placeholder

More information about yourself. Who knows, it may even be true. But true or not, it's utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

First off, you take no account of the fact that nighttime consumption is far lower than daytime consumption. Utilities often charge lower rates at night than during the daytime precisely for this reason.

Well, good for you. And when you and your clones become the only males on planet earth the problem will be solved. Until then, the issue isn't about you.

Come to think of it, it's generally quite windy when it rains so who knows how many days it would take.

It would certainly be far better if emissions were drastically cut. Actually that would be 4 days. Which is why interconnectivity is important. The wider the grid, the more resilient it is against such events.

i have provided information about the sharp rise in cost of coal and gas. Do you really need the link spelled out for you. As for the cost of "fuels" such as wind and solar, last time I checked, they were free.

Much of this depends on the connectivity of the grid. The wider the range of power sources that can be drawn on, the less important the fossil fuel backup becomes. As I have noted before, here is an article from Vox that explains research from M.I.T. that delves deeply into the issues. The conclusion that research came to was that it would take batteries with a cost of $20 per kwh of capacity to reach 100%. These batteries can generate power for 100 hours vs. at most 8 hours for lithium. But to reach 95%, batteries would only need to have a cost of $151 per kwh. At the time, it was expected that this wouldn't happen before 2030 at the earliest. But has been consistently been the case when it comes to predictions about batteries, progress has run way ahead of schedule. Even lithium batteries have now broken that barrier. And iron-air batteries can be manufactured for a cost of $20 per kwh of capacity. Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

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.

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

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.

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.

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. Projection Time period Trend (C/decade) Observed trend since 1970 1970-2023 0.19 (0.17 to 0.21) Observed trend since 2009 2009-2023 0.30 (0.17 to 0.43) Estimated human contribution (Forster et al, 2023) 2013-2022 0.23 IPCC AR6 assessed warming projections under SSP2-4.5 2015-2050 0.24 (0.17 to 0.34) Full CMIP6 ensemble under SSP2-4.5 2015-2050 0.29 (0.2 to 0.4) Hansen et al, 2023 2011-2050 0.32 (0.27 to 0.36) 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.

Someone else who apparently doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

These are my words? "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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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/