Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere - fact.
It is from our burning of fuels - fact.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact.
The climate is warming per predictions as CO2 rises - fact.

Awful lot of facts you have to deny to be a climate change denier.

Nobody KNOWS that CO2 causes warming as being suggested, many appear to BELIEVE it is so, but... it is only a THEORY,..not a proven fact.

Oh, it's a proven fact. You can do the experiment to prove it in a high school science lab.

Jack,.. back on this debate again ..
There is no proven linkage between the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 and Fossil Fuel use.
It is only a chronological correlation..FACT !
Likewise the correlation between CO2 levels and Warming
A school science lab experiment, or even a NASA lab experiment, does not replicate the conditions of a Global Atmospheric system,..and as such proves nothing....other than you dont understand basic scientific principles !
I dont have to Deny anything to know the AGW idea is bollocks.
All i need to do is understand that there is no causal linkage between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
Then everthing else follows .
Just how CERTAIN are you that CO2 is the big evil killer gas, that it is made out to be ??

 

[TheBeastie]

We see these cost charts and forecasts of the <$100/kWh lithium battery, all too frequently repeated in the media.
But what is missing is any evidence of these costs in real life.?
Can anyone show me where to buy new brand name Lithium battery,s for $100-150 /kWh ?
Its difficult to get hard data for commercial battery costs, but one of the more recent is the costing for the additional 64.5 MWh upgrade to the Hornsdale Power Reserve facility in S Australia, which was stated in official reports at Au$91 million (US$64 m ).....so effectively us$1000 /kWh
Obviously that cost would include all associated controls, shipping, installation ,etc, ..but i still do not believe the “batteries” thenselves were only 10-20% of the total cost !
And remember, these were PowerPack systems from Tesla who profess to be one of the lowest cost battery manufacturers

Yep, I think Elon Musk has gotten lithium-ion cells as cheaply as possible.
This article talks about how Elon is pleeding for more nickel mines/refineries to open.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-metals-nickel-ahome-column-idUSKCN24P1PJ?taid=5f1b238231fdfb0001449cc5&
^I have lost count how many times the pro-renewable experts on here claim nickel means almost nothing to lithium-ion cells, when all the facts say its about 35% of the cell and has people like Elon Musk constantly making plees for more cheap nickel.

But that isn't going to happen at the current nickel price.
There are a bunch of nickel miners/refineries that are sitting idle waiting for nickle to get more expesnive so they can make their operations financeable.
Even famous Aus politician Clive Palmer wants to re-open his nickel ore processing plant.
https://www.qni.com.au/palmer-confirms-strong-commitment-to-reopening-refinery/

There are also a bunch of BHP nickel operations that are idle that BHP claim they will restart if the price of nickel goes up enough to make them viable.
https://www.bhp.com/our-businesses/minerals-australia/nickel-west/

But to me all this proves is that the raw materials for lithium-ion cells is currently as cheap as it's going to get and thus lithium-ion cells can only get more expensive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another subject here is a sorry story about how when Victorians voted for wind-farm energy via Daniel Andrews, these voters are now getting huge new transmission power lines through all the lovely country-side recking tourism etc and like we have seen countless times in the past the endangering of bush fires.
https://www.facebook.com/ACurrentAffair9/videos/239833440326928/
^This video is sad because these nieve farmers think there is a chance they can put the powerlines underground.
If broadcast media didn't exist the whole world would be smarter, and folks would have been informred via internet and known these power-lines were going to reck the country-side before then even considered voting for it.

All being done for a crappy amout of power, Victoria now has almost 3000MW of wind-farms online so half of this chart should be solid half-green, instead its just a crappy green blobs on the top, and its been actually a good week for wind this week so this is pretty much at its best.
https://opennem.org.au/energy/vic1/

^That is the evil reality of it all, all these wind-farms are being built just for politics and money, the wind in Victoria is crap compared to what its like in the SA with its Big Bighte.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar company in Australia is collapsing, which is remarkable because if these guys can't make money with all the subsidies and support in this environment then they never will be able to.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-big-solar-project-contractor-hits-the-wall-administrators-called-in-49341/

 

[jimw1960]

Worldwide petroleum, nat gas, coal etc seems to be down for quite some months. CO2 per the mauna loa observatory is edging down too, for the first time in forever and a half, but we're seeing ice caps at the north pole melt at a rate they have never melted at.

My only guess would be global methane emissions from all the destroyed produce and shuttered petroleum/nat gas fields, but NOAA stopped tracking data in march so we don't know much about how they're faring. Up until march the numbers seem to be rising at the normal rate.

Any theories on why this doesn't match up with ice melt?

CO2 levels always go down a bit during the summer months due to slightly lower energy demand and less burning of heating oil in the northern hemisphere. I just checked the NOAA page for the Mauna Loa observatory and can see the normal winter-summer sine wave signal, but can't see any change in the overall upward trend.

 

[Hillhater]

?
CO2 levels always go down a bit during the summer months due to slightly lower energy demand and less burning of heating oil in the northern hemisphere. I just checked the NOAA page for the Mauna Loa observatory and can see the normal winter-summer sine wave signal, but can't see any change in the overall upward trend.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh dear, ....you crack me up jim !
Trying to explain the 7-9ppm seasonal variation in Atmospheric CO2 as a result of reduced fossil fuel use ?
......when even school kids know that this is the result of the increased growth rate of vegitation during summer in the NH.

 

[JackFlorey]

There is no proven linkage between the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 and Fossil Fuel use.

Again I have listed four facts.

1) CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere - fact.
2) It is from our burning of fuels - fact.
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact. Thus, more CO2 would be expected to cause warming.

But that's not enough to prove it 100%. You'd have to create a hypothesis and test it. Which leads to #4:

4) The climate is warming per predictions as CO2 rises - fact.

So yes, it's proven. We even tested the theory.

Want to disprove it? Prove that any of those above facts are wrong. If you can't - you're just flinging poo against a wall to see if anything sticks.

I dont have to Deny anything to know the AGW idea is bollocks.

Face it - you are a climate change denier, no different than any of the many other kind of deniers out there.

Just how CERTAIN are you that CO2 is the big evil killer gas, that it is made out to be ??

No one said it was, you silly little man!

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh !.. “Belief confirmation by Repetition”
( If you tell yourself something often enough, eventually you will believe it !)
There is no evidence that the increasing Atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel use.
That is just an association./correlation.

CO2 may be a “Greenhouse” Gas, but there is no evidence to prove it is the cause of increase in Atmospheric temperature.
All historic evidence suggests that increases in CO2 are the RESULT of higher Atmospheric Temperatures.

Climate predictions are notoriously inaccurate, and are frequently “Remodeled” to reflect actual results.

Just how CERTAIN are you that CO2 is the big evil killer gas, that it is made out to be ?

..No one said it was, you silly little man!

But isnt that what this is all about ? ..limiting the amount of CO2 to prevent it causing some future catastrophy ?
( Ref G Thunburg..
“ We are In the beginning of a mass extinction” ..!)

 

[sendler2112]

The Earth is becoming Planet of the Humans. People and our livestock now outweigh wild land mammals 50:1
.
"The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. also, the current rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth."
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#:~:text=The%20Holocene%20extinction%2C%20otherwise%20referred,a%20result%20of%20human%20activity.
.
“The pace of modern insect extinctions surpasses that of vertebrates by a large margin,” write the authors of an alarming new review in Biological Conservation of the scientific literature on insect population declines published in the past 40 years. The state of insect biodiversity, they write, is “dreadful.” And their biomass — the estimated weight of all insects on Earth combined — is dropping by an estimated 2.5 percent every year.
.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/11/18220082/insects-extinction-bological-conservation
.
Which means insect biomass will be cut in half in 30 years.

 

[Cephalotus]

There is no proven linkage between the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 and Fossil Fuel use.

See concentration of C14 isotope.

 

[Hillhater]

See concentration of C14 isotope.

See this thread about 12-14 months ago
As i recall, the research suggested that anthropogenic CO2 accounted for 16 ppm of the total atmospheric 400+ ppm.

 

[Cephalotus]

See this thread about 12-14 months ago
As i recall, the research suggested that anthropogenic CO2 accounted for 16 ppm of the total atmospheric 400+ ppm.

the rest is from magic fairy dust?

You live in some strange world of your own.

 

[JackFlorey]

Ahh !.. “Belief confirmation by Repetition”
( If you tell yourself something often enough, eventually you will believe it !)

Nope. Confirmation through science.

There is no evidence that the increasing Atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel use.

We have basic math. We know how many gigatons we are putting in the atmosphere. We know how many gigatons more CO2 there are now in the atmosphere. We know how much additional CO2 the bioosphere can deal with.

So new CO2 - CO2 taken up by the biosphere = new CO2 in the atmosphere. The math works.

We also have isotope studies. We know that the new CO2 is from ancient sources (i.e. fossil fuels.)

So there are two very strong pieces of evidence. Of course those are both science based and not politically based, so you will reject them.

CO2 may be a “Greenhouse” Gas, but there is no evidence to prove it is the cause of increase in Atmospheric temperature.

Again, sorry.

We have actual reflected IR. If CO2 was increasing the greenhouse effect, then we'd see less reflected longwave IR. And what do you know? Satellites are seeing less reflected longwave IR.

Also, we have atmospheric temperature profiles. If the sun was heating everything up more (a favorite of deniers everywhere) then the entire atmosphere would be warming. If we were just trapping more heat through a CO2-enhanced greenhouse effect, then the upper atmosphere would get colder. And what do you know? It's getting colder.

Another two very strong pieces of evidence for you to ignore, since they are both science based.

All historic evidence suggests that increases in CO2 are the RESULT of higher Atmospheric Temperatures.

Yep. The planet has never had a species burn gigatons of fossil fuels before, so now we are seeing a new effect - anthropogenic global warming.

Climate predictions are notoriously inaccurate, and are frequently “Remodeled” to reflect actual results.

Sorry, again the actual science makes a fool of you.

Shown below is the actual projection from the 1990 IPCC. They estimated that by 2020 temperatures would be .926 degrees warmer. In 2019 temperatures were .93 degrees warmer.

Not bad for a 25 year prediction.

But isnt that what this is all about ? ..limiting the amount of CO2 to prevent it causing some future catastrophy ?

"Catastropy?" No, just a warmer planet that makes life more miserable for people.

Ref G Thunburg..

Ah, there's your problem. Get your science from scientists, not media personalities.

“ We are In the beginning of a mass extinction” ..!)

That's certainly true. Do you think that's a catastrophe? Not for an ignorant rich guy living in Denver; he'll be fine. Climate change will only affect the "little people."

 

[Hillhater]

See this thread about 12-14 months ago
As i recall, the research suggested that anthropogenic CO2 accounted for 16 ppm of the total atmospheric 400+ ppm.

the rest is from magic fairy dust?

If that is the extent of your range of possibilities... then YES !

 

[Hillhater]

So,....... how is that change to “ green” weather dependant, RE power, playing out for California ?..

....Hundreds of thousands of Californians were plunged into darkness on Friday evening as companies cut power to homes after the state's Independent System Operator declared a Stage 3 energy emergency.

With temperatures soaring above 100 degrees in many parts of the state, and millions of residents stuck at home amid the coronavirus pandemic, experts feared the high demand for power would overwhelm the grid.

'A Stage 3 Emergency is declared when demand outpaces available supply. Rotating power interruptions have been initiated to maintain stability of the electric grid,' the Independent System Operator announced shortly before 6pm.

It seems the Wind and clouds are not sticking to the game plan as expected !

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that the state had to “sober up” about the fact that renewable energy sources had failed to provide enough power for the state at peak demand, and needed “backup” and “insurance” from other sources.
One reason the state lacked power, officials admitted, was its over-reliance on “renewables” — i.e. wind and solar power.

There was not enough wind to keep turbines going, Newsom said, and cloud cover and nightfall restricted solar power.
“While we’ve had some peak gust winds,” he explained, “wind gust events across the state have been relatively mild.”

That was good for fighting fires, he said, but bad for the “renewable portfolio” in the state’s energy infrastructure. In addition, high demand for electricity in the evening hours, coupled with less input from solar plants, created strain.

On Friday, Newsom said, the state had fallen about 1,000 megawatts short; on Saturday, it fell 450 megawatts short. Sunday saw only “modest or minor” interruptions. But on Monday, he said, the state would be 4,400 megawatts short of “where we believe we need to be.”

 

[Cephalotus]

... CO2 per the mauna loa observatory is edging down too, for the first time in forever and a half,...

is it?

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

 

[JackFlorey]

So,....... how is that change to “ green” weather dependant, RE power, playing out for California ?..

Fine for me; no blackouts here. So no problems.

Isn't that your criteria? As long as you are fine, who cares what happens to other people elsewhere in the world?

 

[Hillhater]

.

Isn't that your criteria? As long as you are fine, who cares what happens to other people elsewhere in the world?

No ?... you seem to assume i have a similar social attitude as yourself .

 

[JackFlorey]

.

Isn't that your criteria? As long as you are fine, who cares what happens to other people elsewhere in the world?

No ?... you seem to assume i have a similar social attitude as yourself .

Nope. I take the approach that my actions CAN affect other people - which is why I am careful on which actions I take. I do not, for example, reject climate change science to make myself feel better about driving a gas guzzler.

 

[Hillhater]

I take the approach that my actions CAN affect other people - which is why I am careful on which actions I take. I do not, for example, reject climate change science to make myself feel better about driving a gas guzzler.

..but do you ever consider that your acceptance of climate change “science” DOES affect many other people..such as those California residents dealing with blackouts as a result of misguided Energy policies ?

 

[JackFlorey]

..but do you ever consider that your acceptance of climate change “science” DOES affect many other people..such as those California residents dealing with blackouts as a result of misguided Energy policies ?

Do you ever consider that if this heatwave had been, say, two degrees cooler, we wouldn't have blackouts to begin with? Burning as much coal as we can to run air conditioners is like cooling your house by leaving the refrigerator door open.

 

[The fingers]

Coal burning in California? :lol:

 

[JackFlorey]

Coal burning in California?

In Mexico actually. We buy some power from them.

 

[Hillhater]

Do you ever consider that if this heatwave had been, say, two degrees cooler, we wouldn't have blackouts to begin with?

Sure,..but i am realistic and know that we cannot control the weather...
BUT..we can control how much electricity is generated ......providing we use sensible , reliable, methods and dont fool yourself that Wind or Solar are practical substitutes.
California has been taught that lesson twice in the past 20 yrs, but continues to ignor the learnings.

....Burning as much coal as we can to run air conditioners is like cooling your house by leaving the refrigerator door open.

.
...You only think that because you BELIEVE that CO2 controls the weather, and you BELIEVE that reducing fossil fuel burning will reduce the atmospheric CO2. !
Have you ever considered the implications if your BELIEF’s are false ?

 

[JackFlorey]

Sure,..but i am realistic and know that we cannot control the weather...

Given that we've increased average planetary temperatures by 1.7 degrees F, we have proven we can.

BUT..we can control how much electricity is generated ......providing we use sensible , reliable, methods and dont fool yourself that Wind or Solar are practical substitutes.

They are for me and for millions of Americans. Solar and wind now supply 10% of the US's total electrical needs - and that number is going to keep increasing.

California has been taught that lesson twice in the past 20 yrs, but continues to ignor the learnings.

And the US has been taught that coal is impractical dozens of times - on the East Coast in 1965, in New York City in 1977, and on the West Coast in 1982. All blackouts far larger and longer than any of California's.

...You only think that because you BELIEVE that CO2 controls the weather, and you BELIEVE that reducing fossil fuel burning will reduce the atmospheric CO2. !

Nope.

I KNOW (not believe) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I KNOW (not believe) that we are raising the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere by burning carbon.
I KNOW (not believe) that, everything else being equal, more CO2 in our atmosphere means the planet will get warmer.
I KNOW (not believe) that the planet's temperature has actually been increasing as we've put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

All backed up by decades of science and actual observation.

You BELIEVE that science and history are lying to you, and you are one of a few people who know the "real truth." You are wrong. The results of you being wrong - if you are heede - will be millions who have to relocate and tens of thousands dead.

 

[sendler2112]

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
.

.

.

.

 

[Hillhater]

Given that we've increased average planetary temperatures by 1.7 degrees F, we have proven we can. .

That does not “prove “ any linkage with either human involvement , or even any effect from CO2.

.... Solar and wind now supply 10% of the US's total electrical needs - and that number is going to keep increasing..

Keep doing the same thing, and you will keep getting the same results...
so,..you can look forward to more and more power shortages and blackouts !
..and increasing power costs !

And the US has been taught that coal is impractical dozens of times - on the East Coast in 1965, in New York City in 1977, and on the West Coast in 1982. All blackouts far larger and longer than any of California's.!

You know full well (or should do ?) ,..that none of those were due to any issues with GENERATION plants.
They were all failures in transmission lines and distribution equipment..mostly weather related.

I KNOW (not believe) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Yes ?,.. but what is its quantified influence in a planetary situation ?

I KNOW (not believe) that we are raising the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere by burning carbon.

Do you, ? by how much ?

I KNOW (not believe) that, everything else being equal, more CO2 in our atmosphere means the planet will get warmer.

That is not what science and historical records show ..
...And why do you believe “everything else “ will remain equal ?

I KNOW (not believe) that the planet's temperature has actually been increasing as we've put more CO2 into the atmosphere...

All backed up by decades of science and actual observation.

Sorry , no... Ice core and Paleo records show NO causal linkage between CO2 and temperature

You BELIEVE that science and history are lying to you, and you are one of a few people who know the "real truth." You are wrong. The results of you being wrong - if you are heede - will be millions who have to relocate and tens of thousands dead.

No Jack, what i believe is that anyone who thinks they can control the planets climate/temperature, by dicking about with a few windmills and solar panels , and limiting our use of fossil fuels, is fooling themselves in multiple ways.