Denmark just generated 140% of its electricity demand from wind power

Originally posted by humy
Nope

YEP!
From the link below:

"Transmission costs can’t be ignored. Another cost of renewable energy like solar and wind is that the source of power is located far away from where most people live, in the desert, the mountains, or off-shore. That ties new energy capacity with building new transmission lines, and new transmission lines are not only expensive, but people who live near the proposed location — understandably — oppose new lines, as do environmental groups who worry about the potential effects on local wildlife. Whether or not the oppositions’ concerns outweigh the need for the transmission lines, the process of working it out adds cost, on top of the significant cost to build the lines."

http://burnanenergyjournal.com/what-is-the-cheapest-source-of-energy/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]Another cost of renewable energy like solar and wind is that the source of power is located far away from where most people live, in the desert, the mountains, or off-shore. /b]

That is one of the main points of a supergrid, moron; transmitting electricity generated from renewables efficiently with low losses over long distances from where it is produced to where the demand is; the cost of making the supergrid paying for itself in the long run only in small part because of that although it would also pay for itself in other ways such as reducing the need for off-the-grid energy storage, which also costs money.

Transmission costs can’t be ignored.

...And the costs of having no transmission cannot be ignored.
The costs of having sufficient transmission infrastructure for renewables pays for itself in the long run.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually here in Africa there is still lots of potential for more hydroelectric power.
I don't know much about Poland, but I would guess that a similar mix to Germany would probably work well.

A similar mix to Germany... that would be loads of brown coal, then?

Originally posted by humy
can't you read? I never said/implied we can go all renewable with wind alone. I said renewables, NOT wind.

Then how is this proof of anything?

Don't get me wrong, I think we should use renewable sources of energy whereever possible. But the mindless enthusiasm of green energy advocates ticks me off. If you want to convince people of the viability of your position, learn not to come up with wildly exaggerated statistics and stop ignoring practicalities.

And once you do that, maybe then, not before, will you have a chance to build this "super-grid" you think will magically put the coal back into the earth.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Then how is this proof of anything?

If Denmark can achieve that with wind alone (albeit on a very good day) then surely 100% renewables is possible. I think it is very strong evidence if not proof.

...learn not to come up with wildly exaggerated statistics and stop ignoring practicalities.
Has anyone done so in this thread? If so, point it out.

And once you do that, maybe then, not before, will you have a chance to build this "super-grid" you think will magically put the coal back into the earth.
A super-grid wont magically put the coal back into the earth, and nobody has suggested it would. A rather odd sort of statement from someone who just got through telling others not to exaggerate.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
...learn not to come up with wildly exaggerated statistics ...

What are you talking about?
Exactly WHAT "wildly exaggerated statistics" did I give and exactly where and with what exact quote? ...

Originally posted by humy
That is one of the main points of a supergrid, moron; transmitting electricity generated from renewables efficiently with low losses over long distances from where it is produced to where the demand is; the cost of making the supergrid paying for itself in the long run only in small part because of that although it would also pay for itself in other ways such a ...[text shortened]... of having sufficient transmission infrastructure for renewables pays for itself in the long run.

"the cost of making the supergrid paying for itself in the long run only in small part because of that although it would also pay for itself in other ways such as reducing the need for off-the-grid energy storage, which also costs money."

You keep making that claim, BUT NEVER SUPPORT IT BY SHOWING IT IS COST EFFECTIVE. That is the issue here. If you cannot show that you are the moron. I have presented links with articles that contradict your claims of it paying for itself and all you do is say I'm wrong with no proof at all. You are just a joke at this point. You have nothing to support your claim. Why should anyone believe you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"the cost of making the supergrid paying for itself in the long run only in small part because of that although it would also pay for itself in other ways such as reducing the need for off-the-grid energy storage, which also costs money."

You keep making that claim, BUT NEVER SUPPORT IT BY SHOWING IT IS COST EFFECTIVE. That is the issue here. If you c ...[text shortened]... ust a joke at this point. You have nothing to support your claim. Why should anyone believe you?

I have already repeatedly clearly explained how a supergrid would pay for itself in the long run but, apparently, you cannot read. One way is by reducing losses in transmission (esp over very long distances although it would, of course, also help a bit over even the shorter distances ) . Another way is by reducing the need for off-the-grid energy storage when we go all renewable. This is because off-the-grid energy storage will not only cost money but has its own losses via discharge and recharge.
It is just a matter of logic that this would mean the setup costs of a supergrid would eventually pay for itself (it is just a matter of how long ) so the default assumption should be it will pay for itself eventually until if or when we have a valid reason to think otherwise.
Can you explain how these two reasons alone ( reduced losses of transmission + less off-the-grid storage ) would not mean the setup costs of a supergrid will ever pay for itself? If so, show us your argument for that please...

Originally posted by humy
I have already repeatedly clearly explained how a supergrid would pay for itself in the long run but, apparently, you cannot read. One way is by reducing losses in transmission (esp over very long distances although it would, of course, also help a bit over even the shorter distances ) . Another way is by reducing the need for off-the-grid energy storage when w ...[text shortened]... p costs of a supergrid will ever pay for itself? If so, show us your argument for that please...

In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim. That is what I thought.
Stop making false claims. Just because you want it to be reality does not mean it is reality.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim. That is what I thought.
Stop making false claims. Just because you want it to be reality does not mean it is reality.

Wind can be cost effective. It seems floating the generators high in the air, like helium filled contraptions with wind generators a few thousand feet in the air and you get nearly 24/7 wind and a lot more of it so a lot more per device.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim. .

Logical deduction doesn't need anything to back it up, moron. It merely needs to be valid.
Its just a matter of LOGIC, something you are too dense to get. The only valid way you can counterague that is by either show a logical flaw in the deduction (inference ) or show one of its premises to be false, neither of which you have done.
You still haven't answered my question, and we all know why.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wind can be cost effective. It seems floating the generators high in the air, like helium filled contraptions with wind generators a few thousand feet in the air and you get nearly 24/7 wind and a lot more of it so a lot more per device.

I like the various kite designs (they don't need helium).

See Google's version here:
http://www.google.com/makani/

Originally posted by twhitehead
If Denmark can achieve that with wind alone (albeit on a very good day) then surely 100% renewables is possible. I think it is very strong evidence if not proof.

No, it's a single statistic. It's a hopeful data point, nothing more. The exaggeration is in turning this one day into a general statement. It's the most positive wind-energy day ever of probably the single most wind-energy-friendly country on this planet. Extrapolating from that for the whole planet, on every day, for all different kinds of renewable energy, is so statistically unreliable that it amounts to cloud-castle building and evangelism.

Don't get me wrong, I, too, think we should use more renewable energy, if possible all of it. But for that to happen we need solid, scientifically and economically sound plans, not happy-clappy press releases.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No, it's a single statistic. It's a hopeful data point, nothing more.

You may interpret it that way, I don't.

The exaggeration is in turning this one day into a general statement.
Except he didn't did he? I certainly don't see how you justify your statement: "come up with wildly exaggerated statistics" from that. What 'wildly exaggerated statistics' did he come up with? the one day statistic is factual and not exaggerated in any way, nor is it claimed to be anything other than a one day thing.

It's the most positive wind-energy day ever of probably the single most wind-energy-friendly country on this planet. Extrapolating from that for the whole planet, on every day, for all different kinds of renewable energy, is so statistically unreliable that it amounts to cloud-castle building and evangelism.
I still don't think your statement "come up with wildly exaggerated statistics" fits in any way.

Don't get me wrong, I, too, think we should use more renewable energy, if possible all of it. But for that to happen we need solid, scientifically and economically sound plans, not happy-clappy press releases.
I agree. We also don't need people making false accusations of concocting statistics when no such thing was actually done.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wind can be cost effective. It seems floating the generators high in the air, like helium filled contraptions with wind generators a few thousand feet in the air and you get nearly 24/7 wind and a lot more of it so a lot more per device.

Remember lightning?