Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Hillhater said:
Very true .
But, the real reason climate models are criticised ( except for the unique Russian model ), is because they repeatedly fail to predict anywhere close to what actually happens..
Actually from the very first IPCC predictions, the models have been remarkably accurate.
And yes, i am confident i will be fine !
No doubt. But while "frock you, I got mine" is a fine approach for an old guy living alone, it is perhaps not the best policy for a society.
 
billvon said:
Hillhater said:
Very true .
But, the real reason climate models are criticised ( except for the unique Russian model ), is because they repeatedly fail to predict anywhere close to what actually happens..
Actually from the very first IPCC predictions, the models have been remarkably accurate.
So why do they have to revise them (downwards) every new report issued ?

And yes, i am confident i will be fine !
No doubt. But while "frock you, I got mine" is a fine approach for an old guy living alone, it is perhaps not the best policy for a society.
More like ..watching confident in the science, whilst you alarm cult members rush to follow each other over the cliff of economic oblivion !
I guess its just natures way of purging the population..survival of the (mentally) fittest ?
 
sendler2112 said:
......
Kids today have an increased opportunity to learn much more than the normal things they would learn in grade school due to the internet if the are dedicated.
They will learn nothing by marching in the street, rather than dedicating their fertile brains to learning.
 
By marching in the streets, they are teaching the adults a lesson. I'll be joining them.
 
Punx0r said:
Ah, I see you're progressing up the Ladder of Denialism!

1) CO2 doesn't cause climate change
2) OK, CO2 does cause climate change but it's not our emissions that's going it
3) OK, it is our emissions that's doing it, but it's not a bad thing
4) OK, it is a bad thing, but we can't do anything about it
5) OK, we could do something about it, but it isn't as bad as *whatever*

Congrats, one or two more steps and you might reach reality :shock:
You see ?, you have completely missed the plot..looking up the wrong ladder..
Try..
1) Nature causes (and controls ) climate change
2) humans cannot control Nature
3) Focusing on CO2 is a waste of effort and resources, and will only result in a regression of social progress.
 
jonescg said:
By marching in the streets, they are teaching the adults a lesson. I'll be joining them.
And that lesson is what exactly ?
What they will be doing is demonstrating to the wider population, how they ( and those that join them) have been badly misled and wrongly taught by weak socialist dominated teaching , about real science and how the planet functions.
The kids i dont blame, they are being manipulated... ( they literally do not have the knowledge or experience to understand what they are saying) ...they are just happy to have a day out of school !, But the adults leading this manipulation, are a sad, desperate, group to choose to hide behind their children , rather than engage in rational scientific debate.
P155 weak !
 
Hillhater said:
jonescg said:
By marching in the streets, they are teaching the adults a lesson. I'll be joining them.
And that lesson is what exactly ?
What they will be doing is demonstrating to the wider population, how they ( and those that join them) have been badly misled and wrongly taught by weak socialist dominated teaching , about real science and how the planet functions.
The kids i dont blame, they are being manipulated... ( they literally do not have the knowledge or experience to understand what they are saying) ...they are just happy to have a day out of school !, But the adults leading this manipulation, are a sad, desperate, group to choose to hide behind their children , rather than engage in rational scientific debate.
P155 weak !

You have just demonstrated a fine example of projection fallacy. Just because you found it difficult to comprehend, doesn't mean 16 year olds find it hard to comprehend. It's almost like the opposite of an appeal to authority, except it's an appeal to ignorance. "They're just kids, how would they know?" By reading and understanding the same research findings as the adults did.
 
jonescg said:
You have just demonstrated a fine example of projection fallacy. Just because you found it difficult to comprehend, doesn't mean 16 year olds find it hard to comprehend. It's almost like the opposite of an appeal to authority, except it's an appeal to ignorance. "They're just kids, how would they know?" By reading and understanding the same research findings as the adults did.
Its pretty obvious that many adult “scientists” (97% :wink: ). do not understand the basics of climate change,.. so it is beyond a joke to suggest any number of school age kids have any personal learning of the complexities involved.
School kids dont read science papers, they read Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc,...they dont even read newspapers !
They are being manipulated and used to influence the minds of their weaker parents...
...Gretta T is a fine example of a child being used by her mad Green parents....she actually believes she can SEE CO2 ! :lol: .. ( her parents have probably shown her photos of steam from cooling towers ?)
 
If you bothered to read her story, she convinced her parents to make changes. Because they were based on sound reasoning. I find it fascinating and amusing that one 16 year old girl can inflict so much fear and loathing in the conservative ranks. Almost like she's demonstrating an ability to unite an entire generation in a way these fossils could never dream of.

But go on, believe that the kids are wrong. You won't care how dope their fly ride is, word. It's probably their Donkey Kongs making them so confused.

Go shout at some clouds.
 
jonescg said:
If you bothered to read her story, she convinced her parents to make changes. Because they were based on sound reasoning. ....
Sure, like the fact she could see the CO2 ?
The “ story” makes a convincing read, doesnt it
Go shout at some clouds.
Not a bad idea , its about the only way i will get anything from my solar today...< 100W at midday !
Better still, i will light my Biomass wood pellet furnace and generate some ( non IPCC recognised). CO2 to help the trees grow faster :wink:
( yes its been snowing today on the East coast ! ...remember 17 yrs ago when our Chief “scientist” and climate change warrior, Tim Flappery, predicted we would never see snow again ? ...and he wrote some of those papers ! :roll: )
 
Hillhater said:
Its pretty obvious that many adult “scientists” (97% :wink: ). do not understand the basics of climate change,..

Yet you clearly believe that you, yourself, do understand climate science. In a normal person this alone would be ringing alarm bells in their head that they are almost certainly wrong (or are one of the most arrogant and conceited people ever to have lived).
 
jonescg said:
By marching in the streets, they are teaching the adults a lesson. I'll be joining them.
Every time I see the climate kids strikes, all I wish someone there would hold an "electricitymap.org" sign so everyone checks out electricitymap.org and compare the wind/solar states vs the nuclear states like France and Sweeden.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1156517142000492544?s=20
^Check out the young girl crying because she belives she is going to die very soon.

If only someone would tell her to check out https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-SA&remote=true
EEB1BgAUEAEBfVH


We can see on average year after year how wind/solar states ultimately emit as much as 10 times more co2 than nuclear-based France.
If we were comparing these co2 stats as if they were two different cars then the "wind/solar renewables car" would be considered a bad extreme polluting joke, but we have broadcast media doing such a bad job of informing people that this is literally the situation we see in politics and climate kids year after year.
Taking sides on if co2 is actually bad or not is practically a moot point when wind/solar just doesn't solve the problem.
Broadcast media must die and be entirely replaced with internet fibre/5G wireless, because broadcast media is useless cancer on society.

https://twitter.com/energybants/status/806969631797714944
CzLuLpHUUAA2mkM
 
Yes, some grids are cleaner than others. The goal is to make them all clean. As soon as possible. What is your point?
 
Hillhater said:
Punx0r said:
Yet you clearly believe that you, yourself, do understand climate science.
That is not something i have ever claimed...

You've claimed a lot of "alternative facts" on climate science but this is just the most recent:

Hillhater said:
Try..
1) Nature causes (and controls ) climate change
2) humans cannot control Nature
3) Focusing on CO2 is a waste of effort and resources, and will only result in a regression of social progress.
 
TheBeastie said:
We can see on average year after year how wind/solar states ultimately emit as much as 10 times more co2 than nuclear-based France.
If we were comparing these co2 stats as if they were two different cars then the "wind/solar renewables car" would be considered a bad extreme polluting joke,...

In reality it is the amount of coal power plants (+ oild and gas power plants) that decide about the average CO2 emission of a countries electricity mix.

It happens that France does not burn coal for electricity generation and this is why their emissions are so low.

France invested 188 billions Euro over 40 years ago into their nuclear programm, much more than other countries did spend for wind and solar power and for a much longer time. Reasonable cheap photovoltaik has only available been available for 7-8 years.
 
GNDs emphasise switching to renewable energy. So far, increases in renewable energy deployment have not led to a reduction in fossil fuel usage globally. Overall their deployment has been to add to the global energy mix rather than replacing fossil fuels. Moreover, it is doubtful whether renewables can provide the scale of concentrated energy used by the current global economy: the constraints are less in the power that could theoretically be generated from natural flows than in the minerals needed to deploy them: minerals used in generators and motors, in batteries and in electronics, as well as copper for transmission of power (García-Olivares 2015). These are finite and with limited substitutability. The revolution will be low powered, so the Green Deal has to factor in a plan for energy descent
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-09-17/six-problems-for-green-deals/
.
 
Cephalotus said:
In reality it is the amount of coal power plants (+ oild and gas power plants) that decide about the average CO2 emission of a countries electricity mix.

It happens that France does not burn coal for electricity generation and this is why their emissions are so low.
..consider why France does not need coal or gas plants ?...
.....because they do not have to back up large amounts of intermittent wind or solar. !

Cephalotus said:
France invested 188 billions Euro over 40 years ago into their nuclear programm, much more than other countries did spend for wind and solar power and for a much longer time. Reasonable cheap photovoltaik has only available been available for 7-8 years.
Hmmm ?...188 bn.....seem like a bargain compared to Germany’s choice.
..(Germany’s) current economy and energy minister, Peter Altmaier, caused a stir in 2013 when he said during his time as environment minister that “the costs of the Energiewende and of the transformation of our energy supply could add up to around one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s” without policies in place to lower the costs. He explained that legal commitments to support renewable energy alone would add up to about 680 billion euros by 2022, and that the costs of grid extension, back-up power generation capacities, research & development, electric mobility, and the modernisation of buildings would have to be added to this figure.
Wind & Solar plants may be cheap , however it is the additional “backup” , replacement, and infrastructure costs that are overlooked.
 
I think we have missed the point in this thread completely stuck lost amongst current politics rather than discuss actual future prospects and we have solar in space as discussed which plausable will not provide a good watt per $$$, and yet we have heard fusion prospects so many times I'm in no doubt that 100 years from now if we push forward in a scientific manor we will have a base grid met buy fusion in colder climates with solar wind and hydro acting as top up and battwry storage where as warmer areas grids needs will be met with out the fusion.

Even then I don't see us not burning anything at all but we will just work to a capture scheme to try keep an equilibrium point not have to much influence, it won't stop a major eruption tipping the scale in a cold climates favour it just means we won't be responsible, at that point AI may decide we are obsolete at science and blow our brains with technical marvels as we squable over what shade of colour we are all looking at.

Like elon really says we either play along or get left behind as wierd as he is with his hand and facial gestures there is a little sence to his big super scale madness.
 
Excellent essay explaining divestment. Would it really help restrict new fossil fuel development? Or just allow the biggest corporations to take over weaker start ups and buy up their own shares for pennies on the dollar?
.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/money-is-the-oxygen-on-which-the-fire-of-global-warming-burns?utm_medium=email&utm_source=actionkit
.
The real solution is to reduce demand by austerity and eventual replacement.
 
Hillhater said:
So why do they have to revise them (downwards) every new report issued ?
They have, of course, revised them in both directions, and will continue to do so to get more and more accurate predictions.
More like ..watching confident in the science, whilst you alarm cult members rush to follow each other over the cliff of economic oblivion !
97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is warming due to anthropogenic causes, so I'm pretty confident in the science. Of course, the deniers will continue to fail miserably year after year, as the climate continues to warm, matching IPCC predictions. It's fun to watch the deniers scramble to come up with new excuses every time reality come around to bite them. It's like watching an anti-vaxxer try to explain away the latest measles epidemic.

And "economic oblivion?" You sound pretty alarmist to me.
 
Ianhill said:
Even then I don't see us not burning anything at all but we will just work to a capture scheme to try keep an equilibrium point not have to much influence, it won't stop a major eruption tipping the scale in a cold climates favour it just means we won't be responsible . . .
I don't even think we will engage in CCS. We will just dial back fossil fuel combustion until the ecosphere can maintain the CO2 levels at a new (slightly higher) level - but a level that will not cause as much warming. Say, 350ppm.
 
Ianhill said:
...I'm in no doubt that 100 years from now if we push forward in a scientific manor we will have a base grid met buy fusion in colder climates with solar wind and hydro acting as top up and battwry storage where as warmer areas grids needs will be met with out the fusion.
Anything is possible, any combination is likely,....but the next train coming down the track, is next/new generation Nuclear of various forms , modular PWR, Gen 4, 5, Thorium Salt, etc etc...all of which are in various stages of commercialisation.
Eventually, common sense and economic reality will prevail and we will progress to the next period of practical electricity generation.
 
Back
Top