shit wad that
you are is more intelligent than you are, Trump chump.