placeholder

Well you do have a point about the infrastructure. Biden actually passed a huge bill which among other things targets these. His predecessor repeatedly promised a big infrastructure bill, much like he promised a big health care bill, but somehow failed ever to come up with one or the other. "The Senate on Tuesday approved an expansive bill to rebuild the nation’s aging roads and bridges, with $8.3 billion specifically targeted to water infrastructure projects in the West and billions more to fund national projects to mitigate the impact of wildfires. After months of negotiation among President Biden, Democrats and a group of moderate Republicans to forge a compromise, the Senate voted 69 to 30 in favor of the legislation. In the end, it had support from 19 Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky." https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-08-10/infrastructure-bill-california-water

No. You failed to mention that he was turned away.

Really? The US economy has been growing at a faster pace than any other major fully developed nation. Unemployment is low by historical standards Manufacturing is moving back. It's even producing gas and oil at record rates. How exactly is the USA falling apart?

Where did I mention morality? Morality is quite arbitrary. For a devout Catholic using birth control is immoral.

I'm getting tired of this. First off, it's distributed power. So it's not a case of one city depending on one other city. And the point is that batteries can be cheap enough at $20 to provide plenty of reserve power. And among other calculations that went into the MIT study, was research on weather from which algorithms were derived. Get back to me in the unlikely event that you read the article that I have linked to several times.

After he was turned away he had to fetch his driver's license: Writing in his Daily Mail column, he said: "I want to pay a particular tribute to the three villagers who on Thursday rightly turned me away when I appeared in the polling station with nothing to prove my identity except the sleeve of my copy of Prospect magazine, on which my name and address had been printed. "I showed it to them and they looked very dubious… within minutes I was back with my driving licence and voted Tory." https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-pays-tribute-to-polling-station-staff-who-refused-to-let-him-vote-without-photo-id-13128674

Do I really have to explain the obvious to you? The hours a battery can discharge are based on a constant flow. So if less power is consumed at night then you will need less batteries discharging power.

You seem utterly resistant to recognizing the the role that interconnectivity has to play in all this

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.