• Member Statistics

    16,623
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    friday
    Newest Member
    friday
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
blue sky

Who 2060 assessment of climate change

Recommended Posts

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/projections/en/

In graph form.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/15/who-and-the-climate-emergency/

WHO-mortality-estimate-2060-II.png?resize=720%2C582&ssl=1

Lets spend trillions on this.

Historic cold is destroying Texas.  Energy demand very high and wind mills can't work.  23 % of power generation by wind mills.  Hey Texas welcome to Germany.  Big Article in Washington Post. Did not even mention Climate change.  Huh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starvation is absent from the chart because of the pre-cautionary bias. Exposure to natural disasters is not how global warming will get you. It's in the effects on agriculture and the interactions with population dynamics. Also peak energy will make it more difficult to transport grains and resources.

Get real man. Renewables don't work period so let's look at scaling back not carrying down the fossil fuel road.

  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blue sky said:

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/projections/en/

In graph form.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/15/who-and-the-climate-emergency/

WHO-mortality-estimate-2060-II.png?resize=720%2C582&ssl=1

Lets spend trillions on this.

Historic cold is destroying Texas.  Energy demand very high and wind mills can't work.  23 % of power generation by wind mills.  Hey Texas welcome to Germany.  Big Article in Washington Post. Did not even mention Climate change.  Huh

This is such a stupid take that's it's not even worth defending. 

The effects of climate change will easily cost far more than the trillions we'd be putting in. We're already spending 100s of billions annually for disasters related to climate change. 

But sure let's do nothing and continue to trash the planet and see what happens. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2021 at 3:04 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Starvation is absent from the chart because of the pre-cautionary bias. Exposure to natural disasters is not how global warming will get you. It's in the effects on agriculture and the interactions with population dynamics. Also peak energy will make it more difficult to transport grains and resources.

Get real man. Renewables don't work period so let's look at scaling back not carrying down the fossil fuel road.

Wind mills aint the problem.  Typical cost cutting measures and privatization is.  The government of the state of Texas and its ignorance is the problem.  The dirty fossil fuel industry did the same cost cutting and had the same breakdowns.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26GW of the 34GW shortfall was from natural gas. Even Governor Abbott mentioned this on all the local stations he was brought on to interview with. Despite the frozen turbines, the wind shortfall was much less, around 1-2GW.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csnavywx said:

26GW of the 34GW shortfall was from natural gas. Even Governor Abbott mentioned this on all the local stations he was brought on to interview with. Despite the frozen turbines, the wind shortfall was much less, around 1-2GW.

Yes, wind is a scapegoat for those want to shirk responsibility for rolling the dice and getting snake eyes. Wind turbines and other electrical infrastructure are working fine in Wisconsin. 

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/built-for-cold-wisconsin-grid-hums-along-in-temperatures-that-crippled-texas/article_f42cd474-67fc-5fd8-888e-03d69d9ba215.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Yes, wind is a scapegoat for those want to shirk responsibility for rolling the dice and getting snake eyes. Wind turbines and other electrical infrastructure are working fine in Wisconsin. 

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/built-for-cold-wisconsin-grid-hums-along-in-temperatures-that-crippled-texas/article_f42cd474-67fc-5fd8-888e-03d69d9ba215.html

wind is the scapegoat for those politicians who take bribes from the fossil fuel cartel.  They belong in prison, all of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, csnavywx said:

26GW of the 34GW shortfall was from natural gas. Even Governor Abbott mentioned this on all the local stations he was brought on to interview with. Despite the frozen turbines, the wind shortfall was much less, around 1-2GW.

yeah some of these people dont know basic math.  Wind only comprises 10% of the power there and the outages were up around 50% lol

Also, it's Texas- we expect this type of incompetency in Texas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

A small segment of the NASA report....

"However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.

 

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

Way to go Co2.  The Sahara desert is shrinking!  Food production soaring.

 

In Texas...During the crisis wind power disappeared(froze)...normally high in February.  Carbon powered surged.  But even that could not make up for the incredible demand.  Were some plants offline?  Yes...but the online ones provided amazing amount of power.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613605698

 

Excerpts

While millions of Texans remain without power for a third day, the wind industry and its advocates are spinning a fable that gas, coal and nuclear plants—not their frozen turbines—are to blame. PolitiFact proclaims “Natural gas, not wind turbines, main driver of Texas power shortage.” Climate-change conformity is hard for the media to resist, but we don’t mind. So here are the facts to cut through the spin.

Texas energy regulators were already warning of rolling blackouts late last week as temperatures in western Texas plunged into the 20s, causing wind turbines to freeze. Natural gas and coal-fired plants ramped up to cover the wind power shortfall as demand for electricity increased with falling temperatures.

 

While millions of Texans remain without power for a third day, the wind industry and its advocates are spinning a fable that gas, coal and nuclear plants—not their frozen turbines—are to blame. PolitiFact proclaims “Natural gas, not wind turbines, main driver of Texas power shortage.” Climate-change conformity is hard for the media to resist, but we don’t mind. So here are the facts to cut through the spin.

Texas energy regulators were already warning of rolling blackouts late last week as temperatures in western Texas plunged into the 20s, causing wind turbines to freeze. Natural gas and coal-fired plants ramped up to cover the wind power shortfall as demand for electricity increased with falling temperatures.

Yea old fashioned energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's curious that the WSJ article has NO figures, NO sources and none of the statements from ERCOT itself, which backed up the 26/34GW figure I provided. I want numbers, hard pass on the projection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, csnavywx said:

It's curious that the WSJ article has NO figures, NO sources and none of the statements from ERCOT itself, which backed up the 26/34GW figure I provided. I want numbers, hard pass on the projection.

I think it's accurate and when you account for total property loss to lives lost ratio it makes perfect sense. I think people are under-educated in the 'depopulation' mechanics of AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

I think it's accurate and when you account for total property loss to lives lost ratio it makes perfect sense. I think people are under-educated in the 'depopulation' mechanics of AGW.

here's a bunch of info to educate them, lol I wouldn't read anything coming out of Texas, a state rife with ignorance and corruption.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/grassroots-groups-just-won-a-major-victory-against-frac-1846364674?utm_source=earther_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-26

A group of governors passed a resolution that would ban fracking near a crucial waterway on the East Coast, the culmination of more than a decade-long fight by activists and community members. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), which is comprised of the governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York, ruled unanimously on Thursday not to allow fracking within the Delaware River Basin region.

 
 
 
The ban, which covers 13,539 square miles (35,065 square kilometers) between the four states, includes two counties in the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania, where fracking has exploded over the past decade. The Delaware River Basin provides drinking water for around 13 million people in the region—around 5% of the entire U.S. population, including New York City and Philadelphia—and supports around 600,000 jobs and $10 billion in wages from industries like tourism, ports, and farming. The watershed also provides habitat for hundreds of species of animals and fish.

“If [industry] dug all those wells, if they put in all those pipelines to carry it to market, this wild and scenic river—one of the most beautiful and free-flowing rivers in the Northeast—would have all been destroyed,” said Jeff Tittel, the director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “You would have taken the Delaware Valley and turned it into the Permian Basin.”

https://earther.gizmodo.com/huge-review-of-frackings-health-hazards-will-help-commu-1835903428

https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2016/jan/24/environmental-justice-league-ri-environmental-just/could-fracking-be-worse-climate-coal/

https://earther.gizmodo.com/something-else-to-avoid-when-you-re-pregnant-fracking-1821264078

https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.112.150/ejr.4eb.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CHPNY-PSR-Fracking-Science-Compendium-7_20210219.pdf

https://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/

https://earther.gizmodo.com/new-bill-would-ban-fracking-in-california-by-2027-1846305931

https://earther.gizmodo.com/shell-says-it-has-reached-peak-oil-production-1846248229?utm_source=earther_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-26

https://earther.gizmodo.com/our-best-energy-solution-could-hurt-biodiversity-if-we-1844914402

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-plastic-era-is-here-1844948163

https://earther.gizmodo.com/bp-says-weve-already-reached-peak-oil-1845064372

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/14/biofuels-need-to-be-improved-for-battle-against-climate-change

https://earther.gizmodo.com/a-fight-over-a-false-solution-is-at-the-center-of-madri-1840311268

https://earther.gizmodo.com/un-scientists-draft-a-build-back-better-climate-plan-1845790519

https://earther.gizmodo.com/even-good-news-comes-with-bad-news-1840029942

https://earther.gizmodo.com/unprecedented-conditions-will-rule-the-oceans-by-midcen-1838422187

https://earther.gizmodo.com/humans-have-transformed-70-percent-of-land-on-earth-we-1837045976

https://earther.gizmodo.com/everything-is-****ed-major-new-extinction-report-finds-1834547635

https://earther.gizmodo.com/un-report-shows-the-world-needs-to-cut-emissions-78-per-1840046835

https://earther.gizmodo.com/even-good-news-comes-with-bad-news-1840029942

https://earther.gizmodo.com/building-all-the-fossil-fuel-projects-already-in-the-pi-1839949666

https://earther.gizmodo.com/we-have-a-decade-to-prevent-a-total-climate-disaster-1829585748

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-uk-just-got-more-power-from-renewables-than-fossil-1839034441

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-uk-just-got-more-power-from-renewables-than-fossil-1839034441

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-most-polluting-state-in-the-northeast-just-joined-a-1838753433

https://earther.gizmodo.com/we-may-have-been-thinking-about-a-carbon-price-all-wron-1838662832

https://earther.gizmodo.com/a-million-black-americans-face-health-risks-from-living-1820407774

https://earther.gizmodo.com/un-scientists-draft-a-build-back-better-climate-plan-1845790519

https://earther.gizmodo.com/every-major-bank-has-now-ruled-out-funding-arctic-drill-1845782346

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-continues-unprecedented-tumble-1845781956

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-continues-unprecedented-tumble-1845781956

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-green-new-deal-didnt-sink-democrats-1845619942?_ga=2.89260696.2005063955.1606741381-1992755575.1604461226

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-congressman-biden-tapped-to-liaise-with-climate-act-1845697365

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/29/fate-of-vaca-muerta-oil-and-gas-fields-may-point-way-forward-on-fossil-fuels-after-coronavirus

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dead-cow-oil-play-set-155931929.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/un-chief-dont-use-taxpayer-money-to-save-polluting-industries

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-continues-unprecedented-tumble-1845781956

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-pandemic-could-wipe-20-of-exxon-s-oil-and-gas-rese-1844649010

https://earther.gizmodo.com/big-oil-has-never-lost-this-much-money-1844571705

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-just-got-dethroned-as-the-top-u-s-energy-company-1845313631

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-dividend/exxon-mobil-to-keep-dividend-flat-for-first-time-since-1982-idUSKBN27D3B0

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-pays-off-shareholders-lays-off-workers-1845521977

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/

https://twitter.com/zhaabowekwe/status/1359708090896154624

https://twitter.com/ziibiing/status/1359589054929645572

https://truthout.org/articles/ilhan-omar-asks-biden-to-cancel-controversial-enbridge-pipeline-in-minnesota/

https://earther.gizmodo.com/stopping-keystone-xl-has-to-be-just-the-start-1846094578

https://earther.gizmodo.com/facebook-is-letting-a-pipeline-company-run-ads-while-mu-1846247372

https://earther.gizmodo.com/cbp-drones-conducted-flyovers-near-homes-of-indigenous-1845104576

https://gizmodo.com/dhs-is-spying-on-social-media-to-track-threats-to-statu-1844458110?_ga=2.234768222.1102804335.1614511034-913338681.1614227427

https://earther.gizmodo.com/criminalizing-protests-is-a-dangerous-idea-1842624019?_ga=2.217897493.2038177522.1597711241-1235440877.1594384300

https://earther.gizmodo.com/bp-says-weve-already-reached-peak-oil-1845064372

https://earther.gizmodo.com/judge-shuts-down-dakota-access-pipeline-1844278957

https://earther.gizmodo.com/keystone-xl-is-blocked-for-now-but-the-scotus-ruling-h-1844293640

https://earther.gizmodo.com/these-5-oil-and-gas-pipelines-are-the-next-to-face-trou-1844308553

https://earther.gizmodo.com/tribes-across-the-midwest-are-gearing-up-for-a-big-new-1820338774

https://mn.gov/eera/web/project-file?legacyPath=/opt/documents/34079/All FEIS Text.pdf

https://gizmodo.com/customs-and-border-protection-flew-a-predator-surveilla-1843758034?_ga=2.267718606.1102804335.1614511034-913338681.1614227427

https://theintercept.com/2019/08/25/border-patrol-israel-elbit-surveillance

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/30/enbridge-line-3-pipeline-minnesota

https://earther.gizmodo.com/two-years-after-confessing-dakota-access-protestors-ch-1838783498

https://earther.gizmodo.com/a-record-number-of-environmentalists-were-murdered-in-2-1844543894

https://earther.gizmodo.com/nearly-70-activists-arrested-attempting-to-steal-coal-f-1838541561

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/11/standing-rock-dakota-access-pipeline-fbi-informant-red-fawn-fallis/

https://earther.gizmodo.com/new-un-climate-report-puts-the-world-on-red-alert-for-c-1846363339?utm_source=earther_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-26

https://earther.gizmodo.com/un-warns-world-is-failing-to-prepare-for-climate-change-1846053810

https://theconversation.com/phantom-of-the-forest-after-100-years-in-hiding-i-rediscovered-the-rare-cloaked-bee-in-australia-156026

https://earther.gizmodo.com/new-report-reveals-the-shocking-toll-bushfires-took-on-1844529556

https://earther.gizmodo.com/bushfires-are-obliterating-the-cultural-memory-of-austr-1840933953

https://earther.gizmodo.com/striking-australian-bee-spotted-for-first-time-in-a-cen-1846363441?utm_source=earther_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-26

https://earther.gizmodo.com/genius-bees-force-plants-to-bloom-by-biting-them-1843611907

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/685

have a look at some of these articles- interesting stuff

https://earther.gizmodo.com/how-climate-change-could-bring-about-the-next-great-rec-1841772236

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0182-1

https://earther.gizmodo.com/cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-could-be-even-more-benefi-1841500311

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#46cf1d494473

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-world-blows-over-5-trillion-a-year-on-oil-and-gas-1834624546

https://www.theclimategroup.org/news/climate-change-biggest-market-failure-history-and-must-be-tackled-spur-growth-finance-and

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1920-x.epdf?author_access_token=SjUTjrtDbCtKRGtQgVAN1tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mv5JGKl3gtKAeEYJVTQuBQ6wZJ1rmD9b0cEKcS34GxBxr6Ea9gZYL3E_Q61vEj7kg4BNlEaLi4zToksif-Tllk_KEi7aCEkEkEVkhg1sHyrg%3D%3D

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
 

The Nature piece indicates that the fossil fuel cartels are going to lose a ton of money over the next 10 years.

Big banks and other large financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo fund most of these damaging projects so hopefully they'll be taking a big hit too.

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/alaska-natives-demanded-goldman-sachs-not-fund-arctic-d-1840462387

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/shell-says-it-has-reached-peak-oil-production-1846248229?utm_source=earther_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-02-26

 

Shell says oil is on its way out.

In a Thursday statement, the fossil fuel giant said its “oil production peaked in 2019,” and that we can now expect it to decline gradually by 1 or 2% per year. Shell also said its total carbon emissions peaked in 2018 at 1.7 gigatonnes.

 
 
 
The statement doesn’t come as a total surprise. The oil market has been in decline for years, and since the covid-19 pandemic began last year, fuel prices went from bad to catastrophically bad. Last Fall, the International Energy Agency predicted a “treacherous” path ahead for the industry. And in September, fellow energy giant BP said the world may have already reached peak oil. Shell’s own CFO hinted at the announcement in May when she told investors the company has experienced “major demand destruction that we don’t even know will come back,” and soon after, Shell wrote down $22 billion on its balance sheets. But still, this is the first time it’s made an outright announcement of this kind.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/bp-says-weve-already-reached-peak-oil-1845064372

BP is saying the quiet part loud: In the 2020 Energy Outlook report the energy giant published this week, it said that the world may have reached peak oil.

 
 
 
The covid-19 pandemic has done a serious number on the oil industry, with demand falling to historic lows amid lockdowns and prices falling into negative territory. In a report on Tuesday, the International Energy Agency warned that for the oil industry, the “path ahead is treacherous,” reducing its forecast for global oil demand in 2020 by 200,000 barrels per day. And on Monday, OPEC lowered its predictions of demand in 2020 by 400,000 barrels per day.

In BP’s new report, analysts said the market may never recover from this damage. The authors lay out three possible scenarios for the world’s energy usage between now and 2050, which illustrate a rapid, moderate, and slow transition to renewables. The first two scenarios show demand for oil steeply falling over the next three decades. But even under the firm’s most “optimistic” scenario for Big Oil where climate action doesn’t accelerate, oil demand will plateau at 2019 levels before declining in 2035.

The report forecasts that while oil demand falls, there will be increased demand for non-fossil-based power. In 2018, fossil fuels currently made up 85% of the world’s energy demand, but by 2050, that could decline to between 20% and 70%, depending on policymakers’ choices. Renewables will make up the difference. As a result, in every scenario BP analysts mapped out, the proportion of renewable energy use will increase more quickly than any fossil-based fuel ever has.

Along with the covid-19 pandemic, the report predicts that increased use of electric vehicles will further dent the world’s demand for oil. International policies to limit the use of plastic, which is made of oil, are also expected to drive demand down even further despite some fossil fuel companies betting big on plastic as a savior.

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-plastic-era-is-here-1844948163

https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-continues-unprecedented-tumble-1845781956

 

When the fossil fuel industry finally winds down in the coming decades, 2020 will stand as a pivotal year. Major corporations have been knocked off their pedestals, and there’s no bigger fall than Exxon’s.

 
 
 
Late on Monday, the company announced it was writing down the value of oil and gas fields it had previously planned to develop by as much as $20 billion. It’s the biggest such writedown in Exxon’s history and indicative of the immense pressure the pandemic and resultant economic slowdown have put on the company and the oil industry at-large.

In the announcement, the company also said it would spend less on exploration, which makes sense given the huge drop in oil demand. It had previously planned to drop $30 billion on exploration and other capital expenditures every year through 2025. 

 

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-rage-is-working-1839063173

https://earther.gizmodo.com/this-springs-flooding-crisis-is-part-of-a-bigger-patter-1835092237

https://earther.gizmodo.com/this-springs-flooding-crisis-is-part-of-a-bigger-patter-1835092237

https://popula.com/2019/08/19/the-case-for-climate-rage/

http://theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/05/biggest-compliment-yet-greta-thunberg-welcomes-oil-chiefs-greatest-threat-label

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/08/shell-oil-executive-boasts-that-his-company-influenced-the-paris-agreement/

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/08/shell-oil-executive-boasts-that-his-company-influenced-the-paris-agreement/

https://earther.gizmodo.com/protestors-shout-down-us-pro-fossil-fuel-events-at-inte-1830980217

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-time-for-talk-is-over-kids-stage-major-strike-at-u-1831107203

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

I think it's accurate and when you account for total property loss to lives lost ratio it makes perfect sense. I think people are under-educated in the 'depopulation' mechanics of AGW.

One of the positive aspects of the pandemic has been that it's now likely that it has killed the fossil fuel cartels.

Even the corrupt cartels admit that their best days are now behind them and are going into renewable and letting go of their labor force.

Sometimes these things are necessary to prevent even greater damage down the line.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, csnavywx said:

It's curious that the WSJ article has NO figures, NO sources and none of the statements from ERCOT itself, which backed up the 26/34GW figure I provided. I want numbers, hard pass on the projection.

Here's some real numbers for you, wind power only accounts for 10% of the power there so how is it that half the state was without power, so either they are too dumb to understand basic math or they are corrupt and lying- I say it's both.

In addition to that they're conveniently burying the fact that they dont go by federal regulations and find the cheap way out- which now ironically will cost them even more.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, csnavywx said:

It's curious that the WSJ article has NO figures, NO sources and none of the statements from ERCOT itself, which backed up the 26/34GW figure I provided. I want numbers, hard pass on the projection.

lol the WSJ is disgusting, no wonder everyone hates wall street outside of the corrupt conglomerates.  Elsewhere I found this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-climate-contradictions-11614381973?mod=trending_now_opn_4

The state requires renewables like wind and solar to make up 60% of electricity generation by 2030. The study says renewable prices (albeit with subsidies) are now roughly the same as other power sources, but utilities signed long-term contracts with solar and wind producers years ago when prices were higher. Utilities also need backup power when it’s cloudy, which adds costs. Yet the state sometimes has to pay Arizona to take its excess solar power to avoid overloading the grid.

And here’s the kicker: Folks with solar panels get paid for surplus power they don’t use—sometimes at two to three times the rate of wholesale power. So California pays the well-to-do to generate solar power it doesn’t need and then pays Arizona to take it.

 

LOL so they ignore the 5 TRILLION in subsidies the corrupt fossil fuel cartels get, which is 10x more than we fund education in this country, which is on purpose, they want people to be so dumb they cant do basic math and so they believe the lies they spout at them.

Elsewhere in their editorials they are whining about "How could a nice guy like Trump lose this election" etc etc, just to show you how out of touch the WSJ is with reality.  I honestly hope they go bankrupt along with the corrupt fossil fuel cartels, and the subsidies are coming to an end now and it's about time.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sahara desert is shrinking?  Where do you get this crap fake science from dude?  The Sahara Desert is EXPANDING because of long term drought.  Farming is exploding?  Yeah if by exploding you mean that it's getting blown up that is DESTROYED.  The new climate regime is causing massive floods in the heartland and farmers in red states have admitted that if climate change is allowed to continue they'll be out of business.  and LOL at more CO2 means more food.  This is a high level of ignorance right here, more CO2 actually means LESS nutritious food and more climate migrations that's why you have people at your Southern border trying to get in because the places they used to live in became unlivable because they can no longer grow food there.  And now it's YOUR responsibility to take care of them.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with renewables is that they are highly inefficient in terms of energy output and actually add to the carbon footprint via expensive, environmentally destructive practices, e.g., mining for rare-earth metals. The more one invests in, say, solar panels and wind turbines, the more multinational corporations take over vast swaths of the Third World, while still adding vastly more to the carbon footprint than renewables eliminate, owing to the productive processes involved in manufacturing renewables. Unfortunately, Western discourse on this topic is dominated by a false dichotomy between conventional fossil fuels and a limited, pre-selected array of renewables. Intelligent countries such as China, South Korea, and Pakistan are heavily investing in building new nuclear plants and upgrading their old ones. Nuclear power is both clean and energy efficient. We as a species already have the tools in place to store nuclear waste far more effectively than we did in the recent past. Japan’s disaster in 2011 was due to neglect and negligence, not nuclear power itself. Plus, many governments and semi-private organisations likely have far more efficient, black-budget energy sources than are currently marketable in public. Free energy is not sci-fi, but very viable. This does not even cover the potential for abiotic sources to emerge. Unfortunately, the fossil-fuel monopolies have effectively suppressed information about this and other threats to their power, including nuclear. Pressure from the fossil-fuel lobbies has generated hysteria about the supposed dangers of nuclear energy while performing “bait-and-switch” for the polluters via their pseudo-“‘Green’ New Deal” based on fossil-fuel-consuming renewables.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 3:30 PM, blue sky said:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

A small segment of the NASA report....

"However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.

 

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

Way to go Co2.  The Sahara desert is shrinking!  Food production soaring.

 

In Texas...During the crisis wind power disappeared(froze)...normally high in February.  Carbon powered surged.  But even that could not make up for the incredible demand.  Were some plants offline?  Yes...but the online ones provided amazing amount of power.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-spins-into-the-wind-11613605698

 

Excerpts

While millions of Texans remain without power for a third day, the wind industry and its advocates are spinning a fable that gas, coal and nuclear plants—not their frozen turbines—are to blame. PolitiFact proclaims “Natural gas, not wind turbines, main driver of Texas power shortage.” Climate-change conformity is hard for the media to resist, but we don’t mind. So here are the facts to cut through the spin.

Texas energy regulators were already warning of rolling blackouts late last week as temperatures in western Texas plunged into the 20s, causing wind turbines to freeze. Natural gas and coal-fired plants ramped up to cover the wind power shortfall as demand for electricity increased with falling temperatures.

 

While millions of Texans remain without power for a third day, the wind industry and its advocates are spinning a fable that gas, coal and nuclear plants—not their frozen turbines—are to blame. PolitiFact proclaims “Natural gas, not wind turbines, main driver of Texas power shortage.” Climate-change conformity is hard for the media to resist, but we don’t mind. So here are the facts to cut through the spin.

Texas energy regulators were already warning of rolling blackouts late last week as temperatures in western Texas plunged into the 20s, causing wind turbines to freeze. Natural gas and coal-fired plants ramped up to cover the wind power shortfall as demand for electricity increased with falling temperatures.

Yea old fashioned energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Texas outages were largely the result of there being no legal disincentive for providing unreliable power, just so long as it was cheaper.

So no one winterized their turbines, feed water pumps or gas extraction stations, not cost effective.

Result was gas powered capacity shut down for lack of gas, nuclear plant offline because the feed water pump sensors froze, coal plants shut because the coal was frozen in and wind turbines dead because they were frozen. Bad regulations caused this debacle, not 'green energy'.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ground Scouring said:

The problem with renewables is that they are highly inefficient in terms of energy output and actually add to the carbon footprint via expensive, environmentally destructive practices, e.g., mining for rare-earth metals. The more one invests in, say, solar panels and wind turbines, the more multinational corporations take over vast swaths of the Third World, while still adding vastly more to the carbon footprint than renewables eliminate, owing to the productive processes involved in manufacturing renewables. Unfortunately, Western discourse on this topic is dominated by a false dichotomy between conventional fossil fuels and a limited, pre-selected array of renewables. Intelligent countries such as China, South Korea, and Pakistan are heavily investing in building new nuclear plants and upgrading their old ones. Nuclear power is both clean and energy efficient. We as a species already have the tools in place to store nuclear waste far more effectively than we did in the recent past. Japan’s disaster in 2011 was due to neglect and negligence, not nuclear power itself. Plus, many governments and semi-private organisations likely have far more efficient, black-budget energy sources than are currently marketable in public. Free energy is not sci-fi, but very viable. This does not even cover the potential for abiotic sources to emerge. Unfortunately, the fossil-fuel monopolies have effectively suppressed information about this and other threats to their power, including nuclear. Pressure from the fossil-fuel lobbies has generated hysteria about the supposed dangers of nuclear energy while performing “bait-and-switch” for the polluters via their pseudo-“‘Green’ New Deal” based on fossil-fuel-consuming renewables.

nuclear+renewables is the best combo.  I see we now have automated vehicles mining for materials at the sea floor, so this should lessen the carbon footprint you mentioned.

Thats why I think the pandemic sounded the death knell for the fossil fuel cartels, it was nature's way of fighting back against the virus that is humanity and its overpopulation of the planet which has destroyed the environment and resulted in a mass extinction event for most other species.  We've reached a tipping point and once any species becomes too dominant, it goes bye bye or gets severely reduced- that's how the system is built to work.  To "beat" this system and reach a new overhead, you'll eventually have to colonize space.  Hence all the investment in space going on by billionaires.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, etudiant said:

The Texas outages were largely the result of there being no legal disincentive for providing unreliable power, just so long as it was cheaper.

So no one winterized their turbines, feed water pumps or gas extraction stations, not cost effective.

Result was gas powered capacity shut down for lack of gas, nuclear plant offline because the feed water pump sensors froze, coal plants shut because the coal was frozen in and wind turbines dead because they were frozen. Bad regulations caused this debacle, not 'green energy'.

Yeah this is what happens when you dont abide by federal regulations, they are there for a reason.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yeah this is what happens when you dont abide by federal regulations, they are there for a reason.

 

Texas decided to stay off the federal infrastructure, so there is no meaningful power transfer possible between Texas and the rest of the USA.

 Someone would need to pay for the needed gigawatt power links from the rest of the country, if that was indeed available.

That said, I think it disgustingly irresponsible to sell power without some minimal reliability standard. In Texas, that apparently was the norm.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 11:47 AM, Ground Scouring said:

The problem with renewables is that they are highly inefficient in terms of energy output and actually add to the carbon footprint via expensive, environmentally destructive practices, e.g., mining for rare-earth metals. The more one invests in, say, solar panels and wind turbines, the more multinational corporations take over vast swaths of the Third World, while still adding vastly more to the carbon footprint than renewables eliminate, owing to the productive processes involved in manufacturing renewables. Unfortunately, Western discourse on this topic is dominated by a false dichotomy between conventional fossil fuels and a limited, pre-selected array of renewables. Intelligent countries such as China, South Korea, and Pakistan are heavily investing in building new nuclear plants and upgrading their old ones. Nuclear power is both clean and energy efficient. We as a species already have the tools in place to store nuclear waste far more effectively than we did in the recent past. Japan’s disaster in 2011 was due to neglect and negligence, not nuclear power itself. Plus, many governments and semi-private organisations likely have far more efficient, black-budget energy sources than are currently marketable in public. Free energy is not sci-fi, but very viable. This does not even cover the potential for abiotic sources to emerge. Unfortunately, the fossil-fuel monopolies have effectively suppressed information about this and other threats to their power, including nuclear. Pressure from the fossil-fuel lobbies has generated hysteria about the supposed dangers of nuclear energy while performing “bait-and-switch” for the polluters via their pseudo-“‘Green’ New Deal” based on fossil-fuel-consuming renewables.

No idea where you get your figures from, but this is a lie and defies both common sense, economics, and reported figures.

A single wind turbine produces enough power to power 1500 households. And it will do that every year over the course of its lifespan. The idea that the [CO2] cost of producing it is even 1% of the ultimate power generated is laughable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

No idea where you get your figures from, but this is a lie and defies both common sense, economics, and reported figures.

A single wind turbine produces enough power to power 1500 households. And it will do that every year over the course of its lifespan. The idea that the cost of producing it is even 1% of the ultimate power generated is laughable.

Civilization is high maintenance. We need more sophisticated recycling of Rare Earth Materials. There are too many ways to go under and the timescales are too large.

Again even if it's possible in the short-term doesn't mean we should go for it because the benefits do not outweigh the risks on the supply/demand side and the ethical side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Civilization is high maintenance. We need more sophisticated recycling of Rare Earth Materials. There are too many ways to go under and the timescales are too large.

Again even if it's possible in the short-term doesn't mean we should go for it because the benefits do not outweigh the risks on the supply/demand side and the ethical side.

Depletion of rare earth metals by wind turbines is not a concern. Germany already generates most of its power from wind and solar and has dramatically reduced their emissions and environmental impact. The fact that Americans are still debating this shows the extent of misinformation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

No idea where you get your figures from, but this is a lie and defies both common sense, economics, and reported figures.

A single wind turbine produces enough power to power 1500 households. And it will do that every year over the course of its lifespan. The idea that the cost of producing it is even 1% of the ultimate power generated is laughable.

I'd put the figure at 4-5% (*) but that's still great efficiency. 

(*)  "Please show your figures."   
A guess at electricity costs per household:  $2,000 per year.  (Ours is closer to one third that number but we're empty nesters.)  That guess would put the annual production of one turbine at $3 million worth of power.  I've read that the expected useful life of a commercial-size turbine is about 25 years (please correct as appropriate), thus about $75 million from that lone machine.  A quick web search came up with $3-4 million per large turbine for construction and installation, thus around 4-5% of its lifetime production.  
(Note:  I rarely make small errors in math.  Ones of 10x or 100x are more common.  :o)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tamarack said:

I'd put the figure at 4-5% (*) but that's still great efficiency. 

(*)  "Please show your figures."   
A guess at electricity costs per household:  $2,000 per year.  (Ours is closer to one third that number but we're empty nesters.)  That guess would put the annual production of one turbine at $3 million worth of power.  I've read that the expected useful life of a commercial-size turbine is about 25 years (please correct as appropriate), thus about $75 million from that lone machine.  A quick web search came up with $3-4 million per large turbine for construction and installation, thus around 4-5% of its lifetime production.  
(Note:  I rarely make small errors in math.  Ones of 10x or 100x are more common.  :o)

This assumes that the cost of production is directly proportional to CO2. A lot of the cost of construction is labor and leasing land and other misc costs. Whereas at a coal fired power plant the majority of the cost is the raw material being burnt. Point being, cost is not necessarily the same as CO2 although they correlate well, some activities are more carbon intensive per $ than others. Operating a coal power plant is extremely carbon intensive. Constructing a wind turbine is moderate carbon intensive from all the steel and transportation. Operating and maintaining a wind turbine is extremely low carbon intensity per $ (near zero). So one can't assume $ is equal to carbon.

 

Just based on the link below the carbon of production is offset in 3-6 months. Using 4.5 months as a midpoint over a 240+ month life would give less than 2%.

 

https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wind-climate-fact-sheet-low-res.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

This assumes that the cost of production is directly proportional to CO2. A lot of the cost of construction is labor and leasing land and other misc costs. Whereas at a coal fired power plant the majority of the cost is the raw material being burnt. Point being, cost is not necessarily the same as CO2 although they correlate well, some activities are more carbon intensive per $ than others. Operating a coal power plant is extremely carbon intensive. Constructing a wind turbine is moderate carbon intensive from all the steel and transportation. Operating and maintaining a wind turbine is extremely low carbon intensity per $ (near zero). So one can't assume $ is equal to carbon.

 

Just based on the link below the carbon of production is offset in 3-6 months. Using 4.5 months as a midpoint over a 240+ month life would give less than 2%.

 

https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wind-climate-fact-sheet-low-res.pdf

Being from Maine I wouldn't try to compare wind energy to fossil fuels - the numbers there are solid.  I'd examine biomass, of which we have plenty and if harvested with proper silviculture can actually improve the state of the forest.   I'd guess wind is still a better CO2 strategy than biomass, though maybe not with co-gen, where the low-pressure steam can be used to heat the plant and drive dry-kilns at sawmills and digesters at pulp mills.  I've read the Manomet analysis on biomass, years ago so I may be fuzzy on the details.  IIRC, the report said it would take something like 81 years for an acre cleared for biomass to sequester the amount of carbon that was removed.  Of course, if one had 81 acres and harvested one per year, the equation would change.  (Or if one conducted a light partial harvest and chipped only the tops and limbs that made to to the logyard.)

This is in no wise a knock on wind power.  I especially hope that turbines off the coast of Maine, where the wind is steadier, can be a big part of the energy future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tamarack said:

Being from Maine I wouldn't try to compare wind energy to fossil fuels - the numbers there are solid.  I'd examine biomass, of which we have plenty and if harvested with proper silviculture can actually improve the state of the forest.   I'd guess wind is still a better CO2 strategy than biomass, though maybe not with co-gen, where the low-pressure steam can be used to heat the plant and drive dry-kilns at sawmills and digesters at pulp mills.  I've read the Manomet analysis on biomass, years ago so I may be fuzzy on the details.  IIRC, the report said it would take something like 81 years for an acre cleared for biomass to sequester the amount of carbon that was removed.  Of course, if one had 81 acres and harvested one per year, the equation would change.  (Or if one conducted a light partial harvest and chipped only the tops and limbs that made to to the logyard.)

This is in no wise a knock on wind power.  I especially hope that turbines off the coast of Maine, where the wind is steadier, can be a big part of the energy future.

Re-reading my original post I see where the misunderstanding came from. Originally I had said 'cost' when I meant 'CO2 cost'. I edited it insert the word CO2.

Is it possible to burn biomass without other kinds of pollution (particulate, etc.)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Re-reading my original post I see where the misunderstanding came from. Originally I had said 'cost' when I meant 'CO2 cost'. I edited it insert the word CO2.

Is it possible to burn biomass without other kinds of pollution (particulate, etc.)?

I think not, same as almost any combustion except with hydrogen.  Fluidized bed combustion lowers the particulates but wood is a very complex substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

This assumes that the cost of production is directly proportional to CO2. A lot of the cost of construction is labor and leasing land and other misc costs. Whereas at a coal fired power plant the majority of the cost is the raw material being burnt. Point being, cost is not necessarily the same as CO2 although they correlate well, some activities are more carbon intensive per $ than others. Operating a coal power plant is extremely carbon intensive. Constructing a wind turbine is moderate carbon intensive from all the steel and transportation. Operating and maintaining a wind turbine is extremely low carbon intensity per $ (near zero). So one can't assume $ is equal to carbon.

 

Just based on the link below the carbon of production is offset in 3-6 months. Using 4.5 months as a midpoint over a 240+ month life would give less than 2%.

 

https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Wind-climate-fact-sheet-low-res.pdf

Coal also generates more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant and the companies who own coal (and other fossil fuel plants) are pretty corrupt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.