New scientific paper: offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents

[Carolinian]

No one? Maybe you missed mine. Our energy and millions of neighbors, get free energy, at no increased cost to others (actually we reduce their cost.) You pathologically ignore this. Coo coo.

This discussion is about utilities and the vast majority of people who buy their power from utilities. Coo coo YOU.

 

[Carolinian]

Now where's your answer about the Austrian school of economics, and Ludwig von Mises? I think you're deep into that. You certainly use all the buzzwords.

At least then, people could look up this economic philosophy.

Here's a quickie synopsis: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school

Maybe I should ask whose economic philosophy you follow? Keynes? Marx?

I have heard of von MIses but never read his work. Never heard of Carl Menger at all.

I do not follow any one economic thinker, but I am generally pro-free enterprise. I had never heard of this self-styled "rationalwiki" but in reviewing it, it is clearly a highly politicized leftwing site.

I would point out to you that there are some hard core leftwingers like Michael Moore, whose documentary exposing the flaws of wind and solar I have linked. The opposition to wind and solar is hardly ideological but comes from all parts of the spectrum.

 

[Carolinian]

Massive AI centers are what's driving up the price.

Power prices skyrocketed in the countries that got into wind and solar years ago, long before there was AI or AI data centers. Think Germany and the UK. Among American states, power prices are skyrocketing the worst in states that have pushed wind and solar hard and tried to reduce conventional power sources. Think California, New Jersey, and Maryland. That is not AI. That is intermittent energy.

Because of jacking up their power prices with intermittent wind and solar, Germany and the UK now have a hard time competing in the AI space because their power is so expensive. They will likely be left behind as a result. America can lose out to China in this competition the very same way.

 

[Carolinian]

Again, not the question (you might try reading my original post -- hint: it was regarding hydro electric power generation).

Kurt

Hydroelectric dams provide scenic lakes, handy for recreation, and also a habitat for fish. They are more efficient with the land they do use compared to wind and solar because they can actually produce 90%+ of installed power, while wind and solar only manage a small fraction of that.

 

[davidvel]

This discussion is about utilities and the vast majority of people who buy their power from utilities. Coo coo YOU.

No it is is not. Actually this thread is about "offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents," but we digress. You claim solar energy increases prices, and now want to claim that we can only discuss utilities utilizing solar as a source of power. In situ solar installations are the best and most efficient generation of power that exists, unless you live in a place where people stay locked inside all winter because of the cold and lack of sun.

Those that live in solar rich places that buy their power from utilities are stupid, when they can get their power for free, and lower costs for the stupid. It is free energy. Only a low IQ person would think it is a bad idea. Your inability to comprehend this reveals your status.

 

[Brett]

.

 

[WaikikiFirst]

calling Dr Howard. Dr Fine. Dr Howard.

 

[Carolinian]

No it is is not. Actually this thread is about "offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents," but we digress. You claim solar energy increases prices, and now want to claim that we can only discuss utilities utilizing solar as a source of power. In situ solar installations are the best and most efficient generation of power that exists, unless you live in a place where people stay locked inside all winter because of the cold and lack of sun.

Those that live in solar rich places that buy their power from utilities are stupid, when they can get their power for free, and lower costs for the stupid. It is free energy. Only a low IQ person would think it is a bad idea. Your inability to comprehend this reveals your status.

Most people buy power from the utility companies. Your niche does not apply to most consumers. For utility scale power, intermittent wind and solar drive up the cost to the consumer compared to dependable dispatchable base load

 

[Brett]

 

[davidvel]

Most people buy power from the utility companies. Your niche does not apply to most consumers. For utility scale power, intermittent wind and solar drive up the cost to the consumer compared to dependable dispatchable base load

Oh no only 4-5 million homes use solar, that must make it bad. Yet you fail to refute that these people (we) all get free energy and reduce prices for those that do not. If only 500,000 used solar it still would be good. Every home with abundant sun that puts panels on their roof makes the world a better (and less expensive) place.

But you are correct in that regard that if adoption of solar in situ this increased by 10-20x it would be even better. Solar is the greatest, solar is awesome.

 

[emeryjre]

Most people buy power from the utility companies. Your niche does not apply to most consumers. For utility scale power, intermittent wind and solar drive up the cost to the consumer compared to dependable dispatchable base load

Still stated as your opinion
Never proven in your posts as a fact

 

[Carolinian]

Oh no only 4-5 million homes use solar, that must make it bad. Yet you fail to refute that these people (we) all get free energy and reduce prices for those that do not. If only 500,000 used solar it still would be good. Every home with abundant sun that puts panels on their roof makes the world a better (and less expensive) place.

But you are correct in that regard that if adoption of solar in situ this increased by 10-20x it would be even better. Solar is the greatest, solar is awesome.

At least, when you put it on your roof, you are not cutting down trees, so that is more environmentally responsible to that extent, than a solar "farm".

You are wrong about reducing prices for others because wherever solar is produced, it is still intermittent energy that must be backed up and has other system costs.

There seem to have been a number of major rooftop solar companies going out of business lately.

 

[davidvel]

At least, when you put it on your roof, you are not cutting down trees, so that is more environmentally responsible to that extent, than a solar "farm".

You are wrong about reducing prices for others because wherever solar is produced, it is still intermittent energy that must be backed up and has other system costs.

There seem to have been a number of major rooftop solar companies going out of business lately.

Correct, which is why solar is so great. 1/5th of our roof powers 100% of our needs plus we sell back to SDGE at bargain rates. Only you are talking about utilities using solar-- typical strawman that you love to argue against.

Of course it reduces prices for others, as SDGE pays us less than other sources of energy cost it (natural gas, etc.) The fact that it is intermittent is wholly irrelevant and you have failed to explain why this would increase costs. The "backup" to solar already exists, and it what you are championing. How would adding free energy into that existing mix increase costs? (hint: it can't)

Most of the companies going out of business ran some type of scam lease back, or energy bill reduction deals as opposed to outright install and sell. Either way, their going out of business has nothing to do with how great and free in situ solar is for the millions of homes that have it.

Failed again sweet Caroline.

 

[Carolinian]

Correct, which is why solar is so great. 1/5th of our roof powers 100% of our needs plus we sell back to SDGE at bargain rates. Only you are talking about utilities using solar-- typical strawman that you love to argue against.

Of course it reduces prices for others, as SDGE pays us less than other sources of energy cost it (natural gas, etc.) The fact that it is intermittent is wholly irrelevant and you have failed to explain why this would increase costs. The "backup" to solar already exists, and it what you are championing. How would adding free energy into that existing mix increase costs? (hint: it can't)

Most of the companies going out of business ran some type of scam lease back, or energy bill reduction deals as opposed to outright install and sell. Either way, their going out of business has nothing to do with how great and free in situ solar is for the millions of homes that have it.

Failed again sweet Caroline.

I have posted quite a few links explaining how the system costs of intermittent power drive the cost up above that of dispatchable base load power. Even some of Brett's links show the much more expensive cost of power of the peaker gas plants over those than run all the time. The more intermittent power, the more you need the expensive peakers. If you could put geothermal in your backyard, that would be different since that is continuous base load power that does not need backup.

 

[Carolinian]

Still stated as your opinion
Never proven in your posts as a fact

Get real. As one drives around, if these things were that common, you would see it. In fact, they are very uncommon. There was one (one) installed in a large subdivision where we have one of our rental properties, around a corner and half a block away. I was down there between two sets of tenants a few weeks after it was installed, and talked with a couple of the neighbors who were owners, and they complained that it was an eyesore since it was on the front side of the roof where everyone had to look at it. It does not impact how much rent we receive, and I do not have to look at it every morning driving out, but I could understand their frustration. One of them had even gone into the subdivision restrictive covenants to see if there was any provision to make them at least move it to the part of the roof facing the rear, but did not find anything.

 

[emeryjre]

You have shown some videos with no clear link between costs added by the intermittent nature of solar and wind and the base load
I have put up a thread about solar farms and the Hoover Dam
A good blend of the two electric sources
You ignored it
Anything that might disturb your simplistic statements is avoided

 

[davidvel]

I have posted quite a few links explaining how the system costs of intermittent power drive the cost up above that of dispatchable base load power. Even some of Brett's links show the much more expensive cost of power of the peaker gas plants over those than run all the time. The more intermittent power, the more you need the expensive peakers. If you could put geothermal in your backyard, that would be different since that is continuous base load power that does not need backup.

I never said peaker gas fired plants weren't more costly sources of energy, and am talking about in situ solar. My posts which you replied to are about adding additional in situ (free after upfront cost) solar panels to homes. Another strawman distraction by you, par 9tripe bogey) for the course.

You are championing the current (past?) system of non solar energy as the go to. That already exists, and already (mostly) supplies power to this country. I have been commenting on augmenting the current sources (not replacing as you always assume) with free solar energy production.

Stop responding to me about something I have not proposed, and try to PROVE ME WRONG. (Hint: you cannot.) Adding in situ solar to the grid in places that have abundant sun always lowers power prices. Always. Adding supply (which is free after about 3-4 years now), necessarily lowers prices. Get an economics degree and you will agree.

 

[easyrider]

Actually this thread is about "offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents," but we digress.

Sounds right to me, lol.

Bill

 

[Brett]

 

[Carolinian]

I never said peaker gas fired plants weren't more costly sources of energy, and am talking about in situ solar. My posts which you replied to are about adding additional in situ (free after upfront cost) solar panels to homes. Another strawman distraction by you, par 9tripe bogey) for the course.

You are championing the current (past?) system of non solar energy as the go to. That already exists, and already (mostly) supplies power to this country. I have been commenting on augmenting the current sources (not replacing as you always assume) with free solar energy production.

Stop responding to me about something I have not proposed, and try to PROVE ME WRONG. (Hint: you cannot.) Adding in situ solar to the grid in places that have abundant sun always lowers power prices. Always. Adding supply (which is free after about 3-4 years now), necessarily lowers prices. Get an economics degree and you will agree.

You have deflected to a niche topic. Intermittent energy is not free and its true cost is based on all the system costs, which wind / solar advocates try to ignore. I am championing dispatchable base load power sources, which are dependable, not intermittent, and not just current ones. Geothermal and fusion, both still largely or totally in development stages offer great potential. They are also NOT land intensive where they are a threat to the environment like wind and solar "farms" are.

 

[Carolinian]

Bloomberg - coal usage worldwide now the highest ever. All time high in 2025

China and India Keep Global Coal Demand Rising | OilPrice.com

Bloomberg: Global coal demand rose to an all-time high in 2025, up 0.5% y-on-y to 8,845 million tons.

oilprice.com

 

[Carolinian]

You have shown some videos with no clear link between costs added by the intermittent nature of solar and wind and the base load

Here is a good explanation of the system costs of intermittent wind and solar, starting at about the 6:00 point on the video. I have posted this before but maybe you will finally get it this time.

I have also pointed out the clear result of going hog wild on wind and solar and what it does to power prices. I have challenged you to present ANY country where building lots of wind and solar has reduced power prices, and you have failed to produce any. In the real world, countries that do that see their power prices skyrocket like Germany and the UK. Consumers, residential and business, pay a whole lot less for power in nuclear powered France and coal powered Poland than they do in wind and solar obsessed Germany and the UK. I posted an article from the Wall Street Journal on how wind and solar were sold to Europeans as reducing power costs but had actually raised them substantially to consumers, generating a backlash.

 

[Brett]

.

.

 

[emeryjre]

Here is a good explanation of the system costs of intermittent wind and solar, starting at about the 6:00 point on the video. I have posted this before but maybe you will finally get it this time.

I have also pointed out the clear result of going hog wild on wind and solar and what it does to power prices. I have challenged you to present ANY country where building lots of wind and solar has reduced power prices, and you have failed to produce any. In the real world, countries that do that see their power prices skyrocket like Germany and the UK. Consumers, residential and business, pay a whole lot less for power in nuclear powered France and coal powered Poland than they do in wind and solar obsessed Germany and the UK. I posted an article from the Wall Street Journal on how wind and solar were sold to Europeans as reducing power costs but had actually raised them substantially to consumers, generating a backlash.

Maybe after the holidays we can examine how profits go up for the utilities deploying renewables
The utilities do not pass the savings to their customers
Rate setting is avoided in all of your discussions

Have a pleasant holiday season

Back next week

 

[emeryjre]

Bloomberg - coal usage worldwide now the highest ever. All time high in 2025

China and India Keep Global Coal Demand Rising | OilPrice.com

Bloomberg: Global coal demand rose to an all-time high in 2025, up 0.5% y-on-y to 8,845 million tons.

oilprice.com

Compare Natural Gas Reserves in US to China and India
They have Coal
The US has both
Natural Gas is easier and cheaper for us
They do not have the choices we have
They have around 3 Billion citizens
We have far less