• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Media_Truth said:
Only in your Denial Dreams. I've shown the proof with the state of Texas. You've shown a blog.
Click to expand...

Well, no. You've cherry-picked advocacy statistics. Meanwhile, an economist's analysis gets to the bottom of the matter.

". . . The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.
In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.
The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.
Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.
And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.
Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. You've cherry-picked advocacy statistics. Meanwhile, an economist's analysis gets to the bottom of the matter.

[FONT=&]". . . The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent. . . . "[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The only fruit picking around here is from the same hands that are pecking at keyboards, without any scientific knowledge or background.
 
Jack Hays said:
Another example of ad hominem in response to evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not an Ad Hominem attack to question your scientific sources, especially since none of them are peer reviewed. Every time I look at one of them, there are ties to the Koch Brothers and big oil money.
 
Media_Truth said:
It's not an Ad Hominem attack to question your scientific sources, especially since none of them are peer reviewed. Every time I look at one of them, there are ties to the Koch Brothers and big oil money.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but a lie does you no good. Your claim is without foundation.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. You've cherry-picked advocacy statistics. Meanwhile, an economist's analysis gets to the bottom of the matter.

[FONT=&]". . . The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent. . . . "[/FONT]
Click to expand...
This is likely true, unless a load is always ready to absorb the surplus.
This load could look like a refinery, waiting to store that surplus as transport fuels.
The other issue is the effective cost of those surplus Kwh to the utility.
If they had to give the solar homeowner a retail value credit from each net unit,
the utility is really paying the retail rate for something that has less than wholesale value.
 
[h=2]How to lose the unloseable election: be anti-coal. The climate vote evaporated.[/h]
morrison-coal.jpg
Scott Morrison in Parliament. Photo, ABC: Nick Haggarty
​
The Coalition can now for a majority government with no need to do deals with a GetUp candidate. They may win 78 seats. While this is being hailed as a “great” win it’s nothing like Tony Abbott’s 90 seat landslide in 2013. Of the last three elections, the most skeptical PM won hugely, and the biggest believer, Turnbull, almost lost. Morrison-in-the middle, couldn’t fight hard on climate change because his party supports major and expensive action, but at least he didn’t burn off the base like Turnbull did. Luckily for him, the Labor Party had wild ambition and was doomed by overconfidence. (Thank the ABC).
Every time Labor and GetUp reminded Australia that Morrison brought a lump of coal to Parliament, they were helping Morrison.
[h=4]This was a “climate change” election and Australians voted No[/h]Even ABC commentators admit the central role of climate change and are baffled. (If only they had shown some, any, interest in the opinions of 50% of Australia?). Watch the struggle:
[h=3]Election 2019: What happened to the climate change vote we heard about?[/h]Matt MacDonald, ABC
It was supposed to be the big issue of the 2019 Australian federal election: climate change.
A range of polls and surveys had left many analysts, myself included, with the sense that this would be a crucial issue at the ballot box. … ABC’s Vote Compass survey those identifying climate change as the most important issue had risen from 9 per cent in 2016 to 29 per cent in 2019.
Advocacy groups and even media outlets also encouraged the view that 2019 was, and should be, Australia’s climate election.
Voters feared climate policy more than climate change . . .
 
flogger said:
And you have that unique scientific critique ..... I suppose :roll:
Click to expand...

I rely on the Climate Scientists of the world. I claim a marginal knowledge, and leave the heavy science to them.
 
Media_Truth said:
I rely on the Climate Scientists of the world. I claim a marginal knowledge, and leave the heavy science to them.
Click to expand...

No, you rely on the pundits who lie about the actual science behind their work.

You are a science denier.
 
Media_Truth said:
Save it for the Conspiracy Theory forum.
Click to expand...
Why do you think it would be a conspiracy for the people who are AGW proponents
to write articles that misrepresent the uncertainty of the scientist's statement.
It has almost become routine, a study will come out saying for example that sea levels could rise
between 30 and 200 cm by 2100, the headline says, " Scientist Say sea level could rise by 2 meters by 2100."
Yes that was the top of the range, which itself included all the worst case scenarios, but seems the ignore the
full range of the prediction.
 
longview said:
Why do you think it would be a conspiracy for the people who are AGW proponents
to write articles that misrepresent the uncertainty of the scientist's statement.
It has almost become routine, a study will come out saying for example that sea levels could rise
between 30 and 200 cm by 2100, the headline says, " Scientist Say sea level could rise by 2 meters by 2100."
Yes that was the top of the range, which itself included all the worst case scenarios, but seems the ignore the
full range of the prediction.
Click to expand...

You entered in the middle of a conversation. My statement was this ---

I rely on the Climate Scientists of the world. I claim a marginal knowledge, and leave the heavy science to them.

LOP called the Climate Scientists "pundits" and "liars"...

Since the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and every major worldwide scientific organization has adopted the stances of the viewpoints of the majority of Climate Scientists, his viewpoints are beyond the wildest of Conspiracy Theories.
 
Media_Truth said:
You entered in the middle of a conversation. My statement was this ---

I rely on the Climate Scientists of the world. I claim a marginal knowledge, and leave the heavy science to them.

LOP called the Climate Scientists "pundits" and "liars"...

Since the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and every major worldwide scientific organization has adopted the stances of the viewpoints of the majority of Climate Scientists, his viewpoints are beyond the wildest of Conspiracy Theories.
Click to expand...
Actually what LOP said was the Scientist produce their results with uncertainty,
and the pundits writing the articles about the scientific results misrepresent those results.
 
longview said:
Actually what LOP said was the Scientist produce their results with uncertainty,
and the pundits writing the articles about the scientific results misrepresent those results.
Click to expand...

You watered-down his quote. Quote from LOP ---

"you rely on the pundits who lie about the actual science behind their work."
 
Media_Truth said:
You watered-down his quote. Quote from LOP ---

"you rely on the pundits who lie about the actual science behind their work."
Click to expand...
Semantics, the pundits are lying about the work of the scientist.
 
longview said:
Semantics, the pundits are lying about the work of the scientist.
Click to expand...

Not the way I read it. The way I read it, he is calling the scientists "pundits". But we can agree on one thing - he doesn't put much thought into the wording of his posts, and he certainly never links to experts.
 
Media_Truth said:
Not the way I read it. The way I read it, he is calling the scientists "pundits". But we can agree on one thing - he doesn't put much thought into the wording of his posts, and he certainly never links to experts.
Click to expand...
The pundits are the writers who dumb down the scientific papers into layman terms,
and misrepresent what they think the scientific papers say.
Let's not forget that the number one answer that journalism give as to why they want to be a journalist,
is, "I want to change the world!"
 
longview said:
The pundits are the writers who dumb down the scientific papers into layman terms,
and misrepresent what they think the scientific papers say.
Let's not forget that the number one answer that journalism give as to why they want to be a journalist,
is, "I want to change the world!"
Click to expand...

You mean like the... National Academy of Sciences? The Royal Society?


LOL.

You guys are so full of ****.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimat...ussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/
 
Media_Truth said:
Not the way I read it. The way I read it, he is calling the scientists "pundits". But we can agree on one thing - he doesn't put much thought into the wording of his posts, and he certainly never links to experts.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking expert of the week goes to Media Propaganda.

I have correctly stated my view dozens of time that the pundits lie about the scientific works. I misspeak one time, and you hold on to that mistake with dear life.

Pathetic...
 
[FONT=&quot]wind power[/FONT]
[h=1]Costly wind power menaces man and nature[/h][FONT=&quot]The true costs of wind energy are too often (deliberately?) ignored or underestimated Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris Wind energy can never replace fossil fuels, despite claims of environmentalists and advocates of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal (GND). It’s not environment-friendly either. Indeed, wind power is hampered by many limitations, including: * its intermittent…
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom