• 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

AlphaOmega said:
This means please give us billions of tax dollars for reaearch that will never bear fruit.
In order to get off of fossil fuel we need a NEW energy source. Sorry but renewables aren't going to power the planet. Will they help? Sure, but they will never replace fossil fuel. Granny needs her AC and wind is going to power just a fraction of them.
Click to expand...

Global subsidies to fossil fuel have been much bigger than global subsidies to renewable energy. Just like US federal spending on R & D for nuclear and fossil fuels have been much than R & D to renewable energy. Also that trillions of tax dollars have been spent on intervention in the Middle East have failed to create stability and democracy in the region.

$400bn in global fossil fuel consumption subsidies, twice that for renewables - Energy Post

Nuclear, Fossil Fuels Have Dominated Federal Energy R&D Spending

There it now are investments in renewable energy that bear fruit.

Renewable power is increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels, says IRENA | World Economic Forum

Offshore wind energy investment quadruples despite Covid-19 slump | Environment | The Guardian

There for example Denmark got almost half of their electricity from wind power last year.

Denmark sources record 47% of power from wind in 2019 - Reuters

There in the US also red states like Texas sees the great benefits of wind power.

As climate threat looms, Texas Republicans have a solution: giant wind farm everywhere
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Global subsidies to fossil fuel have been much bigger than global subsidies to renewable energy. Just like US federal spending on R & D for nuclear and fossil fuels have been much than R & D to renewable energy. Also that trillions of tax dollars have been spent on intervention in the Middle East have failed to create stability and democracy in the region.

$400bn in global fossil fuel consumption subsidies, twice that for renewables - Energy Post

Nuclear, Fossil Fuels Have Dominated Federal Energy R&D Spending

There it now are investments in renewable energy that bear fruit.

Renewable power is increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels, says IRENA | World Economic Forum

Offshore wind energy investment quadruples despite Covid-19 slump | Environment | The Guardian

There for example Denmark got almost half of their electricity from wind power last year.

Denmark sources record 47% of power from wind in 2019 - Reuters

There in the US also red states like Texas sees the great benefits of wind power.

As climate threat looms, Texas Republicans have a solution: giant wind farm everywhere
Click to expand...

Just a quick question...what was the carbon footprint on one of the windmills in denmark? Was any fossil fuel used during their conateuction? If so, how much?
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
The life cycle emission from wind power is 1 / 50th of natural gas and 1 / 100th of coal.

Wind Power Cuts CO2 Emissions On Close To 1:1 Basis
Click to expand...

Hmm ok...I'd like to calculate that myself. I asked, how much fossil fuel was used to build one windmill? That includes everything such as cement trucks, ships used to ship parts, construction equipment etc. If you don't know how much fossil fuel was used then don't respond to my post. I'm looking for someone who has the information in detail.
 
Jack Hays said:
ECS is in fact a crisis for the AGW paradigm. I'll be posting about that later this week.
Click to expand...
ECS has always been a poor theoretical measure, There is no physical way for the CO2 level to double instantly,
so a value derived from such a concept, has limited applicability to the real world.
In the real world, it has take 140 years to increase CO2 levels 130 ppm, or 46% of the first doubling.
It will take another 50 years without any emission reductions to reach the first doubling of CO2.
The difference between an instant doubling of the CO2 level vs a 180 year doubling, renders the idea of ECS,
useless for much besides a theoretical exercise!
 
longview said:
ECS has always been a poor theoretical measure, There is no physical way for the CO2 level to double instantly,
so a value derived from such a concept, has limited applicability to the real world.
In the real world, it has take 140 years to increase CO2 levels 130 ppm, or 46% of the first doubling.
It will take another 50 years without any emission reductions to reach the first doubling of CO2.
The difference between an instant doubling of the CO2 level vs a 180 year doubling, renders the idea of ECS,
useless for much besides a theoretical exercise!
Click to expand...

Alarmist climate warnings don't hold up without the assumption of high ECS. That's the real point.
 
Jack Hays said:
Alarmist climate warnings don't hold up without the assumption of high ECS. That's the real point.
Click to expand...

Reality is enlightening.

aca2b90b2de2f43674274dcc0cccd346.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
Alarmist climate warnings don't hold up without the assumption of high ECS. That's the real point.
Click to expand...
I think TCR is a bit more realistic, the 1% annual increase is fairly close the the 3ppm per year, observed as we increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm over the last 140 years.
Estimating the Transient Climate Response from Observed Warming | Journal of Climate | American Meteorological Society
The TCR is formally defined as the warming at the time of CO2 doubling in a climate simulation
where the CO2 concentration is gradually increased by 1% yr−1 (Hegerl et al. 2007).
Click to expand...
The best estimate from the combined model analysis is 1.7°C with a 90% range of 1.0°–2.6°C,
which method tests indicate is likely to be conservative.
The best estimate from the multimodel analysis is 1.7°C with a 90% range of 1.3°–2.2°C,
but this has been shown to be overconfident in the presence of model uncertainty.
Click to expand...
If the warming resulting from a gradual doubling of the CO2 level, (Like we are observing) is only 1.7C,
then added CO2 is simply not the major concern voiced by t he alarmist!
 
vegas giants said:
Geneva, 9 July 2020 – The annual mean global temperature is likely to be at least 1° Celsius above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900) in each of the coming five years (2020-2024) and there is a 20% chance that it will exceed 1.5°C in at least one year, according to new climate predictions issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).



New climate predictions assess global temperatures in coming five years | World Meteorological Organization
Click to expand...

I thought it was ‘cooling’. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
 
Apple pledge to become climate neutral by 2030.

"The chief executive, Tim Cook, said: “The innovations powering our environmental journey are not only good for the planet, they’ve helped us make our products more energy-efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world.

“Climate action can be the foundation for a new era of innovative potential, job creation, and durable economic growth. With our commitment to carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond that creates a much larger change.”

The majority of the progress, Apple says in its 2020 environmental progress report, will be made by cutting its carbon emissions directly. But the last 25% will come from “carbon removal solutions” such as forest planting and mangrove swamp restoration."

Apple promises to become fully carbon-neutral by 2030 | Technology | The Guardian
 
Taking "green energy" advocates to the woodshed.

Climate News
NYT Slams Bjørn Lomborg’s New Climate Economics Book

According to Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz, writing in NYT, Bjørn Lomborg’s new book downplays the risk of allowing global warming to occur, and ignores a study prepared by himself and Lord Nicholas Stern which suggests climate action is affordable. But Stiglitz and Stern’s own study seems to gloss over the details of how society can afford to pay for their proposed low carbon transition.
 

Democrats’ Green New Deal would make US reliance on China much worse

China unleashed Covid-19 on an unsuspecting world. It knew by early January 2020 (if not by December 2019 or earlier) that it was dealing with a vicious, fast-spreading disease in Wuhan, a city with more people than Chicago and New York City combined. But first it said nothing. Then it lied repeatedly, expelled foreign journalists, and threatened, silenced or “disappeared” Wuhan doctors who tried to warn the world.
Continue reading →
 
[h=2]Germany’s July Wind Energy Takes A Summer Vacation, Showing Country’s Renewable Energies Remain Unreliable[/h]By P Gosselin on 31. July 2020
Share this...


By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
In a guest article in the German DIE ZEIT, Rainer Moormann and Anna Veronika Wendland recently mentioned the subject of the nuclear phase-out. There is a replica of it at Erneuerbareenergien.de, written by Nicole Weinhold. In it the author puts forward the idea that a simultaneous phase-out of coal and nuclear power is possible solely in Germany on the basis of a CO2 price. Unfortunately, she does not explain exactly how this should work. A pity.
Some of the readers’ comments take up this specifically and come to the conclusion that more capacity of renewable energies does not automatically mean more electricity from them. The windless months of June and July 2020 are a good example of this. The Fraunhofer Energy Chart shows July, 2020. First of all, the yield of wind power:
Power production in Germany in July, 2020​
image003-12-1024x340.png
As the chart above shows, mid July wind energy went on summer holidays, in addition to a number of off days throughout the month.

Shown next is the energy supply breakdown for July:
Net power generation in Germany in July 2020​
image005-9-1024x545.png
The gray shows the non-renewable energy share, the yellow depicts the renewable share. ​
How do you replace 28% of electricity production when coal and nuclear power are no longer used?
How are you supposed to generate 50% of the electricity when renewables only have a 50% share in a summer month? As Ms Weinhold was told, scaling is not enough, because every number multiplied by zero is zero.
This all means Germany’s dream of being powered by renewable energies is a long way off.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&]https://climaterealism.com/2020/07/...tradicted-by-actual-temperature-measurements/[/FONT]
Trump Recovers Taxpayer Cash On A $1 Billion Obama-Backed Solar Plant That Was Obsolete Before Ever Going Online

[FONT=&]The Department of Energy reached a settlement Thursday to recover $200 million in taxpayer funds from a loan the Obama administration distributed in 2011 to finance a $1 billion solar power plant that was deemed obsolete before it could officially go online.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

To advance technology you need to take risk and have failures. There some like to solely on the loans that failed instead of the overall success and profitability of Obama administration's loan program.

"A blue-black field of 5.2 million solar panels tilted toward the Arizona sun might just be the Hoover Dam project of the Great Recession. The Agua Caliente Solar Power Project hosts nearly 300 megawatts of silicon photovoltaics (PV) that turn sunshine into electricity. That made the Yuma County facility the largest working solar farm in the world when it opened in April 2014. But when it comes to mega–energy projects, Agua Caliente has competition, including four of the world’s largest solar-power plants to use the sun's heat and one of the largest wind farms on the planet. And its all thanks to billions in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO).

The most important thing the Obama administration has done to combat climate change may not end up being raised fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks or even its Clean Power Plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The most important thing may turn out to be the loans that enabled large power facilities that run on sunshine or Earth's heat to break ground out west, wind farms to be built from coast to coast and construction of the nation's first brewery for biofuels not made from food—as well as a host of other advanced manufacturing energy projects."

Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think - Scientific American
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom