Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

16 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

I think you're generally reinforcing my point, which is that this thing is much harder than most people thought it would be, and we're making less progress than people thought we would even given the increase in the use of renewables that we've seen.

You say "Renewables only began to move the needle in this decade.", but there is no "this decade" in that chart - there is only "this year", which happens to be an extreme outlier w/El Nino, showing anything other than the same trend upward.   I think that's likely the main factor, and not primarily due to energy policy.   Only time will tell though, in the years ahead.    If it's truly due to energy policy then we should see a continued bending-down of the curve.

My additional assertion would be - this is also turning out to be more economically disruptive than anticipated; vis a vis the increases we've seen in electricity prices, and the resulting economic headwinds that have been experienced, in particular by countries that have had more aggressive renewable policies.

 

Nobody thought it would be easy to replace fossil fuels. Ten years ago low carbon emission scenarios depended heavily on carbon capture, nuclear and biofuels. It has proven difficult to advance those technologies. On the other hand solar, batteries and EV have advanced much faster than anticipated and it is easier to replace fossil fuels with those technologies than anticipated.

Your views on the cost of renewables are outdated. The energy cost increases we are seeing are due to fossil fuels. Supply disruptions and the inability to meet increasing demand in a timely manner being the biggest problems. Energy costs would be even higher without renewable, batteries and EV. Countries that have to import fossil fuels are trying to find a cheaper more reliable alternative. Even in Texas, where local natural gas is plentiful, met 80% of new power demand with solar last year. 

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Nobody thought it would be easy to replace fossil fuels. Ten years ago low carbon emission scenarios depended heavily on carbon capture, nuclear and biofuels. It has proven difficult to advance those technologies. On the other hand solar, batteries and EV have advanced much faster than anticipated and it is easier to replace fossil fuels with those technologies than anticipated.

Your views on the cost of renewables are outdated. The energy cost increases we are seeing are due to fossil fuels. Supply disruptions and the inability to meet increasing demand in a timely manner being the biggest problems. Energy costs would be even higher without renewable, batteries and EV. Countries that have to import fossil fuels are trying to find a cheaper more reliable alternative. Even in Texas, where local natural gas is plentiful, met 80% of new power demand with solar last year. 

 

There are many reasons for our energy cost increases, but the vast majority has been renewables.  There is reams of data and articles on the subject, going back to before the current supply disruptions.

Posting data from ERCOT is cherry picking.  Texas is the one state that has the best blend of geographical conditions for wind and solar.  As I say - low hanging fruit.   Now do the same PJM (largest grid) and others.   

It's kind of like when people point out how Norway is so green with their renewables - well duh; they live in a population-sparse country with tons of mountains - perfect conditions for hydro.  Most of the rest of the world doesn't have that geographical luxury.

 

 

[Brewbeer]

Quote

There are many reasons for our energy cost increases, but the vast majority has been renewables.

false statement

the true drivers of increased energy and electricity costs are increasing costs to maintain and expand an aging grid, the increasing price for fossil fuels, the increase in energy demand, and a general utility regulatory structure that prioritizes investment in massive power plants that have long capital pay-back periods

and let's not forget about the abysmally expensive energy policy choices implemented by the current administration

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

false statement

the true drivers of increased energy and electricity costs are increasing costs to maintain and expand an aging grid, the increasing price for fossil fuels, the increase in energy demand, and a general utility regulatory structure that prioritizes investment in massive power plants that have long capital pay-back periods

and let's not forget about the abysmally expensive energy policy choices implemented by the current administration

 

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.   

 

[Brewbeer]

lol at wall street journal opinion articles; everyone has opinions, but just because someone typed their opinion, and you believe it, does not make it true 

here are some facts:  link and link

and if you want to look at "actual" numbers, you need to include operating costs including fuel inputs over the life of the facility, not just cost to build; and for nuclear, you need to include the cost of long term storage and disposal of radioactive components from the plant operations

if you want try again and this time include operational costs to support your opinion, please do so

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

lol at wall street journal opinion articles; everyone has opinions, but just because someone typed their opinion, and you believe it, does not make it true 

here are some facts:  link and link

and if you want to look at "actual" numbers, you need to include operating costs including fuel inputs over the life of the facility, not just cost to build; and for nuclear, you need to include the cost of long term storage and disposal of radioactive components from the plant operations

if you want try again and this time include operational costs to support your opinion, please do so

 

Yes perhaps, but one would also need to include the costs for lower lifespan of solar and wind, the costs for recycling the very hard-to-recycle materials, the environmental costs of the things that can't be recycled (e.g. carbon-fiber blades),  the costs for acquiring the land (including the huge amount of community-by-community fights that inevitably happens), the environmental costs of dead and disturbed wildlife - birds, whales, etc. (how to quantify?), and of cleared balsa forests, the cost for additional land and steel required for additional transmission lines, etc. etc.

Also keeping in mind that this does not scale linearly.  As the scale of projects get larger and larger (e.g. Spanberger's proposal for 277,000 acres of solar in Virginia), it drives the costs of material - e.g. silver for solar panels - up, due to their relative scarcity.

These things are not nearly as simple as people make them out to be, due to the immense amount of factors, which is why you have to look at the bigger picture, such as what's been happening in Europe (and to a smaller extent the US).

I mean - just step back and think about it.   Electricity prices (especially in Europe) have been rising - faster than inflation.   Is it because of rising oil prices?   No - it can't be, because we don't use oil for generating electricity.   Is it because of the price of coal?   No - that's generally been flat (save for a big spike in 2022) since 2008 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-prices.     Is it because of the price of Natural gas?   No - that's been *down* the last couple of decades:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm.    Why then?   Why have electricity prices been going up so much?   Is it just coincidence that it happens to be happening at the same time as we've pushing for replacement of fossil plants with renewable?   No.

Keep in mind that this is *despite* the money that's been flowing into the renewable energy industry, vis a vis our taxes.   Without that electricity prices would be even higher.

(and lest one be tempted to blame the price increase on increased demand from AI and data centers - keep in mind that the electricity prices started getting higher long before that recent demand spike)

P.S. that Fresh Energy link is from what is essentially a renewable energy lobbying organization - extremely biased.   The EIA link doesn't really provide any useful information for the conversation.

[chubbs]

19 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes perhaps, but one would also need to include the costs for lower lifespan of solar and wind, the costs for recycling the very hard-to-recycle materials, the environmental costs of the things that can't be recycled (e.g. carbon-fiber blades),  the costs for acquiring the land (including the huge amount of community-by-community fights that inevitably happens), the environmental costs of dead and disturbed wildlife - birds, whales, etc. (how to quantify?), and of cleared balsa forests, the cost for additional land and steel required for additional transmission lines, etc. etc.

Also keeping in mind that this does not scale linearly.  As the scale of projects get larger and larger (e.g. Spanberger's proposal for 277,000 acres of solar in Virginia), it drives the costs of material - e.g. silver for solar panels - up, due to their relative scarcity.

These things are not nearly as simple as people make them out to be, due to the immense amount of factors, which is why you have to look at the bigger picture, such as what's been happening in Europe (and to a smaller extent the US).

I mean - just step back and think about it.   Electricity prices (especially in Europe) have been rising - faster than inflation.   Is it because of rising oil prices?   No - it can't be, because we don't use oil for generating electricity.   Is it because of the price of coal?   No - that's generally been flat (save for a big spike in 2022) since 2008 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-prices.     Is it because of the price of Natural gas?   No - that's been *down* the last couple of decades:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm.    Why then?   Why have electricity prices been going up so much?   Is it just coincidence that it happens to be happening at the same time as we've pushing for replacement of fossil plants with renewable?   No.

Keep in mind that this is *despite* the money that's been flowing into the renewable energy industry, vis a vis our taxes.   Without that electricity prices would be even higher.

(and lest one be tempted to blame the price increase on increased demand from AI and data centers - keep in mind that the electricity prices started getting higher long before that recent demand spike)

P.S. that Fresh Energy link is from what is essentially a renewable energy lobbying organization - extremely biased.   The EIA link doesn't really provide any useful information for the conversation.

Your viewpoint on renewables is outdated and misinformed. Yes,renewables were not competitive in the past and required subsidies. Now however they are fully competitive in many markets, without considering climate and energy security benefits. Renewable/EV competitiveness vs fossil fuels will only improve in the future as fossil fuels deplete, renewable and battery technology improves, and climate impacts compound. 

The investment in renewables has paid off in spades. Now we have additional low cost energy supply at a time when fossil fuels are struggling to meet increased demand. Per study linked below, Europe saved 100 billion euros due to renewables in 2021-2023 when energy prices spiked due to the Russia/Ukraine war. That cost saving has only increased since.

https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables

[Typhoon Tip]

Plus... if fossil fuel really is that impossible to get away from then we are assured of two world destinies:

an ontological death

an actual die-off

I suspect though that folks just enjoy the sport of the argument...? fine.  But while that ball-game is being played, those overarching ultimatums are objectively looming.  In other words, do it!  tough shit.  But of course, the problem with that is that people do not believe that the proverbial pistol is actually pointed at the head.

For the rest, look ... no one is insinuating any of this is going to be easy.  It is going to be hard, very hard.  In fact, so much so that it is of higher likelihood that humanity won't be able to get off the oil-heroin without transferring violent withdraw frustrations, unilaterally.  That's rhetorical euphemism for destructive conflicts.

I just wanna point out couple aspects for muse/thought:

The first is ... the problem with Global Warming is not warming of the globe.  That was a mistake of the early science ambit when this issue of humanity's industrial flatulence become abundantly clear to the very small population that is really even capable of understanding the future peril.  When that become obvious to those that know, the 99.9999999% of the world that finds all this "math" as mentally untenable, simply were ill-equipped so... denial was going to be inevitable after sociological forces worked it over.   The way GW should have been exposed was to say - it's species adaptation rate, more importantly .... being slower than the changes to the environments within which they were evolved prior to the arrival anthropomorphic forcing.

Resources become challenged ?   But that's a separate issue...   We are inexorably dependent upon the interconnected species of the global "Gaia" - for lack of better word.  When those relationships sever - because keystone bacteria ...say etc...- undermines the foundation of food and resource pyramids...  tick tick tick

The 2nd is that innovation in our species as tool makers has outpaced the normal checks-n-balances that intertwine use with the surrounding ecology.  There are probably better ways to formulate that sentence/phrase out that sentiment, relative to the reader's comprehension, in hopes that they really understand what is trying to be conveyed. Look at it this way... in the Darwinian machinery, all other species mutate enough to survive, and those mutations thus live on so that the next generation has that ability built in. Human have a unique power, to innovate beyond that species requirement.  If you sum-up the quotient that is over the top of the species basal requirement, that surplus is probably 1::1 equal with problems that are being defined.  I've been saying for years that the moment in antiquity that the early hominid picked up the burning stick, we were doomed. It was just a matter thousands of years...  a time span - by the way - that is an instant cataclysm relative to the geological ages.

At a minimum, that same mutation, innovation, will have to become our savior.   

 

 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

 
Yes perhaps, but one would also need to include the costs for lower lifespan of solar and wind, the costs for recycling the very hard-to-recycle materials, the environmental costs of the things that can't be recycled (e.g. carbon-fiber blades),  the costs for acquiring the land (including the huge amount of community-by-community fights that inevitably happens), the environmental costs of dead and disturbed wildlife - birds, whales, etc. (how to quantify?), and of cleared balsa forests, the cost for additional land and steel required for additional transmission lines, etc. etc.
Also keeping in mind that this does not scale linearly.  As the scale of projects get larger and larger (e.g. Spanberger's proposal for 277,000 acres of solar in Virginia), it drives the costs of material - e.g. silver for solar panels - up, due to their relative scarcity.
These things are not nearly as simple as people make them out to be, due to the immense amount of factors, which is why you have to look at the bigger picture, such as what's been happening in Europe (and to a smaller extent the US).
I mean - just step back and think about it.   Electricity prices (especially in Europe) have been rising - faster than inflation.   Is it because of rising oil prices?   No - it can't be, because we don't use oil for generating electricity.   Is it because of the price of coal?   No - that's generally been flat (save for a big spike in 2022) since 2008 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-prices.     Is it because of the price of Natural gas?   No - that's been *down* the last couple of decades:  https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm.    Why then?   Why have electricity prices been going up so much?   Is it just coincidence that it happens to be happening at the same time as we've pushing for replacement of fossil plants with renewable?   No.
Keep in mind that this is *despite* the money that's been flowing into the renewable energy industry, vis a vis our taxes.   Without that electricity prices would be even higher.
(and lest one be tempted to blame the price increase on increased demand from AI and data centers - keep in mind that the electricity prices started getting higher long before that recent demand spike)
P.S. that Fresh Energy link is from what is essentially a renewable energy lobbying organization - extremely biased.   The EIA link doesn't really provide any useful information for the conversation.

Explain to me how a windmill kills whales. This is complete nonsense. We just had an enormous wind farm built off the coast here on Long Island, and the amount of actual whale activity had increased by orders of magnitude in the last decade. I have never in 28 years of ocean life gaurding spotted more whales then I did this summer.


.

[bluewave]

The main issue China is having with renewable energy is that the transmission infrastructure hasn’t been able to keep pace. So much of the clean energy has gone unused. This has lead to the continuing reliance on coal.

While AI data centers also utilize large amounts of electricity, it would be interesting to see if AI can eventually figure out a way to transition away from fossil fuels.

We know that AI hasn’t been getting very good press lately due to the haphazard implementation.  It would be ironic if AI could  lead to the development of a new exotic clean energy source. Even a more effective way to manage wind and solar would be a welcome AI achievement.

 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-renewable-curtailments

China is leading the world on renewable energy, last year installing more wind and solar capacity than every other country put together. But its buildout has unfolded at such a ferocious pace that China is now generating much more electricity than its power grid can handle, meaning that huge amounts of clean power are going unused.

When the grid is at capacity, operators must reject electricity from wind and solar plants to prevent overloads and blackouts. In the first six months of this year, China rejected 360 terawatt-hours of clean energy, enough to power Mexico for a year, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. “Had this electricity been absorbed, the additional power supply could have met all demand growth and allowed coal power generation to fall,” analysts said.

The problem, analysts say, is that China lacks the transmission infrastructure necessary to ferry its abundant clean energy from where it is generated to where it is needed. Also stymying the consumption of clean energy is a policy that guarantees the purchase of electricity from newly built coal power plants. 

Despite a pledge to shift away from coal, China continues to permit and construct new generators. “Coal capacity is still growing because of legacy approvals and policy protections, even as plants run fewer hours and large volumes of clean electricity go unused,” said Qi Qin, an analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. The new report finds that China rejected 26.1 percent of its wind and solar output in the first half of this year, far more than official figures would suggest. 

Other countries with large amounts of renewable energy are also dealing with wasted power. In India, clean power capacity just surpassed fossil fuel capacity for the first time, but transmission infrastructure has yet to catch up. On a single day in March, India wasted 34 gigawatt-hours of clean electricity, enough to power about 5 million homes, according to an analysis from the think tank Ember. The core of the problem, analysts said, “is a growing mismatch between the pace of renewable energy development and the readiness of the transmission infrastructure.”

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Plus... if fossil fuel really is that impossible to get away from then we are assured of two world destinies:

an ontological death

an actual die-off

I suspect though that folks just enjoy the sport of the argument...? fine.  But while that ball-game is being played, those overarching ultimatums are objectively looming.  In other words, do it!  tough shit.  But of course, the problem with that is that people do not believe that the proverbial pistol is actually pointed at the head.

For the rest, look ... no one is insinuating any of this is going to be easy.  It is going to be hard, very hard.  In fact, so much so that it is of higher likelihood that humanity won't be able to get off the oil-heroin without transferring violent withdraw frustrations, unilaterally.  That's rhetorical euphemism for destructive conflicts.

I just wanna point out couple aspects for muse/thought:

The first is ... the problem with Global Warming is not warming of the globe.  That was a mistake of the early science ambit when this issue of humanity's industrial flatulence become abundantly clear to the very small population that is really even capable of understanding the future peril.  When that become obvious to those that know, the 99.9999999% of the world that finds all this "math" as mentally untenable, simply were ill-equipped so... denial was going to be inevitable after sociological forces worked it over.   The way GW should have been exposed was to say - it's species adaptation rate, more importantly .... being slower than the changes to the environments within which they were evolved prior to the arrival anthropomorphic forcing.

Resources become challenged ?   But that's a separate issue...   We are inexorably dependent upon the interconnected species of the global "Gaia" - for lack of better word.  When those relationships sever - because keystone bacteria ...say etc...- undermines the foundation of food and resource pyramids...  tick tick tick

The 2nd is that innovation in our species as tool makers has outpaced the normal checks-n-balances that intertwine use with the surrounding ecology.  There are probably better ways to formulate that sentence/phrase out that sentiment, relative to the reader's comprehension, in hopes that they really understand what is trying to be conveyed. Look at it this way... in the Darwinian machinery, all other species mutate enough to survive, and those mutations thus live on so that the next generation has that ability built in. Human have a unique power, to innovate beyond that species requirement.  If you sum-up the quotient that is over the top of the species basal requirement, that surplus is probably 1::1 equal with problems that are being defined.  I've been saying for years that the moment in antiquity that the early hominid picked up the burning stick, we were doomed. It was just a matter thousands of years...  a time span - by the way - that is an instant cataclysm relative to the geological ages.

At a minimum, that same mutation, innovation, will have to become our savior.   

 

 

Gaia theory has already been proven. Did you know that trees in the Amazon control their own rainfall? And are you familiar with the wood wide web how trees communicate with each other and mushrooms to control their own environment?

 

By the way I had a long conversation with Gemini about a topic that mutually interests us I'll post some of it to you here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=my+google+homepage+had+a+recent+article+on+a+recent+quantum+fluctuations+found+in+the+CMB+but+i+can't+find+the+link+can+you+find+it+for+me+and+does+it+have+anything+to+do+with+the+multiverse+or+cyclic+universe+theory&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjEwMzk5NWowajSoAg6wAgE&client=ms-android-att-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&source=chrome.ob&ie=UTF-8&fbs=ABfTbFXXq5_lq1-qc-RNbCT-iVCv1pqpzFbsklS6H69T2lad0GTf_QfkL84T_NcuUjCLgDARHbyGxBgoONb2ZzsFCAMnn5FpLgyJf_3J6jzq_3iFiND4grLzxzUiNcVVuyoRfMiKsGOOY7X4WpN1LCTfZrldpw0TpjvvKV4oUNAOvaUAxCas03At6J2eiT8eezKqSbtYRKWAGaTEJ4VT73Ov27_x1hUyMxZFgnscg-h_xcAJkLt4u9I&aep=10&ntc=1&sxsrf=APpeQnumT__IKLg_2evuZ_4jCuCtXlNPsg%3A1792015565485&mstk=AUtExfAl8s-Mac66jydJ5to_El1JKf9v-eNn1Eak2ZQKRH99EF_Y51kf3_RLFau8TJxkOYqXGA8sRlWbnKyLJoc506zklVqDEIdnp7v25iZh_c3my-KuZ03iSYCogxvQyESpQ40Fks3Xxt8-LPclQd9Y4_OW5akeg0nmgyWwWIjxFMA4A0v9F0egreDUMonvblVjU4F0w8LjGxuacU0MyMUEcRRMJK0xOpOb6Pqt9qiJiUrI7X3AfPxGr6RgfawFzsyOWyITDCAIxG1eXtTPCD5JsBtMgQefa6OVLSHNg0HZ7gK8U8hzLwGFZGt8lPIKXx7t7GEN0vgS-cUx-A&csuir=1&aioh=3&mtid=o_3PauzhAueo5NoPlv_G-AM&udm=50#lfId=ChxjMe

https://www.google.com/search?q=my+google+homepage+had+a+recent+article+on+a+recent+quantum+fluctuations+found+in+the+CMB+but+i+can't+find+the+link+can+you+find+it+for+me+and+does+it+have+anything+to+do+with+the+multiverse+or+cyclic+universe+theory&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjEwMzk5NWowajSoAg6wAgE&client=ms-android-att-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&source=chrome.ob&ie=UTF-8&fbs=ABfTbFXXq5_lq1-qc-RNbCT-iVCv1pqpzFbsklS6H69T2lad0GTf_QfkL84T_NcuUjCLgDARHbyGxBgoONb2ZzsFCAMnn5FpLgyJf_3J6jzq_3iFiND4grLzxzUiNcVVuyoRfMiKsGOOY7X4WpN1LCTfZrldpw0TpjvvKV4oUNAOvaUAxCas03At6J2eiT8eezKqSbtYRKWAGaTEJ4VT73Ov27_x1hUyMxZFgnscg-h_xcAJkLt4u9I&aep=10&ntc=1&sxsrf=APpeQnumT__IKLg_2evuZ_4jCuCtXlNPsg%3A1792015565485&mstk=AUtExfDIKWopk4_zi8Wat6oTUVMnZ2prTce3qwEZCRq2Xqe4aYq7iCweln0-GyBG05Q1912rEkEns-YM3Z1UtgASGx6pve10N9YxYg94dJEuhlo0eNKb3j_FPMQikPWKFffBDsll7-FR6mdiYdAcNxLxLB5zMVvjtKi8EWUCO2ovu1aUZ2rkK8ifYLjpGuSLvkQwldtDGNhz75d8yiAG9KS5NUY6cndS4o2LFoeyZ-w6jiCrZdAe_CzfgKoytp0c4qH0GTkX3BowByY5CycKfxBWIitUxSifYTwRsAyq0x-xWy_heUk571C_N9sYpkNTDD3Wi5-xke9jvZsFsw&csuir=1&aioh=3&mtid=o_3PauzhAueo5NoPlv_G-AM&udm=50#lfId=ChxjMe

 

7 hours ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Explain to me how a windmill kills whales. This is complete nonsense. We just had an enormous wind farm built off the coast here on Long Island, and the amount of actual whale activity had increased by orders of magnitude in the last decade. I have never in 28 years of ocean life gaurding spotted more whales then I did this summer.


.

They dont kill whales or birds. First of all they can't kill whales at all unless the whales are jumping out of the water and hundreds of feet up. And they dont kill birds because they are computerized to automatically shut off when birds approach. 

 

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

The main issue China is having with renewable energy is that the transmission infrastructure hasn’t been able to keep pace. So much of the clean energy has gone unused. This has lead to the continuing reliance on coal.

While AI data centers also utilize large amounts of electricity, it would be interesting to see if AI can eventually figure out a way to transition away from fossil fuels.

We know that AI hasn’t been getting very good press lately due to the haphazard implementation.  It would be ironic if AI could  lead to the development of a new exotic clean energy source. Even a more effective way to manage wind and solar would be a welcome AI achievement.

 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-renewable-curtailments

China is leading the world on renewable energy, last year installing more wind and solar capacity than every other country put together. But its buildout has unfolded at such a ferocious pace that China is now generating much more electricity than its power grid can handle, meaning that huge amounts of clean power are going unused.

When the grid is at capacity, operators must reject electricity from wind and solar plants to prevent overloads and blackouts. In the first six months of this year, China rejected 360 terawatt-hours of clean energy, enough to power Mexico for a year, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. “Had this electricity been absorbed, the additional power supply could have met all demand growth and allowed coal power generation to fall,” analysts said.

The problem, analysts say, is that China lacks the transmission infrastructure necessary to ferry its abundant clean energy from where it is generated to where it is needed. Also stymying the consumption of clean energy is a policy that guarantees the purchase of electricity from newly built coal power plants. 

Despite a pledge to shift away from coal, China continues to permit and construct new generators. “Coal capacity is still growing because of legacy approvals and policy protections, even as plants run fewer hours and large volumes of clean electricity go unused,” said Qi Qin, an analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. The new report finds that China rejected 26.1 percent of its wind and solar output in the first half of this year, far more than official figures would suggest. 

Other countries with large amounts of renewable energy are also dealing with wasted power. In India, clean power capacity just surpassed fossil fuel capacity for the first time, but transmission infrastructure has yet to catch up. On a single day in March, India wasted 34 gigawatt-hours of clean electricity, enough to power about 5 million homes, according to an analysis from the think tank Ember. The core of the problem, analysts said, “is a growing mismatch between the pace of renewable energy development and the readiness of the transmission infrastructure.”

 

I'd like to have more sunny days for my newly installed solar panels. Warmer winters are actually really good for lower fossil fuel consumption.

[WolfStock1]

17 hours ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Explain to me how a windmill kills whales. This is complete nonsense. We just had an enormous wind farm built off the coast here on Long Island, and the amount of actual whale activity had increased by orders of magnitude in the last decade. I have never in 28 years of ocean life gaurding spotted more whales then I did this summer.


.

 

So your rebuttal is to latch onto one tiny bit in what I say, and misrepresent it?   I did not say a windmill can kill a whale.   That's the kind of mis-reading that causes people to misunderstand things, like the actual effects of climate change.

[WolfStock1]

17 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Plus... if fossil fuel really is that impossible to get away from then we are assured of two world destinies:

an ontological death

an actual die-off

 

 

Wow.... just.... wow.

Listen to your yourself.

I'll just put this here, and let you struggle with your existential crisis.

 

Let me know when that trend starts upward due to our fossil fuel burning, so I can... run somewhere or something.

[WolfStock1]

Look - I am *not* attempting to assert that CO2, vis a vis fossil fuel burning, is not a long term problem.    It is.   

My assertions are the following:

• That it is not an existential crisis, or anything close to it
• That our policy efforts to solve the problem have been and continue to be misguided; specifically in that they a) have less positive impact in fixing the problem than most people think, and b) have more negative impact than most people think - both economically and environmentally

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2026-10-countries-vulnerable-fossil-fuel-phaseout.html

seein' as y'all arguin' about it.   Apropos timing from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) ...

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Look - I am *not* attempting to assert that CO2, vis a vis fossil fuel burning, is not a long term problem.    It is.   
My assertions are the following:

• That it is not an existential crisis, or anything close to it
• That our policy efforts to solve the problem have been and continue to be misguided; specifically in that they a) have less positive impact in fixing the problem than most people think, and have more negative impact than most people think - both economically and environmentally

Well finally some sense. Agreed, it’s not that big of a problem (yet). But not thinking about future generations is selfish. I’m sure there are a few environmental issues from the past you would have wanted not to have happened. Personally I wish we left at least a percentage of old growth forest on the east coast. Easily avoidable in retrospect. But past generations were, selfish. Same game here. Difference is we can do something about it.


.

[WolfStock1]

17 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Well finally some sense. .

Nothing that I posted there is misaligned with any of my previous posts, at least that I'm aware of. 

That's another disturbing trend I see.   Anyone who tries to be pragmatic (e.g. playing devil's advocate with some assertions, as I am wont to do) is labeled "DENIER!!!".  It's why a lot of people see religious / cultish aspects in the movement.- regular attempts to label those who don't agree whole cloth with the most extreme positions as heretics.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Well finally some sense. Agreed, it’s not that big of a problem (yet). But not thinking about future generations is selfish. I’m sure there are a few environmental issues from the past you would have wanted not to have happened. Personally I wish we left at least a percentage of old growth forest on the east coast. Easily avoidable in retrospect. But past generations were, selfish. Same game here. Difference is we can do something about it.


.

The reality vs mere notion of an 'existential crisis' is more debatable than a bullet point.  No question....  With the ambrosia  of empirical data that points to a crisis, a crisis that is geophysically determined by taking said data and implementing in physical/mathematical laws of nature ...  no one can say there is no existential crisis with any assurance - in fact, quite the contrary.

However, one may personally define crisis differently than the next person.

Define crisis:

is there a false dawn at the 3am as a fiery wall is imminently cresting the horizon in 20 minutes?  No   

are we in a proven multi-species die off that is presently being considered a mass extinction event ? Yes    

The problem with acknowledging the latter is in part misrepresentation. That's the problem with "any" misrepresentation - however... I would argue that there are those choosing the wrong information to be true relative to that uncertainty. Because in the whole of it, there is both truth and falsity. People could and should choose information based upon some ability to objectively filtrate either content -

As an aside ... there's also a gleaming logical flaw in denialism. If the price of denying is death... why take the risk?  You cannot circumstantially be more certain in your denial than is the science in the other direction.  So the cost of doing nothing, for what? so we don't have to change... It baffles the mind that this is a position at all.

 

 

 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

The reality vs mere notion of an 'existential crisis' is more debatable than a bullet point.  No question....  With the ambrosia  of empirical data that points to a crisis, a crisis that is geophysically determined by taking said data and implementing in physical/mathematical laws of nature ...  no one can say there is no existential crisis with any assurance.
However, one may personally define crisis differently than the next person.
Define crisis:
is there a false dawn at the 3am as an imminent fiery wall is about to crest the horizon in 20 minutes?  No   
are we in a proven multi-species die off that is presently being considered a mass extinction event ? Yes    
The problem with acknowledging the latter is in part misrepresentation. That's the problem with "any" misrepresentation - however... I would argue that there are those choosing the wrong information to be true relative to that uncertainty. Because in the whole of it, there is both truth and falsity. 
 
 

We are definitely on the same page. If we do not get a handle on this asap, we pass a point of no return. Positive feedback loops overwhelming take over. That’s where I think the real threat that isn’t modeled excists. How do you model and account for something we do not fully understand. Then what happens to humanity at 5c? Certainly we aren’t supporting 8 billion with 2/3’s of the earth uninhabitable. Worst case scenario we can go further (though I’m not sure it’s possible) and go full hot house earth. Thats obviously a species ending event.


.

[Typhoon Tip]

35 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

We are definitely on the same page. If we do not get a handle on this asap, we pass a point of no return. Positive feedback loops overwhelming take over. That’s where I think the real threat that isn’t modeled excists. How do you model and account for something we do not fully understand. Then what happens to humanity at 5c? Certainly we aren’t supporting 8 billion with 2/3’s of the earth uninhabitable. Worst case scenario we can go further (though I’m not sure it’s possible) and go full hot house earth. Thats obviously a species ending event.


.

If someone is distorting, or attempting to alter an understanding of reality, that is “demagoguery” or gaslighting. 

The data that is real and empirical does not support a grand CC conspiracy to fabricate a climate crisis to jump in bed with macro-economics required to rewire the world around a green infrastructure, though...   The following does not support the first sentence above.

Glaciers melted...

Seas already rising ...

Global temperatures exceed previous record along a contiguously accelerating curve ...

Species dying off or in states of diaspora due to lacking the ability to adapt at a pace their habitats are forcibly changing ...

Math and physics demonstrating that these should exactly happen - and here we are...

This compendium of objective realities does not suggest a grand CC conspiracy.    They suggest CC.  Period.  

 

 

[Brewbeer]

many people don't believe this is an existential crisis for long term human civilization because so far, many people have been able to adapt to the changes that they have experienced, so far  

it has already become an existential crisis for some people living in and around Miami as king tides increasingly impact low lying neighborhoods; people can't sell their homes because the value is greatly diminished due the reoccurring sunny day flooding, which is progressively getting worse.  for a person who lives in such a neighborhood and needs to sell and leave, it IS an existential crisis.  same goes for millions who live on only feet above sea level in southeast Asia, which have substantially less means that the home owner getting flooded out in southern Florida has

we've been discussing AGW/climate change and it's on-going effects since the 1970s.  it's well understood.  because the facts and basis for it are so widely accepted, there is a general frustration with people who won't accept the facts, or modify their behaviors accordingly 

 

 

[WolfStock1]

57 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The reality vs mere notion of an 'existential crisis' is more debatable than a bullet point.  No question....  With the ambrosia  of empirical data that points to a crisis, a crisis that is geophysically determined by taking said data and implementing in physical/mathematical laws of nature ...  no one can say there is no existential crisis with any assurance - in fact, quite the contrary.

However, one may personally define crisis differently than the next person.

Define crisis:

is there a false dawn at the 3am as a fiery wall is imminently cresting the horizon in 20 minutes?  No   

are we in a proven multi-species die off that is presently being considered a mass extinction event ? Yes    

The problem with acknowledging the latter is in part misrepresentation. That's the problem with "any" misrepresentation - however... I would argue that there are those choosing the wrong information to be true relative to that uncertainty. Because in the whole of it, there is both truth and falsity. People could and should choose information based upon some ability to objectively filtrate either content -

As an aside ... there's also a gleaming logical flaw in denialism. If the price of denying is death... why take the risk?  You cannot circumstantially be more certain in your denial than is the science in the other direction.  So the cost of doing nothing, for what? so we don't have to change... It baffles the mind that this is a position at all.

 

 

You keep shifting around the goalposts, even in your own posts.

What kind of "death" are you talking about here?   Because each type is hugely different.    When you're talking about "world destiny" (your original)  words, are you talking about:

• Death of humanity?
• Death of a bunch of non-human species?
• Death of "the world" - encompassing all of the above (a literal wasteland)?

Each of these is *massively* different in their proposed causes, timeframes, scales, etc.   Your term "world destiny" certainly sounds like the first or the latter, not just the death of a few species.

While there are certainly a lot of species dying off in recent years - it has very much *not* been due to global warming; it's generally been due to habitat removal; in particular things like overfishing and overhunting (generally under control now), and forest clearing due to harvesting, farming, and development (still ongoing; though improving somewhat).

On the latter - it's worth noting the massive acreage of forests that will be need to be cleared (or not allowed to regrow) to meet solar farm proposals; e.g. the 277,000-acre proposal in VA.

If you're talking death of humanity - I refer to my previous chart, among other hopefully obvious things.  The use of fossil fuels very much *lessens* the level of human deaths, in many, many ways.

If things like king tides in Miami are such a big danger - wouldn't one expect the number of annual deaths from natural disasters to be steadily rising - not falling?   Why aren't we seeing news reports of all these deaths being caused by these king tides?    That seems... mysterious.

[WolfStock1]

Going to put this out there.

I've always been a bit of a weather nerd (thus generally enjoying this site) - many in my family are (though just casual).    I've generally had a big respect for the meteorology profession, and my son is in fact now starting college in meteorology.    But I have to say - some of this is starting to make me lose a lot of respect for the profession; the disregard for solid scientific principles in favor of bending to the winds of societal fearmongering.

I'm sure it's not true of a lot of people in the profession; hopefully not most.   It's just dismaying to see how prevalent it is.

</soapbox>

 

[FPizz]

6 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

Going to put this out there.

I've always been a bit of a weather nerd (thus generally enjoying this site) - many in my family are (though just casual).    I've generally had a big respect for the meteorology profession, and my son is in fact now starting college in meteorology.    But I have to say - some of this is starting to make me lose a lot of respect for the profession; the disregard for solid scientific principles in favor of bending to the winds of societal fearmongering.

I'm sure it's not true of a lot of people in the profession; hopefully not most.   It's just dismaying to see how prevalent it is.

</soapbox>

 

100% correct.  The hockey stick chart and average lifespan chart, if laid on top of one another, nearly match, but yeah, we are going to die off because of C02 and all that came from the industrial revolution is going to kill us all.  

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

many people don't believe this is an existential crisis for long term human civilization because so far, many people have been able to adapt to the changes that they have experienced, so far  

it has already become an existential crisis for some people living in and around Miami as king tides increasingly impact low lying neighborhoods; people can't sell their homes because the value is greatly diminished due the reoccurring sunny day flooding, which is progressively getting worse.  for a person who lives in such a neighborhood and needs to sell and leave, it IS an existential crisis.  same goes for millions who live on only feet above sea level in southeast Asia, which have substantially less means that the home owner getting flooded out in southern Florida has

we've been discussing AGW/climate change and it's on-going effects since the 1970s.  it's well understood.  because the facts and basis for it are so widely accepted, there is a general frustration with people who won't accept the facts, or modify their behaviors accordingly 

 

 

...there's also a moral consideration... 

It's one thing to be a hunter, with a gun or arrow ... traipsing through the bush stalking stock for the winter.  Not to sound too 'out there' but to for brevity, "Gaia" set that table of predator-prey relationship since the beginnings of life some billions of years ago. 

Obliviously swiping ecologies clean from a smoke stack 10,000 miles away ... I'll tell ya, at a minimum that's an interesting philosophy for the process of global Darwinism.   you know?  strong survive and so forth.  It just seems, however, that's an overstep on "evolution's intent" - poetically... who deserves reprisal? 

How's that for a creepy prelude.  haha

Anyway, an "existential crisis" should include all species of the planetary system, not just human kind. Particularly considering ... the holistic system ..."Gaia" or whatever you wanna call it, has to be healthy if and when our technology can't keep up if/when our own adaptation rate is being tested.   The world is experiencing a mass die off, and it is inextricably connected to CC. 

Anthropomorphic culpability in that die-off is, in a clinical sense, an incredible achievement by the machinery of Darwinian heh...

It smacks of that stuff about how technological feedback creates a paradox, 'Evolution evolves the means to de-evolve the progenitor to the previous state'.  Basically, tech makes survival easy; "easy" stops Darwinism; traits dissolve away because nature never holds onto attributes - entropy ensures decay.   That's at least one plausible explanation for Fermi's Paradox right there.  I'm sure there's more direct means ...like, species A can't survive their technological infancy before blowing themselves to kingdom come ...   If we survive the dad's gun scenario, we have this slow cook Law of Lessening Returns. 

CC and the perils in store ... it reminds me of that "Star Trek: Next Generation" episode, "The Ensigns of Command".  In that episode, a kind of xenophobic alien antagonist species known as "Sheliak" claim rights to a planetary system where several generations of colonist had adapted and were surviving - naturally ... not wanting to yield to the Sheliak's demand. Meanwhile, the Sheliak make it clear they would be willing to exterminate the "infestation", apparently having no compunctions in doing so... The colonist have technology, but they are vastly inferior, as well, had been completely closed off from the Federation for over a hundred years, and therefore, had sort of devolved to this incredulous state ... Implicit in the plot is that they can't see the Sheliak threat so they don't believe it to be what it is purported to be in lieu of the majesty they can see, which is their proud achievement as a surviving colony. 

The episode is a Sci Fi story exploring sociological aspects - really quite fascinating.  "Data" ( Brent Spiner), essentially a cyborg life form, was the only crew member that could withstand the "hyperonic" ( whatever that is/means) radiation the colonists themselves learned to adapt to, so he, being the less human of lot is naturally charged with the responsibility of exposing and convincing these people, first hand, of the existential threat the Sheliak impose...  Things aren't going so well.  He is even violently opposed to for his typical ingratiating uber polite methodical approach and efforts...  But the true hero is a sympathizer and realist member of the colony that restores him from a 'shut off' state, just in time!  He rises to demo the Sheliak's ability, first hand, by destroying the aqueduct that feeds the colony by use of his modified phaser.   Heh, everything in Start Trek is always solved by phasers or triquarters.  Stunned by the power of what the phaser did, Data seizes the moment and tells them that the Sheliak will obliterate them from space, 'Without you ever having seen the faces of your annihilators'.  

In other words, tell a human they are in danger, they'll look around and float trial balloons.  If they see it happening, they get out of the way.  At last, the colonists acquiesce. 

I find all that strikingly metaphoric where, just because humanity cannot real see, feel or sense the danger of CC directly, they are more than willing to deny the peril of it as being real.   

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

You keep shifting around the goalposts, even in your own posts.

What kind of "death" are you talking about here?   Because each type is hugely different.    When you're talking about "world destiny" (your original)  words, are you talking about:

• Death of humanity?
• Death of a bunch of non-human species?
• Death of "the world" - encompassing all of the above (a literal wasteland)?

Each of these is *massively* different in their proposed causes, timeframes, scales, etc.   Your term "world destiny" certainly sounds like the first or the latter, not just the death of a few species.

While there are certainly a lot of species dying off in recent years - it has very much *not* been due to global warming; it's generally been due to habitat removal; in particular things like overfishing and overhunting (generally under control now), and forest clearing due to harvesting, farming, and development (still ongoing; though improving somewhat).

On the latter - it's worth noting the massive acreage of forests that will be need to be cleared (or not allowed to regrow) to meet solar farm proposals; e.g. the 277,000-acre proposal in VA.

If you're talking death of humanity - I refer to my previous chart, among other hopefully obvious things.  The use of fossil fuels very much *lessens* the level of human deaths, in many, many ways.

If things like king tides in Miami are such a big danger - wouldn't one expect the number of annual deaths from natural disasters to be steadily rising - not falling?   Why aren't we seeing news reports of all these deaths being caused by these king tides?    That seems... mysterious.

I didn't shift anything. 

Nor have I been in your debate, guy -  merely made the observation that people have different ideas on the nature of what a existential threat is - time and imminence being a part of that.  

By the way, you are factually wrong much of the time.

"- it has very much *not* been due to global warming; "   garbage semantics.

Climate-related die-offs are happening now.  If you want to dodge acknowledgement by saying they’re not all caused by climate change alone that's elementary anyway, but doesn't work to abase the former. I also said the toxicity ( meaning pollution) plays a roll.  Either way, this can and should all be under anthropomorphic activity. That's not 'goal posts', that's intelligence.  It is divisive to attempt to do otherwise, that or ignorance, anyway, because the use of fossil fuels for combustion creates toxicity, in conjunction green-housing... But as far as temperature specifically, a clear current example is coral reefs:  NOAA reports that the fourth global coral bleaching event affected about 84.4% of the world’s coral reef area with bleaching-level heat stress between January 2023 and September 2025.  Plus, I spoke of diasporas in that, too - which is species migrations... which is evidentiary supporting the same notion. There's plenty of others, and I'm not going to do the petty low-brow game of citing them for you - go do the research.

More broadly, warming and extreme weather are already affecting wildlife and this is just flat empirical fact.   Habitat loss, disease, and other pressures are scienced and heavily papered. 

 

[GaWx]

 My stance has and still is:

-whereas CC/AGW has its clearly detrimental effects and thus I’m not happy about it (plus I selfishly prefer cold over warmth way down here in the deep SE), its effects aren’t all bad and are naturally largely being ignored by the extreme doomsayers. I‘m referring mainly to the increased greening of the globe that has occurred due to increased CO2 and also the reduced number of deaths from cold, which has killed many more than heat per organizations that compile the stats even though the balance could change if it gets hot enough, of course

-there very could be some negative feedback loops that aren’t being modeled well as regards how much warmer it will ultimately get, which if true would mean that the worst case scenarios aren’t realistic