Results 551 to 575 of 3644
-
08-14-2019, 10:32 AM #551
Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...
This is what the fossil fuel industry wants us to believe - that switching will be very expensive and will allow lots of government control of our lives.
It just isn't true. Utility scale wind and solar are cheaper then gas and coal. Yes, putting in infrastructure for smart grids and EV charging will cost money, bit so does drilling for oil or coal.
Economists love the idea of putting a price on Carbon. Consumers don't as they don't want costs to go up. So don't do it. The market has failed to address climate change so that now we need to get to net zero emissions quickly. Regulations that require 100% renewables is part of the answer; renewables are cheap.
About the point that we would need to give government more control of our lives, this also isn't true. Yes, government will set industrial policy, like it has since our founding. They will say you can't drive a gas car you must drive a more powerful, sportier EV that is cheaper to drive and requires less maintenance. But you can still drive a car. You won't heart your home with gas but your home will be comfortable and costs will be low.
If we stop giving billions of dollars of subsidies to fossil fuel companies we'll
Have money to begin the transition.
The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action.
-
08-14-2019, 10:49 AM #552Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 2,510
-
08-14-2019, 11:06 AM #553
Would you guys stop acting like the Los Angeles Solar plant is an answer for anywhere but LA, Vegas, and Arizona? Jesus it's surrounded by mountains followed by a fucking DESERT. So it's sunny, wide open to development, and out of sight. Wonderful.
Now try scaling that power need by a factor of 3 for the NYC Metro area with literally zero open space to cover with solar panels that isn't already in heavy use by agriculture or Nature preserves. Think of your solar wealth equivalent to our potable water wealth.
-
08-14-2019, 11:07 AM #554Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
You can't translate this cost onto a 100% clean renewable future. This is for only 7% of LA's power, and the batteries only have 4 hours of storage so it still needs carbon backups. To be serious about replacing fossil fuels the storage needs to be closer to 4 days. Also notice this project has a 30% subsidy. I know this isn't the greatest source, but its the most detailed cost breakdown I can find: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/...u-do-the-math/
-
08-14-2019, 11:09 AM #555Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
08-14-2019, 11:15 AM #556Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
You said, "...most ice loss is from calving, not melt...."
From: https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-017-0070-1
"In combination, the breakaway of icebergs (calving) and submarine melting at marine-terminating glaciers account for between one third and one half of the mass annually discharged from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean."
-
08-14-2019, 11:38 AM #557
-
08-14-2019, 11:53 AM #558Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
Just for giggles go add up the 5 largest solar plants in the world. Only like 2 are at full operating capacity. I gave benefit of doubt and added the full operating capacity (most won'te achieved forany years). Combined they produce just over 5000megawatts of electricity a state like California has used 50,270 megawatts in a DAY (July 24 2006). The top 5 take up about 100sq miles of land. We simply aren't going to cut it with solar.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
-
08-14-2019, 12:05 PM #559
-
08-14-2019, 12:24 PM #560Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
I am 100% for alternative sources of energy to move away from fossil fuels, however betting on "all in" solar is never going to work. Soon we will need nearly every square inch of land for humans. We keep people alive longer and keep reproducing. We need a plague or something.
-
08-14-2019, 12:31 PM #561
Solar is one piece, wind another, Nukes another.
One thing that gets skipped is increasing efficiency. The GND is excoriated yet part of the proposal is to increase building efficiency to reduce energy usage, to me that is a freaking huge opportunity that should be easy to get going if only the shouters would STFU and think about the idea critically.
How much energy could we save by making as many old and leaky buildings much less energy intensive?
Until some brainiac comes up with the ultimate answer energy will come down to a broad set of sources.
-
08-14-2019, 12:33 PM #562
I don't know anyone that is going "all in" on solar. But there are a LOT of people that are advocates of going all in on carbon-free. Which seems like a prudent direction to take.
Soon we will need nearly every square inch of land for humans.
We keep people alive longer and keep reproducing. We need a plague or something.
-
08-14-2019, 12:48 PM #563
This.
And this.
Funny to read all over the internets comments about how Windmills don't spin all of the time and therefore they are worthless. All the right wing talking points handed down to the masses by the dumbasses running the right wing talk shop - including the orange dictator wannabee.
The trolls on here are only slightly more nuanced. Gets so tiring.
-
08-14-2019, 01:00 PM #564
This is probably your biggest lie yet.
Much of the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their vast holdings of oil, gas and coal reserves. If we move away from fossil fuels, these reserves are worthless and the value of these companies disappears.
These companies also have billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure (wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, gas stations, etc) that become stranded assets if we move to clean energy. I think they care more about this than the tech needed to go clean.
Follow the money and you see why people like Ron Johnson lie and try to confuse.
Listening to the scientists and getting off of fossil fuels is an existential threat to fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening, even if it means allowing the climate to tip into chaos.
When they tell us how awful it will be to go to zero emissions, remember that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Who do you think funds the deniers?
https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change
-
08-14-2019, 01:07 PM #565Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
Too big to fail? What would getting rid of all those companies do to the economy? I'm seriously asking.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
-
08-14-2019, 01:25 PM #566
They'd be replaced by other companies stepping in to produce clean energy. Investment will continue. But yes, by refusing to change business models they are putting the climate and the economy at risk.
-
08-14-2019, 01:32 PM #567
-
08-14-2019, 01:44 PM #568
The moron in the video, who you defended, used a chart that ignored a third to half of all melt in his argument that this is all alarmism, and your objection is I said most? Now that you know that his whole argument includes 1/2 to 2/3th the total melting do you reject his argument?
-
08-14-2019, 02:23 PM #569
Guys, check out this Energy expert who can clear up all of these arguments:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...sburgh-1461337Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.
-
08-14-2019, 04:55 PM #570
-
08-14-2019, 05:00 PM #571
-
08-14-2019, 05:09 PM #572
In aggregate what square footage would you put that at? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's nowhere near the available space in a fucking DESERT. You ever been to the Mojave? There is fuck all between Barstow and Needles (150 miles) other than rocks and sand. There's also all that pesky "not ideal for solar" weather difference too between the two locations.
-
08-14-2019, 05:23 PM #573
it doesn't matter. the country that has the highest solar use is germany. eight percent of their total consumption is solar
that it has to be sunny all the time for solar to be efficient is stupid
-
08-14-2019, 05:27 PM #574
-
08-14-2019, 05:28 PM #575
Dude. Germany got flattened in WWII. Go there and find the shit ton of leaky drafty wood single family homes we have. The climate also (with exceptions, like this year) doesn't call for AC being run 24/7 for months on end. Their per capita kW/hr consumption of electricity is miniscule compared to ours... and really? 8%?? that leaves 92% to....
Bookmarks