All Activity

Make that 5 rainy Sundays in a row >:(

Look at the data. Europe in general has had a heavier push for renewables, and has seen higher rises in electricity prices than has the US as a result. It's clear. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/climate-policy-reality-europe-energy-costs-gas-coal-11632754849 https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/europes-green-energy-rush-slashed-emissionsand-crippled-the-economy-e65a1a07 etc. etc. Don't just look at the costs of individual projects and "peak output" which is what's often widely touted. Peak output is meaningless by itself. The problem is that renewables can't exist in a vacuum - they are too unreliable. Thus *even* if renewables could be less expensive than fossil on a per-KW basis (it generally isn't) - the overall *solution* is more expensive, because the fossil cannot be removed - it has to also stay in place to pick up the slack when unreliable wind and solar aren't present. Taking a specific case near where I live. There's an 800-acre 100 MW solar plant being installed right here (northern VA). Cost is $200 million. Since the capacity factor of solar here is about 20%, that makes it roughly $10M per MW. Compare that with a natural gas plant just down the road - 774 MW (about 540 MW w/capacity factor of 70%), and a cost of $778M. Thus it cost about 4x as much to build - but will be producing about 28x the electricity, and much more reliably so. Then compare with Kemmerer SMR being built in Wyoming. Cost is estimated to be $4B; will be putting out about 345 MW. Thus will be about $11.5M per MW - about the same cost as solar. And that's the *first* SMR being built - costs of future ones will come down a lot. Look at the numbers. Look at the *actual* numbers, not the theoretical ones. Look at the constant stream of renewable projects that have to be canceled to high costs - either during construction or during maintenance. Look at the interplay between sources of energy. Look at geography. Look at weather. Look at where people live, and what it takes to get electricity from there to here. Look at infrastructure. Look at land space usage. Look at materials usage (rare earths, silver, etc. etc.). Look at life spans, cycles, and recycling of materials used for generation. Etc. etc.

My area was the worst on that map….that 38 cane crushed us.

There as actually a presentation similar to this at the Tri-State Weather conference this past Saturday.

Yes please

Well let’s just hope it’s right. Euro a little less bullish. As usual.

53/53 currently with misery mist in the air at the office in Burlington

We are 1 off the record here, i fully expect us to break it and surpass the record of 83 before the end of the day.

Counting only hurricanes making landfall at hurricane strength between the western panhandle and tampa: 17-26 5 07-16 1 97-06 2 87-96 2 77-86 1 67-76 3

My low ended up bottoming out at 43 degrees. A nice surprise.

Insane sounding for mid-October.

This is by far the strongest signal for a warm December since 2015

Can that image be re-uploaded, it doesn't load - just a '1.gif'

Frigid and snowy lol

Well that was yet another strike for the Panhandle/Big Bend/West Coast of Florida. I feel like the last decade has been really intense for that area. Hermine 2016 Irma 2017 Michael 2018 Sally 2020 Ian 2022 Idalia 2023 Debby 2024 Helene 2024 Milton 2024 Isaias 2026 Ten hurricanes in ten years all on from Pensacola down to Naples.

Oh great ... instead of early season snow chance(s), the last half of the month is way better with higher chances for 59 F mist instead

Completely see your idea…and I agree 100%.

Absolutely ridiculous cold for midday on Saturday on some of these runs. 18z struggling to get to freezing.

Now that it is Fall and Winter is not far out, the consensus on the board remains largely unchanged from summer. Since not a single person in this thread is expecting a colder/snowier than avg winter in the north/northeast (despite repeated implications from a few that some are, with or course no proof backing it up), there seem to be two camps. 1.) The majority expect a winter that is milder than avg in the mean with wintry chances more plentiful the 2nd half of the season rather than the 1st. This camp is by far the largest, so theres a surprising amount of consensus heading into winter. 2.) The vocal minority expect a winter with nonstop warm weather and no snow whatsoever in the north/northeast, and often taunt the majority for their crazy assumption that it will, in fact, snow in northern latitudes as it has every year on record. Once spring gets here, it will be interesting to see which camp wins.

Thanks. I didn’t include 72 and 97 because they were during a different part of the QBO cycle. 72: at the end of a negative phase (far different) 97: start of a new negative phase ( not nearly as far off as 72 but still off enough to already go <0 in Jan and I’m expecting +8 through Feb. All of the other 5 analogs were +QBO through Feb.)

He’s moving in mysterious ways again

When I moved here I started eating a lot of peaches