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

[ron johnson]

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?)

You are putting the cart before the horse. You are making it sound like no one is working on this, and the only way to achieve it is to start making lots of panels. Or lots of batteries? Which are so far away from being cost effective it would be pointless. There is a ton of research going into storage, if anyone can figure it out they are poised to make a ton of money.

[neufox47]

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.

Your arguments have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate, this was just the first time you acknowledged it as it was the most egregious with easily demonstrable facts. Your general MO is to omit and cherry pick data that agrees with you. For example, you continue to present information that assigns $0 cost to co2. You also condoned and defended a video from a guy who selectively showed data that only presented 33-50% of Greenland’s melt when he was making the argument that this is no big deal. I’m sure if I took the time to investigate the rest of your claims they would prove equally unintelligent and incomplete.

[old goat]

Which are so far away from being cost effective it would be pointless.

This is the core of your specious argument. But what does cost-effective mean? Cost effective compared to continuing to burn carbon fuel? No, but meaningless. Cost effective compared to dealing with the consequences of unrestrained carbon fuel use? Yes. And that doesn't account for the non-quantifiable costs. What's a polar bear worth, or the way of life of a society on a low lying pacific island, or a million species gone before we even have discovered them? Is money the only thing of worth to you. How very, very sad.

[raisingarizona13]

If you want to save the earth then you should probably be pro-global warming since the biggest threat to everything are the humans and some good ole warming should clear a lot of that up.

[ron johnson]

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.

Never said or implied this. If the the Younger Dryas catastrophe happened today, it would likely mean human extinction since the vast majority of humans today have no survival skills and wouldn't be able to feed themselves without grocery stores.

And yes, I think people will be fine if temps rise a lot higher. To this point the only thing we know would happen for certain is sea level rise. What is a lot? 2' 5' 10'? IPCC worst case scenario (many scientists believe close to implausible) has a total warming of 4.5' by 2150 from pre industrial levels. Certainly you start entering unknown territory as you get higher up the scale, but we are talking about colonizing Mars in the near future. I think we would be able to figure it out.

[neufox47]

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...

Are you seriously presenting yourself as an expert on this stuff because you took 2 years of environmental science classes? Hold the phone everyone, forget what those PHD physicists and Climatologists said about CO2 and whether it lags or contributes to climate change. This guy took two years of undergrad Environmental Science classes! And he says they made serious errors in their calculations, he’s probably about to win the Nobel prize with this find!

[mcphee]

You are putting the cart before the horse. You are making it sound like no one is working on this, and the only way to achieve it is to start making lots of panels. Or lots of batteries? Which are so far away from being cost effective it would be pointless. There is a ton of research going into storage, if anyone can figure it out they are poised to make a ton of money.

You have to sell the lesser technologies in order to fund the projects for more advanced technologies. Do you not understand how research and development departments work?
Why are you so obstinate in this matter? Your entire argument is that the tech isnt at it's apex so we just need to exhaust all carbon based forms of energy until the tech is at it's height.

You're saying we should all be using horse and buggy until the Koenigsegg Regera is available.

[ron johnson]

Your arguments have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate, this was just the first time you acknowledged it as it was the most egregious with easily demonstrable facts. Your general MO is to omit and cherry pick data that agrees with you. For example, you continue to present information that assigns $0 cost to co2. You also condoned and defended a video from a guy who selectively showed data that only presented 33-50% of Greenland’s melt when he was making the argument that this is no big deal. I’m sure if I took the time to investigate the rest of your claims they would prove equally unintelligent and incomplete.

JFC I'm not doing the Greenland thing with you again. The articles the video is criticizing are about melt!! So he makes a video about melt!! You're entire argument is proving his point. What are these news organizations doing publishing these hysterical articles about 1 single day of melt, during a summer of melt within the range of normal, when 33-50% of Greenland's ice loss comes from calving as well?

You have been much less involved in this thread than I, and already two of your statements have proven false - 1. "Most ice loss is from calving not melt," and 2. "Greenland getting that warm is unusual and getting that warm as frequently as it is is very unusual."

The cost of CO2 is subjective, I've made this clear. If you think we are heading toward disaster, and CO2 is the major responsible party, then you will feel differently.

[ron johnson]

This is the core of your specious argument. But what does cost-effective mean? Cost effective compared to continuing to burn carbon fuel? No, but meaningless. Cost effective compared to dealing with the consequences of unrestrained carbon fuel use? Yes. And that doesn't account for the non-quantifiable costs. What's a polar bear worth, or the way of life of a society on a low lying pacific island, or a million species gone before we even have discovered them? Is money the only thing of worth to you. How very, very sad.

Hypothetically, lets say we can switch the world to 100% renewable non carbon tomorrow. And lets conservatively say that results in a 3x increase in energy prices worldwide (more realistic might be 10x? 15x?). You don't think this will result in major social upheaval? Major human suffering? Increased poverty? There is no telling that amount of unrest that could result.

For the record, polar bear populations are very healthy. That's more media propaganda.

[ron johnson]

You have to sell the lesser technologies in order to fund the projects for more advanced technologies. Do you not understand how research and development departments work?
Why are you so obstinate in this matter? Your entire argument is that the tech isnt at it's apex so we just need to exhaust all carbon based forms of energy until the tech is at it's height.

You're saying we should all be using horse and buggy until the Koenigsegg Regera is available.

What happens when a company sells a bunch of lesser technology that doesn't work very well? It goes bankrupt.

[mcphee]

What happens when a company sells a bunch of lesser technology that doesn't work very well? It goes bankrupt.

Without the Model T, there'd be no F-150. Without drum brakes, there'd be no disc brakes. Without Honda's VVTi engines, there'd be no variable valve timing available in 90% of the engines made today, and so on and so forth.

(yes, I realize that the honda analogy doesn't fit with the first 2 sentences but I'm also trying to point out how other companies are able to piggyback off of rival tech)

[WMD]

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.

I have hit you dismiss it because it crushes your whole argument.

"Jacobson’s new 100% renewables model aims to rebut critics
21 Apr 2018 Dave Elliott
Mark Jacobson and his team from Stanford reckon that 100% of all global energy can come from renewable sources (with biomass excluded) by 2050. Jacobson’s new 100% renewables model contains a new set of scenarios, which the researchers say confirms their view that it can be done – and with full grid balancing"

https://physicsworld.com/a/jacobsons...rebut-critics/

Jacobson and colleagues at Stanford, the University of California, Berkeley, and Aalborg University in Denmark, have now produced a new study focusing on 20 global regions encompassing the 139 countries, with supply and demand matching modelled for a range of storage/backup options over the period 2050–2054.

One scenario includes heat pumps, which are used in place of combustion-based heaters and coolers, but no hot- or cold-energy storage; two add no extra hydro turbines to what exists; and one has no battery storage. So they have options that reduce or avoid the contentious large extra hydro input and explore mixes of other options. Hydrogen from green sources is used for transport, but not otherwise. In their model test runs all the mixes worked, stably.

The team says that the fact that no blackouts occurred under the three different sample storage scenarios suggests that many possible solution mixes for grid stability with 100% wind, water and solar power are possible. They also found that the full final cost per unit of energy, in every scenario, was about one-quarter what it would be if the world continues on its current energy path. This is largely due to eliminating the health and climate costs of using fossil fuels. Also it was noted that, by reducing water vapour, the wind turbines in the mix would offset about 3% of global warming to date. The team’s explanation of this seems a bit convoluted, but the local air-speed changes created by wind turbines can precipitate water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG). This saving is of course on top of much larger GHG saving from displacing fossil-fuel use – although it is pointed out that the latter will take time to show up in global temperature terms, whereas vapour reduction will have immediate local temperature impacts.

In addition to wind, solar cells and concentrated solar power (CSP) in some regions, are central in their proposed mix, as are marine renewables and geothermal – as in their earlier global and US scenarios. On the demand side, detailed heat and power loads are explored, including options for demand response, such as varying industrial high-temperature industrial-process loads and phased electric vehicle charging and flexible vehicle-to-grid storage capacity.

The team is confident that there would be no major problems with balancing. It notes that many previous studies had examined matching time-dependent demand with supply for up to 100% renewable electricity and some had looked at all-energy matching. All had found that “time-dependent supply can match demand at high penetrations of renewable energy without nuclear power, natural gas, or fossil fuels with carbon capture”.

But the team claims to have added even more certainty: in its new scenarios it says “100% of all end-use energy, rather than 100% of just electricity (which is ~20% of total end use energy), is decarbonized” with balancing solutions found “by considering many storage options, namely heat storage in rocks and water; cold storage in water and ice; electricity storage in CSP-storage, pumped hydropower, existing hydropower reservoirs, and batteries; and hydrogen storage; and by considering demand response and, in one scenario, heat pumps”.

Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-author of the paper, says: “One of the biggest challenges facing energy systems based entirely on clean, zero-emission wind, water and solar power is to match supply and demand with near-perfect reliability at reasonable cost. Our work shows that this can be accomplished, in almost all countries of the world, with established technologies.” Jacobson was even more upbeat: “Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost.”

It will be interesting to see the reactions. It is certainly a detailed study and, interestingly, one that avoids the use of biomass and biofuels. However, producing scenarios for 2050–2054, using predictions of climate and weather patterns and energy use and supply, with full load balancing, is brave stuff. For the variable wind/solar outputs, produced at 30 second intervals, they use GATOR, a global weather-climate-air-pollution modelling tool (gas, aerosol, transport, radiation), combined with GCMOM (general circulation, mesoscale and ocean model), and then the LOADMATCH grid-integration model, providing tests for balancing of supply and demand using hourly demand data.
But though computer modelling, using projected time-series data, can it seems do it all, even with sensitivity checks on modelled interactions, it is still a long way from reality – not least in terms of cost. No new technology is assumed, but, even so, identifying costs so far ahead introduces considerable uncertainty. Current capital cost/LCOE estimates from the literature are used, as in the previous studies, along with estimates for transmission costs and storage, which are all then fed into the model.



Even so, while some costs of energy may be higher, there will still be an overall cost saving from reduced energy use – due to improved energy efficiency in both end use and generation (with green electricity being used rather than inefficient combustion), better supply and demand matching (via smart grid and demand management) and savings on the cost of fossil fuel (with energy also no longer being needed for fossil fuel mining, extraction and transport). That means that the overall operational cost will be low. And if the social and environmental cost savings are added, it will be even lower.

As can be seen, no one optimal blueprint or pathway is offered. As the authors conclude, the possible solutions “are not limited to one 100% WWS pathway. Instead, multiple 100% WWS pathways with different mixes of generation, storage, and transmission, and demand response, are possible”.
 They may not all turn out to be available or attractive, but some surely need exploring. Although, as the modelling team says, that from their perspective there are no major problems with the options, the main challenge is the need to get consensus for action. In my next few posts, I will look at what’s actually happening around the world, starting with the EU and UK.

[WMD]

Solar and wind compete favorably on price, including backup, with fossil fuels.

Of course the companies Aronson is wrong as one technology will cause many deaths and expensive natural disasters, and one won't. Adding these costs to the discussion makes the cost discussion just plain stupid. Fossil fuels will crush the economy.

[ron johnson]

Without the Model T, there'd be no F-150. Without drum brakes, there'd be no disc brakes. Without Honda's VVTi engines, there'd be no variable valve timing available in 90% of the engines made today, and so on and so forth.

The Model T was better than the the other cars available, drum brakes were better than no brakes, etc.

The current renewable non carbon tech is not better, or even comparable to fossil fuels on price and reliability.

[uglymoney]

The Model T was better than the the other cars available, drum brakes were better than no brakes, etc.

The current renewable non carbon tech is not better, or even comparable to fossil fuels on price and reliability.

If you really believed that you wouldn't bother spending hours each day here lying through your teeth about almost everything.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cy/1644619001/

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[old goat]

Hypothetically, lets say we can switch the world to 100% renewable non carbon tomorrow. And lets conservatively say that results in a 3x increase in energy prices worldwide (more realistic might be 10x? 15x?). You don't think this will result in major social upheaval? Major human suffering? Increased poverty? There is no telling that amount of unrest that could result.

For the record, polar bear populations are very healthy. That's more media propaganda.

a) those are numbers you pulled out of your ass
b) the upheaval over energy prices will still be a fraction of the upheaval of a 2C+ rise in temperature if we keep burning fossil fuel
c) whether or not the polar bears are healthy now (the fact is we don't really know) they won't be for long, when there's no sea ice. I've noticed you make this specious argument more than once. Because a predicted bad outcome hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not going to happen as the planet continues to warm, but you prefer to dismiss the inevitable because it's in the future.

You're like the patient with cancer who says doc, I can't afford to treat the cancer so I'll just ignore it--an unfortunately all-too-common occurrence. What happens--the patient dies of the cancer of course. When you have no other alternative you either pay or die.

[ron johnson]

Solar and wind compete favorably on price, including backup, with fossil fuels.

Please provide one real world example. All you have is one paper suggesting its possible. Until we can see one real world scalable example it doesn't exist.

Also to note, a major component to this paper is the addition the climate costs of fossil fuels on to the price of fossil fuels. The paper isn't public so we have no idea what the costs are, or what the methodology is.

If what you believe is actually true, then the market will take care of much of the rest. There is high demand for non carbon renewable tech.

[mcphee]

The Model T was better than the the other cars available, drum brakes were better than no brakes, etc.

The current renewable non carbon tech is not better, or even comparable to fossil fuels on price and reliability.

Buddy, the argument for non carbon isn't solely about price and reliability but to get the ball rolling on tech that will be needed in the future. Fossil fuels will dry up and burning shit from something renewable is just an awful way to power our conveniences.

Breaking down the reason for your obstinancy (you're a paid shill for fossil fuel companies, which is why i keep asking you who you are. Great job on FoxConn btw.) is really causing you to show your whole ass.

[SumJongGuy]

Solar and wind compete favorably on price, including backup, with fossil fuels.

Of course the companies Aronson is wrong as one technology will cause many deaths and expensive natural disasters, and one won't. Adding these costs to the discussion makes the cost discussion just plain stupid. Fossil fuels will crush the economy.

The Insurance Industry is already feeling quite a bit of pressure. Look at all these claims they aren't able to weasel out of..

[ron johnson]

If you really believed that you wouldn't bother spending hours each day here lying through your teeth about almost everything.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cy/1644619001/

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Natural gas is the main reason for coal losing its market. Coal is a pretty shitty energy source, but it still has the reliability that non carbon renewables lack.

[uglymoney]

Natural gas is the main reason for coal losing its market. Coal is a pretty shitty energy source, but it still has the reliability that non carbon renewables lack.

Natural gas backing up wind power is what is delivering the knockout punch to coal. Phase one of the fossil fuel beatdown despite the best efforts of the wingnut misinformation campaign.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ron johnson]

a) those are numbers you pulled out of your ass
b) the upheaval over energy prices will still be a fraction of the upheaval of a 2C+ rise in temperature if we keep burning fossil fuel
c) whether or not the polar bears are healthy now (the fact is we don't really know) they won't be for long, when there's no sea ice. I've noticed you make this specious argument more than once. Because a predicted bad outcome hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not going to happen as the planet continues to warm, but you prefer to dismiss the inevitable because it's in the future.

You're like the patient with cancer who says doc, I can't afford to treat the cancer so I'll just ignore it--an unfortunately all-too-common occurrence. What happens--the patient dies of the cancer of course. When you have no other alternative you either pay or die.

a) Pulled with an educated guess. I mean, we know it will be more expensive. Do you take issue with that? If it wasn't we would already have some real world examples to look at.
b) A fraction? Couldn't disagree more. We have plenty of examples throughout history of what happens when the price of human essentials increase (its not good).
c) I point things like this out to show how much dishonesty there is in this topic.

Do you have any evidence that the earth is actually sick from CO2?

[mcphee]

a) Pulled with an educated guess. I mean, we know it will be more expensive. Do you take issue with that? If it wasn't we would already have some real world examples to look at.
b) A fraction? Couldn't disagree more. We have plenty of examples throughout history of what happens when the price of human essentials increase (its not good).
c) I point things like this out to show how much dishonesty there is in this topic.

Do you have any evidence that the earth is actually sick from CO2?

Whole. Ass.

[uglymoney]

Circled back to lie circle #1 for another 72 hours of paid trolling for his fascist friends.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ron johnson]

Buddy, the argument for non carbon isn't solely about price and reliability but to get the ball rolling on tech that will be needed in the future. Fossil fuels will dry up and burning shit from something renewable is just an awful way to power our conveniences.

Breaking down the reason for your obstinancy (you're a paid shill for fossil fuel companies, which is why i keep asking you who you are. Great job on FoxConn btw.) is really causing you to show your whole ass.

My point is the ball is already rolling, it doesn't need government forcing. The free market is powerful.