Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[WMD]

surely lil ron ron has a substantial response to this!

Surely RJ will have a lie to counter this. It will be either some false data showing how this is wrong or some claim attacking the source. He would find a way to argue that yellow isn't yellow if it created doubt and confusion and suited his argument.

[k2skier112]

I went looking back to see if his "charts" had and links, not many did, hmmmm...

[Kinnikinnick]

One of main main points I've made in this discussion has been that there isn't anything that can actually be done with our current tech. If 100% non carbon renewables were able to replace our current energy system at a reasonable cost then by all means, go for it. The problem is they can't. Trying to force a 100% non carbon renewable energy system on the US would be economic suicide and do virtually nothing to combat rising CO2 levels. The only way to make this happen is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt.

In the meantime, we're better off saving the money for adaptation.

None of that makes sense. You either start pushing towards a renewable energy future or you don’t.

Economic suicide - Sky is falling much?. Sure maybe for coal fired power plants or something but not as a broad economy. That’s simply scaremongering bullshit.

Of course it won’t happen immediately but if you don’t start working on it, then the time when 100% renewables are possible will simply be pushed X years down the road.

Saving the money adaptation. So you answer is #2, ignore the possibility and take whatever comes.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[WMD]

Technology problems. Wind probably stopped blowing.

[WMD]

Please don't just accept RJ's basic point that 100% renewables is not possible, or that it is too expensive. That, too, is untrue.

Large scale wind is cheaper than natural gas (what is unnatural gas? - more fossil fuel and GOP spin doctoring?) and much cheaper than coal. Utility scale solar is cheaper on par with gas, and again much cheaper than coal. Battery storage is a bit more expensive, but not a lot, and those prices are coming down fast. There are other storage options besides batteries too, plus smart grids can shift energy quickly to where it is needed from where it is being produced (ie no wind in WA, it probably is blowing in MT).

Switching to renewables will save a great deal of money in avoided climate impacts. The 2018 National Climate Assessment says those could cost 10% of GDP by the end of the Century:

The continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov


And, there are huge health care and worker productivity savings with switching to renewables:

Renewable power pays for itself with better health
by Sarah DeWeerdt | Sep 3, 2019

Fighting climate change is only one reason to switch to renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. In many U.S. states, renewable energy infrastructure is also a powerful investment in public health.

For example, across 10 U.S. Rust Belt states policies known as renewable portfolio standards will require an average of 13% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2030.

Building out that renewable infrastructure will cost $3.5 billion and yield $2.8 billion in savings from avoided climate change impacts, according to an analysis published August 12 in in Environmental Research Letters. But it will also result in $4.7 billion in health benefits from avoided medical bills and lost wages.

The study adds to a growing body of work suggesting that the health benefits of moving away from fossil fuels are often greater than the costs of doing so.

That’s because phasing out fossil fuels also tends to result in better air quality. Burning fossil fuels releases a variety of air pollutants, the most harmful of which is a kind of fine soot known as PM2.5. This substance has been linked to serious health problems such as asthma, lung cancer, heart attack, and stroke.

The states included in the analysis are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware. Many of these states currently generate a lot of their electricity from coal – a particularly prominent source of PM2.5.

Researchers pulled together a series of existing models, drawing on data from a variety of U.S. government agencies, to estimate the economic, air quality, human health, and climate change effects of renewable portfolio standards.

They found that if the states strengthened their renewable policies, the cost-benefit picture would look even better, because the policies’ health benefits increase more rapidly than their costs.

If Rust Belt states required 20% renewable power on average by 2030, this would yield $6.4 billion in climate benefits and $13.5 billion in health benefits, at a cost of just $5.8 billion.

If the states doubled their 2030 renewable power commitment to 26%, this would yield $9.5 billion in climate benefits and $20.0 billion in health benefits, with a price tag of $9.1 billion.

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/...better-health/

[Flounder]

Please don't just accept RJ's basic point that 100% renewables is not possible, or that it is too expensive. That, too, is untrue.

Werd! BTV has had 100% renewable electricity for the past 4 years. Also haven't had a rate increase in a decade.

[ron johnson]

No Trick Zone, wow, just wow.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/

The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

Claim
Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth.

Rating

False

There is zero analysis from NTZ in my link. It is simply screenshotting graphs and abstracts on papers about the MWP in 2019.

[ron johnson]

Those windmills slow down the wind and cause warming... unless they're on a treadmill.

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...rface-warming/

[ron johnson]

I went looking back to see if his "charts" had and links, not many did, hmmmm...

Post any of them you have an issue with an I'll give you a source.

[iceman]

.

what's that you're saying?

[SumJongGuy]

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...rface-warming/

if wind power supplied all U.S. electricity demands[

Seems legit LOL

[Kinnikinnick]

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...rface-warming/

Talk about a biased source.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...nergy_Research


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[ron johnson]

None of that makes sense. You either start pushing towards a renewable energy future or you don’t.

Economic suicide - Sky is falling much?. Sure maybe for coal fired power plants or something but not as a broad economy. That’s simply scaremongering bullshit.

Of course it won’t happen immediately but if you don’t start working on it, then the time when 100% renewables are possible will simply be pushed X years down the road.

Saving the money adaptation. So you answer is #2, ignore the possibility and take whatever comes.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I'm not going to do the energy debate again. It's already been discussed plenty in the thread. WMD and co. have a hard time realizing that there is a huge difference in the cost of a 100% non carbon renewable energy system with adequate backup compared solar and wind farms that provide a small % of the electricity to the grid that we see today.

I'm not talking about coal plants. I'm talking about the entire economy. When you are going to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure and have at energy prices 2x? 3x? 5x? 7x? for consumers (no one ever gives any estimates in these greenwashy plans), we are talking about immense economic repercussions.

I've said it multiple times already, but I'll start taking non carbon renewables seriously when we can see an actual example of a city or county with 100% non carbon renewable energy. If renewables are so great why don't we see this already? There is huge demand for green energy. Surely Portland or Boulder or somewhere can show us how its done?

[iceman]

I'll start taking non carbon renewables seriously when they start paying me to shill for them

.

[WMD]

[ron johnson]

Werd! BTV has had 100% renewable electricity for the past 4 years. Also haven't had a rate increase in a decade.

BTV gets 36% of its energy from wood (carbon), and 36% from hydro (not translatable in many locations). Only 28% from wind and solar. Get rid of your wood burning and costs will increase dramatically. You would have to expand wind and solar, but the real cost is going to be the storage required for when the wind and solar aren't providing.

[ron johnson]

Talk about a biased source.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...nergy_Research


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Did they fund the study?

[ron johnson]

Seems legit LOL

Conclusion
Clearly, the scenario developed by the Harvard researchers is unlikely to occur, i.e., the United States is unlikely to generate as much wind power as the researchers simulate in their scenario. Despite that, the researchers found that localized warming occurs in even smaller wind generation projections. Thus, the warming phenomena of wind farms is a factor that politicians, utility planners, and the public should consider when determining which technologies should be built and what subsidies should be enacted or extended.

[PNWbrit]

Seattle City Light 88% hydroelectric, 5% nuclear, 4% wind, 1% coal, 1% natural gas, 1% biogas.

[WMD]

"Iceland: A 100% renewables example in the modern era"
https://reneweconomy.com.au/iceland-...ern-era-56428/

"11 COUNTRIES LEADING THE CHARGE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY"
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11...ewable-energy/

"Scotland Is Now Generating So Much Wind Energy, It Could Power Two Scotlands"
https://www.sciencealert.com/scotlan...residents-need

[ron johnson]

Seattle City Light 88% hydroelectric, 5% nuclear, 4% wind, 1% coal, 1% natural gas, 1% biogas.

Hydro is not translatable to the rest of the country.

[Todd Zander]

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...rface-warming/

the lead author: " “We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. "

[ron johnson]

"Iceland: A 100% renewables example in the modern era"
https://reneweconomy.com.au/iceland-...ern-era-56428/

"11 COUNTRIES LEADING THE CHARGE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY"
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11...ewable-energy/

"Scotland Is Now Generating So Much Wind Energy, It Could Power Two Scotlands"
https://www.sciencealert.com/scotlan...residents-need

Iceland isn't translatable, hydro and geothermal.

Same for Scotland, they have wind in abundance. And yet, despite generating enough wind power to power the country twice over, they still were only able to make it to 7 consecutive days without having to burn coal because they don't have the storage.

[WMD]

Iceland isn't translatable, hydro and geothermal.

Same for Scotland, they have wind in abundance. And yet, despite generating enough wind power to power the country twice over, they still were only able to make it to 7 consecutive days without having to burn coal because they don't have the storage.

This is laughable. Thanks for making the point that every location has different options available to it - whether that is hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, or whatever, and the energy mix will be different for each location based on this.

You asked for examples and you got them, so you can't say it isn't possible.


Edit to add: Of course you will do this though, as this is your M.O. Twist facts, lie, obfuscate.

[ron johnson]

This is laughable. Thanks for making the point that every location has different options available to it - whether that is hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, or whatever, and the energy mix will be different for each location based on this.

You asked for examples and you got them, so you can't say it isn't possible.


Edit to add: Of course you will do this though, as this is your M.O. Twist facts, lie, obfuscate.

I know that the mix is going to be different for each location, but the problem with your examples is that they are leaders in renewable energy because they have a natural resource advantage. A 100% non carbon renewable system in the US is going to depend on a lot of wind and solar. None of your examples are translatable to the entire country, and they don't tackle the biggest problem which is storage. Scotland was able to generate 2x the required power for its homes, yet they could only make it a maximum of 7 days before burning coal because they don't have storage.