Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

[Dr. Keith]

Actually, the small turbine design is not a tremendous problem, they just require a bit more engineering than ICEs and we've never really mass-produced small gas-turbine generators. I'm sure it could be done, but until there is a reasonable expectation that such a project is going to be funded, it isn't going to move much beyond proof-of-concept displays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75

Good catch!

I also saw that Mazda is looking to use the Wankel as a range extender. Apparently it is very efficient in a small range of operation, even though it proved not so efficient as a primary engine. If that is true it would address the note problems of reciprocating masses while not requiring quite the same level of engineering that turbines do.

 

[Trakar]

Good catch!

I also saw that Mazda is looking to use the Wankel as a range extender. Apparently it is very efficient in a small range of operation, even though it proved not so efficient as a primary engine. If that is true it would address the note problems of reciprocating masses while not requiring quite the same level of engineering that turbines do.

http://www.bladonjets.com/technology/gas-turbines/

A lot of the preliminary work is done, it is the mass-production systems that need development and refinement.

I do like Wankel designs (had an RX-8 for a while that was a lot of fun) and it the design was also used in the Moller skycar system, I believe.

 

[Dr. Keith]

http://www.bladonjets.com/technology/gas-turbines/

A lot of the preliminary work is done, it is the mass-production systems that need development and refinement.

Ian Callum says "We're developing the turbines for a possible range extending concept, but no sign of them yet."

So even Jaguar is still tinkering with them.

I do like Wankel designs (had an RX-8 for a while that was a lot of fun) and it the design was also used in the Moller skycar system, I believe.

Thinking of picking up a used RX-8, but I doubt I will. Love the idea, love the look, love the performance, hate the insurance!

 

[wobs]

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
.
Grid stability.


http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/

Key word is "ultimately" and "might"

You are over simplifying the problem by not taking into account grid issues and the need for a stable and controllable supply of electricity.

Grid managers have to be able to match power to demand.Short sentence...very large implications.

Storage continues to be an issue, and it never ceases to amaze me that people continue ignore this issue.

The April 2011 issue of ENDs has an article about storage in the UK. Bascially, it says there is no viable method here.

By 2020, the UK will need up to 8GW of reserve if it is to meet its renewable targets. We currently have about 3.5GW, and 15% of that is pumped storage (the rest in gas etc.)

A 2009 study makes the claim that by 2020, there will be wholesale prices of electricity will be zero in the UK (as Denmark has seen), and spikes of £1300/MWh due to sudden shortages each spike occuring several times per year. But by 2030, there will actually be negative prices and short spikes of up to £8000/MWh!

Despite this, it is not felt that storage will play a part owing to the high cost, and capabilities. The technology just isn't there yet, and we cannot assume that a technology will be viable in X number of years.

Even if it was, the only system really up to task is pumped hydro. But with huge capital costs, it is difficult to justify, when additional interconnections are being installed to Ireland, Norway, and France. So we will be importing energy from countries with wind, nuclear and hydro - Bit of an issue on dark windless nights mid-winter.

And with grid connections costing say £15000, then a storage system isn't going to get a look in on most domestic properties. The alternative to is constrain output of new wind farms, which is what National Grid has done for a few (and paid them to do so). The only place they might have a market is on a local level, where small scale renewables require local grid balancing, but this will not solve the problems of time (see below), and cost. It will only mean that in those places, it will be worth the hit.

The other argument against storage is the limited time it can run for. On a national scale, you want that power there 24/7, and the longer the storage can run for, the higher the cost. I read that desert based solar thermal plants with molten salt storage is only viable for up to 18hrs, before the costs really start to escalate.

The following numbers, I have taken from the April 2011 ENDs article regarding the different storage technologies:

Hydrogen
There have been many false dawns, such as hydrogen. Wind Hydrogen was meant to build a 5MW scheme alongside a 48MW wind farm, but was shelved, and the company concentrated on oil exploration.

In 2000, plans for a 15MW/120MWh battery at RWE's plant in Bedfordshire ran into technical difficulties and was shelved indefinitely.
Off-peak electricity is used to electrolyse water to produce hydrogen. This can be converted back to electricity using a fuel cell.
Power rating in theory: 5kw-5MW
Capacity: 1-10MW
Capital cost: £1000-2000/kW
Electricity cost: £5000-26000/kWh
Efficiency: 40%
Status: Small scale plants

There are systems in place though, but most are small scale, such as:

Cryogenic energy storage
A CHP plant in Slough has a 300kw/4MWh system, which uses off-peak electricity to liquefy nitrogen. When demand increases, it gets turned into high pressure gas to drive a turbine.
Power rating in theory: 500kw-10MW
Capacity: 10-100MW
Capital cost: £500-700/kW
Electricity cost: £500-700/kWh
Efficiency: 40-50%
Status: Demonstration units

Flow batteries
The electrolyte is stored in tanks rather than cells, so the capacity of the battery can be easily increased, and do not lose efficiency after repeated discharges.
Power rating in theory: 5kw-4MW
Capacity: 1-10MWh
Capital cost: £1000+/kW
Electricity cost: £470-1125/kWh
Efficiency: 80-90%
Status: Immature

Lithium Batteries
Expensive, and lithium supplies are an issue long term. Although there are a lot of research going on with these.
Power rating in theory: 0-100kW
Capacity: 1-10MWh
Capital cost: £1000-3000/kW
Electricity cost: £130-220/kWh
Efficiency: 99%
Status: Mature

Sodium-sulphur
Power rating in theory: 50kw-34MW
Capacity: 1-34MWh
Capital cost: £1000-2000/kW
Electricity cost: £150/kWh
Efficiency: 80-90%
Status: MW scale example

Compressed air
There are a few plants in Europe, but only a few 100MWs
Power rating in theory: 5MW-300MW
Capacity: 100-1000MWh
Capital cost: £500-600/kW
Electricity cost: £350/kWh
Efficiency: 50-79%
Status: Mature

Pumped Hydro
The last and biggest (Dinorwig - 1.8GW) opened in 1984. No one has felt the need for one since in the UK. Although Norway has 20GW of potential capacity, and with them exporting to the UK and the rest of Europe, they look set to profit from it even more.
Power rating in theory: 100MW-5GW
Capacity: 1000+MWh
Capital cost: £500-2000/kW
Electricity cost: £310-380/kWh
Efficiency: 70-79%
Status: Mature

Heat Storage
Off peak electricity stored in gravel tanks. A heat pump uses mechanical energy to heat up the gravel in on tank, and with compressed gas, cool the other as the gas expands. When electricity demand is there, the difference is used to run a heat pump in reverse creating mechanical energy and driving a turbine. Europe has some similar plants to heat housing during winter.
Power rating in theory: 2MW
Capacity: 16MWh
Capital cost: £354/kW
Electricity cost: £78/kWh
Efficiency: 72-80%
Status: Pilots due in 2014

Flywheel
Up to 16000 revolutions per minute, a flywheel is installed in New York State that can deliver 20MW in 15 minutes. It is just a trial.

http://www.endsreport.com/

 

[aleCcowaN]

The following numbers, I have taken from the April 2011 ENDs article regarding the different storage technologies:

http://www.endsreport.com/

Do you have a link to the actual article? There's something wrong there

Electricity cost: £130-220/kWh (for lithium batteries)

Do you/the article mean "electricity cost of storage (charge-discharge cycle): £130-220/MWh". That makes more sense with the actual performance of those batteries.

My figures came lower for this, and there's a window of opportunity with second hand electric car batteries (some time ago I was analysing different designs for my "new" home, but my figures can't currently be expressed in euros because we have a dozen different exchange rates, high inflation and such "new" home will have to wait 2 or 3 year until the local economic turmoil is presumably over).

Pumped hydro looks also bad as it's highly dependent of design and it should be estimated case by case. I'm failing to find the English term for dique compensador, literally "compensating dam", a dam with a reservoir that buffers the discharge of an up-stream dam and allows to level the flow of the river or uncouple the flow pattern for peak-hour generation from the flow pattern needed for irrigation. On this angle we have a whole selection of projects over existing hydroelectric plants with very good figures. The top of it would be the construction of Corpus Dam -which would rank today as the 13th largest power station- forming a continuous chain of reservoirs together with Itaipú Dam -currently the second largest- and Yaciretá Dam -currently 21st-. In such case we'd got more than 1 kwh in peak hour for each 2kwh of nuclear or windpower lacking timely demand, plus the capital cost of the pumping stations.

 

[Trakar]

Do you have a link to the actual article? There's something wrong there

Electricity cost: £130-220/kWh (for lithium batteries)

Do you/the article mean "electricity cost of storage (charge-discharge cycle): £130-220/MWh". That makes more sense with the actual performance of those batteries.

My figures came lower for this, and there's a window of opportunity with second hand electric car batteries (some time ago I was analysing different designs for my "new" home, but my figures can't currently be expressed in euros because we have a dozen different exchange rates, high inflation and such "new" home will have to wait 2 or 3 year until the local economic turmoil is presumably over).

Pumped hydro looks also bad as it's highly dependent of design and it should be estimated case by case. I'm failing to find the English term for dique compensador, literally "compensating dam", a dam with a reservoir that buffers the discharge of an up-stream dam and allows to level the flow of the river or uncouple the flow pattern for peak-hour generation from the flow pattern needed for irrigation. On this angle we have a whole selection of projects over existing hydroelectric plants with very good figures. The top of it would be the construction of Corpus Dam -which would rank today as the 13th largest power station- forming a continuous chain of reservoirs together with Itaipú Dam -currently the second largest- and Yaciretá Dam -currently 21st-. In such case we'd got more than 1 kwh in peak hour for each 2kwh of nuclear or windpower lacking timely demand, plus the capital cost of the pumping stations.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...e-on-to-add-300mw-pumped-hydro-energy-storage

Provides a bit more detail to one method that is used on existing Hydro-storage projects.

Not sure I'm understanding what your objection is to hydro-storage systems, but they are in fairly widespread application (list of global operating systems and links to the specific plants) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

EDIT,...Ah! I think I see my misunderstanding,...never mind. I thought I'd leave my reference articles up for others, but I see now, how I misunderstood your comments.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Good catch!

I also saw that Mazda is looking to use the Wankel as a range extender. Apparently it is very efficient in a small range of operation, even though it proved not so efficient as a primary engine. If that is true it would address the note problems of reciprocating masses while not requiring quite the same level of engineering that turbines do.

The absolute worst thing you can do with an internal combustion engine is run it at variable speeds and loads. Yank an engine out of a car after 90,000 miles and put it to work pumping water or electrons at continuous load and it'll last nearly forever, but would be ready for the rebuild bench "any minute now" in a car. Wankel engines' biggest flaws would be negated by putting a constant load on them. I'd love to see this in practice. Also, the shorter case of a Wankel would couple nicely with a generator in an engine compartment.

 

[wobs]

Do you have a link to the actual article? There's something wrong there

Electricity cost: £130-220/kWh (for lithium batteries)

Do you/the article mean "electricity cost of storage (charge-discharge cycle): £130-220/MWh". That makes more sense with the actual performance of those batteries.

I'm afraid the article is behind a paywall. I had the actual article on my desk. It still might be, but my "unique filing system", means it will take a while to check.

A quick google shows that lithium in hybrid cars give even higher costs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery

Ranging from 400 to 1000$/kWh (244 to 610£/kWh)
Lithium isn't cheap.

I guess a large single application such as grid backup would bring the cost down below what a hybrid car would cost, but not that much, so I guess the original is in the right ball park.

My figures came lower for this, and there's a window of opportunity with second hand electric car batteries (some time ago I was analysing different designs for my "new" home, but my figures can't currently be expressed in euros because we have a dozen different exchange rates, high inflation and such "new" home will have to wait 2 or 3 year until the local economic turmoil is presumably over).

Do second hand car batteries not require some work to overcome some degredation?

Pumped hydro looks also bad as it's highly dependent of design and it should be estimated case by case. I'm failing to find the English term for dique compensador, literally "compensating dam", a dam with a reservoir that buffers the discharge of an up-stream dam and allows to level the flow of the river or uncouple the flow pattern for peak-hour generation from the flow pattern needed for irrigation. On this angle we have a whole selection of projects over existing hydroelectric plants with very good figures. The top of it would be the construction of Corpus Dam -which would rank today as the 13th largest power station- forming a continuous chain of reservoirs together with Itaipú Dam -currently the second largest- and Yaciretá Dam -currently 21st-. In such case we'd got more than 1 kwh in peak hour for each 2kwh of nuclear or windpower lacking timely demand, plus the capital cost of the pumping stations.

Here in the UK there is little scope for new such reservoirs. Lancashire has a series of dams which buffer water supplies between each reservoir, but pump storage such the underground one at Dinorwig is a unique project. One can build others, but as you say is a case by case issue, meaning they lack repeatablility of design, which can drive down cost (which nuclear benefits from). Each pump storage plant will be unique, and be expensive.

So basically, the UK is limited for energy storage ATM. Future innovations may bring new opportunities, but not in the foreseeable future that we can plan for.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm afraid the article is behind a paywall. I had the actual article on my desk. It still might be, but my "unique filing system", means it will take a while to check.

A quick google shows that lithium in hybrid cars give even higher costs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery

Ranging from 400 to 1000$/kWh (244 to 610£/kWh)
Lithium isn't cheap.

I guess a large single application such as grid backup would bring the cost down below what a hybrid car would cost, but not that much, so I guess the original is in the right ball park.

There's still some bit of a problem there. Either I or you have a problem with the data you compiled. You wrote (summarizing the article):

Capital cost: £1000-3000/kW (OK with that)

Electricity cost: £130-220/kWh ---> the price of an air conditioner matches three hours of the electricity used to run it!!! Please, explain that.

What would be that "electricity cost" then? I'm sure we're not speaking of lithium batteries as a one-use energy source here.

Do second hand car batteries not require some work to overcome some degredation?

I meant car lithium batteries are replaced after many incomplete charge-discharge cycles when their capacity drop to 80%-70%-60%-50% (delete as applicable) but they still can stand many more cycles -with decreasing capacity- without any refitting. A typical 30 Kw-h car battery can become a nightmare when its capacity drops to 60% but in the context of a household -a rural one- were more than one can be safely placed without any expensive shelter to be built, we can still "juice" them a few years more for night-day cycles using solar panels.

In a third-worldly make do and mend mentality I envision acquiring in Norway or Japan car batteries no longer fitting for use in cars, which I suppose they'd like to get rid cheaply as if it was nuclear waste, and using them to level solar. At least, that is the idea I've got in mind to pursue in the -near?- future with some friends, on a hobbyist base.

Here in the UK there is little scope for new such reservoirs. Lancashire has a series of dams which buffer water supplies between each reservoir, but pump storage such the underground one at Dinorwig is a unique project. One can build others, but as you say is a case by case issue, meaning they lack repeatablility of design, which can drive down cost (which nuclear benefits from). Each pump storage plant will be unique, and be expensive.

So basically, the UK is limited for energy storage ATM. Future innovations may bring new opportunities, but not in the foreseeable future that we can plan for.

I see. From the links provided I found some very expensive reservoirs and power plants are build in nations that can afford to be inefficient -but some of them can't afford life incarceration without parole and resort to death penalty-. Because, you know, if renewable is good, you have to do it where is not efficient in order to keep it inefficient -excuse the tautology-. That's why Inga III (or III-IV, or III-IV-V) will be never built, as it matches thousand and thousand of inefficient billionaire projects worldwide.

 

[macdoc]

These are the "culprits" to be focused on to get carbon emissions down

The seven deadly sinners driving global warming

15 January 2014 by Kate Ravilious

snip

Dividing each country's climate contribution by its population, arguably a fairer measure, gives a different picture. When calculated this way, the top seven positions are held by richer nations, and China and India drop to 19th and 20th, respectively.

Whichever way you cut it, some countries always come out on top, but not everyone thinks this makes them automatically responsible. "Is it fair to blame the UK for what it did in 1850?" asks Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environment Research in Oslo, Norway.

Dirty coal was the only option in 1850, but poor countries today have access to clean technologies like solar. "Emerging economies benefit from efficient technologies that weren't available to developed countries during their industrial revolution," says Michel den Elzen from PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in The Hague.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ners-driving-global-warming.html#.UtgOMXlfVe8

 

[Dr. Keith]

The absolute worst thing you can do with an internal combustion engine is run it at variable speeds and loads. Yank an engine out of a car after 90,000 miles and put it to work pumping water or electrons at continuous load and it'll last nearly forever, but would be ready for the rebuild bench "any minute now" in a car. Wankel engines' biggest flaws would be negated by putting a constant load on them. I'd love to see this in practice. Also, the shorter case of a Wankel would couple nicely with a generator in an engine compartment.

Indeed, it is a marvelously compact little engine just looking for the right application. I hope this will be the future of that little odd-ball.

I meant car lithium batteries are replaced after many incomplete charge-discharge cycles when their capacity drop to 80%-70%-60%-50% (delete as applicable) but they still can stand many more cycles -with decreasing capacity- without any refitting. A typical 30 Kw-h car battery can become a nightmare when its capacity drops to 60% but in the context of a household -a rural one- were more than one can be safely placed without any expensive shelter to be built, we can still "juice" them a few years more for night-day cycles using solar panels.

In a third-worldly make do and mend mentality I envision acquiring in Norway or Japan car batteries no longer fitting for use in cars, which I suppose they'd like to get rid cheaply as if it was nuclear waste, and using them to level solar. At least, that is the idea I've got in mind to pursue in the -near?- future with some friends, on a hobbyist base.

That is a very good idea and you will likely have some competition. I know the people who operate expensive uninterrupted power supplies, such as those for cell towers or isolated servers, often swap their lead acid batteries when they lose a certain amount of capacity. Many a cheap electric car conversion is running around on such retired batteries. Hobbyist are awesome at preventing waste!

 

[Belz...]

I really have no idea what you two think you're arguing with here. Do you agree that we are able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity with current technology? Do you agree that given enough money we could build any arbitrary number of them?

I don't. They use a disproportionate amount of space and material for the meager electricity that they produce.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I don't. They use a disproportionate amount of space and material for the meager electricity that they produce.

And the starring words are disproportionate and meager, yet they are very poor to substantiate your assertion. You may replace those unfortunate adjectives with figures -not with links or other adjectives- if you first have clear that people placing a mill inside the Madison Square Garden are "they" in your "they use a dis....". Sort of "cars are inherently dangerous because inebriates think they can drive them".

By the way, you didn't really address Cuddles' message.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I don't. They use a disproportionate amount of space and material for the meager electricity that they produce.

Citation, please.

 

[Dinwar]

Citation, please.

"A Comparison: Land Use by Energy Source - Nuclear, Wind and Solar". You can google it.

Here are a few online sources (I tried to find sources that are pro-wind and solar, so that any bias is in your favor):

"Contemporary wind projects are typically rated at 25 to 100 MW. A 25 MW project might have 60 to 70 turbines covering 1500 acres," says The EPA . Really, that's a little over 4 MW of *average* power from a total of about 65 windmills. (This was typical of early California wind turbines.)

http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw84.htm

That's roughly 7 acres for each of Fairhaven's 1.5-megawatt turbines, both of which sit on a single 7-acre parcel.

http://www.greendeals.org/solar-power-or-wind-turbines

http://www.aweo.org/windarea.htmlTo understand those numbers, the Duddon Sands plant in the UK produces a tad more energy than the Russell City Energy Center in California does (reference), on several orders of magnitude more land (I don't have the specifics for the Russell City plant, but I've been there and it's nowhere near a square mile in size).

The land requirements for generating wind power are huge. This is due to fluid dynamics--how the air intereacts with the turbines. If you want to get more power per acre, you need to alter the way the wind moves. This means that unlike what Cuddles said, there is an upper limit on the amount of energy we can extract per acre of land, even if we assume (erroniously) that every acre was capable of produce power via these methods. We'll run out of land well before we supply the current demand.

Solar has other issues, including the limits of our ability to extract electricity from light. It's discussed in a few of the references above. Solar also has a nasty tendency to use some pretty toxic chemicals in the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells.

By the way, you didn't really address Cuddles' message.

I've worked on wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas power plants. I have first-hand knowledge of what it takes to build any of these. I notice that none of you address MY points.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The land requirements for generating wind power are huge.

Yes, but unlike a gas powered plant they are not exclusive. Most in Texas are surrounded by either farm land or grazing. In other words they don't displace other uses in the same way a much smaller generations facility would.

And you are not taking into account the massive lands that are needed to produce the feedstock for the gas plant, coal plant, or what have you. In that regard, I think gas drilling wells are very similar to wind farms in land usage: small actual footprint to extract energy from a rather large area of land without changing the other surface uses very much.

Comparing the acres needed for a wind farm to the acres needed for a fossil fuel turbine is a little disingenuous if you put much thought into it.

 

[macdoc]

Solar has other issues, including the limits of our ability to extract electricity from light. It's discussed in a few of the references above. Solar also has a nasty tendency to use some pretty toxic chemicals in the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells.

Solar is moving so fast it becomes hard to assess.
New panels use less toxic metal and quality ones have a 30-40 year life span.

Also solar steam is old tech using boilers.
The big issue is storage/load leveling. No appropriate answers.

Cost to householders of electricity is a distraction the right wing like to roll out. Easily managed by both tax rebates and energy efficiency and energy efficiency incentives.

I'd really like to see region by region approaches as national is often too awkward and too varied.

What is good for some is not so practical for others.
Healthcare here is a model in that Federal Government supplies funds, provinces spend it as they see fit and the Feds provide guidelines that must be met to get the funds.

The biggest need is a carbon tax to fund the transition. Nordic countries have had since 1990.

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, but unlike a gas powered plant they are not exclusive.

Certain portions--including the access roads, maintenance yards, and turbine pads--are. How much that amounts to depends on the design and local terrain.

And even in the rest of the area there are concerns about land use. Turbines DO fail, sometimes spectacularly. There are also some pretty serious wildlife concerns (not talking about the fear mongers here; I'm going with BLM and EPA requirements for turbine farms, which include requirements for monitoring bird and bat populations).

And you are not taking into account the massive lands that are needed to produce the feedstock for the gas plant, coal plant, or what have you. In that regard, I think gas drilling wells are very similar to wind farms in land usage: small actual footprint to extract energy from a rather large area of land without changing the other surface uses very much.

If you could provide specifics, I'd appreciate it. Most people dramatically over-estimate the amount of surface disturbance involved in oil and gas production (exploration is different).

Comparing the acres needed for a wind farm to the acres needed for a fossil fuel turbine is a little disingenuous if you put much thought into it.

Not really. Acreage is a limiting factor for solar and wind power in ways that it isn't for fossil fuel or nuclear power.

But hey, if you want to dismiss the answer to Cuddles' question, that's fine. All I ask is that you don't pretend it hasn't been answered. Cuddles IS WRONG. We CANNOT build turbine or solar farms indefinitely. There are limiting factors, one of which is space, and I have demonstrated this point, as requested. That's been my only point in this conversation. I've got no dog in this fight--I think centralized power plants are a pretty bad idea anyway, to be honest, and don't advocate ANY such system.

 

[Dinwar]

What is good for some is not so practical for others.

I disagree with most of the rest of your post (no, I'm not going into detail), but I'll fully agree with this. The idea that we need a one-size-fits-all solution is part of what's holding us back. In areas like California, where there are large open spaces that can support wind power, it'd be insane to NOT harness that power. There are areas in Nevada that would be ideal for solar power as well (the Ivanpah power plant demonstrates that). In contrast, solar power doesn't work so well in northwestern Ohio; not enough sunny days. Wind power works to some extent, but isn't reliable enough. Each region has to figure out what works best for it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The land requirements for generating wind power are huge.

The real land requirements are close to negligible. I've never seen previously any case of your assertion departing from other but the twisted notion that once you spread the mills enough to keep the park effect bellow 5% the land becomes useless. The only case I know is the guanaco, which prefers to jump <2.1 m wire fences to be 1km from the nearest mill, having it food sources available, but adapts and thrives when a 11-wire fencing is used.

If the land owners prefer to neglect the economical exploitation of their lands because they feel comfortable just cashing monthly their fat mill rights, that's not a problem of the mills but of the native bums or the national or international speculators who wouldn't bother to lease the agricultural use of their estates.

I've worked on wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas power plants. I have first-hand knowledge of what it takes to build any of these.

You frequently say it -or similar phrases in different contexts-, but that's not an argument. That rather qualifies as name dropping where names have been replaced by self referencing in the absence of any real valid names to drop.

I notice that none of you address MY points.

I haven't read your points because of some forum features. But I promise to use other forum features to read your future posts in this thread.