text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
"We have to cultivate solar, wind, hydro etc forms to secure our future."
None of which can supply more than 10% of energy needed by industry of any developed country.
Now, What's wrong with nuclear energy?
Except it being non-PC in the eyes of eco-terrorists?
You make statements that sound really stupid:
Renewables contribute already 11% of German primary energy demand and almost 30% of the German net electricity production.
From a purely economic POV: nuclear power is much too expensive, but again you have to check data not to smoke weed. :-)
"Renewables" includes conventional hydro power and waste fuels. In the first half of 2012 ALL renewables accounted for only 26% German electrical production (did it decrease from your number?). Solar and Wind accounted for a little more than half of that, or 14%.
With your track record of posting misleading numbers, Ulenspiegel, I suggest you refrain from the name calling.
Net electricity production was used by me, you provide gross production data (10% higher) which include energy demand of the conventional plants (2/3 of the difference) and transmission losses (1/3 of the difference). You could think a little bit more about which makes more sense for our discussion. :-)
If you want to discuss German energy data please use high quality sources like AG Energiebilanzen or the stuff published by the Fraunhofer Institues, otherwise your "With your track record of posting misleading numbers" backfires. :-)
"What's wrong with nuclear energy?"
It's expensive, slow to build, inherently dangerous and it can be used to produce nuclear weapons, that's what.
I don't reacts to pranks of Till Eulenspiegels.
Only breeding reactors can be used for production of U-235.
[not for production of nuclear weapons].
And THORIUM-based ones (read on them) cannot produce any enrichable fissible material as by-products.
Taking care of proliferation issue.
Btw. Japan has decided to return to atomic power generation.
Obviously not affected much by ignorant anti-nuke propaganda.
@ Rob S:
You do not seem to know the difference between "net production/generation" and "gross production/generation".
The differences you can't cope with are propably cause by a profound ignorance of the energy sector.
Try a good book about economics, math, energy etc....
Ulenspiegel gave the correct numbers.You are not able to interprete them.
Well, maybe you are but want to lead the ignorant reader of your posts into the dark?
Provide a link to your data, and it won't be challenged
We could tell if he provided the correct numbers if he provided his source. Without it, we can only depend on faith. I did provide a link (which also cites its source).
Sorry, Rob S, but this data is not correct.
Make sure hear-say combined with wishfull thinking is not your source of information.
Your postings here are strongly showing this tendency!
Your link shows a first half result - based on what data? Guesstimations I supose.
The atomic power part in the German electricity gros production was for
2010 22.4%
2011 17.7%
2012 16%
Never in the entire history of Germany's electricity production we saw a flat 20%/a or half annum - as shown in the link you provided by someone who provided a provider who ....
The same might be true for the other data you provided via a provider who got from ....
There is no data (or official statistic) concerning electricity energy production in Germany based on quarter or half years.
However there is official statistic material available for consumption:
Go to the pdf data sheet " Energieverbrauch in Deutschland Daten fuer das 1.Halbjahr 2012 "
It seems obvious that all your "data" you're spreading here in the economist comment corner is not correct.
The original source of the 2012 data was the BDEW
Is their data wrong? Is the BDEW subject to wishful thinking or hear-say? Do you have data that conflicts theirs? If not, then accept the results and address them, rather than resorting to lame ad hominem attacks.
Almighty, now literacy lessons for Rob S :
" Is their data wrong?"
There is no data. Just guestimation.
The BDEW (linked in your last posting ) clearly says:
" *estimated and rounded (The generation of German power stations of
industry for its own consumption has not been taken into consideration for
this calculation.) "
Not MEASSURED.
As said already: the 'estimation' of 20%atomic power was totally wrong, never in the last couple of years atomic power reached a contribution of 20% per annum (or semi-annum) in the German grid.
Since there is no reference given by the BDEW and they clearly state that they don't KNOW anything about the facts (a rounded estimation!) we stick to the official MEASSURED data.
See AG-Energiebilanzen http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/viewpage.php?idpage=1
Spin this thought of wrong data a bit further: no 20% atomic power but maybe only 17% or 18%, that would push renewables further up, wouldn't it?
It's your turn to phantasize further....
" Do you have data that conflicts theirs? "
There is no data, again. Guestimated numbers are no data in the world of physics, economics. In reality that is.
I prefer to stick to meassured data. As most poeple do who what the term 'data' means.And who pay their electricity bills
But that isn't your world....
Rob S,
Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic. I found your posts more informative than the article itself. I'm no expert but you seem to cut through a lot of the garbage decisively.
It seems to me that a previous TE story stated that on one particular day wind farms produced some 22% or more of Germany's electricity needs, but on the following day only 4%. The difference was made-up by conventional power plants.
So it seems that having invested vast sums in wind power, Germany still needs to either (1) maintain their existing power plants as a backup (and the related costs) or (2) import power from other countries, like France, who may have a surplus at that moment.
In a country like Germany with so much government involvement we may never know exactly how much electricity generation really costs. But I do believe that it currently costs the consumer more than twice what it does in the U.S. plus an unknown amount due to government subsidies, loans, and who knows what else.
As for the "net production" numbers, how are they calculated? Does that mask the fact that the conventional power plants must still be available and warm? Are these averages over a year or peak numbers? Theoretical or real?
May I answer for Ulenspiegel:
After stating some non-backed things you are asking your first question
" As for the "net production" numbers, how are they calculated?"
They are not calculated but meassured. Powerplants must register with the Bundesnetzagentur,
who will count the potential input of power plants on a monthly base. And publishes the data
The metered energy they are feeding into the grid must be meassured by the grid operator.
There are four of them in Germany who have to give their forecasts to the electricity exchange every 24 hours
Click onto
Show all data:
Conventional (≥ 100MW), Wind, Solar
You will find there as well Amprion, the Austrian grid operator working on a similar base.
The grid operators pass their information towards the electricity exchange
You second question:
" Does that mask the fact that the conventional power plants must still be available and warm?"
No. The process is open as you can see. Illegal price fixing can be but is illegal. As on any stock exchange.
The grid operator's duty is to guarantee that there is always enough power in the grid. So yes, powerplants are kept "warm", independantly from the fact there are renewables in the grid or not.
Another problem with the power distribution is the grid itself, you Americans have a very lousy grid, every couple of weeks we read in the news that there are hundreds of thousand without power again.
Which is not the case in Europe but the grid operators are prepared for these cases as well. It is their legal duty.
Your third and forth question is answered.
Describe a safe long-term solution for storing nuclear waste, and I'll be happy to sign up. Until then, nuclear power is off the list.
Vitrification in stable underground caves.
An abundance of uranium, thorium, oil and gas under American soil.
Wiith permits for new 4th generation atomic power plants finally being issued.
[While Chancellor Merkel makes Germany even more dependent on Russian (Turkmen, really) gas and vulnerable to KGB gen. Putin's blackmail. Usually occuring in winter]
This is the time when we should stress on usage of renewable energy. This is indispensable in order to avoid any future crisis. The energy crisis sis projected as a big blackout in near future. There are places in the world which has abundance of renewable energy. We have to cultivate solar, wind, hydro etc forms to secure our future.
The problem, Abhishek, is the AVAILABILITY of that energy. The only form of renewable energy available in sufficient concentration to make its recovery economically feasible is hydroelectric energy. That source of energy is highly localized and, for the most part, already exploited. Solar and wind energy, while widely available, are both low in density and require large capital investments to collect it. Moreover, unlike hydro power, or all other forms of energy we use, wind and solar energy are not easily stored and have to be used when produced. The intermittent nature of these energy sources requires additional energy sources (coal? Natural gas? Nuclear?) to be set aside on standby to provide energy when these unreliable sources are unavailable. This need for standby adds even more to the total cost.
@Rob S : Agreed. With a kind of circumstances we are in, we have maximize usage of renewable energy. Be it be wind, sun, hydro or tidal. This is need of the hour. I agree with you that cultivation of such sources of energy requires huge capital investment and ROI is quite low. I feel this is the right time to start and research on this. First step forward is required. I am sure with more research on this field, more and better options will come out.
I think huge solar power farms in Siberia would make sense.
Hydroelectric power in Sahara region -ditto.
Yes, there are places in the world which have abundance of renewed energy.
Planet Earth for example, 99 % of the thermal energy used by menkind is coming from the sun. Straightaway at no costs, 24h per day.
A luddite argument, Rob. You ignore all R&D that is taking place, and underestimate human ingenuity.
There is rapid development in the storage capacity of renewable energy, and in the smartening of the grid and linking large areas also improves grid stability. Technologies are also being developed to time our energy use better with smart metering, amongst others.
Since most countries will need considerable time to gear up renewable capacity to a level that requires major change to the infrastructure, it seems highly feasible to develop solutions for the issues you mention.
I have been personally involved in that R&D, and am quite aware of the progress. Technological progress does NOT occur from beating the same, tired 50 year old horse to death, Sense. It comes from innovation in the laboratory. That is where we should be spending money, not decorating people's roofs with useless symbols.
There has been very little actual progress in storage, with the exception of the use of molten salt and thermal solar energy. That technology approximately doubles the capital cost and, as is inevitable, also somewhat lowers overall efficiency.
"unslakable thirst for energy in China" as opposed to the totally justified, natural, god-given need for energy in the West.
Cf. numer of deadly accidents in Chinese coal mines.
Mostly owned by Beijing "Communists".
Why has nobody mentioned nuclear? Europe's shunning of nuclear power (Germany)is the real reason for increase use of coal. Despite such strong investments in wind an solar, they still need to rely on coal for base load energy.
I'm all for renewables (wind and solar), but until there is a way to store this energy , there is no way these sources can provide even half of a country's energy. Nuclear is the only feasible replacement for coal (and gas)since it is the only other fuel that can provide reliable base load power. Unfortunately, well-intentioned but uninformed/unreasonable people have turned against it.
Think about it, would you rather have global warming plus strip mining(coal) and fracking (gas)compared to a miniscule chance of a meltdown (even here, very few, or nobody dies)? I, an environmentalist, choose nuclear. Just look at France(79% nuclear, 9% fossil, 8% hydro, 4% renewable) compared to Germany(18% nuclear, 60% fossil, 4% hydro, 18% renewable); Here, we can clearly see who is the bigger CO2 emitter.
OK, according to serious studies it is stupid to build storage facilities as long as the penetration with renewables is less than 40% in Germany. With almost 30% reneables (net production) and around 9 TWh (1.5%) added production from wind and PV per year it is a save bet, that around 2025 Germany will produce around 45% - 50% electricity with renewables.
The problem of nuclear power plants is that the last generation (see France and Finland) is too expensive and not competitive in comparison to onshore wind.
5000 EUR per kW with 8000 FLH is not better than
1500 EUR per kW with 3000 FLH
Do you really think that France will replace all of their current reactors with new ones when the conditions for wind are excellent?
Many eco-terrorists mention Chernobyl diaster pretending not to know that a reactor without a protecive dome would have never been licensed anywhere in the civilized world.
[Commies simply saved money, lives in USSE being dirt cheap]
And many mention Fukushima, although not a single person died, nay got sick, due to that diaster.
While many thousands perished due to natural tsunami.
Btw. Had Japan installed Westinghouse's passively cooled modern reactors, instead of the obsolate ones, Fukushima power plants would still operate today. SAFELY!
The lack of ability to store energy requires the use of other generation capacity to provide standby power. The under-utilization of this capacity is an additional cost which is ignored by the advocates of intermittent energy technology. A pile of coal sitting next to an underutilized power plant is the German approach to storage of wind energy.
Nuclear power plants in the US operate with a 95% utilization.
China today is installing US-built nuclear reactors at a cost of $2000/kw. They expect to drive the cost down to $1/kw as they gain experience in building identical reactors.
Again you do not understand what capacity facto means and you do use it in a very strange way.
In principle we have two etrema for our wind power discussion:
A) All turbines work in sync, so overcapacity produces losses and the maimum loss free installation provides with 25% capacity factor 25% of the power of a coal or nuclaer plant. The only chance to improve the loss free situation is to improve capacity factors e.g. to use more offshore wind (>4000 FLH but expensive) or to optimize onshore turbines for more than 3000 FLH.
B) You have many independent sites for wind energy production, these sites are connected by transmission lines. Now high FLH are only nice to have but not longer essential, you can simply overbuild each site with 1/(capacity factor) and you produce no losses.
At the moment we are somewhere between A and B, this can easily been seen if we check maximum wind power and installed wind power: Even in small Germany you only observe 70% of the installed power as maximum power. We would like to come closer to B and, therefore, the obvious strategy is to connect wind capacities from France to Poland and from Norway to Spain (->gain of independent production sites).
Please think in future a little bit more about stuff like capacity factor and its correct usage, could give your contributions a little bit more intellectual depth.
Your nuclear power example has the disadvantage that in the USA only a very small number of reactors are build, why? Why are other countries not really interested in this cheap design?
After many years of stagnation casued by ignorance-based NIMBY factors Obama Administration ha issued building permits for new ones.
While both heavily polluted China and India are building dozens of modern atomic power plants as we speak.
[Some designed by French Areva, some by American Westinghouse]
Europe is a continent, Random Gringo, a geological structure. It therefore can't shun for anything.
Use logic in your language and your questions will be answered :)
"Capacity factor" is a somewhat arbitrary number, depending entirely on the choice of the rated output of the individual installation. It can be easily improved by reducing the rating. It does not change the total energy delivered, however.
Your "solutions" require even more capital investment. Eventually the consumer has to pay for that investment, either through higher taxes or higher rates. You are battling with a fundamental principal of nature - that an effort to collect and use a product of nature that is in low density require a high capital investment.
The US has more than enough capacity to deliver the electrical energy it needs. Building any generation capacity (wind, solar, nuclear,..) only adds to the cost of electricity. Conversion of coal-fired generators to NG can be justified by reduced pollution and lower operating cost, with a minimal capital investment. Beyond that, investment in new capacity only meets political demands.
Comparing Dezember's output and sale of atomic power in the USA the sold MWh are down by 2.4% on a jearly base (2011-2012)
It's to expensive.
The atomic underdogs complain about cheap gas, cheap wind and cheap politicians ....
There are atomic power plants planning to close down this year despite having a license for many years to come. Despite the investments had been written off a long time ago the old bangers can't make a profit.
"Capacity" they have, but they can't deliver.
Could you please post your source for the cost of production? Also, my EU relatives pay over twice per kWh than we do in California and some EU countries charge even more. How does this affect their standard of living?
In contrast, the Palo Verde power plant in Arizona delivers 29 Twh of electricity per year (2/3 of the capacity of ALL of Germany's wind generation facilities), selling the power for 6 cents/kwh and making a significant profit for its owners.
MySetDancer asks:
" Also, my EU relatives pay over twice per kWh than we do in
Again I'll take over to speed up feeding the eager demand for knowledge....
MySetDancer asks:
"Could you please post your source for the cost of production?"
(the cheapest makes the hit, these are the costs plus profits)
" Also, my EU relatives pay over twice per kWh than we do in California and some EU countries charge even more. How does this affect their standard of living? "
They get older and are better educated. They can afford the prices of the goods they are purchasing,have lesser household debts.Work fewer hours per year.
The cews at the soup kitchens are shorter and the term "poverty draw" doesn't exist.
Judge that yourself, you claim to have relatives in Europe. They might be a better source of knowledge compared to the unknown in the internet.
They might be able to explain you the energy market/-situation as well.
Write a letter, pen and paper are still hadled over there. Over 90% of the Europeans can read and write.
No it's not, coal being one of the heaviest pollutants.
And single malt and cognac DO mix.
You can have scotch or Bourbon as an apertive, and cognac with espresso after dinner.
posted here in error.
[it was a reply to a youthful proud Chinese coal polluter.]
Just another example of Obama's crazy policies to destroy the greatest economy on Eath. The IPCC theory of CO2 causes global warming is NOT proven. What has been proven about the theory is that many of the lead IPCC researchers are charlatans, crooks and cheats. Obviously, Obama supports his brethren.
Then please go ahead and highlight for all of us the one peer-reviewed study which suggests an alternative reason for the rise in average global temperatures in the last 50 or so years.
There was an mini-Ice Age in medieval Europe, after a global warming which allowed homo sapiens to come out of its caves and prosper. Mini Ice-Age which allowed ice speed-skating to develop on the Amsterdam's canals. While merchants travelled in sleighs from Germany and Poland to Sweden over deeply frozen Baltic.
Global warming has started in 1930s with much lower industrial activity than today.
In ca 70 years - will have another cooling cycle.
And what will ecoterrorist propagandists/pseudo-scientists say than about "man-made global Warming"?
And go to the research papers on current hypotheses of AGW. Do any models available predict how CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for the warming trends (or lack thereof)? The answer is that climate science has NO closed form model that accounts for weather trends over the last 150 years. All they have is the observation of imperfect coincidences, and some curve fitting exercises extrapolated to the future. Climate science, today, is not capable of predicting climate trends.
Do any models predict it? I do not know as it's not my area of expertise, although Hansen's original model from the 1980's wasn't that far off, and I expect the more sophisticated models of today are considerably better.
In any case, I take it you also are unable to find even just the one peer-reviewed study that shows an alternative reason for the recent warming?
Meanwhile there are thousands of peer-reviewed studies that show that carbon emissions can explain the recent warming.
Hansen's "model" was a curve fitting exercise that extracted out the required relationship between CO2 concentration and warming effects empirically. First principle calculations, assuming CO2 directly led to warming, underpredicted the warming trend by a factor of three.
The IPCC has accommodated this contradiction by introducing a amplification factor. Climate scientists have hypothesized that the source of the amplification is an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, driven by increased CO2.
However, to date the models are not adequate to treat the complex relationships between CO2, water vapor, cloud effects,.. Moreover, there is no evidence that water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere has significantly increased.
It has been known for a long time that CO2 has an absorption band in the IR regime, and heats up when exposed to IR radiation. It has also been known for many years that this effect, alone, can not account for past warming trends, or the recent abatement in warming trends.
cf. recent Solendra fiasco which has cost US taxpayers oodles.
Because Solyandra's business plan was making climate models and predictions. It has no relationship to the validity or lack thereof of climate predictions.
It cost the US a couple million, which was actually budgeted in the program. Out of the 50+ companies getting loans under that program 3 went bankrupt. Which isn't different from the record of your standard private venture capitalist.
Why you brought the failure of a solar power company in to a thread about the validity in climate models is a mystery. Like bringing up the auto bailout in a conversation about Peak Oil.
WIND POWER is a major US energy source unmentioned in this article. Altogether, 5,403 megawatts of new wind generating capacity were installed in the U.S. in 2012 -- 35.8 percent of all new capacity. It is clean, Co2 neutral & produces good paying american jobs in manufacturing, installation, transportation and maintentance. It's relative cost is still higher than coal or Natural gas but it will be competitive in the very near future as new technology and scale lowers continues to reduce it's cost p/kwh. The benefits are worth supporting. http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/government/the-renewable-revolution-in-a...
More exaggerated promotional material from the renewable energy advocates.
Energy is NOT measured in megawatts, Wood. It is measured in Mwh. The ability to produce energy is limited by the low capacity factor for wind turbines - typically 20%, as measured in the field under use. So reduce your claims by a factor of 5.
The US consumption of electrical energy has been flat for the last seven years, with no need to spend capital to increase our capacity. The addition of expensive solar and wind generation capacity, using technology imported from China and Europe, only adds to the total cost of electricity, while employing Americans in menial construction jobs.
Import cheap shovels from China instead, and send those workers out into the desert to dig holes and refill them. It will have the same job creation impact, and cost the taxpayer and ratepayer much less.
And pray, what % of the total power generated/required by US is that?
" MW of capacity " is the correct term of expression - as Wood Water Reason correctly said, Rob S.
Please refrain from posting rubbish.
There are others here who are doing more than enough in that direction.
Wood was quoting PEAK capacity, not capacity. They are two completely different attributes, particularly when you are referring to intermittent power sources. In the case of wind, the capacity is 1/5 of the peak capacity. Renewable energy zealots commonly use the two interchangeably to exaggerate the value of intermittent energy sources. The fact that you assert them to be the same identifies your motives.
Again a literacy problem:
"Production" and "Capacity".
Ask mom, your teacher seems to have given up.
I play mom with Rob S:
If the milk bottle has a "capacity" of 1 liter and is turned upside down - how much will it pour
if it was only half full?
Sleep weel, have a warm "capacity" of milk :)
Not sure if you are purposely confusing things. Rob s seems to have explained them quite well.
Energy. distance, weight, are measures of magnitude, like volume. Power is not a measure of magnitude of energy, but a measure of the ability to deliver energy - under a specific set of conditions.
You, vkq, follow the norm for advocates of intermittent energy sources and deliberately confuse energy with rated power.
The ONLY useful metric to judge the usefulness of an energy supply is AMOUNT of energy it can supply, over some given period of time (other than for one second at noon on a sunny day). It serves you and other promoters to ignore that measure and choose to exaggerate the utility of intermittent energy sources,
I hate to be a pedant, but ...
you wrote above that energy is measured in MWh. What's the matter with joules, or giga joules, or terra joules, ...?
It seems to me that the watt-hour is a completely unnecessary concept, since 3600 J is identical and simpler.
But on the more substantive point of the difference between energy per unit of time and energy itself, or between peak power production and average power production, of course I agree with you.
Mwh (kwh, Twh) is the convention used in the electrical industry. As you point out, there is a simple conversion.
good idea. also you enjoy China's subsidies for such exports.
Seems to me that the Gen Public is getting played like a fiddle: One day coal is cheap and clean and abundant; the next it's dirty and Nat. Gas is the ticket; then that is to hard to use and store so we're back to oil. Probably a few millionaires have been made in the wind and solar game.
The whole thing seems to be a game of musical chairs with high profits being passed around on some opaque schedule.
One aspect of coal that hasn't been well developed is the by product known as acetylene. This is one powerful gas.
And do you know how much methane (a v. caloric fuel) becomes available when Siberian permafrost begins to melt if gobal warming predictions become reality?
And you think that that methane will be harnessed?
Or will it simply be released into the atmosphere, where it will act as a fairly effective GHG?
I think this article is flawed. The IEA states a clear decrease of coal consumption in Europe. From 2007-2011 (http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2) as well as from 1980-2008 (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/coal.cfm).
What is true is that Europe is importing more coal.
"The IEA states a clear decrease of coal consumption in Europe"
Like in Poland?
And with Merkel shutting down atomic power plants expediently hoping for a support of Greens in next November elections? :-)))
Poland is the exception and under pressure.
With more than 5 GW PV and 1.5 GW wind p.a. there is no problem to replace nuclear power in Germany. Problems with these numbers?
Yes, Ulenspiegel, I (again) have a problem with your numbers. You neglect a factor of 5 or more when you confuse energy production with PEAK POWER outputs for intermittent energy sources.
I often wonder why advocates of the use of intermittent energy sources repeatedly make the same mistake. Is it a lack of education in introductory physics that causes them to confuse energy with peak power? When the same mistake is made, over and over, it raises the suspicion that it is a deliberate one. But perhaps I am being unfair.
If Germany can do it (and more) why is it still so heavily dependent on KGB gen. Putin's gas deliveries?
Making the country highly vulnerable to a potential political blackmail by the Kremlin?
Unlike France which gets more than 70% of its power from its atomic power plants.
[btw. Japan has decided to return to atomic power as well]
There's no point fighting windmills and their aficionados.
Unless you name is Don Quixote.
@Rob S :
You have again made the mistake of mixing up installed power capacity with produced/delivered/sold electrical power.
Ulenspiegel gave correct numbers. You do not seem to know what do with them, fighting windmills as usual :)
Please Rob S : where do you get the polish data from to proof Ulenspiegel being wrong?
We are all listening .....
How do you know he gave the right numbers, vkq?
The published power numbers (possibly quoted by Ulenspiegel) are NOT "power capacity" they are the rated power capacities of the technologies. In the case of PV the rating refer to a peak output, under a defined set of conditions. In the case of wind, they also refer to power output under an specific set of wind conditions. In both cases those numbers have to be derated by the capacity factors.
In the case of wind, the EWEA claims an achievement of 100 Gw of power capacity for the European Union.
Yet for the EU in 2011 wind power delivered only 174 Twh of electricity (with 94 GW of rated power) - less than 6% of total electrical production.
That translates into a 20% capacity factor.
Using PEAK POWER numbers to characterize the production of energy is misleading, especially for intermittent sources of that energy.
" How do you know he gave the right numbers, vkq? "
General knowledge.
Any more questions?
Well, the term factor you haven't understood.Contact your math teacher.
Another vague non-response from vkq
The financial trends of US coal stocks show quite clearly how the industry is suffering in America. From their peaks in the spring of 2011, shares in Peabody Energy are down 69 per cent, Arch Coal down by 82 per cent, Alpha Natural Resources down by as much as 89 per cent, and Walter Energy shares have lost 76 per cent in value. Patriot Coal, a spin-off from the Peabody Company, sought bankruptcy protection last July.
Coal's problem has been the shale revolution which has created a surge in US natural gas supplies that drove prices down to 10-year lows during 2012. Many economists believe, too, that the price of shale should not be directly indexed to the price of oil – shale is being independently drilled, is in abundance in America and, arguably, the consumer should be paying a lot less for shale gas than consumers are currently paying. Generators are being encouraged to burn gas instead of coal and, notably, for the first time, the US produced as much power in 2012 from gas as it did from coal.
But US miners added to the problem with ill-timed takeovers during 2010-11, when Peabody bought Macarthur Coal in Australia, Alpha bought Massey Energy, Arch bought the International Coal Group Consortium, and Walter made acquisition of Canada's Western Coal – assets which are now worth less than the prices paid for.
The motives behind those mergers and acquisitions appear to have been a general desire by US miners to have increased their holdings of metallurgical or 'met coal' used for steelmaking. That is a strategy that has looked questionable from the start as the steel industry has weakened and met coal prices have plunged.
Whilst cheaper coal from surface mines, concentrated in the Powder River basin area of Wyoming are able to compete more productively, there are constraints on the rail network which put limits on how much of that coal can be sold.
Until 2017, at least, the US coal industry looks set to remain in a dire position. Coal's resurgence in Europe, though, is a reminder that for as long as a large base of coal-fired generation capacity exists and remains in place, the industry should not be counted out too quickly.
Since you've mentioned U.S.
New, large fields of oil and natural gas have been discovered in the US in the last few years (e.g. in Louisiana).
Tothe extent that America is now a net EXPORTER of gas.
And, after Obama's gone, of oil as well.
[do you know how much of unexploited oil there's in ALASKA alone?]
insightful. Shale oil and related industries are wealth in US backyard that deserves "tax breaks", etc. Managed properly, it can power US out of dismal growth.
Interestingly, America is also set to become the world's leading oil producer thanks to innovations in unconventional oil production www.worldreview.info/content/us-set-become-worlds-top-oil-producer
And has already become a net natural gas EXPORTER.
[with first building permits being issued (after 30 years hiatus) for the 4th generation atomic power plants (Canada and US having enough uranium, let alone thorium, to last them next 200 years]
The problem we in the US have with reducing our dependence on coal is the irrational coupling of that objective with building solar and wind plants. That solution is incredibly expensive compared to the cost of natural gas generation capacity. It takes at least twenty times the capital to build solar energy generation capacity, compared to natural gas plants. And that completely neglects the reality that the use of solar (or wind) requires the availability of conventional energy generation capacity sitting unused, as a backup.We could cut CO2 generation in half by replacing coal with NG, while replacing half of our coal capacity with wind or solar is an impossibility.
It is true that solar and wind generation are on a per/MW basis much more expensive than natural gas generation (not 20X, as the cost of solar has dropped significantly over the last 3 years, and will continue dropping until it has reached grid parity in places like California and Texas), but keep in mind that fuel is free for the longevity of the project, while natural gas as a fuel must be resupplied at a cost. You are also correct in that supplying half of the countries demand via solar and wind is unobtainable, but this is primarily because both resources are intermittent, meaning that they cannot be regulated and controlled by a market authority to react to changes in market demands. Additionally, it is much more likely that around 20% of capacity be supplied by renewable generation, while nearly 70% could be provided by natural gas.
That said, you are incorrect in your statement "that the use of solar (or wind) requires the availability of conventional energy generation capacity sitting unused, as a backup." This is certainly not that case, as most wind and solar are installed with necessary capacitors to provide enough voltage support to move the power. In the cases where natural gas plants are in the neighborhood to provide this reactive support, they are not sitting idly, unless there are major capacity issues on the transmission lines.
The appropriate measure of relative cost is NOT $ per MW. A MW is not a measure of energy. Solar and wind plants are characterized by their peak POWER output, under best operating conditions. To determine the ability of a electrical generation plant to deliver ENERGY day in and day out over a year the peak power is corrected with a CAPACITY FACTOR. In Europe, capacity factors for wind vary between 15 and 25%. Solar capacity factors inn Europe vary between 15 and 20%. In the American desert solar capacity factors approach 20%. In contrast, a NG generation station has a capacity factor between 90 and 95%.
You are also mistaken about the purpose of capacitors built into wind turbines, wleoja. Their function is NOT to provide power when the wind inevitably dies down. They smooth out the momentary fluctuations in power that are characteristic of wind turbines and would cause havoc with the electrical grid if not eliminated. Other power stations have to sit idle and unused (and still costing money) to back up the wind turbines when the wind abates. If there was a need for their capacity they would be running, and NOT be available for back-up.
To compare wind or solar plants to NG plants divide the cost of a COMPLETE installation (not just the generator) by its capacity factor (approximately 20% for wind and solar). Today, solar generation facilities (not panels) cost $4-6/w. Wind plants somewhat less. NG plants cost $1-1.5/w. Do the arithmetic
Adding renewable energy to the existing energy mix adds only additional capital cost, which has to be paid for by the consumer (or taxpayer), just as the cost of fuel has to be paid for. There is no need for additional off-peak generation capacity. If the AVERAGE cost of a solar generation plant is $4-6/w, that cost has to be covered by charge for the 1.8 kwh of energy it generates in a year. A very modest recovery of capital investment would require a charge of 25 cents/ kwh for that electricity - 10X the base cost for NG-generated power. And that leaves out the cost of having other generators standing unused while we use a politically correct form of energy.
Are you REALLY concerned about global warming, wleioja? Take the money being wasted on expensive solar and wind facilities and invest in much cheaper NG facilities. The coal burning plants can be retired, and a much larger amount of CO2 can be eliminated for the same investment.
A few comments:
You are generally incorrect concerning capacity factors of solar generation throughout the U.S. Perhaps you are using old data, but CF for a solar generating station in California, Texas, or AZ is more closely between 30-35%. Ontario, Canada is closer to 20%, however as efficiencies in engineering coupled with dramatic technological improvements continue, CF will continue to increase. To assume a capacity factor over so general a landscape is the first major mistake when evaluating what and how solar generation (and all intermittent renewables) operate. That said, the renewable landscape when properly evaluated and developed offers great potential, however when it is not, capital costs relative to yearly production can be a significant economic burden to the consumer (taxpayer) as you mentioned.
Next, you misunderstood me regarding how capacitors are used in regards to wind and solar. Capacitors are NOT built into wind but are installed nearby, but ARE built into solar. The purpose (and I will repeat myself) is to provide voltage support to MOVE power. Most natural gas turbines are built with significant reactive power (also called MVARS) which is needed to support voltage (electricity CANNOT flow without proper voltage support). On the other hand, transmission systems become increasingly unstable when voltage levels are too high, and thus many generators are set into the lag to absord reactive power, thus lowering the voltage. This is basic power physics, so feel free to find a formula and do the ARITHMETIC.
Third, I never indicated that solar or wind were more economically viable than natural gas. I only wished to argue that they have a real place in the future landscape of US dynamic resources. To assume, as you do, that we should stop all production of solar and wind, to focus solely on NG as a replacement for coal, is absurd and naive. One of the most important features of a reliable grid is diverse resources. Both as an issue of transmission system viability and national security (don't put all your eggs into one basket?) As you failed to indicate, natural gas prices (at an all time low) will not stay where they are by any means, and will assumingly increase, as demand increases and environmental legislation limits production. Additionally, thanks to the substantial subsidies which have been in place over the last few years, solar power prices (production, development, PV cells, etc) are contininuing to drop at an astonishing rate.
Am I REALLY concerned with global warming? Energy optimization is a matter of careful consideration and analysis. The markets will change dramatically, and the more diverse and efficient the market is, the better (for the environment and the consumers wallets).
Capacity factors in the desert SW of the US are established at 20% or less for PV solar systems. They can be higher for thermal systems, with much higher capital costs.
Capacity factors are not determined by technological improvements in the solar panels. They can be improved by adding rotational alignment to solar arrays, but that has been already determined to add more cost to the solar farms than is recovered. Virtually all PV solar systems built have static panels.
As somebody trained in the field of electrical engineering, let me try to educate you as to what a capacitor does. It stores energy and then releases it over a period of time, usually measured in milliseconds. Very large capacitors can store energy up to many minutes. or even an hour. They play NO role in "moving" energy. Energy is transmitted by conductors.
Turbines do NOT produce electricity. They spin generators that produce the electricity. Whether those generators are driven by NG turbines, steam turbines, hydroelectric turbines, diesel engines or even wind turbines is completely irrelevant. You are completely confused.
Solar energy NEVER will play a significant role in providing energy unless two problems are solved. First, unlike any other source of energy, solar energy cannot be stored in any practical manner (like a pile of coal) to be used when NEEDED. This storage issue has to be addressed, rather than be ignored.
Second, the power efficiency of solar panels has to be dramatically improved over the 50 year old technology used today. Single crystal silicon solar panels will not be an adequate supplier of energy, no matter how many times you manufacture them. I have devoted a significant fraction of my professional career to this issue, and know the physics intimately. I know of nobody who has worked on this problem who disagrees with me. We are wasting time and money on a dead end technology. People who promote it are ignorant, delusional or operating out of self-interest. Given your comments about capacitors and "NG turbines", I will give you the benefit of doubt and assign you to the first classification.
Cliches such as "diversity" are not answers to economic, environmental and technical problems. Solar energy costs today far more than any alternative. If and when there is a technology that reduces the cost by a factor of ten, then it will be used as an alternative. Until then, we would be much better served by investing money into the research needed to develop that technology.
Your answer to my question about global warming is sufficiently vague to conclude that you are not all that concerned. Building very expensive solar and wind generation capacity is obviously driven by motives unrelated to a strong concern for this problem.
For Germany we have
onshore wind: 1300-1500 EUR per kW with 2200 - 3000 FLH
PV : 1100 EUR per kW with 1000 FLH
Onshore wind clearly beats NG CC power plants due to the high price of NG in Europe.
Your argument against PV is faulty: As long as I can produce and consume the electricity at a lower price than I am charged by my utility/transmission net owner/government the production price of the utility is meaningless! With 20 cent /kWh electricity price and a high consumption during daytime a PV (15 cent/kWh) makes sense for everybody who can generate without real problems a high self consumption like supermarkets, farmer.....
"That solution is incredibly expensive compared to the cost of natural gas generation capacity. It takes at least twenty times the capital to build solar energy generation capacity, compared to natural gas plants."
Ah, but it's politically correct at least.
Unlike nuclear power.
What are the capacity factors for wind and PV in Germany?
Your ability to produce electricity at a lower cost depends on who pays for the solar system installed on your roof.
Umm, he provided you with the capacity factor.
You know, divide the full load hours (FLH) by 8760 and you've got the capacity factor. Surely such a brilliant and knowledgeable electrical engineer as yourself would know that.
Or was it the basic math that stymied you?
I did figure out what the acronym, FLH, stood for. In the US the term "capacity factor" is used to describe the same correction.
In the US, the cost of a new NG generation plant is $1.5/w. while the latest PV generation facilities (using state-of-art-thin film panels) is $6/w.
Conversion of a coal plant to NG costs less than $1/w. The capacity factors are 20% vs 90%, giving NG an capital advantage of 18-27X. What would the cost of NG have to be to recover that extra initial investment in 20 years?
I should have stated earlier that I work for one of the leading solar developers in the U.S. I work daily with engineers much better educated than you, and can say with certainty that your numbers and details are extremely inaccurate. Your link appears to be from 2009. Its 2013 now. I think the disconnect is that I am working on projects that have recently been developed or are in process, and have actual real time information. Nearly all new solar developments in the southwestern United States use new TRACKER technologies, unless far enough north where arradiance issues leave FIXED TILT (this is the proper industry terminology) as a superior choice. I know this because I am developing them. The solar energy industry is moving at an extremely fast pace, and thus I will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding any or all of your statistics (as most older developments were used FIXED TILT).
That said, I believe your "electrical engineering" background has you confused as to what CAPACITORS are in regards to electric power flow and the transmission system. Below you will see a simple quote found on Wikipedia. I suggest you take some time to re-educate yourself. I can tell you don't know what reactive power is, so you might want to consider looking it up first. Just to RE-CLARIFY, capacitors in the power system serve to stabilize voltage, by generating reactive power. Voltage MOVES electricity.
CAPACITORS - "Conventionally, capacitors are considered to generate reactive power and inductors to consume it. If a capacitor and an inductor are placed in parallel, then the currents flowing through the inductor and the capacitor tend to cancel rather than add. This is the fundamental mechanism for controlling the power factor in electric power transmission; capacitors (or inductors) are inserted in a circuit to partially cancel reactive power 'consumed' by the load."
REACTIVE POWER - "Unlike true power, reactive power is not useful power because it is stored in the circuit itself. This power is stored by inductors, because they expand and collapse their magnetic fields in an attempt to keep current constant, and by capacitors, because they charge and discharge in an attempt to keep voltage constant."
VOLTAGE - "Voltage is equal to the work which would have to be done, per unit charge, against a static electric field to move the charge between two points"
Unfortunately the power industry isn't easy to learn from your home computer. I should also have mentioned that I worked for the last few years for a power marketing company as a market dispatcher. That said, after listening to you, it is clear you are relatively intelligent, but poorly informed. It is also clear that you have not worked in any real power industry, and thus haven't been exposed to a proper education.
No need to respond. I think this conversation is pretty well over. I suggest going forward you use updated statistics, before you mislead people.
My expertise is in the fundamentals of the photoelectric effect, specifically as it related to single crystal silicon, and what factors impact efficiency - crystal purity, antireflection coatings.... I have also worked on problems associated with power supply design and delivery of power to high performance integrated circuits (operating on the Ghz regime). I have had nothing to do with the marketing of solar energy, so I defer to your obvious expertise in that field.
The cost I quoted is for a large solar energy installation yet to be built. It is NOT from 2009 (as you likely know). The quoted cost is $6/w. Do you disagree with the quoted cost? It will include SOME tracking capability. Even if it had 100% tracking (and a 24% capacity factor) the effective cost would still be $25/w, or between 15 and 25X the cost of a NG plant.
The FIRST large installation with tracking went into operation last month, in Tucson, AZ. It claims an increase in output of 20%, providing a 24% capacity factor - not even close to the numbers you claimed. Does that increase offset the higher cost and increased mechanical complexity? Thermal solar systems with trough mirrors or tower systems can achieve higher capacity factors, but costs are even higher.
Capacitors store energy. That is ALL they do. Combined with inductors, they provide a more complex function, such as a high pass filter to remove power spikes, or impedance matching. What they do NOT do, contrary to your claim above, is make up for the overall loss of power when wind or sun inevitably abates, reducing output to zero. Solar or wind farms require standby power to fill the need when the sun is setting. Unfortunately, peak power demand also occurs (in summer) when the sun is setting. A reliable power grid requires 100% (+ reserve) conventional power. If peak power demand increases, additional conventional power capacity must be added. Solar farms provide redundant energy capacity, peaking during off-peak time. They only ADD to the capital cost that has to be borne by the rate payer. YOUR livelihood depends critically on your ability to convince the ratepayer and those he elects into office to continue the subsidy of your industry. Without those subsidies, you would have to find a job - as many in your industry already have.
You can always count on Obama aAdministration to waste US taxpayers money on such failed solar companies like Solendra.
Rob S wrote:
" The problem we in the US have with reducing our dependence on coal is the irrational coupling of that objective with building solar and wind plants "
Calling making money " irrational " - and that in the USA - is more than idiotic.
Not all 'wees' are inspired by the American Spirit.
Rob S wrote:
"I did figure out what the acronym, FLH, stood for. In the US the term "capacity factor" is used to describe the same correction. "
This is simply wrong, Rob S. Back to school, get your math re-examined.
Someone carrying screw drivers around("As somebody trained in the field of electrical engineering, let me try to educate you ...")
is not the person we would like to be educated from.
Guest-wleioja wrote:
"... No need to respond. I think this conversation is pretty well over. I suggest going forward you use updated statistics, before you mislead people."
But that would lead to an absolute silence from the (s-)think tanks :), how would these posters make a living then, think about the consequences :)
Here some prices from Europe, they start at 0.45 US $/Watt PV-panel costs.
The average factor for installation and grid connection is about 3
Land is frequently available for free (former army training sites, waste dumps, polluted industrial sites, coal and uranium mines and so on).
Solar panels do not deliver electricity to the user. They have to be built into a generation system. Your claim is equivalent to pricing the cost of the generator in a steam generation plant. It is (deliberately?) misleading.
Why not provide the cost of a recent solar energy installation, as I have for a installation now under construction in the American Mohave Desert? The cost was double that of your vague, unsupported assertion.
All land has value, even the Mojave Desert. Have the owner put the land on the market, and the value will be established.
Another vague assertion without any substance. My statement is correct.
" Solar panels do not deliver electricity to the user. "
Rubbish again.
My PV panels (what's a "solar panel" btw.?! childish language is part of your postings!) are running the circulation pump of my ST system. Straight away, without any converter or grid between. Just 2 cables, plus and minus connected straight to the pump.
You are no electrician, haven't the slightest clue about reality.
While I can not vouch for your numbers, I do believe your reasoning is sound. People who support wind/solar seem to always focus on some kind of theoretical capacity under perfect conditions, and from my experience are unwilling to do the kind of analysis you have presented. Look, I love wind and solar but I can also do the numbers and nat gas comes out on top every time. Perhaps in the future the real costs will change, but not for now.
In the context of public policy and replacing our existing public power system with a solar-based system, Rob S is correct and you are nit-picking for some reason. Sad.
I don't understand the anger.
I understand it.
My comments are a challenge to the orthodoxy of renewable energy. Any challenge to religious orthodoxy is met with anger and personal attacks. It is a reflection of the frustration in dealing with facts.
I like coal. I look forward to getting some in my stockings every year for Christmas.
Don't forget, coal has other uses. It makes my vodka taste really good.
It makes your vodka taste of nothing as it is used to remove impurities!
Try a real liquor like single malt Scotch.
It is ironic that due to the over hyped European concerns over fracking they actually damage the environment by making coal the next best thing to use. If European politicians were serious about the environment then fracking would be promoted immediatedly.
It is better to let amis do their thing, see where they fail and do it better next. IT has always worked for the ones that do it after the technology matured. This is one factor - another is that in the USA nobody is looking really at possible damage that can be done to property of others as long as profit is directly available. I do not mean that profit is bad only that not everything that is possible must become reality. It is also true that modern coal power stations are much cleaner than the old ones - how many modern coal power stations does US really have or intend to build? Next thing is the clean factor - gas is clean because while being burnt it gives water and co2 - this is not true for coal where exhaust must be cleaned up and dust that is then collected is not so nice. This indeed makes coal nastier but how much I am not sure - somehow we must ensure that the energy is produced in sufficient quantities for us to live. This means more effective and cleaner energy sources as well as intelligent grid as well as more efficient technology that is using electricity as well as reducing its consumption by insulation of homes etc. as well as local production of energy (block generators - yes I know that is a communist invention after all used mostly in EUorpe is it not?)etc. We probably need to find ways with fusion and part ways with fission too unless we seriously consider what to do with waste. Seems to me a lots of issues US citizens are more than happy to just forget about and wait for invisible hand of the market to seriously f.up.
In the meantime they harshly critize Canada and US for fracking both: gas&oil.
[Poland being an exception having discovered major frackable gas deposits on its territory.]
Something not mentioned in the article is that, thanks to a flat economy and extensive installation of renewable generation, Europe has already met its 2020 goal for CO2 reduction that was set only 6 years ago.
The decrease is almost entirely due to a DECREASE in the generation of electricity. Generation has dropped 3% since 2008, while generation from wind and solar has only increased from 5% to 6% of the total mix.
Mike is counting on an even deeper economic slump to achieve a greater reduction in CO2 emission.
Rob, the only alternative to what you call "economic slump" is eternal growth, which is neither desirable or possible. The reduction in European electrical generation is a good thing. So is its increasing proportion of renewable generation.
Yes, I called it a "slump". The many who lost their jobs and their savings have a much stronger description of the economic trends in Europe and the rest of the world over the last five years. I'm guessing that you were unaffected, which would explain your insensitivity to this problem.
Economic growth is desirable for those who need a job. Even those who depend on the government to support them in some manner need to have others working and paying enough taxes to support them. What is REALLY undesirable and unsustainable is the continued expansion of our debt and the dependence on foreign countries to support our debt.
Reduction in electrical generation has been accomplished, in part, through conservation. This has had a far greater impact on reduction in CO2 emission than the negligible amount of energy produced by solar or wind energy. Conversion to NG from coal has also had a much greater impact. The effect would be even larger if the money wasted on costly solar and wind systems would have been spent on NG conversion.
Solar farms are today's answer to the desire to build beautiful cathedrals to honor a god - the Sun God in this case. This goes counter to the First Amendment prohibition of our government getting into the religion business, but they feel it is more important to satisfy your demands for these edifices.
Your argument is wrong for Germany, despite higher industrial output and all time high of the workforce the generation of electricity is constant and was achieved with lower CO2 output. Renewables already provide almost 30% of the net production and gain 1.5% per year allone from PV and wind.
And the plans to build 23 new coal-fired power plants? How does that fit into the picture? And what is the reaction to increase in the price of electricity to cover the high cost of renewable energy?
And rapidly growing unemployment in EU.
There are no 23 new coal-fired power plants being build, no planning permission. Not even an aplication.
Was there a planned education for you?
Many are closing down:
Apparently Merkel forgot to check in with you - or the other promoters of intermittent energy.
Aperently you have a severe literacy problem:
Where in this Bloomberg article it states that there are 23 new coal power plants are being planned ?
That is what you wrote, obviously badly informed:
"And the plans to build 23 new coal-fired power plants?"
If Bloomberg says:
" Merkel's government wants utilities to build 10,000 megawatts of coal- and gas-fired generators this decade to replace older, dirtier generators and underpin a growing share for wind turbines and solar panels. "
then this doesn't mean there are plans.
It expresses wishfull thinking. The Lady is a physician, I can imagine she can build a powerplant or 23 of them herself.
Out of question that anybody in Germany can be forced by a politician to build anything. Let alone powerplants.
Learn to read, back to school I'd say.
Your media competence seems to be rock-bottom to me.
I hope that western states (California, Oregon, Washington) write regulations to prohibit the export of coal. Fortunately California's governor Jerry Brown is an environmental leader, and so is Washington's new governor Jay Inslee.
We should ban the export of coal because coal is equally dangerous to the climate regardless of where it is burned. To simply ban coal mining in the US is not feasible due to our electric system's reliance on it, although we are weaning ourselves off of it. But there is currently no major coal export industry in the US, and we do not want to start one. It is time to kill King Coal.
"We should ban the export of coal because coal is equally dangerous to the climate regardless of where it is burned".
I don't know why this blindingly obvious thing is not more widely discussed. There is no credible reason why the EPA, which imposes severe (and legitimate) restrictions on coal use in the US, should not also have the authority to ban US coal exports as an integral part of its responsibility to protect the American environment.
Republicans in Congress are why. Their collective brain would explode were the EPA to do that (if they have the legal right to do it, and I don't know that they do have the ability to regulate international commerce).
West coast states banning the export of coal may be blindingly obvious, but it is not constitutional. State 1 can't prevent State 2 from shipping its legal product across State 1 on the way to an export market. There's something called the interstate commerce clause. You can make it somewhat difficult and expensive with regulations, but those regulations can't specify coal; they would have to apply to all exports. In practice what you're suggesting can't be done by another state, and probably not by the federal government either. It's a free country, at least for the moment.
It would only be regulation of American commerce that adversly affected American air quality. The EPA already does that extensively domestically. It has the power (and apparent current policy) to put US coal generation out of business. Why wouldn't extending that policy to US coal exports not be part of the EPA's existing remit of protecting the US environment?
The Federal government unilaterally (and rightly) restricts exports of all kinds of things. These are in the form of blanket bans and specific restrictions to selected countries. Try exporting centrifuges made in Ohio to Iran and see how much "freedom" you have. Banning coal exports to filthy, polluting Chinese plants easily fits into the same category of national interest.
You're confusing interstate commerce for international commerce. There is nothing in the US Constitution that bars Oregon (or any other US state) from blocking an international coal export facility within their jurisdiction.
The constitution does, however, bar impediments to interstate commerce (as in between states within the USA). Colorado, for example, must allow shipments of Wyoming coal to transit Colorado on its way to New Mexico. Coal producing West Virgina, likewise, could not ban imports of cheaper Wyoming coal.
"Fortunately California's governor Jerry Brown is an environmental leader"
Gov. Moonbeam of the bankrupt (though once Golden) state business escapes from to adjacent Arizona and Nevada can indeed be a standard-bearer for the ecoterrorist movement.
Thanks for the informative article. I find it very ironic that Europe is actually burning more coal but than again maybe they will seen to be the wiser if in 10 years we do find fracking is creating environmental havoc below. I hope not though.
Europe is not burning more coal, Farmer.
Nowhere the article gave such data. Do not mix-up information with suggestion, learn to read.
And ask for facts, not for propaganda.
Coal usage ("burning") is measured in tonnes per annum (1000kg/t). To get a picture the usage per decade is important.
No such information is used in this article. For a very good reason.
"Meanwhile in Europe, which likes to see itself as a world leader on climate, they are using more and more of the stuff" end of paragraph 5.
Just saying, but I don't think I am the one having a problem reading here. Yes, even we lowly farmers can read.
Eurostat does show that hard coal consumption has been on the rise since 2009. So the Economist's statement is backed by data. I do agree however that this is only a small slice of the whole picture because the rest of the chart does shows a drastic decrease in coal consumption over the last few decades.
Obviously I somehow hit a nerve so this must be an important issue to you. I do feel like I have a better understanding of the matter after your point about the decades of consumption because it does paint a more complete picture of the facts. So thanks for that at least.
Well, Farmer2010, we have to read in context and make complete quotes.
The article is about American coal,I use your quote with the prefix:
" But things are not quite that simple. In America coal is indeed being burned less and less—but not principally thanks to climate policy, of which America has relatively little. Meanwhile in Europe, which likes to see itself as a world leader on climate, they are using more and more of the stuff (see article). "
Of the American stuff.
They might import more US-American coal in Europe but they might not use more coal as such.
Just a different source due to price reasons.
A lot of coal mining capacity can be kept at a low profit/margin operation for a while. But then it has to close down. Maintenance costs for mining machinery and transport, opening of new mines costs investor's money. If they see greener fields somewhere else the mines won't be operated.
The last hard coal mine in Germany(Saarland) closed in December 2012.
So yes, they are propably importing now more coal. But they might not be using more of it.
We will see what future statistics show.
I am not sure how the "complete quote" changes the main idea of what I said especially since I have clearly outlined the statistical accuracy/lack of complete picture anyway. You could infer either interpretation but I think mine is what most people would come away thinking was said. I guess that would be for the author to clarify.
The truth is the Europeans are using more coal in general and more American coal. Obviously, Europe has had more progressive policies in regards to CO2 emissions through energy policy for some time. What I think is interesting is that there is still a price at which Europeans will trade off some environmental concerns for cheaper energy. In the States that trade-off comes at a much lower price. Although that might be changing some. We had a fairly large wind farm development about 10 miles from where I live and there are others that have come in the last 5 years around the state. These do come only with large federal payments to make them economically viable against cheaper sources. So tax payers are paying more for their energy and those same tax payers voted Obama in for another term who is the main backer. Hopefully, renewable technology will continue to get better so there is less of a trade-off in the future. In the meantime I do think the West is heading in the right direction when it comes to energy policy. Hopefully better technology will accelerate this trend.
Several comments:
Wyoming currently produces upwards of 50 coal trains a day, at about 100 cars each, and 100 tons per car. That's half a million tons of coal a day. The infrastructure is already there to mine and load that much coal. The trick to sending it to China is to get the trains to the west coast and get the coal loaded onto ships. The infrastructure that is needed is actually rail lines, port facilities, and cargo ships, more than mining or loading facilities in Wyoming.
The idea of Obama making policy by fiat should cause people in a democracy to think. Didn't we create a democracy to *avoid* that?
Natural gas was below production cost for a while (and may be still). If I ran a power company, I'd be buying as much of the in-ground supply as people were willing to sell.
America is the Saudi Arabia of Coal.
America is the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas due to Innovations in Fracking.
In recent projections by the IEA, America is now the Saudi Arabia of Petroleum due to Shale Oil and Fracking.
America has abundant resources of Uranium that can provide unlimited, unmetered electricity that will last several millenia. (Dealing with the radioactive waste is the main problem.)
And now has the world's largest Wind Farm(Oregon) and Solar Farm(California).
It is Saudi America, soon to be the world's leading energy exporter.
When there are so many choices
=> unwanted dirty Coal is only good enough to be exported.
China burns it. We still get their pollution, because of air flow across the Pacific.
To the degree that you believe in anthropogenic global warming, the whole world shares the CO2.
"Uranium that can provide unlimited, unmetered electricity that will last several millenia".
This is a quote for 1953, not 2013.
Oh, my, my, you still get China's pollution, what a pity, or what a pathetic statement. You are responsible for the planet's pollution in the first place. China's pollution / head of population is still a fraction of yours.
"To the degree that you believe in anthropogenic global warming, the whole world shares the CO2."
The whole world shares it either way - not believing in global warming doesn't change the situation.
North America possesses all five energy sources in abundance. Europe, on the other hand, must import them at great expense. Germany, for example, pays Putin five times as much as the American gas price.
North America also has a young population and higher birth rate.
Europe has a growing number of seniors and declining birth rates.
Still true in 2013.
With THORIUM (non-enrichable to weapon-grade) being even more abundant.
"Germany, for example, pays Putin five times as much as the American gas price."
Notice that politically expendient Chancellor Merkel reversed herself (hoping for Green votes) and ordered a shut-down of all German atomic power plants; making Germany even more vulnerable to KGB gen. Putin's blackmail.
[so much for EZ reforms]
In a political continuum focused on job creation, how does coal fare? Are there enough jobs to warrant more political clout, or is the whole process so efficient that it in fact destroys jobs at the margin? Do West Virginia and Wyoming, e.g., have the clout to override larger concerns about threats to health?
Given coal's centrality to our energy picture, running this kind of cost/benefit analysis would probably be as meaningful as running a cost/benefit analysis of the ocean: we haven't really focused on its replacement costs by technologies such as fusion etc., and rely more on the serendipity of mucking up the subsoil in search of cheap shale.
"we haven't really focused on its replacement costs by technologies such as fusion"
Affordable fusion is a pipe dream.
So far we haven't been able to build a fusion reactor which could generate more energy than is needed to sustain the fusion.
And I seriously doubt we shall in the near future.
While modern, passively cooled, fission reactors are readily available.
And pretty soon there'll be newer one fueled by ample THORIUM.
A Fusion reactor that generates more energy that it absorbs is currently being built. It would have already been built if so much money hadnt been wasted on the International Space Station and politics hadnt delayed WHERE it was built for years.
Fusion is the best hope we have for the future of energy and unlike Thorium it produces very little waste.
Ir may be our best hope but even a single experimental reactor hasn't been tested yet.
Let alone industrial one - capable of producing real bang for a buck.
P.S. LLL has been working for years on laser-induced fusion, with not much to show for so far.
There are plenty of experimental fusion reactors (like JET).
ITER will be outputting more energy than it receives by 2020.
The follow up will be the first commercial reactor.
They are very expensive and will be for a while but they have none of the disadvantages of any other form of power, literally none.
"ITER will be outputting more energy than it receives by 2020."
That's fine -hope springs eternal.
However I remember in the 1950s we were told that "fusion reactors were right behind the corner".
60 years laters they're still right behind the corner.
That old chestnut, a myth that people like to spout (no offence, I enjoy these discussions).
In the 60's it was sort of a wishy washy hand waving exercise, err about 50 years yes thats it.
Now we have an actual funded project on budget and on schedule which will deliver a feasible reactor by 2020. Thats what ITER is.
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The silence of David Cameron
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
Was it the act of seducing Eve to eat the apple that was his downfall, was he already fallen before that, or was it after?
That happened before the Garden of Eden incident. Before then, he walked in heaven (on the holy mount of God). He was actually cast down because he became proud. Then he thought that he could be God, that he could take God's place in the universe as ruler of it: That was his downfal: Pride--he thought he was as good as God. |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Main Content
- Made in China
- NFL team logo embellished with rhinestones on hand top
- Officially licensed
- Palm Patch: 40% Polyurethane, 30% Cotton, 30% Nylon
- Shell: 100% Polyester
- Solid-colored NFL gloves
- Tec Touch™ allows operation of most touch-screen devices without glove removal
Patriots Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game
or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are
received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items
are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite
number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Progressive Training
Year One
The initial portion of the first year of the residency in Diagnostic Radiology is spent in the main Radiology Department at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. During this period, the resident works with staff to gain basic introductory experience in plain film interpretation, fluoroscopic procedures, and cross sectional imaging with CT and ultrasound. Following this one month introduction, residents enter into the general rotation schedule, with rotations in ultrasound, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, thoracic imaging, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and cross-sectional interventional included in the first year. These rotations provide the necessary experience to allow the resident to assume call responsibility which begins at the start of the second year.
Year Two
During the second year, the resident assumes their first overnight on-call responsibilities. They repeat rotations in ultrasound, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, thoracic imaging, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and cross-sectional interventional. The second year also includes a first exposure to mammography and a 6-week rotation of pediatric radiology and nuclear medicine at Children's Hospital LA. A four week block is also available to residents who have interest in performing a research project.
Years Three and Four
Third year residents attend the four week radiologic-pathology correlation course sponsored by the American College of Radiology in Silver Spring, MD, and spend a second 6-week rotation at Children's Hospital LA for pediatric radiology and nuclear medicine, in addition to rotating through the core rotations at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Senior residents take a more active role in interventional procedures, and also play a greater role in diagnostic mammography.
During the fourth year, residents spend a month at the University of Southern California doing advanced cardiothoracic imaging, including cardiac MRI, and spend four weeks in obstetrical ultrasound in the Perinatology Department at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.


text:
I need a little prop help. I have a 190 Pro-V with a 200 Mercury XRI. I just put this motor on and have two props to try. One is a Trophy 26p 4-blade, the other is a Tempest Plus 25p 3-blade. I know different props and boat setups are required to fine the best solution, but I would appreciate a little help, or past experience with either one of these props that may be the best for this boat and motor.
Thanks, Mark


text:
Northern Highlands North (2004)
Climb name | Grade | x | |
Missing information about climbs at this crag. Can you help by Add missing Climbs for this crag? |
USER FEEDBACK | Login as Existing User to add your comments |
There are no comments from visitors to this crag. |
There are no photos of this crag available
Upload a photo


text:
Sabine Lisicki reaches the semi-finals of the Wimbledon tournament
Sabine Lisicki (Germany), one of the Longines Rising Tennis Stars, beat Marion Bartoli 6-4, 6-7 (4/7), 6-1 to reach the Wimbledon semi-finals. She is only the second wild-card entry to reach the women's semifinals at Wimbledon. Sabine Lisicki reaches her first Grand Slam semi-finals and she is the first German to qualify for the last four at Wimbledon since seven-time champion Stefanie Graf in 1999.
Longines wishes her all the best for her semi-final!


text:
Engagement is the New Change Management
04 October, 2011 | (01 hr)
Sign In to access this Webcast
This Conference KeyNotes Webcast will reprise a session from the 2011 Change Management Seminar, featuring Dick Axelrod, author and thought leader as well as Chris Lubrano of MetLife.
Most change management challenges encompass the need to use employee involvement to effect large-scale organizational transformation. This discussion will examine four principles that can support high engagement change processes:
- Widening the circle of involvement
- Connecting people and ideas
- Creating communities for action
- Promoting fairness
You can view Dick Axelrod's article in TCB Review here: http://www.tcbreview.com/all-aboard.php
Who Should Attend:
Directors, Vice Presidents responsible for Human Resources, Talent Management, Leadership Development and Training and Development, Organization Development and Organization Effectiveness
Dick Axelrod
Mr. Axelrod co founded the Axelrod Group, Inc., a consulting firm that pioneered the use of employee involvement to effect large scale organizational change. He now brings more than thirty-five years of consulting and teaching experience to this w... Full Bio | |
Christopher Lubrano
Mr. Lubrano is currently vice president of Organization Effectiveness within MetLife's International Business. Most recently, Mr. Lubrano led the organization design work that followed a major international acquisition, growing the company f... Full Bio |


text:
Security Products
Backup Products
Popular Downloads
Other Downloads
Best-Selling Products
Other Products
Premium Services
SupportProduct GuidesBullGuard Premium ProtectionBackupRestore your data (Guide)
BullGuard Support
We're here 24/7 to help you.
Email our support team and we'll get back to you within 24 hours.
The Restore your data feature allows you to retrieve the information you have backed up and copy it to its original location or to any other place on your computer. It works for both files and e-mails.
To restore the information, you will need to go through a Restore Guide that allows you to choose the information type, the location and the place where you want the files or e-mails restored to. The guide is easily started by clicking on the Start restore button from the Backup main section.
The Restore Guide: Allows you to retrieve any backed up files to your computer from the Online Drive, CD/DVDs or from local or network paths. The Guide is simple and easy to use and the retrieval time only depends on the amount of data to retrieve and on network conditions (for files backed up online).
Once you click on the Start restore button, you will be shown a welcome screen. Click Next to go to the next step.
Don't show this introduction next time: makes sure you will not see this screen the next time you start the guide.
Select Files or E-mails and click the Next button to proceed.
On the following screen, you need to select the location where the files have been previously backed up – Online drive, a CD/DVD or a local/network computer or drive. Click Next after selecting the correct location.
For files/e-mails backed up on the Online Drive you will need to choose the backup profile from which you would like to restore the files and then select the files to restore from that profile. Click Next to proceed.
If you selected a local/network computer or driver, you will need to browse to the location of the backup and select folders or files to be restored.
In the next screen, you will need to select a location where to place the retrieved files. For retrieving e-mails, you will need to select the e-mail client and Identity you want the e-mails retrieved to. Click on the Start button to have BullGuard retrieve your files.
Please do not interrupt the retrieval process until it completes successfully. When the Restoring is complete, click Close to exit the Restore Guide.
© 2002 – 2014 BullGuard. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy & Cookies Legal Terms


text:
Canvas Wall Art
Wall Decals
Wall Letters
Personalized Art
Hand Painted Art
Growth Charts
Framed Art
Wall Hangings
Wall Murals
Art Prints
Wall Plaques
Wooden Art Plaques
Prepasted Wall Murals
Baby Photo Art
Room Themes
Yellow Background Butterfly Collage Art Print by P. Carter Carpin The Yellow Background Butterfly Collage Print is a girly and fun piece that incorporates a million shades of pink, yellow, and pastels.There are two size options for this print. The first is an unmatted print that can be framed in an 11" x 14" frame (note that the art is printed on 11" x 17" paper and will need to be trimmed to fit your frame of choice). The second size option is a matted print that is ready for framing in a 12" x 16" frame.P. Carter Carpin has created a beautiful line of colorful prints for children from her original paintings. By incorporating her history as a textile designer into details like photo silk screening, hand dyeing and stitching, as well as her love for "happy art", P. Carter Carpin has established herself as an artist whose pieces create a world of bright and cheery life! These high quality prints are taken directly from her original paintings, even the tiniest of artistic detailing is visible!This item is custom made especially for you upon order.
Category: Art, Art Prints for Kids
Size:Please Choose11 x 14 Print Only (Without Mat)12 x 16 Matted Print (Art is 9 x 12) $(+8.00)
Mat Color - if select mat option above:No Thank YouAquaChocolateHot PinkIvoryLight PinkLilacNavyOrangePale YellowRedRoyal BlueSageWhite
©2004-2015 Rosenberry Rooms. All Rights reserved. | 709 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC 27603
ecommerce enabled by fastpivot | PRIVACY POLICY


text:
Jimmy Choo shoes are in Italian sizing
Freshen up your daytime looks with this zesty natural and neon lime python shoulder bag. Perfectly proportioned to carry your everyday essentials whilst remaining ladylike and finished with a chunky chain strap.
US Standard FREE (2-8 working days, NY 2-3) US Express $20 (1-3 working days, NY 1-2) New York same day $25 (order by 2pm EST) Canada $20 (1-3 working days) Americas $30 (2-7 working days) Please note; the above delivery times exclude pre-orders and made-to-order items. Shop with confidence with free returns. See full delivery and returns information. NEED MORE HELP? Email Customer Care or call us on (toll free):+1 877 955 2466
Bag measures L33 x H25 x W6 cm / L12.9 x H9.8 x W2.3''


text:
The Arboretum Store Extended Hours At The Morton Arboretum, enjoy extended shopping hours and free admission from 3–5 p.m. on December 2, 9, & 16. When you purchase a ticket to Illumination. Learn more
Tree House Tales Exhibition Enter a tree village that's filled with adventure and imagination. Play, make believe, and become part of the trees' ever-changing tale. Daily, 7:00 a.m.-sunset Learn more
Vanishing Acts: Trees Under Threat Exhibit Come learn about the gifts that the world's endangered trees give us—and how you can join the Arboretum in saving them. Daily, 7:00 a.m. - sunset Learn more


text:
PowerBlogs specializes in fast, reliable managed blog hosting using our best-of-breed blogging software. You get:
- An advanced comment system featuring registered accounts and centralized moderation.
- Heirarchical categories with their own archives and syndication feeds.
- Post Chaining to group related posts.
- A powerful posting interface with many integrated tools (including html formatting, image uploading, link checking, and <html> symbols™ ©2005).
- Auto-save and revision control to keep computer crashes from stealing your blog posts.
- Static pages for blazing speed and extreme reliability.
- Http compression so you can get the most out of your bandwidth.
- A whole lot more.
Easy and Powerful
New bloggers will find PowerBlogs very easy to use, but PowerBlogs also has the best power-features for advanced users. Everything is customizable, even the posting interface!
Reliable and Scalable Hosting
The only difference between our plans is the amount of space and bandwidth you need (a very popular or large blog will want a "bigger" plan) but no matter what plan you choose, you get every feature of the PowerBlogs software. We don't believe in reducing features for customers on a smaller budget. If you only need $5 worth of space, that's fine with us and we want you to enjoy everything PowerBlogs has to offer.
Low Volume Plans
Featuring low once-a-year payments and an easy upgrade path to a Power Blogging plan, our low volume plans are great if you're running a blog for family and friends or if you just want to try out blogging to see if you like it.
Power Blogging Plans
Our Power Blogging plans offer great prices on the bandwidth and disk space to reach your audience.
If you need more than 200GB per month of transfer, please contact us — we're happy to provide custom plans to fit the needs of the biggest blogs. Kindy is currently redeveloping our product and planning to use it internally. Please also visit our friends NOTA who sell loafer shoes.
© Copyright 2014 Powerblogs Inc


text:
Tweezerman Pointed Slant Tweezers Stainless
DDonna CribbA big let down. I will return these and stick with the regular slanted tip. They did not live up to the description in any way.posted Apr 29, 2008Link to this post
JoyceCan't Quite Get The Hang Of This TweezerIM SORRY TO SAY THAT AFTER SPENDING THE MONEY I DID THAT IM BACK TO USING MY OLD TWEEZER TO GROOM MY EYEBROWS. THE POINT IS MUCH TO POINTY AND IM AFFRAID THAT I MIGHT HURT MYSELF.posted Aug 22, 2007Link to this post
KealaVery Average TweezersThese tweezers are very average and do not deserve the "excellent" ratings given by other reviewers. They are not sharp enough and do not remove short hairs easily. They are priced twice as high as they should be.posted Mar 29, 2006Link to this post
JaniceNorth Ridgeville, OhioExcellent TweezersAfter reading all of the raves about Tweezerman tweezers in InStyle and other fashion magazines for the past few years, I finally broke down and purchased a pair to see what all of the fuss was about. Turns out these tweezers really are as good as the experts say. The tweezers have just the right shape and do such a good job gripping even the smallest hairs, that tweezing my eyebrows is a snap compared to using my old no-name tweezers. I also like the free sharpening offer by Tweezerman, which will ensure that the tweezers are properly maintained so they should last for a long time. I highly recommend these tweezers.posted Jul 9, 2005Link to this post
Love This Dryer!New York, NYExcellent ProductThis is in its own league as far as Tweezers go. Really gets the job done, with a lot less discomfort.posted Feb 11, 2005Link to this post
Write Your Own Review
Have you tried this product? Help out by sharing what worked (or didn't)!
Write a Review


text:
Top Definition
When Rashed Wallace of the Detroit Pistons makes a prediction of a future game and it comes true. This phrase originated when he guaranteed that the Pistons would win Game 2 in the Eastern Conference finals in 2004 after falling behind.
Success was Guaransheed for the 2005 Eastern Conference finals against the Miami Heat.
av unitysong
5. april 2006
2 more definitions
Certain, inevitable, destined to occur. Primarily used to denote that said action will be done with maximal gangsta steeze. Popularized by noted baller Rasheed Wallace.
"Yo, we gon' win on sunday. It's guaransheed."
av The Feight Train
13. juni 2008
Same meaning as guaranteed, coined by and referring to Rasheed Wallace of the Detroit Pistons.
"Rasheed Wallace guaransheeds the Pistons will win tonight"
"I guaransheed I can make this three"
"I will tap that ass, guaransheed"
"I guaransheed I can make this three"
"I will tap that ass, guaransheed"
av KG2001
10. juli 2008


text:
Helpline : 02242085050
Your password is not strong enough, kindly update your password.
The biggest EDM madness of the year is here!
Now, explore the city like never before.
Secure your future and make the right choice.
True words from the mouth of a liar!
A tribute to the legendary Pop band!
No shows scheduled for now
Scroll for more
Purchase of a Couple ticket is mandatory for buying the tickets for Singles, Teenagers and Kids in a single transaction.
A Day At The Movie..
might be your favourite timepass but for some it is a far-fetched dream. We along with an NGO strive to make their dream a reality. Read More
Re. 1
will be added to your transaction as a donation


text:
skip to main
skip to sidebar
Culture Cash
I love these monetary alterations by artist, James Charles, currently on display until June 4th, 2011 at
The Shooting Gallery
in San Francisco. Tons more over at
My Modern Met
No comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post
Older Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Etsy Link
Search DudeCraft!
Donate to DudeCraft!
Friend Me on Facebook
Follow DudeCraft on Twitter
DudeCraft Flickr Pool
Upload your crafty snaps to the DudeCraft Flickr pool
Who is the Dude behind DudeCraft?
Paul Overton is a prolific blogger, maker, writer, and ukulele player living in Hardwick, MA with three dogs, his closest co-conspirator, and a lawn that makes his octogenarian neighbors want to call the authorities. He delights in the unusual and can often be found in his tiny studio, whipping up some sort of self-indulgent nonsense for his own amusement.
Contact DudeCraft
Drop us a line at:
About DudeCraft
DudeCraft represents a different kind of tribe in the world of making things, intentionally blurring the lines between, art, craft, engineering, and the good old "Can Do" spirit. Makers of all stripes are welcome here and are encouraged to join the conversation, no matter what their enthusiasms. Guys who knit, girls who weld, it's all the same on DudeCraft. We are people who make cool stuff, have an urge to share it, and don't mind explaining how we did it, so that other folks can benefit from our experience.
Thanks for dropping by!
- Paul
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
September (1)
July (1)
June (1)
May (2)
April (5)
March (7)
February (7)
January (8)
December (12)
November (14)
October (19)
September (14)
August (21)
July (27)
June (21)
May (30)
April (24)
March (30)
February (30)
January (39)
December (29)
November (30)
October (42)
September (65)
August (54)
July (58)
June (71)
May (84)
April (93)
March (119)
February (60)
January (61)
December (60)
November (53)
October (71)
September (73)
August (48)
July (54)
June (56)
May (72)
April (59)
March (53)
February (56)
January (75)
December (89)
November (99)
October (84)
September (75)
August (85)
July (74)
June (73)
May (82)
April (95)
March (104)
February (98)
January (82)
December (2)
October (6)
September (9)
August (20)
June (1)
February (2)
January (1)
RSS: Subscribe To DudeCraft
privacy policy


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And thanks, as always to Pete-zaa for making this such an easy site to navigate through!
Your hydration (61 percent) sounds low to me. When I use Harvest King, I'm up around at least 65 percent. That could definitely affect extensibility.


text:
Adam F Series Monitors
$499.004.5 stars14th Jan 2014 | 11:00
Serious performance at an affordable price - you'd be crazy not to give them a ...
Adam Audio A7X Active Monitors
$699.005 stars19th Aug 2011 | 07:25
One of the best monitors on the market. The A7X beats the original in almost ...
ADAM A8X Active Monitors
$1,999.003.5 stars18th Mar 2011 | 17:11
Sturdy, with excellent HF detail and imaging, let down by their mid-range response.
Adam Audio A3X Monitors
$799.004 starsAdam Audio A5 Studio Monitors
4.5 starsAdam Audio P11A monitors
4.5 stars28th Nov 2007 | 12:02
Adam's ribbon tweeter helps the P11A deliver a silky performance, but at a price.


text:
Top Definition
Basically what happens when you and your buddy have planned a trip for several months,and his wife knows that your going. You dealay leaving home on the day you plan on leaving and actually depart on the morning she wants you too, and drive three and 1/2 hours to get to a Kroger grocery store in West Virginia, only to find that you've been called back due to her personal insecurity about being alone.
Damnit Joe, I don't know how to tell you this, but the wife has issued a call back. We're going to have to go home, even though we just drove 3 1/2 hours to get here. Sorry my nigger.
dodane przez NomadBP
maj 26, 2005


text:
pygame is
pygame.org is
PyGL3Display - 1.0David Griffin (habilain)Tags:Description2.0 will be the final version of PyGL3Display I've been looking through PyGL3Displays code with the intention of implementing proper Z-ordering and have come to the conclusion uncovered that a) PyGL3Display would likely need some major API-breaking work to implement Z-ordering in any sane manner and b) there's a fair amount of other use cases which PyGL3Display, in it's current form, simply cannot do (e.g. multiple windows) Hence the choices are either a backwards incompatible release or to put PyGL3Display in maintenance only mode and move to another project. I've chosen the latter; apologies to anyone that this inconveniences. - David PyGL3Display is a high performance, OpenGL, 2D sprite library for Python/Pygame with a simple API, not too dissimilar to Pygames (There's an API compatible Image object, and Sprites are not too dissimilar). It requires slightly more recent hardware than other libraries, but it is "breaks the Pygame FPS counter" fast*. License: GPL v2 / v3. Commercial licenses are negotiable - at least on parts which I have copyright on (as I am open to outside contribution). Requirements: Python 2.x, Pygame, PyOpenGL, OpenGL 2.0 compliant systemOn Linux only: CFFI can replace PyOpenGL Not yet compatible with Python 3 Main Design: 1. Near optimal performance. 2. Use GPU shaders as much as possible, as Python programs are much more likely to be CPU bound. 3. Clean, easy to use "normal" API, which also has an advanced mode for people who want the absolute maximum in performance and don't mind getting their hands dirty. For normal use, the API should not be any more difficult to use than Pygame. * "Breaks the Pygame FPS counter" fast: On my Phenom II based system, the text demo, which draws a not inconsiderable amount of text, jumps between 3333.33 FPS and 5000 FPS according to a Pygame clock object. A hand written FPS counter indicates the real FPS is about 4200. On a much older system (Pentium 4), PyGL3Display still manages 666.66 FPS according to Pygame clocks - which again, seems like I'm hitting some accuracy limit in floating points. Note: Questions, bug reports etc. are all best done through Launchpad, because that way I'll get notified quickly. ChangesMany bug fixes - it now works
Architecture now supports having multiple shaders, although only one has been implemented. Links
Pygame.org account CommentsIf you wish to leave a comment with your pygame.org account, please sign in first.