Guest essay by Eric Worrall
California has finally rejected a 2014 proposal to refurbish an ageing Edison Gas Plant used for grid stabilisation during peak power loads.
California rejects gas peaker plant, seeks clean energy alternatives
The California Public Utilities Commission rejected a refurbishment of the Southern California Edison’s Ellwood Peaker Plant, paving the way for a solar+storage solution instead.
OCTOBER 4, 2017
Critics of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Ellwood Peaker Plant are hailing the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) decision to reject unanimously a taxpayer-funded refurbishment of the plant, saying it affords the utility an opportunity to put more solar+storage into operation.
The CPUC also indicated that they would like to re-evaluate its approval of another gas peaker plant that has yet to be built.
“At this time, absent very compelling circumstances, we should be directing all of our investments in infrastructure and energy to clean energy resources,” said Clifford Rechtschaffen, one of the commissioners. “The proposed refurbishment is not a good use of ratepayer dollars.”
During the CPUC’s deliberations, the Clean Coalition, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and a modern grid through technical, policy, and project development expertise, submitted its own analysis that it says proves solar+storage could replace the Ellwood gas plant at a far lower cost than refurbishing the older plant.
…
This decision follows a court ruling in April rejecting the application to refurbish the Ellwood plant, on the grounds that refurbishing the plant would not contribute to greater energy reliability.
PUC Judge Rejects Southern California Edison Bid to Refurbish Ellwood Peaker Plant
Non-binding ruling assert natural-gas-powered facility does not fit the requirements and goals of providing the area with greater energy reliability.
By Sam Goldman, Noozhawk Staff Writer April 24, 2017 | 6:41 p.m.
A California Public Utilities Commission judge has ruled against a Southern California Edison proposal to refurbish a natural-gas-powered “peaker” plant in Goleta that would have extended the facility’s lifespan by 30 years.
Administrative Law Judge Regina DeAngelis wrote in a non-binding ruling that other regional power-generators can better provide the extra energy resiliency the CPUC wants for the area, and that the plant may not be the most environmentally friendly source of emergency power during a local blackout.
“The record reflects that Ellwood is a highly polluting resource permitted to emit as much as 103.59 pounds per hour of nitrogen oxide — which is over 20 times the normal emission rate of a modern peaking unit with modern emission controls,” she wrote.
…
Edison, which operates it under a short-term contract with NRG Energy, applied in 2014 to refurbish the 44-year-old combustion turbines to extend their lifespan by 30 years, to 2048.
The proposal includes a 10-year contract calling for NRG to operate the plant under Edison’s direction.
Edison spokesman Robert Laffoon-Villegas told Noozhawk that the utility company is seeking “to continue operations at the Ellwood facility to be able to provide safe electrical grid operations in the event that high-voltage transmission lines are not available to serve the greater Santa Barbara area.”
…
Edison wanted to use the peaker plant to help meet this long-term capacity and reliability requirement, though the independent organization that oversees California’s bulk electric-power system considered it an existing source, according to DeAngelis.
…
Who in their right mind worries about whether a source of emergency power is “the most environmentally friendly source of emergency power“?
Do the people in charge of California’s electricity really think a little pollution is the most pressing issue, if a surge in demand or major outage deprives vital facilities such as hospitals and aged care homes of their electricity supply?
Words fail me over the commission’s acceptance that solar storage can replace hundreds of megawatts of reliable emergency backup power.
In my opinion this kind of idiocy likely makes the job of power engineers virtually impossible. Lets just say if I was a power engineer experiencing the despair of trying to stabilise the grid in such impossible circumstances, I would be dusting off my copy of “Atlas Shrugged“.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cali-venezu-straila (California plus Venezuela plus South Australia) the first state to openly work toward enviromentally friendly poverty for all (except the ruling class). If one were a dog or a cat, now is the time to leave.
Or a rat.
Auto
So this ‘storage’ – is this Elon building a battery by any chance?
Why might I be concerned?
My electric cordless drill seems to want a pair of fresh (18 Volt Lithium) batteries. There they are on good ol’ ebay, £36 each.
Being a recently retired peasant (mean with money) and with an electronic training, thought I’d rebuild my batteries with 5 new (18650) cells. The cells that drive electronic cigarettes seem to be ‘the right sort’ and come in at £20 per for the whole job. Versus £72
It says on the new batteries, ‘don’t do this, don’t do that. don’t do the other’
That’s fine, gotta treat these fuggers right.
In the event that you do actually do do one of these do nots, buy a new battery.
In the event that you get to 24 months without doing a do not, get a new battery anyway.
So, I think we can all see Elon’s game plan now. He’s giving away his batteries for now but, in 2 years time and once you’re hooked, will insist you buy a fresh one. or two or more.
The oldest trick in the foot-in-the-door salesman’s book.
And he’ll get away with it because folks now are on such a hair-trigger for out and out panic.
See Euston Station in London recently. Very big & important place and through the daytime, invariably packed with people.
Someone’s e-cigarette went bang. Presumably they did one of the ‘do not do’ sort of things.
Just one 18650 cell cannot make that much of a bang, Can it?
Apparently the place just erupted into a mass of screaming, crying and utterly panic stricken people in a mad stampede for the/a/any way to get out of there. Folks reported being genuinely scared for their lives. Not by the original bump but by the ensuing stampede.
Maybe a year or 2 ago, another e-cig switched itself on inside someone’s bag while riding an inter-city coach.
Before anybody had a clue what was happening, the motorway had been closed, armed police were everywhere and the bus passengers were sitting on the concrete, in neat regimented rows and under orders (by armed police) to stay there with their hands behind their heads.
Is that the card that super salesman Elon is gonna play, send our elders, betters and erstwhile leaders into a panic where they ‘have to do something fast’?
Not least, being a major London terminus that Lithium battery exploded, some of our leaders, their advisers, secretaries,office staff and law enforcers(?) were part of that blind panic.
And you know me by now – sugar was the root cause.
Ya got TROUBLE my friend… right here in Cali City… and Puerto Rico…
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11198577&cid=55328731#comments
with a capital ‘T’ that rhymes with ‘G’ which stands for GRID
I note with interest that Elon Musk is building his Gigafactory in Nevada.
Could it be it is because California’s electricity is 58% higher.
It wouldn’t matter that much, given the entire roof of the thing is covered in solar panels and runs on [100%] renewable energy??
This tells you why Nevada got the factory
https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10937076/tesla-gigafactory-battery-factory-nevada-tax-deal-elon-musk
100%.
(need an edit function!)
Are you sure about that Griff? Have you seen pictures of those panels? Or are they just pixie dust, rainbows, and unicorn farts? http://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-power-scrapped-insider-claims/
It’s worth reminding us of a previous California “mandate”. The California wizards of smart passed a law requiring that ten percent of all vehicles sold in California were required to be powered by electricity, starting in the year 2000. This led General Motors, for instance, to develop the GM EV. It was a lead-acid battery powered two-seater. The development costs were well over $2 billion, and that was in the days that $2 billion was a lot of money. Who knows if keeping it might have prevented the GM bankruptcy several years later.
What happened? California buyers were simply not interested in electric vehicles. No other car companies even offered any for sale. Few EVs were sold, and in fact, GM wound up offering them for lease for very low monthly cost, and even few of those were signed. So, finally after all that waste, the wizards of smart changed the law.
My memory of that differs. GM designed the ugliest car possible, refused to sell them to willing customers, ran their experiment for two years then recalled the cars and crushed them over the objections and organized protests of the users.
See the movie ‘Who killed the electric car’. The threat to GM is mortal: EV’s cost next to nothing to run and maintain, except for the batteries, and GM doesn’t make batteries.
That must explain why nobody wants to buy electric cars, GM is paying them not to.
See the movie ‘Who killed the electric car’.
I would, but I doubt I could stomach a documentary starring Joe Romm, Ralph Nader, and Martin Sheen
Your memory doesn’t explain why California repealed the law.
This is right up there with the myth of tire companies conspiring to kill early mass transit systems.
Excerpts from published article:
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Judge Regina would render her decision based solely on “environmentally friendliness” simply because it is a biological hereditary FACT that the females of a species are predisposed to making “emotional decisions” that benefit the survival of their offspring …… rather than making “logical decisions” that benefit the survival of the members of their specie, tribe, clan or family.
It appears that Judge Regina is guilty of making additional “emotional decisions” by ruling against the current status of a natural-gas-powered “peaker” plant in Goleta, California, ….. without any regard or consideration of said “status” after renovations are completed.
HA, ….. the “glass ceiling” was invented by managers of private enterprise to weed-out the “emotional” decision making “managerial” job applicants.
The same consideration is never an issue with political appointees and seldom ever with elected individuals. On the contrary, “emotional decision” makers are far more likely to get “elected” than are “logical decision” makers.
Samuel C C
Whilst your argument, in this case, may have merit, there will be those who will ridicule it [and you, perhaps].
If you do not have one, I suggest you invest in double-layer cooking foil inlay for your two favourite hats! Very soon.
And that, incidentally, will prevent the KGB [and successor organisations) from reading your thoughts, too.
Auto
Always ready to recommend using cooking foil.
Mods – think. Is this /SARC??
Mods – help for you: it is /SARC!!
Auto – October 8, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Auto, it matters not one twit what I or anyone else posts as authored commentary because there will always be someone who will criticize or ridicule a part or portion of said commentary and/or the author of said commentary. And there are hundreds of different reasons why said “contrarians” are disagreeable,
Also saidith: Auto
Huuuuuuummmmm, …… you do have a problem, ….. don’tja Auto?
In your previous sentence you stated that my commentary “may have merit” ….. and in you above sentence you specifically infer that my commentary is utterly FUBAR and a prime example of Science Fiction rhetoric.
Sorry, Auto, my posted commentary is filled with “merit”, but you have to be learned enough to realize that fact.
In 95+-% of all higher animal species the female of the species is the primary “caregiver” of the offspring ….. and that is because she is recipient of a genetically “inherited survival instinct” that pretty much forces her to …… “protect her offspring at all costs”, ….. even if it means harm or loss of her own life, …… simply because he actions in doing so insures “survival of the species”.
And that is/was an “emotional decisions” being made by said female, …… and not a “logical decisions”, she has the option to birth more offspring, ……. but not if she is severely injured or dead.
And that is why good female “managers” are far and few between …… because they do not let their “emotional” thoughts influence their major decision making.
Remember, ……. “Hell hath no fury” …… like that of an emotional decision making PO’ed, scorned, rejected, embarrassed, etc., female.
OT but…
Obama in Argentina for green energy summit…
https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4958914/amp/Obama-takes-golf-course-Argentine-President-Macri.html
More here:
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Argentina-Obama-Plays-Golf-with-M…
The two are expected to discuss “informally and privately” the link between both countries and the challenge ahead now that Argentina will hold the presidency of the G20, according to the government.
More here:
http://www.thebubble.com/obama-is-in-argentina-for-the-green-economy-summit/
Yet California seems to suffer not at all…
Yet …..!
When will Elon Musk go bankrupt? When will California’s energy grid collapse? Man, I’m getting impatient. Show me some damage!
New York Times 2049 headline: Teslas to power California’s energy grid…
After all exercise equipment in CA is mandated to be tied into the grid via a Tesla interface.
https://youtu.be/SM3dET-Onag
Steve from Rockwood – Elon will not go bankrupt. Tesla could. But Elon is firewalled from that.
Meanwhile, here in Nevada, we are building lots of solar plants and selling the output to Kalifornia at premium rates. Should help offset the deal we made with Elon to build his Giga-factory here.
For our own use, we use employ fossil fuels. Lower residential rates (45%) than what Kalifornian’s have to pay. But then, maybe all Kalifornians are wealthier than people in the other states, and are happy yo pay those rates.
What can’t continue, won’t.
Not sure why people keep bothering with arguments, reason and logic in this case.
The case in question is simple….the “king’ of Cal is literally and truly insane……
How much longer it will take to realize this!
The “king” has managed to subject his state and his people to legislation and policies dealing literally with cow farts…….making mister H..ler jealous too, with such insane achievements…..
The “king” of insane does not seem to be the most insane one out there, regardless of first impression, but it happens to be the most desperate, stressed and most depressed insane one at the moment…..
There is far much more insane and worse ones than this guy, out there….
And funny enough, he and his cabal may be considering their and his “great” love for Cal as an excuse of the “king’s” insanity….
The guy is plainly, literally, truly insane.
cheers
This ruling is all for the good. Let California become one, big laboratory for what seems to be hare-brained schemes. Better there than my state. Let’s see what happens. I predict Cali — like Germany– will be one big, pustulant OBJECT LESSON.
Lessons will be learned the hard way.
Failure seems to have no lasting effect on California politicians. The Governor, Grey Davis, was recalled partly over the 2000 blackouts, and the same group of yahoos are back into power.
Clearly there was not enough pain in 2000… but there is a pain thresh hold … you’ll know it when it’s reached…
When I first started reading your article my first thought was. “We could really use a Galt’s Gulch about now”.
Then the power engineers experiencing the despair of trying to stabilise the grid in such impossible circumstances could head there instead of breaking out their copies of “Atlas Shrugged”. It’s time.
Let me see if I have got this California energy policy straight…
You go all renewable, because that will stop the world overheating.
This increases energy costs.
And manufacturing costs.
So you move all California manufacturing to China, which is cheaper.
Mainly because China uses coal power.
China opens another ten coal power stations, to cope with California manufacturing.
(All those Apple computers need a whole lot of energy to make.)
China does not give a stuff about emissions.
So each power station is twice as dirty and the old Californain ones.
So California has:
… impoverished its workers,
… bankrupted its state finances,
… doubled emissions,
… and warmed the world by another degree.
Did I get this policy right, or did I miss something…?
Ralph
You can’t be serious. California is trying to replicate what China does.
China leads climate! /sarc
You can’t even joke on it because they are dead serious.
Some European elderly will, this winter, especially if is a harsh/cold one, become dead.
Literally.
Heat – or Eat.
Can’t afford both.
Dead serious.
Unhappily, a projected aim of the Community Organiser’s desire for – what was it? – ‘skyrocketing’ energy prices.
Reduce the global population – Step 1; reduce the rate of increase.
That is – get more to die.
[The abortion project isn’t doing all we wanted it to do, yet.]
Auto – a realist who has had his rose-tinted glasses removed . . .
Yes, you missed something.
California will become a “Sanctuary State” thereby reducing it’s manufacturing cost in an attempt to keep jobs (even if not American citizens) in California.
You missed the Federal subsidies.
You missed China now cares about pollution from coal plant and reducing CO2 and cancelling and closing coal power plants
Electric rate in CA are already near the top (if not at the top) among the contiguous states. The idiots running this state are either completely insane or diabolically evil. They don’t seem smart enough to be the latter …
Oh no! It is intentional, to encourage conservation, which all good people know is the solution to all problems./sarc
Ah yes, conservation promoted as an emotional argument.
The idiots don’t understand that demand elasticity from increasing cost is only relevant to discretionary spending which the medical community (especially big pharma) discovered a long time ago.
This reminds me of when I lived in Madison, WI (14 square miles of progressives surrounded by reality). There was an article in the local paper that listed tax rates or total tax burden by state and WI was ranked #3 or #4 highest. The actual commentary in the article was “We’re not #1! We have room to grow!” That’s when I first realized that liberalism is a mental disorder.
The coastal big city greens who dominate the politics of California, Oregon, and Washington want all of their electricity to come from non-nuclear renewable resources, wind and solar. They don’t particularly care if most of the open ground of eastern Washington State, eastern Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming must be covered with windmills and with solar panels for their visionary dreams to come true.
What’s more, the coastal big city greens aren’t alone in holding these visionary dreams. The inland greens who are now gaining ever greater political influence in Washington State, in Oregon, and in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to have no problem with covering large areas of their respective states with windmills and with solar panels, regardless of the environmental consequences.
I had a conversation last weekend with a friend who works at Portland General Electric’s 500 Mw coal-fired power plant near Boardman, Oregon, concerning where the region’s future power supply will be coming from. The state of Oregon has outlawed coal-fired generation and has dictated that the Boardman plant must close by 2020, even though the plant was designed to a service life specification that could allow it to operate until 2040.
PGE wants to replace the Boardman plant with a gas-fired equivalent located on the same site, a plant which would complement another gas-fired plant already operating there. However, it is already evident that Oregon will not give PGE permission for a gas-fired replacement and will force the utility to purchase either more renewable power from wherever PGE can get it, and/or to purchase more hydropower if any of that power is still available.
What this man tells me is that the region’s wind farms are already causing considerable difficulties for power dispatchers in keeping the grid within PGE’s service area stable. He says that if the 500 Mw capacity of the Boardman plant isn’t replaced with something equally as dependable and reliable, then we here in this area of the US Northwest could begin to feel the effects of renewable-induced grid instability as early as 2021.
Even with all our hydropower, he predicts that load-shedding done to keep the US Northwest’s power grid up and operating under high demand, low supply conditions will become a more frequent occurrence as the decade of the 2020’s moves forward.
What will happen next after that, on into the late 2020’s and the early 2030’s?
What is most likely to happen is that the cost of electricity will continue to rise, and the grid in the US Northwest will continue to become more unstable. And, as has happened in Australia, the coastal big city greens here in America will succeed in blaming the rising cost of electricity and the increasing number of brownouts and blackouts on market manipulation perpetrated by the region’s privately owned power companies to keep energy profits high.
The greens will then push for even faster adoption of the renewables, arguing that it is the only solution that has any chance of working. And more likely than not, millions of voters in the large coastal cities who don’t understand what it takes to produce a reliable supply of electricity will buy that argument, and so high capacity baseload power generation will continue to disappear from the power grid.
Does California have excessive natural gas based electrical generation capacity? If not, it is by default out sourcing its grid stabilization generation needs to the adjacent states.
Nothing like demanding that the utilities use storage which does not exist yet to solve the problem of intermittancy. In about 2 years, black outs! Interesting that they HAD a problem with blackouts some years ago and learned nothing. Also, it is rank idiocy because they import electricity from 4 corners which is coal and this gas plant would be much cleaner.
Use storage that does not exist to prevent a threat that does not exist.
California Dreamin’
Reminds me of the EPA fining refiners for failing to use an additive that didn’t exist.
Why is pollution regarded as so unimportant? “Long-term exposure to nitrogen oxides in smog can trigger serious respiratory problems, including damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function. Exposure to low levels of nitrogen oxides in smog can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. It can cause coughing, shortness of breath, fatigue, and nausea”. https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=19
It seems to me that if you can have a source of power/storage that does not produce this pollution it is a good thing.
The issue, in this case, is not nitrogen oxide pollution (with refurbishing, the plant would apparently have been within EPA safe levels). Rather, the activist court, here:
This is nonsense, given current (or likely to be discovered anytime soon) solar, wind, i.e., “renewables.” and battery storage technology.
The Edison plant = FAR greater energy reliable.
The “pollution” the activist court is concerned about (thus, serving the interests of the enviroprofiteers, most of whom know better and are cynically profiting off of public ignorance) is human CO2 emissions.
“The record reflects that Ellwood is a highly polluting resource permitted to emit as much as 103.59 pounds per hour of nitrogen oxide — which is over 20 times the normal emission rate of a modern peaking unit with modern emission controls,” she wrote.
I don’t know where you got the “apparently have been within EPA safe levels” idea, but even so, the plant would still contribute pollution that is bad for human health.
Re:
Prove it. The burden of proof is on you. Edison has met the prima facie case by asserting that its refurbishment would make it safe to operate.
“But that switch would greatly reduce pollution that is harming our country right now. Switching from coal to natural gas would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 90 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 60 percent. These compounds are major causes of fine particulate pollution. Reductions on this level would lower the total cost of national annual human health damages by US$20 billion to $50 billion annually. We found that the Southeast and the Ohio Valley, where most of the coal is burned, would capture the lion’s share of these benefits.”
https://theconversation.com/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year-78874
Therefore it is a cost to human health.
Well, Geoffrey, you managed to find a source even more unreliable than the Guardian.
Try again, Mr. Preece. Your evidence does nothing to prove your assertion about Edison and its proposal to refurbish.
Geoffrey, you do know that humans exhale oxides of nitrogen, as well as all of the other mammals and maybe all life forms that use oxygen for energy.
Cdquaries – I’m pretty sure we inhale N2 and exhale N2, (inert gas in, inert gas out) no oxides. If you can show me something that says otherwise, I’d be happy to be corrected.
“I’m pretty sure we inhale N2 and exhale N2, (inert gas in, inert gas out) no oxides.”
Wrong, as usual.
Analysis of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the exhaled breath condensate (EBC) of subjects with asthma as a complement to exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurements: a cross-sectional study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3132716/
“Exhaled nitric oxide
In medicine, exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) can be measured in a breath test for asthma or other conditions characterized by airway inflammation. Nitric oxide (NO) is a gaseous molecule produced by certain cell types in an inflammatory response. The fraction of exhaled NO (FENO) is a promising biomarker for the diagnosis, follow-up and as a guide to therapy in adults and children with asthma. The breath test has recently become available in many well-equipped hospitals in developed countries, although its exact role remains unclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaled_nitric_oxide
Well Tom Hella, that is so lazy, try this and maybe look at the evidence, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421630322X?via%3Dihub
Interesting – that says:
“As a limiting case, we analyzed a switch of all USA coal plants to natural gas plants, occurring in 2016. The human health benefits of such a switch are substantial: SO2 emissions are reduced from the baseline (MATS (Mercury and Air Toxics Standard) retrofits by 2016) by more than 90%, and NOX emissions by more than 60%, reducing total national annual health damages by $20 – $50 billion annually.”
Janice Moore, of course it proves my point.
Here is an interesting study:- https://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741
Interesting indeed:
“Are wind and solar killing grid reliability? No, not where the grid’s technology and regulations have been modernized. In those places, overall grid operation has improved, not worsened.”
Grid scale batteries respond more quickly than gas peaker plants to provide grid stabilisation…
Frequency response is needed in cases of sudden demand or when California’s solar drops rapidly as people get home in the evening. Batteries will do a better, quicker, job in those cases, which would be for hours at most…
emergency backup might be a different thing. but batteries would pickup quickly if a power plant/supply of power went offline, for long enough to fire up a fossil fuel plant for longer term cover.
If the SA battery system had been running and if the SA grid had been set up in same way as in Germany, the batteries would have covered and the wind farms would not have tripped.
Griff, apparently the proposed gas peaker plant would incorporate batteries in their system – https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/inside-ge-and-socal-edisons-battery-integrated-gas-fired-peaker-plants#gs.YM88LQw
Oh dear…*IF*…only…GrIFf…
“batteries would pickup quickly if a power plant/supply of power went offline, for long enough to fire up a fossil fuel plant for longer term cover.”
Congratulations, now you’ve finally agreed that every last milliwatt of ‘Unreliable’ power from wind/solar/batteries will require to be covered by a milliwatt of thermal plant. That wasn’t difficult, was it?
So we might as well have just used the cheap, reliable thermal plant 24/7/365 and saved the cost of the ‘Unreliables’ to spend on something really useful, supplying clean drinking water to the billion or two Third World children that have no access to it.
But hey, there’s not as much street cred in merely saving the lives of a few million kids as there is in ‘Saving the World®’ , is there?
I don’t think you understand how this works…
Obviously the solar power tails of as night approaches: batteries allow that rapid transition to be managed.
you understand also that renewable energy is absolutely predictable?
And of course there is a need to reduce CO2 output behind all of this as prime driver… which there’s no point in trying to convince you of. but try a thought experiment: assume that it was necessary to reduce CO2 -would the current renewables plans be a sensible response? (absent nuclear which is too expensive at this time)
“I don’t think you understand how this works…”
After spending my whole rather successful career as an engineer covering various fields, with responsibility for projects – including the supply of energy – worth more money than you even know exists, I know very well indeed exactly how this stuff works, you patronising, pig ignorant little buffoon.
“you understand also that renewable energy is absolutely predictable?”
No Skanky, I know absolutely nothing of the sort, I am utterly certain that renewable energy is not even close to 100.00% predictable, which is my understanding of the meaning of “absolutely”.
I am furthermore utterly certain that you either don’t have the first clue what you’re wittering about, or that you are a very mendacious and thoroughly unpleasant individual indeed.
On reflection, delete “either” and change that “or” to “and”.
Now go and apologise for attempting to discredit Dr. Crockford’s scientific credentials.