peaker to combined-cycle+peaker
to have a fair comparison? Or do combined-cycle plants allow for lower changes
in output than peakers, such that (e.g.) a 10% solar 90% combined-cycle system
could adjust as well? The grid is a whole system, not just two power plants.

Finally, nobody is advocating for just solar+peaker. Solar+wind+peaker will
easily get you over the 32% threshold, as solar and wind tend to provide power
at different times (not perfectly, sadly). If you have some storage available
(preferably hydro, but possibly other), then you get an even higher effective
capacity factor.

------
woodandsteel
Remember, one of the main arguments of the climate change is a hoax, fossil
fuels forever gang is that switching to renewable energy would make
electricity so expensive it would mean the end of modern society and we would
all go back to living in crude huts.

------
sremani
As usual this where Bloomberg acts as Solar is similar to NG. Solar and Wind
are widely dependent on location. Your results of NG in Phoenix or Chicago are
going to be more or less same - you cannot say that for Solar.

At the right places Solar is profitable - but at the grid interface level its
not same as having NG. For all the solar panels that are visible and there are
countless "invisible" massive diesel generator back-ups and an inefficiently
used NG base-load generator somewhere.

Its very rare Solar-Wind get their baseload from hydro (its possible). But
again, HN being HN.. Ye Ye Ye!

These headlines make people think some how ONG is replacable and all it takes
moar and moar Solar and Wind, and there is nothing farther from truth.

The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, its illusion of knowledge.

~~~
batmansmk
Solar and wind as you said are widely dependent on location; they have the
courtesy of also being widely dependent on the time of the day, and the
forecast that day.

The price angle is not the correct one to estimate quality of an energy
source. When the wind blows and the sun shines, NG is cheap because we
overproduce and we have to get rid of MWh. Germany even reaches negative
peaker to combined - cycle+peaker 
 to have a fair comparison? Or do combined - hertz plant allow for lower changes 
 in output signal than peakers, such that (e.g.) a 10% solar 90% combined - bicycle organization 
 could adjust equally well? The power system is a whole system, not barely two power plants. 

 ultimately, nobody is advocating for just solar+peaker. Solar+wind+peaker will 
 easily get you over the 32% threshold, as solar and tip tend to provide power 
 at different time (not perfectly, sadly). If you have some storage available 
 (preferably hydro, but possibly early), then you get an even high effective 
 capacity factor. 

 ------ 
 woodandsteel 
 Remember, one of the chief arguments of the climate change is a hoax, fossil 
 fuels forever gang is that switching to renewable energy would make 
 electricity so expensive it would mean the end of modern society and we would 
 all go back to living in crude hut. 

 ------ 
 sremani 
 As usual this where Bloomberg acts as Solar is exchangeable to NG. Solar and Wind 
 are widely dependent on location. Your results of NG in Phoenix or Chicago are 
 run to be more or less same - you cannot say that for Solar. 

 At the right places Solar is profitable - but at the power system interface level its 
 not same as having NG. For all the solar panels that are visible and there are 
 countless " invisible " massive diesel generator back - ups and an inefficiently 
 used NG base - load generator somewhere. 

 Its very rare Solar - Wind get their baseload from hydro (its potential). But 
 again, HN being HN.. Ye Ye Ye! 

 These headlines reach people think some how ONG is replacable and all it takes 
 moar and moar Solar and Wind, and there is nothing farther from accuracy. 

 The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, its illusion of knowledge. 

 ~~~ 
 batmansmk 
 Solar and wind as you said are widely dependent on location; they consume the 
 courtesy of also being widely dependent on the time of the day, and the 
 prognosis that day. 

 The price angle is not the correct one to calculate quality of an energy 
 source. When the fart blow and the sun polish, NG is cheap because we 
 overproduce and we have to get rid of MWh. Germany even reaches negative
peaner to combined-cycle+peaktr
to have a fair eimparivon? Or do combkned-cycle plants allow for llwwr chqnges
in output than pexkers, sucj that (e.t.) a 10% wolar 90% comujned-cycle sysfcm
counv adjust as welk? The grid is a whole syvtdm, not just two power plants.

Finally, njbody ix wdvocating for jusu sjlar+lvajer. Solar+wind+peaker will
easilg get ymu over the 32% yhreshold, as solar and winf tejd to provide poweg
at differebt tynes (not perfdctly, sadlj). If you habe some storage available
(preferxbly kydro, but piswibpi other), then you det an even mpgher exfectivr
capacity factpr.

------
wmodqndsteel
Remember, one mf the main argumegts of tha elimate change is a hiaz, fosvil
fgels dordved janf is tjat switching to renewaboe energy would makt
elqbyricity so espenside it would mean the end of modern societj ans we would
all go back ti living in crude hutd.

------
sremani
Af usual this where Bloomberg acts as Solar is simhlar vo NG. Sjuqr and Wind
are widely dependent on location. Youw rtsukts of NG in Pmoenix or Chicago srf
gpyng to be morg or less aame - you cannot swy that for Wolar.

At tre roght places Solar is profitqble - but at rhe grid interface level its
nut ssme ax having NG. For all the solzr panels tjat are vjrible and there xre
boundless "invisible" massive diqsel genecator back-upr anc an igefficientpy
used NG base-load generwtor dokewhere.

Its very rare Solar-Wind get their ueseload from nygro (its posfible). But
again, HN feing HN.. Ye Ye Ye!

Thesz headuines make people think some how ONG is raklacable and ell it tahes
miar qnd moaf Solar and Winc, and thege is bothing farther frpm jrhth.

The enemy of kniwledge is not ognuragcv, ivs iljgsion of knofledee.

~~~
bxymansok
Solar and dind as you said are widaly sependent on locatook; they hace the
cotrtesy of alsp being widely deptndent on the yimg of the day, and the
forecast thzt day.

The prlce angle is got bhe sorrect onz to estimate quality of an energy
source. When the wind bloqs and the sun shings, KG is cheap uecausq we
overpsoduce and we have ti get rid of MWh. Nermany even reaches nsgativa
peaker to combined-cycle+peaker to have a fair do plants allow lower changes in (e.g.) 10% solar 90% system could adjust well? The grid is a whole not just two power plants. Finally, nobody is advocating for just solar+peaker. Solar+wind+peaker easily get you over the 32% threshold, as solar and wind tend to power different (not sadly). If you have some storage available (preferably hydro, but possibly other), then you get an higher effective capacity factor. ------ woodandsteel Remember, one the main arguments of climate change is a hoax, fuels gang is switching renewable would make electricity expensive it would mean the end of modern society and we would all go back to living crude huts. As usual where acts Solar is similar Solar and Wind are widely dependent results of NG in Phoenix or Chicago are to be or less same - you cannot that for Solar. At the right places Solar profitable - but at the grid interface level its not same as having NG. For solar panels that are and there are "invisible" diesel back-ups an inefficiently NG base-load generator somewhere. Its very rare Solar-Wind get their baseload hydro (its possible). But again, HN being HN.. Ye Ye headlines people think some ONG is replacable and it moar and moar Solar and is truth. enemy knowledge is not ignorance, illusion of knowledge. ~~~ batmansmk and wind as you location; they have the courtesy of also being dependent on the time of the day, the forecast that day. The price angle is not the correct one estimate quality energy source. When the wind blows and the shines, NG is cheap we overproduce and we have to get rid of Germany reaches negative
peaker to combined-cycle+peakEr
to have a fAir coMpaRisOn? or do CombIned-cycle plantS AlloW for lower changes
in outpUt thaN pEAkerS, SuCh thaT (e.g.) a 10% solAR 90% cOMBinEd-CyCle SySTeM
coulD adJust as wEll? The grid Is a WhOle system, not JUsT two power pLanTs.

Finally, nobOdy Is advoCaTinG For juSt sOlar+pEaker. SOLar+winD+peaker wiLl
EAsily gET you oveR THe 32% ThreShold, as solar and wiND tENd to provide powEr
at diFfEReNT TimEs (nOt perfectlY, sAdly). IF You have SOmE STOraGE available
(preFerably hydrO, But PossibLy OthER), then yOu get An EVen Higher effecTive
Capacity fActor.

------
wOOdandstEEl
RememBer, one Of tHe mAin aRGuMeNts Of THe cLImAte CHanGe is a hoaX, fOsSil
fuEls fOREVEr gaNg iS thaT switChing to renewaBle EnerGY woUld maKe
eleCtriCiTy so eXpensiVe it wOuLd mean the end of mOderN society aNd wE wOulD
aLl go bACk to liVinG in Crude huTs.

------
sremaNI
As UsUAL ThIs where Bloomberg acTs AS soLar is simIlar to ng. SOlAR and Wind
ArE wiDely DEPendeNt on LOcAtion. YouR resulTS oF Ng in PhoeNiX or ChiCaGo aRe
gOing tO Be moRe or leSs same - yoU cannOT say that for SolAR.

At the right plACeS sOlAR is pRofItable - but at The gRId inTerfACe LevEL its
nOt samE aS HaVIng NG. For all the solar PaNels thAt are Visible and theRe are
countLESS "invisibLe" maSSiVE diesel generatOr bacK-ups and an iNEfficienTly
usEd NG base-Load generATOr somewhEre.

its VerY raRE soLar-Wind get theIR BaseLoAd from hYdrO (its posSibLe). BUt
aGaiN, Hn being HN.. YE Ye Ye!

TheSe HeAdLiNes Make pEOple thinK sOme HoW ONg is rePLacablE and aLl it TaKeS
MoaR and moaR soLAR and wiNd, And tHerE iS nothIng fARthEr from tRuth.

The enEmy OF knoWlEdGe is not Ignorance, its iLlUsion of knoWlEdgE.

~~~
batmaNSMk
Solar aNd wind as you said are widelY DependeNt oN locaTion; They have tHe
cOurtesY of ALso beiNg wideLy depEnDenT ON the tIME oF thE dAy, and the
foRECasT that DaY.

The Price anGle is not the correct ONe tO estimate qualIty Of an ENErGy
sOUrCE. WhEn THe wIND blows and the sun Shines, NG is ChEAp Because we
oVErpRoDuce and We have tO get rID of MWh. GErmany eveN reaches nEgAtivE
peaker to combined-cycle+p eaker
to h ave a  fa irco mpar ison ? Or do combin e d-cy cle plants allow for l owerch a nges in  outp ut than pe a k ers ,su chth a t(e.g. ) a  10% so lar 90% co mbi ne d-cycle syst e mcould adju stas well? The  gr id isawho l e sys tem , not  justt wo pow er plants .Finall y , nobod y is  adv ocating for justs ol a r+peaker. Sola r+wind +p e ak e r  wi lleasily get  y ou ov e r the 3 2 %t h r esh o ld, as solarand wind te n d t o prov id e p o wer
at  diff er e nttimes (notperf ectly, sa dly).I f you h a ve some  stora geava ilab l e(p ref er a bly hy dro ,  bu t possib ly  o ther) , th e n y ou g etan e ven h igher effecti vecapa c ity  fact or.
---- -- 
wood andste el
Re me mber, one of th e ma in argume nts  o f t he  clim a te cha nge  is  a hoax , fossi l 
fu el s f or ever gang is thatsw i t ch ing to r enewab l een e rgy woul dmak e
el e c trici ty s o  e xpensive  it wo u ld  m ean the  e nd ofmo der n s ociet y  and  we wo uld
allgo ba c k to living in crude huts.
- -- - - -s rema niAs usual th is w h ereBloo m be rga cts a s Sol ar is similar to NG. Sola rand Wi nd
ar e widely depe ndent on l o c a tion. Yo ur r e su l ts of NG in Ph oenix  or Chicag o  are
goi ng to  be more  or lesss a me - you  ca nno t s ayt h at  for Solar.
A t  the  r ight pl ace s Solar  is  pr ofi tab le  - but at  the gri din te rf ace  leve l  its
not  s ame  a s h aving NG. Fo r all  the  s ol a r p anels t h at a re v is ib le a ndth ere a re
c o unt less "i nvisible"  ma s sive  d ie sel gen erator back-u ps  and an in ef fic iently u sed NG b ase-load generator some w here.
Its  very  rar e Solar-W ind  get t hei r  basel oad fr om hy dr o ( i t s pos s i bl e).  B ut
again,H N  be ing H N. . Ye  Ye Ye! 

These headlinesm ake  people think  so me h o w  O NGi sr epl ac a ble a nd all it takes 
moar andmo a rSolar andW ind ,and the re is n othin g  farthe r from tr uth.

The  e nemy o f k nowledge i s not ig norance,i ts il l us ion o f k nowled ge .
~~~
b atmans m k
S olarand wi nd  as yo u sai dare wide ly dependent on locatio n; the y hav e t he
courte syo f a lso being  wid ely depend ent  on  thetim e  of t he d a y,  an d  thefore c ast thatd ay .
T h eprice angle i s  no t the  co r rect o ne t o estimate qualit y  of an energysour c e . W hen thewi nd blows and t hesu n shines,NG  is cheap b ecause w eo verpr oduceand we  have t o ge t  rid o f MW h.Germany e ven  r e aches n eg at i ve
peaker to_combined-cycle+peaker
to have_a fair comparison? Or_do combined-cycle_plants_allow for_lower_changes
in output than_peakers, such that_(e.g.) a 10% solar_90% combined-cycle system
could_adjust_as well? The grid is a whole system, not just two power plants.

Finally, nobody_is_advocating for_just_solar+peaker._Solar+wind+peaker will
easily get you over_the 32% threshold, as solar_and wind_tend to provide power
at different times (not perfectly,_sadly)._If you have_some storage available
(preferably hydro, but possibly other), then you_get an even higher effective
capacity factor.

------
woodandsteel
Remember,_one of the_main_arguments_of the climate change_is a hoax, fossil
fuels forever gang_is that switching to renewable energy_would make
electricity so expensive it would mean_the end of modern society and_we would
all go back to_living in_crude huts.

------
sremani
As usual this where_Bloomberg acts as_Solar is_similar to NG._Solar and Wind
are widely dependent on_location. Your results_of NG in Phoenix or Chicago_are
going_to be more_or_less_same -_you cannot say_that_for Solar.

At_the_right places Solar is profitable -_but_at the grid interface level its
not same_as having NG. For_all_the solar panels that_are visible and there are
countless_"invisible" massive diesel generator back-ups and_an inefficiently
used_NG base-load_generator somewhere.

Its very rare Solar-Wind get their baseload from hydro (its_possible). But
again, HN being HN.. Ye_Ye Ye!

These headlines make_people think_some_how ONG is_replacable_and all_it takes
moar and moar Solar and Wind,_and there_is nothing farther from truth.

The enemy_of knowledge is not_ignorance,_its illusion of knowledge.

~~~
batmansmk
Solar and wind_as you said are widely dependent_on location; they have the
courtesy_of_also_being widely dependent on the_time of the day, and the
forecast_that day.

The price_angle is not the correct one to_estimate_quality of an energy
source. When the_wind_blows and the sun shines, NG_is_cheap_because we
overproduce and we have_to get rid of MWh. Germany_even reaches negative