Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 2:33pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 23 2019 11:22pm
PS: i didnt bother reading beyond that first line ! :roll:
You never do.

eta: plus if you read further I explained why the question should be deferred to you. You just assumed I was begging inanities because that's what you do. :wink:
Last edited by furcifer on Jul 24 2019 2:37pm, edited 1 time in total.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 2:35pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 24 2019 4:28am
furcifer wrote:
Jul 23 2019 5:51pm

Knowing this, you've somehow come to the conclusion that the activity of burning fossil fuels is having little or no impact on the environment? Doesn't that seem odd to you?
No, no, no. You forget that it's unique in having a positive effect on the environment. Remember: "CO2 is plant food, dummy!". Continued CO2 emissions are the only thing that will boost crop yields enough to prevent mass starvation and therefore burning fossil fuels is not only a good idea, it's our moral duty in order to help those in the 3rd world.

Then again, a different flavour of denialist would claim anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't raise atmospheric CO2 levels, so IDK...
Yes, I removed my toilet and now I poop on my front lawn, because "fertilizer". :mrgreen:

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 2:39pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 24 2019 6:50am
More accurately stated as ... there is no proof that the increase in CO2 levels are the result of anthropogenic activity. :wink:
Nope. Another lie.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -passes-99

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 2:40pm

“There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.
Last edited by furcifer on Jul 24 2019 2:45pm, edited 1 time in total.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 2:44pm

SHOW ME! SHOW ME! SHOW ME!

This is the denialist argument.

So you show them and they close their eyes and whinge for more. Repeat ad nauseum.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 24 2019 3:10pm

"Agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land. It consumes 90 percent of all the water used by humanity and generates one-quarter of the annual global emissions that are causing global warming. And yet of the seven billion people living today, 820 million are undernourished because they don’t have access to—or can’t afford—an adequate diet.

“We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, [ How can we do this without giant farm tractors that run on liquid fuel. And without artificial fertilizer that is made with and from fossil carbon] stop deforestation, and]cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds, All of that must be done while reducing poverty levels and the loss of natural habitat, preventing freshwater depletion, and cutting pollution as well as other environmental impacts of farming."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... 1266339255

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 24 2019 5:44pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 24 2019 8:54am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 24 2019 6:50am
More accurately stated as ... there is no proof that the increase in CO2 levels are the result of anthropogenic activity. :wink:
But there is proof that we are doing it.
.
"One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. .....
.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase........
.........
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes."
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s-updated/
That is correllation and assumption,...not proof
As for the isotope measurements...i have asked repeatedly for someone to produce the results that prove the 120ppm increase is due to anthropogenic CO2 ...
....everyone has avoided producing that answer.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 24 2019 5:49pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 24 2019 9:40am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 24 2019 6:50am
More accurately stated as ... there is no proof that the increase in CO2 levels are the result of anthropogenic activity. :wink:

So, in your esteemed opinion, what has happened to the 30 billion tons of CO2 that fossil fuel burning has added to the atmosphere every year for the past several decades? Or, is it your contention that burning fossil fuels does not produce CO2?
Your memory is letting you down, as much as your sense of logic ...
Do you really want me to review the last 100 pages. Or so of posts to remind you of my esteemed opinions ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 24 2019 8:50pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 23 2019 11:22pm
PS: i didnt bother reading . . .
That pretty much says it all. If you choose to remain ignorant, we can't help you. (And nowadays it takes a concerted effort to remain completely ignorant of AGW.)
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 24 2019 8:55pm

sleepy_tired wrote:
Jul 24 2019 9:51am
If you destroy the economy you destroy any ability to save the environment.
Completely destroying the economy would be great for the environment as a whole. Most of humanity would die out, and the remainder would result in a very small impact on the environment.

It is worthwhile, IMO, to avoid that outcome.
Nuclear is fantastically inexpensive if it's allowed to be inexpensive. Which it is not.
Correct. We place a high priority on safety. Same reason that flying is expensive compared to buses.
It's a bullshit scheme because the point of it is not to save the environment. The point of it is to create vast new financial markets to make certain individuals massive amounts of money.
The point of it is - both of those things. By making it possible to become very, very rich by significantly reducing CO2 emissions, everyone will try to become rich in that way.
There is literally nothing that the human race can do that does not result in carbon releases.
Agreed. The goal is to reduce them, not end them. Get them to 15-20% of what they are now and the ecosystem can easily absorb the excess.
The naive view is thinking that this is a problem that can be solved simply be declaring some new law or tax.
Also agreed. A carbon tax is just one tool that works. You need more than one tool for any project.
Last edited by billvon on Jul 24 2019 9:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 24 2019 9:02pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 24 2019 4:28am
No, no, no. You forget that it's unique in having a positive effect on the environment. Remember: "CO2 is plant food, dummy!". Continued CO2 emissions are the only thing that will boost crop yields enough to prevent mass starvation and therefore burning fossil fuels is not only a good idea, it's our moral duty in order to help those in the 3rd world.

Then again, a different flavour of denialist would claim anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't raise atmospheric CO2 levels, so IDK...
One of the funniest things about climate change deniers is how their denial changes on a weekly - sometimes daily - basis. They regularly switch back and forth between:

1) The climate's not changing, stupid! NASA was wrong. Someone fudged the numbers. It was hot in 1914. It snowed yesterday!

2) Of course the climate's changing - but we're not doing it, stupid! It's the sun. It's not the sun, it's cosmic radiation. It's certainly not CO2. Of course it's CO2 but we didn't release it, someone else did. It's clouds! Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe it's aliens. We just don't know and there's certainly no consensus.

3) OK maybe we had something to do with it - but all the changes will be good! CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer that will cure starvation, acne and bad breath. Why, it would be almost criminal to stop releasing that CO2 that I just claimed we're not releasing.

And they never see any conflict between all of the above statements - even when the same person claims all of the above. Because to them what's important isn't the science - what's important is denial.
--bill von

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 9:49pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 24 2019 5:44pm
That is correllation and assumption,...not proof
Again, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're just parroting something you've heard and don't understand.

From a purely statistical standpoint there's no way to determine causation outside of a controlled experiment.

This is exactly how the tobacco industry operated for many years. Since it's completely unethical to lock 100 people in a room and force them to smoke until they get lung cancer, the correlation between smoking and lung cancer can't be considered causation.

The chemical companies still rely on this. Look at Dow, they still make and sell PFOA. There is a very strong correlation to Teflon and birth defects, but there's no actual causation. People are something like 2 or 3 times more likely to get cancer living downstream from the Dow plant making PFOA's, but that's just correlation, not proof.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 24 2019 10:05pm

billvon wrote:
Jul 24 2019 8:50pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 23 2019 11:22pm
PS: i didnt bother reading . . .
That pretty much says it all. If you choose to remain ignorant, we can't help you. (And nowadays it takes a concerted effort to remain completely ignorant of AGW.)
I choose to ignor irrelavent bullshit that just serves to avoid answering the question asked.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 24 2019 10:13pm

billvon wrote:
Jul 24 2019 9:02pm

And they never see any conflict between all of the above statements - even when the same person claims all of the above. Because to them what's important isn't the science - what's important is denial.
This is exactly what I don't get. It's always blatantly contradictory. HIllhater is arguing the proxy data doesn't mean anything, then in the next breath "it's natural variation". Um, the natural variation was determined using proxy data dude, so which is it?

It's interesting how they overlook these inconsistencies. To some extent you have to believe it's pathological.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5262
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 25 2019 2:27am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 24 2019 5:49pm
Do you really want me to review the last 100 pages. Or so of posts to remind you of my esteemed opinions ?
You've never made a coherent argument against AGW. It's mostly just trying to poke holes in other peoples' posts and demanding ever more "proof", but you only request it of others, never provide any yourself and the definition of proof is your own, unique, one.
furcifer wrote:
Jul 24 2019 10:13pm

This is exactly what I don't get. It's always blatantly contradictory.
Judging by Hillhater's posts generally (not just on AGW) he's a contrarian. I remember being like that as a teenager. When you're smart enough to string together a plausible-sounding objection to shoot down any popular concept (but not smart enough to recognise the limits of your own ignorance) it makes you feel special and superior.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1860
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jul 25 2019 9:53am

News on Tesla's solar business, really seems like solar is the worlds most subsidised business.
Tesla's solar energy business takes a turn for the worse
https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/24/tesl ... the-worse/
The interesting story about the Tesla solar factory is the fact it was built via taxpayer funds from the article ->
"built the factory with $750 million in taxpayer funds."
But the deal was they would hire over 500 people at the solar factory, Tesla claims they have hired that many, but workers at the actual factory say it's impossible to count more than around 50 people in the whole building, I have posted articles/youtube videos on that in the past.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 25 2019 10:14am

TheBeastie wrote:
Jul 25 2019 9:53am
The interesting story about the Tesla solar factory is the fact it was built via taxpayer funds from the article ->
Built with grants from the "Buffalo Billion" NY state stimulus money after the crash of 2009. Unfortunately most of the businesses that received money turned out to be scams. Several NY politicians and business men close to the Governor were recently sentenced to prison for corruption.
.
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/st ... 795849002/
.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 25 2019 1:51pm

TheBeastie wrote:
Jul 25 2019 9:53am
News on Tesla's solar business, really seems like solar is the worlds most subsidised business.
Other than oil (google "depletion allowance") nuclear (Price-Anderson act) and coal (subsidizes land leases. Plus depletion allowance.)

And of course those are old news. Trump recently passed a new $10+ billion subsidy for coal and nuclear plants. That's above and beyond all those subsidies above. Makes that $750 million look like a rounding error.

Oh, and there's this:
====================
Ohio Enacts Controversial Bill to Subsidize Nuclear, Coal, and Slash Renewable Standard
07/23/2019 | Sonal Patel

Ohio’s Gov. Mike DeWine (R) on July 23 quickly signed a controversial nuclear subsidy bill that narrowly passed the state’s House of Representatives on Tuesday, making Ohio the fifth state in the nation to prop up nuclear power.

Lawmakers passed H.B. 6 with a 51–38 vote Tuesday. The bill passed the state Senate on July 17, sparking a week of debate prior to the House passage, which was uncertain after House Speaker Larry Householder expressed concerns the measure wouldn’t have enough support in his chamber. The bill has faced fierce opposition by a wide array of groups, including advocates for renewables and clean energy, the natural gas industry, and competitive generators.

The law essentially provides FirstEnergy Solution’s (FES’s) Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants with an estimated $150 million a year during the 2021 to 2027 period to keep the reactors in service. It also provides about $60 million a year through 2030 to keep two Ohio Valley Electric Corp. (OVEC) coal plants—one in Ohio and another in Indiana—in operation.
====================

You were complaining about a one time subsidy of $750 million for new technology. This is $210 million to keep old technology running. A YEAR. So in five years we'll be out a billion dollars for plants that are going to shut down soon anyway. And they need it because they can't compete with solar and wind.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 25 2019 4:53pm

Image

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 25 2019 4:55pm

Image

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 25 2019 7:18pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 24 2019 5:44pm
i have asked repeatedly for someone to produce the results that prove the 120ppm increase is due to anthropogenic CO2 ...
....everyone has avoided producing that answer.
“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.




You're just lying now.

eta: and just to bring this back into perspective, you actually need to prove it isn't from burning fossil fuels. We're entertaining your delusion because....why not. The reality is we have 99% of the scientists involved in studying climate change agreeing the increase is anthropogenic. And then you saying it isn't.

Up until this last study, I think the percentage of published journal papers supporting AGW was 99.95%, something like 60000 papers in favour, and 25 still uncertain. I imagine some of those will be revisited now that this has been published.

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3605
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 25 2019 9:46pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 25 2019 4:53pm
Subsidies per MWh
This might be true, but if we look at subsidies per MWh or Petajoule for each energy source over time, you will see that fossil fuels are still in the lead. I agree that renewable energy subsidies will need to be wound down, indeed rooftop PV is cheap enough to be completely viable without any subsidy.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 26 2019 6:06am

jonescg wrote:
Jul 25 2019 9:46pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 25 2019 4:53pm
Subsidies per MWh
This might be true, but if we look at subsidies per MWh or Petajoule for each energy source over time, you will see that fossil fuels are still in the lead. I agree that renewable energy subsidies will need to be wound down, indeed rooftop PV is cheap enough to be completely viable without any subsidy.
I don't follow the "over time" statement? If one energy source get a subsidy of $1/ MWh, and another gets $100/ MWh that it actually produces, The $1/ MWh is much less subsidy. Right?

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3605
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 26 2019 7:44am

My point is that coal oil and gas have been in use for over 100 years, and have attracted 100 years worth of support from public money. When they first started they would have been quite expensive per PJ or MWh, but are quite low today. Still, that's over 100 years of subsidisation. Solar and wind has been subsidised for only a decade or so, and will likely see a reduction in that support as the technology begins to stand on it's own. I don't believe wind and solar will get 100 years worth of subsidisation, I give solar 5 years and wind maybe 10.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jul 26 2019 8:13am

"Instead of a divorce between society and nature, one should rather pursue couple’s therapy to reconcile one with the other, namely figuring out how to ensure the provision of what is required for the “good life” following a principle of prudent stewardship and non-exploitation. The issues we find ourselves in can be solved backward by acting on the elements that created the problem in the first place, namely the choice of countries to pursue economic growth at all social ecological costs. It is the end of the battle of the de-words, and decoupling has lost. Now that the oven is warm, what degrowth thinkers should focus on is finding ingredients (policies) and recipes (transition scenarios) as to make sure the societal project of degrowth results in a delicious cake."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... -degrowth/

Post Reply