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

[Tippster]

You've convinced me.

We should give up on solar... it's a dead-end.

Don't be a dick. It's not a zero sum game. I'm saying that solar is a good start, but it's not the fucking answer yet.

[skaredshtles]

Don't be a dick. It's not a zero sum game. I'm saying that solar is a good start, but it's not the fucking answer.

I'm not sure anyone was claiming it was "the fucking answer."

[Tippster]

Puhleeez. Read through this thread. The SOLAR IS THE ANSWER vibe is strong, yet IMHO (and yes like you I'm allowed to have one) is silly.

The way I see it the only way for us to go Nationally, not even globally, carbon free is through Fusion and that's a ways out.

You sound like a guy who bought a Hybrid thinking it would help the planet.

[ron johnson]

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

So you think the main reason we don't have a plan to reach 100% clean renewable energy is because of oil and gas' political influence? If that's the case why are renewables receiving more in gov't subsidies than oil and gas? https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...on-tax-breaks/

The reason is cost. You read these feel good headlines about the low costs of new renewable plants without any perspective of how those costs can't be directly translated a 100% clean renewable system.

And its not like the oil and gas companies don't have investments in the renewable industry. I'm sure they'd love to hang on to their oil and gas cash cow, but its not like they will be dead in a 100% renewable world.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
You sound like a guy who bought a Hybrid thinking it would help the planet.

A swing and a miss.

But if it helps, go ahead and continue to think that.

[ron johnson]

So, basically, your whole argument against renewable energy is that trying is the first step towards failure?

My argument is the tech isn't there. For the amount of money we are talking about this not something you can just try with the hope of figuring it out on the way. Look at Germany for an example.

I also consider the environmental impact of solar and wind which seem entirely ignored. People seem to equate them as some spectacularly environmentally friendly tech.

Even if we were to try to achieve 100% clean renewables, it would make virtually no difference to the global warming issue. You still need Russia, China, India, and the rest of the 3rd world to do the same. Which won't happen. It will only happen if the tech reaches a point where the economics make sense.

[SKIP IN7RO]

"while americans are denying climate change, russia is already planning for it."

[ron johnson]

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?

All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

But you don't see any headlines about that.

[ron johnson]

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

How is that working out for Germany?

[k2skier112]

So you think the main reason we don't have a plan to reach 100% clean renewable energy is because of oil and gas' political influence? If that's the case why are renewables receiving more in gov't subsidies than oil and gas? https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...on-tax-breaks/

The reason is cost. You read these feel good headlines about the low costs of new renewable plants without any perspective of how those costs can't be directly translated a 100% clean renewable system.

And its not like the oil and gas companies don't have investments in the renewable industry. I'm sure they'd love to hang on to their oil and gas cash cow, but its not like they will be dead in a 100% renewable world.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/energ...rgy/index.html
Yet, unlike their European rivals, American juggernauts ExxonMobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX) have not yet made large-scale investments in solar, wind, electric cars or energy storage. Their more cautious approach raises their risk of being left behind if the energy revolution arrives faster than they anticipate.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKCN1NH004
Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...utious-for-now
Companies accustomed to the huge profit surges that fossil fuels provide may have trouble adjusting to the rhythms of renewables.

[Tippster]

How is that working out for Germany?

Maybe they should be more like Iceland and focus on Geothermal.

[uglymoney]

The idea that our oil companies are invested in green is laughable. Actually vested in green energy is just flat out crazy talk and RJ knows it. They are the same guys putting words in the trolls mouths.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[iceman]

They brought in a higher-level ron, the first one wasn't getting much traction.

[old goat]

All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

But you don't see any headlines about that.

so when the media publish something you don't like it's propaganda, but when a mainstream news medium, which is what The Local is, publishes something you like it's truth. And by the way, the correction didn't change Danish Meteorological Society's estimate of ice melt, something the article also said but which you seem to have ignored.

[WMD]

Solar alone is not the answer. We need a mix of energy sources and in many areas large scale wind will be a much much bigger piece of the puzzle than solar. There is also offshore wind among many other options.

For example, the plan to get Montana to 100% wind water solar includes:
2.8% residential rooftop solar
2.1% commercial and govt rooftop solar
22% solar plants
10% concentrating solar plants
35% wind
9% geothermal
19.2% hydro

This would create nearly 20,000 careers (jobs that last 40 years).
It would save 139 deaths a year from air pollution
Land use would be 0.04% footprint area and 0.22% spacing area.

I talked about LA's solar as an example of low cost renewable energy. Extrapolating from that that solar is the only answer is madness.

RJ no doubt is a paid denier. What cracks me up about that is wtf is a paid denier doing on a ski forum? Like it makes a difference if he is able to spread doubt on here? I bet TGR is where they send jong denier trolls to get started. He's not ready for the real denier work.

[ron johnson]

so when the media publish something you don't like it's propaganda, but when a mainstream news medium, which is what The Local is, publishes something you like it's truth. And by the way, the correction didn't change Danish Meteorological Society's estimate of ice melt, something the article also said but which you seem to have ignored.

It's propaganda when the sole purpose is to promote an agenda. Like was the case with the reporting on the record day in Greenland melt, during a summer that has seen melting within the range of normal. This happens over and over when it comes to climate change. You see it with every hurricane, forest fire, drought, etc despite the fact that their climate holy grail, the IPCC, can find no connection of these extreme weather events with global warming.

[SKIP IN7RO]

^How are they determining the residential %?

[WMD]

It's propaganda when the sole purpose is to promote an agenda. Like was the case with the reporting on the record day in Greenland melt, during a summer that has seen melting within the range of normal. This happens over and over when it comes to climate change. You see it with every hurricane, forest fire, drought, etc despite the fact that their climate holy grail, the IPCC, can find no connection of these extreme weather events with global warming.

More bullshit. Attribution models are directly connecting more and more extreme weather events to climate change.

Are you in remedial denier school RJ?

[ron johnson]

Solar alone is not the answer. We need a mix of energy sources and in many areas large scale wind will be a much much bigger piece of the puzzle than solar. There is also offshore wind among many other options.

For example, the plan to get Montana to 100% wind water solar includes:
2.8% residential rooftop solar
2.1% commercial and govt rooftop solar
22% solar plants
10% concentrating solar plants
35% wind
9% geothermal
19.2% hydro

This would create nearly 20,000 careers (jobs that last 40 years).
It would save 139 deaths a year from air pollution
Land use would be 0.04% footprint area and 0.22% spacing area.

I talked about LA's solar as an example of low cost renewable energy. Extrapolating from that that solar is the only answer is madness.

RJ no doubt is a paid denier. What cracks me up about that is wtf is a paid denier doing on a ski forum? Like it makes a difference if he is able to spread doubt on here? I bet TGR is where they send jong denier trolls to get started. He's not ready for the real denier work.

I never extrapolated that solar is the only answer. Everyone agrees it has to be a big part of a non carbon future. You are the one touting how cheap it is, and I'm showing you that you don't understand the real costs involved in a 100% non carbon future.

How dumb do you have to be to think anyone is going to pay money to shill on such a small forum? Change for a nickel anyone?

[WMD]

I never extrapolated that solar is the only answer. Everyone agrees it has to be a big part of a non carbon future. You are the one touting how cheap it is, and I'm showing you that you don't understand the real costs involved in a 100% non carbon future.

How dumb do you have to be to think anyone is going to pay money to shill on such a small forum? Change for a nickel anyone?

Oooh, that proves you are for real. Must be embarrassing to be shilling in here. What'd you do to get demoted? From now on you shall be known as Jong Rohnson.

So you dispute that "IRENA was on the right track when it predicted early last year that renewable energy should be consistently cheaper than traditional fossil fuels by 2020?"

What about this: "Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesel.../#3c1e4d665a6b

In Montana both large scale wind and solar are cheaper than gas and much cheaper than coal without subsidies.

And we've been subsidizing fossil fuels billions of dollars a year globally.

Saying otherwise is a lie.o

[ron johnson]

More bullshit. Attribution models are directly connecting more and more extreme weather events to climate change.

Are you in remedial denier school RJ?

These quotes are straight from the latest IPCC report released in 2018: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ On droughts: "low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale... likely to be trends in some regions of the world, including increases in drought in the Mediterranean and W Africa & decreases in droughts in central N America & NW Australia." On floods: "There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods." On tropical cyclones: "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy" and "there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades." Tornadoes and forest fires are not mentioned.

Attribution studies are the junkiest of junk science.

[WMD]

100% renewable energy plan for New York includes 40% offshore wind, creates 270,000 careers (jobs that last 40 years), new wind water solar power generation uses less than 2% of land, and costs about the same as business as usual with fossil fuels. Of course business as usual doesn't include costs of negative externalities like health issues and deaths from air pollution, making wind water solar much cheaper for society.

[ron johnson]

Oooh, that proves you are for real. Must be embarrassing to be shilling in here. What'd you do to get demoted? From now on you shall be known as Jong Rohnson.

So you dispute that "IRENA was on the right track when it predicted early last year that renewable energy should be consistently cheaper than traditional fossil fuels by 2020?"

What about this: "Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesel.../#3c1e4d665a6b

In Montana both large scale wind and solar are cheaper than gas and much cheaper than coal without subsidies.

And we've been subsidizing fossil fuels billions of dollars a year globally.

Saying otherwise is a lie.o

It is only cheap if it has fossil fuel backups. Remove the backups and it is obscenely expensive. This is the point that you and all these articles are missing. You would need at least a week of storage capacity in a place like Montana. Please find me a plant with adequate storage. If you want your 100% non carbon goal this has to happen.

Renewables have been getting significantly more in subsidies than fossil fuels for the past 10 years. Look at the link I showed you earlier.

[WMD]

More lies.

This assumes smart grids can't shift energy from where the wind is blowing or sun is shining to where it isn't. Bonneville Power Administration would disagree. You don't need fossil fuels for baseload or peak power, as the grid can handle this.

An example, Washington has declared they will be off coal by 2025 and off fossil fuels by around 2040 (I don't feel like looking up the exact date). Washington has good wind in the Columbia Gorge, but wind there is less reliable in winter when electricity demand goes up. Montana has great winter wind and both WA and OR recognize that MT wind could provide power when their wind isn't blowing. The grid can handle this.

Battery prices are falling like crazy, and there is all sorts of technology besides lithium ion too. Even with storage wind and solar compete favorably with gas. The Montana and NY plans I referenced don't need fossil fuel backup. You saying that is a lie.

For example, Absaroka Energy in Montana is ready to begin a pumped hydro project that could "offer 400 megawatts of power capacity with more than 8 hours of duration. "

https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...orage-in-years

Described as a "hydro battery," it would use excess power produced by wind farms or other sources to pump water from a reservoir uphill to a second reservoir. The water would be released during periods of high electricity demand, turning hydropower turbines to generate power.

Many utilities use power plants fueled by natural gas to fulfill a similar role. They're needed to balance electricity across the power grid as demand rises and falls over time.

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/st...er/1718436001/

[old goat]

It is only cheap if it has fossil fuel backups. Remove the backups and it is obscenely expensive.

Not as expensive as the cost of Miami and NYC being under water.