Just now, sidneybear said:

I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations.

 

In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.

 Assertions without evidence are empty. Why should I care what you would rather read? Why should I spend time paraphrasing when I offer brief, clear  quotes that support my arguments? What purpose would that serve?  And I don't see why I should, given that those quotes are accompanied by links to sources that do an admirable job of explaining of these complex issues.

It seems to me that you prefer what are colloquially referred to as B.S. sessions. Sessions where you can claim without offering any independent evidence that climatologists are publishing false results in order to serve their paymasters . Or you  characterize authoritative sources as liars without your offering any independent evidence. You have clearly demonstrated that when your assertions are countered with evidence you resort to unsupported slurs or empty denials. It's you who need to change your method of discourse. Not me.

Just now, mogandave said:

This must be why the cost of electricity has plummeted…

As I pointed out previously with evidence to back it up, the cost of coal and LNG rose sharply. And nuclear power plants have had huge cost overruns. What's more, while solar and wind power are now dominating in the construction of new power plant capacity, they still compose a fraction of the installed power base.

Anyone who doesn't have doubts about Trump's mental condition should read this article:

Trump calls prosecutor a 'f**king a**hole' and compares himself to Al Capone in bizarre speech

In a wild tirade, former president Donald Trump has blasted classified documents prosecutor Jack Smith as a "f**king a**hole" during a speech where he likened himself to notorious gangster Al Capone.

Trump, visibly irate, claimed he had been "indicted like Alphonse" and unleashed a verbal onslaught against Smith during a high-ticket fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, with guests paying £30,000 each to attend. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/trump-calls-prosecutor-fking-ahole-32739414

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

The point I'm making is that you don't overlay your own insights,  opinions, or knowledge onto anything. You just post links all the time.

 

Did you find a solution to the storage problem yet? One that exists and is feasible in the real world, rather than the academic world?

No, I back up my arguments with evidence or use it to show that the arguments advanced by others are false. 

As for the storage issue. I already posted evidence of a company that has produced low cost iron-air batteries that cost $20 per kwh of capacity. They have almost completed their 3/4 of a billion dollar manufacturing plant to put the finished product into large scale use. It's called Form Energy.

And there are plenty of other contenders including companies manufacturing zinc-based storage batteries. Also, Natron, is now manufacturing sodium based batteries which are cheaper than lithium, charge faster, and have a wider range of temperature tolerance. I can only post this information. I can't help it if you don't read it.

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

You talk in links, rather than from your own knowledge. I studied the Blackrock case as part of my MBA. What I told you is well known in management circles. Suffice to say that Larry Fink has since started walking back his enthusiasm in ESG and all things green, such are the colossal financial losses associated with fads like these.

You're an anonymous poster. Your claims about your qualifications are unproveable. Which leaves us with evidence. I offered actual evidence.  If you have evidence to counter what I offered from Bloomberg about Blackrock's investment portfolio, share it with us.

And, of course, as I repeatedly pointed out, the person who raised the Blackrock issue did so irrelevantly. I cited research only from Lazard, Ernst & Young, and McKenzie Woods. He countered with that dubious info about Larry Fink and Blackrock.

57 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

You sure about that?

Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades

In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming of the world ocean has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m2)/decade, while the land, cryosphere, and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m2)/decade. This has led to a substantial increase in ocean warming, with a magnitude of 0.91 ± 0.80 W/m2 between the decades 1960–1970 and 2010–2020, which overlies substantial decadal-scale variability in ocean warming of up to 0.6 W/m2. Our findings withstand a wide range of sensitivity analyses and are consistent across different observation-based datasets.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

An expected acceleration
The most notable thing about the current apparent acceleration in warming is that it was expected.

Climate models have long shown a faster rate of warming in current and future decades than has been observed to date, though there is some disagreement among modelling estimates. 

The table below shows a compilation of both observed rates of warming to date and different model projections out to 2050. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/#:~:text=Trend (C%2Fdecade)&text=Global surface temperatures have warmed,given the shorter time period.

Just now, susanlea said:

I just used your words. 

These are my words?

"Another nothing post from a guy using fossil fuels every minute."

23 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Another nothing post from a guy using fossil fuels every minute.

One sure way to know that someone has got nothing is when they make it personal.

35 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm a Marxist and I don't believe that at all.

Marxism is more to do with a fair wage for the skilled labour force and a more equatable distribution of wealth and land to the people.

 

Marx would not have supported abortion in any way shape or form as he believed women were property, so no equality or women's rights in Marxism.

 

Health care should be publicly funded, but killing unborn babies isn't health care.

This is like someone calling himself a Christian but they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God.

And whatever Marx's other beliefs might have been, they're not relevant to Marxism. This is like saying that because Marx disapproved of eating eggs, Marxists shouldn't eat eggs.

Just now, susanlea said:

Bit of a nothing post. I have no issues with using some solar products. Solar cars are terrible though and solar planes would crash.

 

The fossil fuels are still king.

More irrelevant nonsense from you. Who is promoting cars or planes that run solely on solar power? And far more new renewable power plants are being built than fossil fuel power plants.

At a Glance: How Renewable Energy Is Transforming the Global Electricity Supply
Even as Fossil Energy Still Provides Most of the World’s Electricity, New Electricity Generating Capacity Is Dominated by Renewable Energy Projects

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/how-renewable-energy-is-transforming-the-global-electricity-supply.html

Massive expansion of renewable power opens door to achieving global tripling goal set at COP28

https://www.iea.org/news/massive-expansion-of-renewable-power-opens-door-to-achieving-global-tripling-goal-set-at-cop28

14 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

In the first part of your response, I don’t know who you’re quarreling with, or about what. And in the second part, you didn’t read what I wrote, and you don’t know what the word “Marxist” means.

Yes, among extreme right wingers there is this Pavlovian reflexive use of "Marxist" to mean anyone they disagree with. Above all else, Marxists believe that the state should own all means of production for the benefit of workers. Obviously nothing to do with abortion.

Just now, susanlea said:

So there is wide disagreement on inferior energy sources.

This is like saying there's wide disagreement about the effects of greenhouse gasses on global warming. Only if you count the ignoramuses who deny any connection between the 2.  There isn't wide disagreement that the costs  of solar has beaten coal for the past few years. And it's now beating gas as well.

Solar Is Cheapest Energy Source Says IEA
By Irina Slav - May 28, 2023, 10:00 AM CDT
IEA: new solar projects are the cheapest source of power on a LCOE basis.
Substantial cost related to renewables that gets overlooked on a regular basis is the need for storage capacity to offset the intermittency problem.
The IEA calculates that on a value-adjusted basis—and with cost assumptions in place—solar comes in at $60 per MWh while gas is $20 more expensive at $80 per MWh.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Solar-Is-Cheapest-Energy-Source-Says-IEA.html

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

Not totally and not without cost. You are not a CEO, engineer or scientist. Go back to your cheap beer and flip flops. You will be dead before renewables takeover.

But here is news about a report from scientists:

Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?

To spoil the ending: The answer is $20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs. That’s how cheap storage would have to get for renewables to get to 100 percent. That’s around a 90 percent drop from today’s costs. While that is entirely within the realm of the possible, there is wide disagreement over when it might happen; few expect it by 2030.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid

https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing

Just now, susanlea said:

You will be dead before it becomes a problem. 

As usual, you've missed the point. Fossil fuels are now replaceable. 

1 hour ago, susanlea said:

More lies and desperation from you.

 

https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/

 

The modern world wouldn't exist without fossil fuels. There would be extreme poverty and billions less.

Thanks for the nostalgia for a time when there were no feasible replacements for fossil fuels.  What's that got to do with the future? 

17 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Insurance companies lying and you believe them. That is just sad.

More unproved, unbacked assertions from you. Got any evidence to back your claim up?

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

More fake news. You got nothing. Getting really desperate. 2.8m versus 12,000. Your argument has been shot to pieces.

First off, the research on deaths from heat caused kidney disease is still in its early stages. In fact, it's not included in climate statistics since it's a newly noticed phenomenon. That figure of 12,000 has nothing to do with deaths caused by kidney disease.

But I noticed that you ignored the fact that pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is responsible for a lot more than 2.8 million deaths per year.

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide

New research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.

The study, “Global Mortality From Outdoor Fine Particle Pollution Generated by Fossil Fuel Combustion,” published in Environmental Research, is based on a groundbreaking analysis that enabled the researchers to directly attribute premature deaths from fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) to fossil fuel combustion.

“Often, when we discuss the dangers of fossil fuel combustion, it’s in the context of CO2 and climate change and overlook the potential health impact of the pollutants co-emitted with greenhouse gases,” said Dr. Joel Schwartz, Professor at Harvard Chan School and co-author of the study. 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Climate deaths in 2023 a mere 12,000

 

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2023-review-climate-disasters-claimed-12000-lives-globally-2023

 

Obesity kills 2.8m

 

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/6-facts-on-obesit

Those numbers don't reflect all the health damage caused by climate change. For instance kidney disease. It's seen a huge rise, particularly in those who have to labor out of doors in increasing heat.

Rising temperatures linked to kidney disease

Scientists from Brazil and Australia have found evidence of a link between rising temperatures and renal diseases.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/climate-change-rising-temperatures-linked-to-kidney-disease/

And the fact is that the cause of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, creates pollution which kills millions and millions yearly and impairs the health of millions more.

Just now, susanlea said:

At least learn something today. Journalists add in climate change all the time. If listed last that means not the number 1 factor.

That's what you want it to mean.

Climate Change Is Destabilizing Insurance Industry

The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets.

Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.”

Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee.

He added, “Just as the U.S. economy was overexposed to mortgage risk in 2008, the economy today is over exposed to climate risk.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/

Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow
Some of the largest U.S. insurance companies say extreme weather has led them to end certain coverages, exclude natural disaster protections and raise premiums

In the aftermath of extreme weather events, major insurers are increasingly no longer offering coverage that homeowners in areas vulnerable to those disasters need most.
At least five large U.S. property insurers — including Allstate, American Family, Nationwide, Erie Insurance Group and Berkshire Hathaway — have told regulators that extreme weather patterns caused by climate change have led them to stop writing coverages in some regions, exclude protections from various weather events and raise monthly premiums and deductibles.

https://archive.ph/mwZER

6 minutes ago, Bobthegimp said:

 

Thank you for proving my point. Did you read the article?

 

"State Farm followed suit last year, saying it would stop accepting new home insurance applications in California due to "historic" increases in construction costs and inflation"

 

"After State Farm announced last month that it would cut 72,000 home and apartment policies in California because of inflation, regulatory costs and increasing risks from catastrophes, California's insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, told KCRA, "This is a real crisis."

 

Catastrophes is mentioned last. 

 

These are pointless discussions.  I honestly don't care what religion people choose to follow as long as they respect my right to think for myself and arrive at my own conclusions. 

 

 

 

And why does being mentioned last make it of little or no account?

3 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Who cares? More scaremongering. 

Right. All this information reported on comes from the world's leading scientific journals. So on the one hand, we have an anonymous poster on aseannow.com on one side of the issue, and actual scientific researchers on the other. I'm going to do the crazy thing and go along with the scientists. You've got nothing.

6 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Climate deaths down 99%, world hunger down, world population up 2bn since 2000.

 

The pretend crisis is a scam. It was supposed to kill millions. 

 

Endless lies to make money.

Even before the covid pandemic, world hunger was on the rise:

Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says

821 million people now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting hunger eradication goal at risk

https://www.unicef.org/eap/press-releases/global-hunger-continues-rise-new-un-report-says

Can you cite some evidence from scientific journals or the IPCC report that predicted that millions would have died already?

2 minutes ago, susanlea said:

6m sea rises. Thanks for the comedy show. No credibility left.

You really don't have a clue about the current state of research, do you?

Antarctic ice sheet collapse could add 3 meters to sea-level rise

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet could be in more danger of collapsing than previously thought, National Geographic reports. The ice sheet is the world's largest, holding 80% of the planet's ice. But some 400,000 years ago, a large chunk about the size of Arizona collapsed into the ocean, causing sea levels to rise by more than 3 meters. The worrying thing is that this happened during a period of relatively mild warmth, according to a study published yesterday in Nature. And it could happen again. 

https://www.science.org/content/article/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-could-add-3-metres-sea-level-rise

West Antarctic ice sheet faces ‘unavoidable’ melting, a warning for sea level rise

Accelerating ice losses are all but “unavoidable” this century in vulnerable West Antarctic ice shelves as waters warm around them, according to new research. And the analysis could mean scientists were too conservative in predicting about one to three feet of sea level rise by 2100.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/23/sea-live-rise-antarctic-ice-loss/

Greenland losing 30m tonnes of ice an hour, study reveals

A significant part of the Greenland ice sheet itself is also thought by scientists to be close to a tipping point of irreversible melting, with ice equivalent to 1-2 metres of sea level rise probably already expected.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/17/greenland-losing-30m-tonnes-of-ice-an-hour-study-reveals#:~:text=A recent study suggested the,level rise probably already expected.

4 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Tell me how many people died from storms in the last 20 years compared to the previous 100 years on a decadel basis.

 

Can you not even look up the science?

The response to certain disasters, like hurricanes, has greatly improved thanks to greatly improved forecasting and transportation, and medical progress. But the consequences of other slow moving disasters like ocean acidification, sea level rise, and loss of glaciers, aren't so easily remedied