Results 701 to 725 of 3644
-
08-17-2019, 12:34 PM #701Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
08-17-2019, 12:54 PM #702Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
08-17-2019, 01:04 PM #703
"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
-
08-17-2019, 01:07 PM #704
FWIW, anyone else who frequents the Polyass notice that Cemetheads contributions has slowed to a trickle since Ron joined the forum.
Just sayin.
-
08-17-2019, 01:15 PM #705
-
08-17-2019, 01:52 PM #706
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.
-
08-17-2019, 03:37 PM #707
Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...
Xxxxxxxxx
-
08-17-2019, 04:33 PM #708Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
08-17-2019, 04:51 PM #709
-
08-17-2019, 04:55 PM #710Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
08-17-2019, 05:00 PM #711Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
This is a poliass thread.
-
08-17-2019, 05:45 PM #712
If it wasn't before it just got taken there.
-
08-17-2019, 06:22 PM #713
-
08-17-2019, 06:26 PM #714
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwiQmGWK4c
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
08-17-2019, 06:48 PM #715
-
08-17-2019, 06:54 PM #716
Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...
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.Last edited by neufox47; 08-17-2019 at 09:20 PM.
-
08-17-2019, 09:32 PM #717Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
08-17-2019, 09:33 PM #718Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
08-18-2019, 06:22 AM #719Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
08-18-2019, 03:52 PM #720
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
-
08-18-2019, 10:41 PM #721
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.
-
08-19-2019, 03:39 AM #722
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"Skiing is the easy part, Carl."
-
08-19-2019, 10:10 AM #723Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
08-19-2019, 10:16 AM #724
-
08-19-2019, 10:33 AM #725Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
Bookmarks