Fantasy Demolished - U.S. Climate Goals Threatened by "Green" Power demands

[Lord of Planar]

Likely because the green frenzy will NOT materially reduce living standards. While some of the haves will have to give a little (maybe keep your thermostat at 78 degrees), the have nots (by far the majority) will see improvements in the quality of their lives.

Muscle up buttercup, your first world problem is showing.

You have that backwards. I can afford to pay double or triple electric rates when that happens. The working poor cannot.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good luck getting @longview to admit that oil companies get subsidies that no other businesses get. He has been shown the facts numerous times but believes what he wants.

By the classical definition of Subsidy, they do not get subsidies. However, the definition has changed. Now everything is subsidized by the modern definition. Even your life.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They do get tax deductions that only oil companies would get, just like a fabric mill would get tax deductions only fabric mills would get.
A tax deduction is not a subsidy! Oil companies are not sent money for keeping the price of fuels low.

It is now. The left has misused the word "subsidy" so often over the last decade, that now it includes tax deductions. it even includes that you are subsidized if you buy something on sale now.

The word subsidy is now meaningless.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Everything in this post is a lie.

Yet you are incapable of explaining the mechanisms and math. Just like any other AGW cult member. You have a solid faith that the priests of AGW tell the truth.

 

[PoS]

Yes, there are crazy people on both sides of every issue.

The people who love oil are no better than the idiots splashing paint on the glass protecting art.

Really? Could you please link to the news that "oil lovers" are destroying artworks and gluing themselves to buses?

 

[samiam5211]

Really? Could you please link to the news that "oil lovers" are destroying artworks and gluing themselves to buses?

Sure, as soon as you point out where I said they were doing that.

 

[mrjurrs]

There is almost nothing baked in, that is a myth.
The only remaining warming is feedbacks from the last 10 years of emissions. In addition recent satellite results show CO2 added since 2002 has added almost nothing to the energy imbalance.

Why is it that I only hear about energy imbalance from you? You should publish.

 

[Visbek]

Gee, what a surprise. This Fourth Grade fantasy of free and clean energy from the wind and sun is ending....

Yaay, another straw man!

Back in the real world, the costs for solar have plummeted over the years:

Wind is hovering somewhat close to that "free" territory:

Meanwhile, use of renewables is growing, and is around 25% of global energy generation.

An article, in all places, the New York Times, A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals (link) describes this process.

Did you actually read it? It points out that it is entirely possible to set up solar without harming wildlife. We're just not being careful enough about it yet.

That's not an argument to stop using solar, and keep using technologies that are far, far more harmful to wildlife, the environment, and humans. It's an argument to be more careful siting and constructing solar.

One can only suspect that the goal or result of this "green" frenzy will be to materially reduce living standards. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

One can only suspect that someone who is against clean power is willfully ignorant and/or motivated by partisan bullshit. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

 

[longview]

Why is it that I only hear about energy imbalance from you? You should publish.

It has already been published.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
The energy imbalance is happening in the Absorbed Solar Radiation spectrum, not the portion that added CO2
would have an effect.
By the way the time between CO2 emissions and Maximum warming for small CO2 steps (Like Humans emit),
is a decade or less.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
If you look at their results, they took the simulation out to 1000 years.
For informational purposes 100 GtC is a 47 ppm pulse.

 

[longview]

Yaay, another straw man!

Back in the real world, the costs for solar have plummeted over the years:

Wind is hovering somewhat close to that "free" territory:

Meanwhile, use of renewables is growing, and is around 25% of global energy generation.


Did you actually read it? It points out that it is entirely possible to set up solar without harming wildlife. We're just not being careful enough about it yet.

That's not an argument to stop using solar, and keep using technologies that are far, far more harmful to wildlife, the environment, and humans. It's an argument to be more careful siting and constructing solar.


One can only suspect that someone who is against clean power is willfully ignorant and/or motivated by partisan bullshit. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

Solar is doing great, Wind not so much.
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project

The PPAs are with the Massachusetts distribution utilities of Eversource Energy, National Grid PLC and Unitil Corp. They set an energy price of $47.68/MWh for the first year, which would escalate to $76.22/MWh in the project's 20th year, according to state filings. And they set renewable energy credit prices at $11.92/REC for the first year, escalating to $19.06/REC in the 20th year.

So that "free" territory you mentioned is a bit of a myth.

 

[Buzz]

By the classical definition of Subsidy, they do not get subsidies. However, the definition has changed.

The only people who have changed the definition of subsidy are you and longview in an attempt to falsely claim that oil companies don't get billions in subsidies.

Now everything is subsidized by the modern definition. Even your life.

Yeah... I used to get subsidies, especially back when I was poor and then later when I bought a house. I also got a subsidy in the form of a tax cut for being in a labor union. But then when Trump and the Republicans changed the tax code I lost both of those deductions and now I don't get any and pay thousands more in taxes than I used to.

The left has misused the word "subsidy" so often over the last decade, that now it includes tax deductions.

That is just not true. Some tax deductions have been considered subsidies for a long time. Especially when only certain people or companies get them. Like oil companies and their ability to get tax breaks for drilling for oil.

it even includes that you are subsidized if you buy something on sale now.

Oh, please... that is just stupid. Nobody thinks this except you.

Yet you are incapable of explaining the mechanisms and math. Just like any other AGW cult member. You have a solid faith that the priests of AGW tell the truth.

Bullshit!! I have explained why both points in longview's post are false numerous times. If you would pay attention to my debunkings of his BS you would know this. But like a typical climate change denialist you ignore the truth I explain and choose to believe what you want to believe.

 

[Buzz]

It has already been published.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
The energy imbalance is happening in the Absorbed Solar Radiation spectrum, not the portion that added CO2
would have an effect.

This is not true. Added CO2 is still directly causing more warming and much of that increase in absorbed solar radiation is feedback from the warming caused by CO2 and other GHGs. If you go and read the text of this study you will see that the authors directly contradict longviews interpretation of the data. This is a perfect example of a pundit lying about what the science really says.

By the way the time between CO2 emissions and Maximum warming for small CO2 steps (Like Humans emit),
is a decade or less.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
If you look at their results, they took the simulation out to 1000 years.
For informational purposes 100 GtC is a 47 ppm pulse.
View attachment 67499898

And this is also another misinterpretation of what the study longview is citing says. This study is a model of the warming caused by a pulse of CO2 emissions without any further emissions after that. And we all know man is nowhere close to stopping our emissions of CO2. Longview is lying about what this study models.

 

[JBG]

Yaay, another straw man!

Back in the real world, the costs for solar have plummeted over the years:

Wind is hovering somewhat close to that "free" territory:

Meanwhile, use of renewables is growing, and is around 25% of global energy generation.


Did you actually read it? It points out that it is entirely possible to set up solar without harming wildlife. We're just not being careful enough about it yet.

That's not an argument to stop using solar, and keep using technologies that are far, far more harmful to wildlife, the environment, and humans. It's an argument to be more careful siting and constructing solar.


One can only suspect that someone who is against clean power is willfully ignorant and/or motivated by partisan bullshit. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

If wind and solar are nearly free why does it have to be shoved down our throats?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The only people who have changed the definition of subsidy are you and longview in an attempt to falsely claim that oil companies don't get billions in subsidies.

Bullshit. The definition has changed. i have used the classic definition, and later realized the definition has changed.

Here you are, speaking from ignorance again. Accept that Longview is still using the classical definition. not the way it changed on modern dictionaries.

If you refuse to understand that is what he means, they you are not here to debate. you are just here to harass us.

Yeah... I used to get subsidies, especially back when I was poor and then later when I bought a house. I also got a subsidy in the form of a tax cut for being in a labor union. But then when Trump and the Republicans changed the tax code I lost both of those deductions and now I don't get any and pay thousands more in taxes than I used to.

You haven't looked up the modern meaning yet. have you? Some dictionaries now now include anything that can be considered financial help, even a store putting items on sale.

there is the classical definition:

a grant of money​

; specif.,​

a.

a grant of money from one government to another, as for military aid​

​

b.

a government grant to a private enterprise considered of benefit to the public​

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/subsidy

Notice that it does not include tax write-offf. This is the definition I used to use, and that Longview is using.

Please stop telling everyone he is incorrect. that is a repeated lie that you like to use.

That is just not true. Some tax deductions have been considered subsidies for a long time. Especially when only certain people or companies get them. Like oil companies and their ability to get tax breaks for drilling for oil.

No, the definition has changed over the years Mr. D-K.

Oh, please... that is just stupid. Nobody thinks this except you.

I have seen definitions that include anytime you do not pay full value. I don't.

Bullshit!! I have explained why both points in longview's post are false numerous times. If you would pay attention to my debunkings of his BS you would know this. But like a typical climate change denialist you ignore the truth I explain and choose to believe what you want to believe.

Keep crying. we know better.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If wind and solar are nearly free why does it have to be shoved down our throats?

And subsidized...

 

[longview]

This is not true. Added CO2 is still directly causing more warming and much of that increase in absorbed solar radiation is feedback from the warming caused by CO2 and other GHGs. If you go and read the text of this study you will see that the authors directly contradict longviews interpretation of the data. This is a perfect example of a pundit lying about what the science really says.

And this is also another misinterpretation of what the study longview is citing says. This study is a model of the warming caused by a pulse of CO2 emissions without any further emissions after that. And we all know man is nowhere close to stopping our emissions of CO2. Longview is lying about what this study models.

Well let's just check the text of the study.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate

3.2.
Attribution of EEI Trends
We consider CERES TOA EEI trends for 09/2002–03/2020 and examine the underlying contributions from different atmospheric and surface variables available over that time period. Trends are determined from a least squares regression fit to deseasonalized monthly anomalies with uncertainties given as 5%–95% con-fidence intervals.For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c). TOA fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss. As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to −OLR.

So the finding was that between 2002 and 2020 they observed a -0.24 W m-2 trend in downward longwave radiation.
That does not sound ambiguous at all. An increase in CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in downward longwave radiation.
What was observed was an increase in Absorbed Solar radiation (ASR) this is in the shortwave (Visible and near visible spectrum).
of course they also say in the plane language summary this,

We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

The difference is the abstract is subjective opinion, while the observed data, is, well the observed data!

 

[Visbek]

If wind and solar are nearly free why does it have to be shoved down our throats?

Mostly because large corporations with a vested interest in selling fossil fuels spend billions per year trying to convince people like you to dislike it.

New Study Reveals Billions of Dollars in Political Spending by US Trade Associations, Most of It on PR

Out of $3.4 billion spent by trade associations over 10 years, nearly $2.2 billion went towards advertising and promotion, with the oil and gas industry the biggest spender.

www.desmog.com

 

[Lord of Planar]

Mostly because large corporations with a vested interest in selling fossil fuels spend billions per year trying to convince people like you to stop it.

New Study Reveals Billions of Dollars in Political Spending by US Trade Associations, Most of It on PR

Out of $3.4 billion spent by trade associations over 10 years, nearly $2.2 billion went towards advertising and promotion, with the oil and gas industry the biggest spender.

www.desmog.com

The problems are not yet apparent with the heavy subsidies used. They cannot continue indefinitely especially as more generation capacity is added.

When wind and solar push out coal and gas past a certain point, power storage will be needed which will likely add at least another 100% to the wholesale costs. When the subsidies finally dry up, there will be another jump in price. These two variables increasing the price are inevitable,

 

[JBG]

Mostly because large corporations with a vested interest in selling fossil fuels spend billions per year trying to convince people like you to dislike it.

New Study Reveals Billions of Dollars in Political Spending by US Trade Associations, Most of It on PR

Out of $3.4 billion spent by trade associations over 10 years, nearly $2.2 billion went towards advertising and promotion, with the oil and gas industry the biggest spender.

www.desmog.com

I want an energy source that works 24/7/365 (or this year 366). I do not want to be rationed. I want to "Go Where I Want to Go, Do What I Want to Do." Get it? Apologies to Mamas and Papas.

 

[longview]

Mostly because large corporations with a vested interest in selling fossil fuels spend billions per year trying to convince people like you to dislike it.

New Study Reveals Billions of Dollars in Political Spending by US Trade Associations, Most of It on PR

Out of $3.4 billion spent by trade associations over 10 years, nearly $2.2 billion went towards advertising and promotion, with the oil and gas industry the biggest spender.

www.desmog.com

If people had to live with only the electricity provided by wind and solar, almost everyone would dislike it, free of charge!
The problem is not a like or dislike thing, but the fact that wind and Solar are non dispatchable supplies.
This requires a deeper infrastructure to always have backup power plant waiting for when the wind stops or the skies become overcast.
For a computer data center to operate continuously it requires a large UPS combined with a motor generator.
a bank of say 100 deep cycle batteries will carry the load for the 15 to 30 seconds it takes the motor generator to come up to speed.
The power grid is much the same way except for the scale, it might take an entire battery farm to hold up the grid for the 15 minuets
or so for a fast plant to come online.

 

[Grand Mal]

I want an energy source that works 24/7/365 (or this year 366). I do not want to be rationed. I want to "Go Where I Want to Go, Do What I Want to Do." Get it? Apologies to Mamas and Papas.

We have that here. It's basically solar and it's nearly the cheapest in North America. The sun picks up water off the ocean and it falls on the mountains. We make it turn generators as it runs back down to the ocean.
Next up- tidal power. Must suck to have to burn stuff to make electricity. Talk about stuck in the past! How old is that technology?
But hey, rich powerful people say that as long as there's a drop of oil or a lump of coal in the ground researching 'greener' energy is a waste of time and being rich and powerful means they're very smart, right?

 

[Visbek]

I want an energy source that works 24/7/365 (or this year 366). I do not want to be rationed.

Stop with the straw man arguments.

Scotland is almost 100% wind power. It works 24/7. They are not "rationed."

Over 20% of electricity in the US is generated by renewables. You're not being "rationed."

 

[longview]

Stop with the straw man arguments.

Scotland is almost 100% wind power. It works 24/7. They are not "rationed."

Over 20% of electricity in the US is generated by renewables. You're not being "rationed."

And Scotland can get up to 80% of their electricity from Nuclear power when the wind is not blowing.
They also have tidal power and hydro power.

 

[JBG]

We have that here. It's basically solar and it's nearly the cheapest in North America. The sun picks up water off the ocean and it falls on the mountains. We make it turn generators as it runs back down to the ocean.
Next up- tidal power. Must suck to have to burn stuff to make electricity. Talk about stuck in the past! How old is that technology?
But hey, rich powerful people say that as long as there's a drop of oil or a lump of coal in the ground researching 'greener' energy is a waste of time and being rich and powerful means they're very smart, right?

I'm in the mood to quote songs today. Excerpts of lyrics of Merle Haggard's Rainbow Stew:

When they find out how to burn water
And the gasoline car is gone
When an airplane flies without any fuel
And the sunlight heats our home
But one of these days when the air clears up
And the sun comes shinin' through
We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up
And eatin' that rainbow stew

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The fact of the matter is it has less to do with saving the world than it does with sound economics.

The future is some form of GREEN and the nation that owns more of the patents, licensing and capacity in this sector of that economy will be healthier and more robust.

So to NOT invest, develop and attempt to lead in this sector is to cut one's economic nose off despite one's economic face.