Dylan the angry mass audience is assembling around this issue and I think it is absolutely necessarily for us to have a comprehensive critique both of the Ian Plimer viewpoint and of the Green viewpoint he demolishes in his way. Perhaps his is not the right way. So what we need is a demolition job both on Plimer and on the Greens, for an audience that is raging angry about the electricity situation.
Not the fate of the planet, not the fate of humanity. These are the Dane Wigington concerns. The electricity situation. I can't write a critique that would be good enough. You can.
Last Edit: Oct 5, 2017 3:19:28 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall
"The Guardian's George Monbiot criticized Plimer's book, saying “Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data.” Plimer responded by challenging Monbiot to a public debate. 
Monbiot then challenged Plimer to give a set of “precise and specific responses” to his critics' points. Plimer rejected this challenge. 
Monbiot called Plimer “a grandstander, who wants nothing more than to make as much noise as possible in the hope that it will drown out the precise refutations published by his book's reviewers.” Plimer subsequently reversed his earlier refusal, saying he would answer the questions in return for a live debate. 
Instead of answering the questions that Monbiot posed, Plimer responded with his own set of questions. No official debate was actually held. 
The two did debate, however, on ABC's Lateline in December, 2009. Monbiot concluded that Plimer had “used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions,” and that the overall view was that “Plimer had been soundly thrashed.” "
Ian Plimer's volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV
"If the true and staggering cost of subsidised wind and solar power were public knowledge, there would be public outrage."
It is the subsidies where the corruption lies, not the actual technology of wind and solar power themselves.
"One well-publicised element of these balancing costs are the constraint payments made to wind farms to switch off that arise when particular segments of the grid are unable to cope with the amount of generation. The idea behind such payments is that they compensate such generators for the loss of revenue that they would otherwise receive, in particular subsidies that are linked to the amount of electricity which they produce."
Wind power sometimes generates too much energy and sometimes too little. When they shut down parts of the grid because too much energy is being generated, they "compensate" the generators (the owners of the wind farms) for the money they would have had if they hadn`t shut those parts of the grid down. This is of course open to corruption and fudging. It also begs the question why they should compensate them at all. If they didn`t, they would soon sort the technology out.
"The other costs, such as maintaining the frequency and voltage of supplies or ensuring adequate reserve margins, are largely ignored but fall on consumers rather than the generators whose decisions give rise to the costs."
Again, the owners make the decisions that give rise to the costs that are passed onto the consumer - more corruption and fudging.
They also transfer the costs of developing the grid itself onto the consumer . All new technologies require investment to overcome teething problems. It is of course open to corruption and fudging but that is true of virtually all areas of finance, industry and commerce. You don`t think the fossil fuel industry isn`t involved in corruption and fudging and bilking the consumer? This is not a reflection of the technology itself. That has to be judged separately.
This is also important:
"The net economic value of generation during windy or sunny periods is much lower than during periods of low generation – partly because the market price is lower during periods of high generation and partly because the costs of balancing the electricity system increase steeply with the level of renewable output. In 2016 the net economic value of additional wind output was zero or negative for most periods when wind output exceeded 5 GW."
The net economic value is lower during windy or sunny periods when the technology is most efficient! This highlights a fundamental flaw in today`s economic system. Because energy is more freely available the market price goes down as it should. This is a good thing for the consumer but a bad thing for the profit greedy corporations that own the technology. So when we talk about net economic value, to whom are we talking about?
"These are 5 messages that I think anyone wanting a better US economy (or a better economy in practically any country), anyone wanting national energy freedom (aka energy independence), anyone wanting to advance the most cost-effective choices for electricity generation, and anyone wanting to make logical energy decisions should know and share with others."
1. Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty Energy
2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)
3. Solar & Wind Became Much Cheaper In The Past 7 Years (85% and 66%, Respectively)
4. The Lowest Solar Costs Shown In The Lazard Report Are Considerably Higher Than Globally Recorded Low-Price Bids
5. People Can Get Lower Prices But More Jobs With Solar & Wind
Dylan wrote: All new technologies require investment to overcome teething problems. It is of course open to corruption and fudging but that is true of virtually all areas of finance, industry and commerce. You don`t think the fossil fuel industry isn`t involved in corruption and fudging and bilking the consumer? This is not a reflection of the technology itself. That has to be judged separately.
Judging it separately is a luxury for academic commentators. When one's habitat is threatened with being transformed into an industrial jungle by wind parks, there can be no judging it separately. It is offered as a packet.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2017 0:45:48 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall