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

[ron johnson]

The trouble is the tech isn't at a point where it will create a better world. If non carbon energy was as reliable and cost comparable as fossil fuels I'd be all for it.

[ron johnson]

The trouble is the tech isn't at a point where it will create a better world. If non carbon energy was as reliable and cost comparable as fossil fuels I'd be all for it.

I should probably qualify this statement. If you're one of the ones that think we have 12 years to save the planet, then I suppose you might not agree (I'd still disagree since China, Russia, and co are still going to burn their carbon). But switching to 100% non carbon right now will have a major effect on you, the US economy, the global economy, and everyone else the world when we will have energy prices at 2x? 3x? 5x? 10x? our current levels.

[WMD]

"Coal is on the way out’: study finds fossil fuel now pricier than solar or wind
Around 75% of coal production is more expensive than renewables, with industry out-competed on cost by 2025"

Around three-quarters of US coal production is now more expensive than solar and wind energy in providing electricity to American households, according to a new study.

“Even without major policy shift we will continue to see coal retire pretty rapidly,” said Mike O’Boyle, the co-author of the report for Energy Innovation, a renewables analysis firm. “Our analysis shows that we can move a lot faster to replace coal with wind and solar. The fact that so much coal could be retired right now shows we are off the pace.”

The study’s authors used public financial filings and data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) to work out the cost of energy from coal plants compared with wind and solar options within a 35-mile radius. They found that 211 gigawatts of current US coal capacity, 74% of the coal fleet, is providing electricity that’s more expensive than wind or solar.

By 2025 the picture becomes even clearer, with nearly the entire US coal system out-competed on cost by wind and solar, even when factoring in the construction of new wind turbines and solar panels.

“We’ve seen we are at the ‘coal crossover’ point in many parts of the country but this is actually more widespread than previously thought,” O’Boyle said. “There is a huge potential for wind and solar to replace coal, while saving people money.” Was

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-energy-study

[Bunion 2020]

FWIW, anyone else who frequents the Polyass notice that Cemetheads contributions has slowed to a trickle since Ron joined the forum.

Just sayin.

[SumJongGuy]

The trouble is the tech isn't at a point where it will create a better world. If non carbon energy was as reliable and cost comparable as fossil fuels I'd be all for it.

So, you'll be all for it when adoption levels facilitate economies of scale which essentially give you no choice but to "be all for it"..

[old goat]

Attachment 291461Attachment 291462
Climate change is definitely real and there's no doubt that humans have had an impact. The question is, how much of an impact? What temperature is the Earth "supposed" to be? It is a dynamic system and there will always be extreme fluctuations. Most graphs only show the last 500 years or so, which is very convenient when trying to push the agenda of man made climate change. As you can see by the graphs, large temp swings in short periods of time occurred long before humans started burning fossil fuels. This current warming trend started 20,000 years ago. Unlike previous warming trends, it has actually leveled off instead of spiking.. C02 in the atmosphere also lags behind temp increase... I majored in Environmental Studies for 2 years and my profs were split 50/50 on the effects of man made climate change (to my surprise). Also, my Environmental Economics class came to the conclusion that the most cost effective way to combat global warming was to paint all roads and roofs white... My prof concurred.. This was 3000+ level class. Not a bunch of freshmen..

Attachment 291463
I'm from rural MN where temp range over the course of the year is extreme. The amount of energy needed to survive and the style of housing that is required to mitigate these extreme temp swings (while also supporting snow load) is a huge burden (environmentally and economically). If you believe in man made global warming, maybe the question we should be asking is "where are the most energy efficient places for humans to live". Places like rural MN are not very conducive to a single type of alternative energy.. You really need a combination of geothermal, solar and wind. I priced out a system like this for my family's farm and the cost was over $80k (including 3 Tesla batteries) for a 4,000 sq. ft. home, a 1,200 sq. ft. cabin, 4 stall garage (non-heated) and 1,000 sq. ft. barn (non-heated). The property is appraised at $500k for reference... It would have been nearly 100% sustainable with some energy (5%) going back to the grid in summer and some being taken in during the winter (10-20%). The ROI was approximately 12-15 years (depending on future energy costs and weather patterns).

I also believe that climate change gets shoved to forefront of environmental issues, when the more urgent issues are biomagnification of toxins (especially in the ocean) and the decimation of the global insect population (which is a cornerstone for all living organisms). Insects aren't as cute as polar bears, so the general public doesn't really care (exception is bees).

If you have facts and logic to change my mind, I'm all ears. Or just shout me down with emotional responses and 500 year graphs...

all of this is true. Let's be clear--the climate change debate is not about saving the planet; it's about saving the human race, or most of it, as well as the ecosystems we depend on. If we do nothing the planet will survive, new species will evolve, but in the process there will be orders of magnitude more human and animal suffering than there is today, which is plenty. The best argument against nuclear power is that a nuclear catastrophe, or a serious of catastrophes could potentially make the earth uninhabitable by any species for a long long time.

[WMD]

Xxxxxxxxx

[ron johnson]

So, you'll be all for it when adoption levels facilitate economies of scale which essentially give you no choice but to "be all for it"..

Yep, trouble is we have a long ways to go with storage and transmission before that type of adoption becomes feasible.

[SumJongGuy]

Yep, trouble is we have a long ways to with storage and transmission before that type of adoption becomes feasible.

Yes, Europe is a long way away.. All the way across the Atlantic

[ron johnson]

Yes, Europe is a long way away.. All the way across the Atlantic

Are you trying to imply that Germany is a success story?

[iceman]

This is a poliass thread.

[Bunion 2020]

If it wasn't before it just got taken there.

[k2skier112]

I can't believe how much you guys appeal to authority and refuse to even try to use your brains. Are you guys able to get dressed in the morning without your mom laying out your clothes the night before?

You're an insufferable cunt

[Kinnikinnick]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwiQmGWK4c


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SumJongGuy]

Are you trying to imply that Germany is a success story?

Did I say "Germany"?

[neufox47]

How dense can you be? In the top right of your link it says 3.3mm/year. The study I previously linked said 3.1mm/year. Congrats, sea level rise has increased by 2 tenths of a millimeter per year. Ready the sandbags!!

Sea level rise is accelerating. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Greenland getting that warm is unusual and getting that warm as frequently as it is is very unusual.

You dismiss cost projections by saying it doesn’t matter because you don’t live on the coast, oh good I’m sure the economy will be fine!

This is your problem Ron, you are impossibly dense yet think you are an expert. Let me help you. Again, take a pencil and follow the words slowly and think about their meaning.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
From the link.

The first graph is for the satellite data and only goes to the early 1990s, not 1850. During that time the rate of gain is 3.3mm per year, most recently 4mm. The second graph goes back to 1880, that one shows roughly 230mm of rise over 130 years. Now these numbers are kind of big but 230, divided by 130 is 1.75mm. What each graph contains is clearly laid out in the first two paragraphs.

Sea levels thankfully haven’t risen at a rate of 3.3mm per year for the last 150 years.

[ron johnson]

This is your problem Ron, you are impossibly dense yet think you are an expert. Let me help you. Again, take a pencil and follow the words slowly and think about their meaning.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
From the link.

The first graph is for the satellite data and only goes to the early 1990s, not 1850. During that time the rate of gain is 3.3mm per year, most recently 4mm. The second graph goes back to 1880, that one shows roughly 230mm of rise over 130 years. Now these numbers are kind of big but 230, divided by 130 is 1.75mm. What each graph contains is clearly laid out in the first two paragraphs.

Sea levels thankfully haven’t risen at a rate of 3.3mm per year for the last 150 years.

Okay, I'm following you now. I should have looked at the graphs more closely.

Congrats to neufox, the only one to be able to refute any point I have made in this thread. (There was a bit of a refutation on my comment that fossil fuel companies are invested in renewables, they are, but the US companies aren't heavily).

Apologies for the dense comment, I was carrying some frustrations from our previous disagreement.

[ron johnson]

Did I say "Germany"?

What are you referring to then?

[SumJongGuy]

What are you referring to then?

Europe in general.. On average they are quite a bit ahead of the US with energy independence from fossil fuels.

I'm sure glad you have all this figured out Mr Socko. Those evil scientists were really going to stick it to us before you saved us.

[old goat]

Why the words we use to talk about energy sources matter--the term renewables is used to hoodwink people into thinking that burning wood pellets is a valid way to fight global warming because wood is renewable and to avoid technologies that are truly carbon neutral. See especially the second paragraph.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...term=TNY_Daily

[WMD]

Renewables are too expensive. And China will never act!


"Solar power is now cheaper than the grid in hundreds of Chinese cities"

Solar energy in hundreds of Chinese cities is now cheaper than electricity supplied by the national grid, and it can even compete with coal-fired power in 75 of them, a new study has found.

Some 344 Chinese cities were found to have solar systems producing energy at lower prices than the grid, without any subsidies, according to the research published in the journal Nature Energy. That could encourage further investment in renewable energy, according to the authors.

China has made huge progress in developing solar projects and pledged to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($367 billion) in renewable power generation — solar, wind, hydro and nuclear — from 2017-2020.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/busin...ntl/index.html

[SlyFoxxx]

Did you factor in the surface area of the poles and average winter snow coverage versus that of roofs and roads in your analysis along with the negative impact cloud cover has when the roofs and roads are white?


These folks did

That's interesting, this paper actually came out after I was in that class. We definitely didn't factor in the reflected solar radiation being absorbed by particles in the atmosphere, or reduced cloud cover. However, we did calculate the energy that would be saved from mitigating the UHI (which they didn't). That in itself would lead to a feedback loop which could have a massive effect over a few hundred years..

One problem I have with their model is that the particles would have a max potential of reflected solar radiation (heat) they could absorb.. In other words, the particles may have already absorbed all (or most) of the solar radiation they could as it was entering the atmosphere. It seems to me like their model assumes infinite particles or infinite potential to absorb solar radiation.

Honestly, it would take me a few days/weeks to really break it down. These are just my initial thoughts.





Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

[ron johnson]

Renewables are too expensive. And China will never act!


"Solar power is now cheaper than the grid in hundreds of Chinese cities"



https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/busin...ntl/index.html

You just want to rehash this over and over? The problem isn't the panels, it's storage and transmission. Get back to me when we have a plant with adequate storage that isn't reliant on carbon back ups.

[mcphee]

Get back to me when we have a plant with adequate storage that isn't reliant on carbon back ups.

It seems that your entire argument is that since we don't have these things, then trying to move forward to develop them is pointless. (serious question again: are you the dumbfuck senator from Wisconsin or one of his staffers?)

[SumJongGuy]

It seems that your entire argument is that since we don't have these things, then trying to move forward to develop them is pointless. (serious question again: are you the dumbfuck senator from Wisconsin or one of his staffers?)

And the 7.7 billion people will be fine even if temps rise a lot higher because a few million people survived some cataclysmic events over ten thousand years ago. That's pretty much the gist of sock puppet's latest identity ron johnson's posts.