Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

Not even a Brit...

[georgios100]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

In the contrary, the Americans are accomplishing promising results with wind power which is now cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw.

Conclusion.
The Americans are a success story while the Brits are a failure when dealing with wind power.
Brits should get out of the wind power business, go back to coal/diesel/nuclear and burn themselves to extinction.

End of story.

It is amazing that you can quote an (obviously biased) Wiki article as unarguable FACT while anything that disagrees with your point of view is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'.

It is the same with Global Warming - anybody that disagrees with them is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'...

Check back to the video that sotos posted and see how to lose money on wind in the 'States... or is he a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'?

Oh, and again and again you claim that wind power is 'cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw' but ignore the vast amount of cheap gas coming on stream...?

I never claimed wind is cheaper than coal. Read carefully what I posted:

A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association stated, "Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity.
Source = Wiki.
Are you saying the American Wind Energy Association is a liar?
You believe Wiki is bias... you won't get much support there!

Your links are questionable and none of them is an official source.
Better get real facts to support your argument... so far you are loosing, big time!

[cyprusgrump]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

In the contrary, the Americans are accomplishing promising results with wind power which is now cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw.

Conclusion.
The Americans are a success story while the Brits are a failure when dealing with wind power.
Brits should get out of the wind power business, go back to coal/diesel/nuclear and burn themselves to extinction.

End of story.

It is amazing that you can quote an (obviously biased) Wiki article as unarguable FACT while anything that disagrees with your point of view is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'.

It is the same with Global Warming - anybody that disagrees with them is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'...

Check back to the video that sotos posted and see how to lose money on wind in the 'States... or is he a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'?

Oh, and again and again you claim that wind power is 'cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw' but ignore the vast amount of cheap gas coming on stream...?

I never claimed wind is cheaper than coal. Read carefully what I posted:

A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association stated, "Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity.
Source = Wiki.
Are you saying the American Wind Energy Association is a liar?
You believe Wiki is bias... you won't get much support there!

Your links are questionable and none of them is an official source.
Better get real facts to support your argument... so far you are loosing, big time!

Oh georgios, you cannot be serious????

You think everything on Wiki is absolutely true and there is no bias, obfuscation or downright lies on there whatsoever???

And according to you, a report from The American Wind Energy Association - An organisation which is clearly biased towards wind (the hint is in their title) - is essentially an 'official' source whereas anything anybody else quotes is 'questionable'???

Um, let me think... that doesn't seem (to me anyway) to be an entirely balanced view....

And what is this bit about coal? I did read what you said and you have repeated it above. You claim that wind generation is cheaper than coal generation.

I merely questioned (but you have avoided answering) how gas compares to coal and wind...?

I.e. on a level playing field (without extra 'carbon' taxes'), how much is wind, how much is coal and how much is gas...?

Because according to the video that sotos posted, gas is cheaper than wind and makes it pointless....

But then I don't doubt for a second that he is not an 'official source' - unlike The American Wind Energy Association.

[CBBB]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

In the contrary, the Americans are accomplishing promising results with wind power which is now cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw.

Conclusion.
The Americans are a success story while the Brits are a failure when dealing with wind power.
Brits should get out of the wind power business, go back to coal/diesel/nuclear and burn themselves to extinction.

End of story.

It is amazing that you can quote an (obviously biased) Wiki article as unarguable FACT while anything that disagrees with your point of view is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'.

It is the same with Global Warming - anybody that disagrees with them is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'...

Check back to the video that sotos posted and see how to lose money on wind in the 'States... or is he a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'?

Oh, and again and again you claim that wind power is 'cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw' but ignore the vast amount of cheap gas coming on stream...?

I never claimed wind is cheaper than coal. Read carefully what I posted:

A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association stated, "Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity.
Source = Wiki.
Are you saying the American Wind Energy Association is a liar?
You believe Wiki is bias... you won't get much support there!

Your links are questionable and none of them is an official source.
Better get real facts to support your argument... so far you are loosing, big time!

Oh georgios, you cannot be serious????

You think everything on Wiki is absolutely true and there is no bias, obfuscation or downright lies on there whatsoever???

And according to you, a report from The American Wind Energy Association - An organisation which is clearly biased towards wind (the hint is in their title) - is essentially an 'official' source whereas anything anybody else quotes is 'questionable'???

Um, let me think... that doesn't seem (to me anyway) to be an entirely balanced view....

And what is this bit about coal? I did read what you said and you have repeated it above. You claim that wind generation is cheaper than coal generation.

I merely questioned (but you have avoided answering) how gas compares to coal and wind...?

I.e. on a level playing field (without extra 'carbon' taxes'), how much is wind, how much is coal and how much is gas...?

Because according to the video that sotos posted, gas is cheaper than wind and makes it pointless....

But then I don't doubt for a second that he is not an 'official source' - unlike The American Wind Energy Association.

Reh Grump, enough of the Don Quixote complex, stop tilting at windmills!

[cyprusgrump]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

In the contrary, the Americans are accomplishing promising results with wind power which is now cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw.

Conclusion.
The Americans are a success story while the Brits are a failure when dealing with wind power.
Brits should get out of the wind power business, go back to coal/diesel/nuclear and burn themselves to extinction.

End of story.

It is amazing that you can quote an (obviously biased) Wiki article as unarguable FACT while anything that disagrees with your point of view is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'.

It is the same with Global Warming - anybody that disagrees with them is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'...

Check back to the video that sotos posted and see how to lose money on wind in the 'States... or is he a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'?

Oh, and again and again you claim that wind power is 'cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw' but ignore the vast amount of cheap gas coming on stream...?

I never claimed wind is cheaper than coal. Read carefully what I posted:

A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association stated, "Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity.
Source = Wiki.
Are you saying the American Wind Energy Association is a liar?
You believe Wiki is bias... you won't get much support there!

Your links are questionable and none of them is an official source.
Better get real facts to support your argument... so far you are loosing, big time!

Oh georgios, you cannot be serious????

You think everything on Wiki is absolutely true and there is no bias, obfuscation or downright lies on there whatsoever???

And according to you, a report from The American Wind Energy Association - An organisation which is clearly biased towards wind (the hint is in their title) - is essentially an 'official' source whereas anything anybody else quotes is 'questionable'???

Um, let me think... that doesn't seem (to me anyway) to be an entirely balanced view....

And what is this bit about coal? I did read what you said and you have repeated it above. You claim that wind generation is cheaper than coal generation.

I merely questioned (but you have avoided answering) how gas compares to coal and wind...?

I.e. on a level playing field (without extra 'carbon' taxes'), how much is wind, how much is coal and how much is gas...?

Because according to the video that sotos posted, gas is cheaper than wind and makes it pointless....

But then I don't doubt for a second that he is not an 'official source' - unlike The American Wind Energy Association.

Reh Grump, enough of the Don Quixote complex, stop tilting at windmills!

[cyprusgrump]

Electricity Declines 50% as Shale Spurs Natural Gas Glut

A shale-driven glut of natural gas has cut electricity prices for the U.S. power industry by 50 percent and reduced investment in costlier sources of energy.

With abundant new supplies of gas making it the cheapest option for new power generation, the largest U.S. wind-energy producer, NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE), has shelved plans for new U.S. wind projects next year and Exelon Corp. (EXC) called off plans to expand two nuclear plants. Michigan utility CMS Energy Corp. (CMS) canceled a $2 billion coal plant after deciding it wasn’t financially viable in a time of “low natural-gas prices linked to expanded shale-gas supplies,” according to a company statement.

Investors also are cooling on wind investment because of falling power prices, a lack of transmission infrastructure and the possibility that federal subsidies may expire next year. T. Boone Pickens, one of wind power’s biggest boosters, decided to focus on promoting gas-fueled trucking fleets after canceling plans for a Texas wind farm in 2010.

Oh dear...

[CBBB]

Electricity Declines 50% as Shale Spurs Natural Gas Glut

A shale-driven glut of natural gas has cut electricity prices for the U.S. power industry by 50 percent and reduced investment in costlier sources of energy.

With abundant new supplies of gas making it the cheapest option for new power generation, the largest U.S. wind-energy producer, NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE), has shelved plans for new U.S. wind projects next year and Exelon Corp. (EXC) called off plans to expand two nuclear plants. Michigan utility CMS Energy Corp. (CMS) canceled a $2 billion coal plant after deciding it wasn’t financially viable in a time of “low natural-gas prices linked to expanded shale-gas supplies,” according to a company statement.

Investors also are cooling on wind investment because of falling power prices, a lack of transmission infrastructure and the possibility that federal subsidies may expire next year. T. Boone Pickens, one of wind power’s biggest boosters, decided to focus on promoting gas-fueled trucking fleets after canceling plans for a Texas wind farm in 2010.

Oh dear...

Are you sure that Bloomberg is a credible source, it sounds Jewish to me?

[cyprusgrump]

Electricity Declines 50% as Shale Spurs Natural Gas Glut

A shale-driven glut of natural gas has cut electricity prices for the U.S. power industry by 50 percent and reduced investment in costlier sources of energy.

With abundant new supplies of gas making it the cheapest option for new power generation, the largest U.S. wind-energy producer, NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE), has shelved plans for new U.S. wind projects next year and Exelon Corp. (EXC) called off plans to expand two nuclear plants. Michigan utility CMS Energy Corp. (CMS) canceled a $2 billion coal plant after deciding it wasn’t financially viable in a time of “low natural-gas prices linked to expanded shale-gas supplies,” according to a company statement.

Investors also are cooling on wind investment because of falling power prices, a lack of transmission infrastructure and the possibility that federal subsidies may expire next year. T. Boone Pickens, one of wind power’s biggest boosters, decided to focus on promoting gas-fueled trucking fleets after canceling plans for a Texas wind farm in 2010.

Oh dear...

Are you sure that Bloomberg is a credible source, it sounds Jewish to me?

No, I expect it is biased - unlike The American Wind Energy Association of course!

[kurupetos]

Electricity Declines 50% as Shale Spurs Natural Gas Glut

A shale-driven glut of natural gas has cut electricity prices for the U.S. power industry by 50 percent and reduced investment in costlier sources of energy.

With abundant new supplies of gas making it the cheapest option for new power generation, the largest U.S. wind-energy producer, NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE), has shelved plans for new U.S. wind projects next year and Exelon Corp. (EXC) called off plans to expand two nuclear plants. Michigan utility CMS Energy Corp. (CMS) canceled a $2 billion coal plant after deciding it wasn’t financially viable in a time of “low natural-gas prices linked to expanded shale-gas supplies,” according to a company statement.

Investors also are cooling on wind investment because of falling power prices, a lack of transmission infrastructure and the possibility that federal subsidies may expire next year. T. Boone Pickens, one of wind power’s biggest boosters, decided to focus on promoting gas-fueled trucking fleets after canceling plans for a Texas wind farm in 2010.

Oh dear...

Are you sure that Bloomberg is a credible source, it sounds Jewish to me?

Michael Bloomberg is definitely a Jew.

[georgios100]

Don't know if natural gas is cheaper than wind.

All I know is that a combination of all sources of power production, including wind, solar etc is required to satisfy our increasing demand for energy.

You guys don't get. The existing grid is a blend of various plants using all kinds of fuel for their prime movers.
It's a party of power plants like nuclear, coal, natural gas, diesel, wind, solar and so on. The more the merrier.
Some cost more, some cost less. Plants occasionally are turned off for maintenance or retrofitting.

Still, all of the above is not enough, We need more of them.
We don't have the luxury to exclude some of them because Grump does not like them!

I rest my case