Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's the first sentence of the article:

 

A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.

 

And even if it was only 60 out of 190, would you seriously rate a 6 notch decline in the credit rating of China as no more important that that of Andorra?

If you total up the populations of the 10 countries mentioned in the article that would suffer a serious decline in credit ratings, that would amount to about half of all humans. And that's without including the populations of the other 50.

 

 

Will not a reduction in credit ratings not force reductions in the activities that harm the environment? 

 

If they can’t buy oil, they can’t burn it, yes?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

Will not a reduction in credit ratings not force reductions in the activities that harm the environment? 

 

If they can’t buy oil, they can’t burn it, yes?

Well, if that's your idea of a good thing, why not root for an all-out massive depression?

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Well, if that's your idea of a good thing, why not root for an all-out massive depression?

 

That is not my idea of a good thing, but if one truly believes that the world as we know it will end in ten years, why would one not root for “...an all-out massive depression”?

[placeholder]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

That is not my idea of a good thing, but if one truly believes that the world as we know it will end in ten years, why would one not root for “...an all-out massive depression”?

Stop making things up. Who is it who believes the world will end in 10 years apart from some apocalyptical Christians?( And let's face it, they're more likely to be politically right wing.) Clearly, you're just deflecting. The fact is the world can decarbonize a lot faster than was thought possible even just a few years ago thanks to the huge advances made in solar, wind, and storage technology. The last thing needed is a world epidemic of badly damaged economies that can't afford to make that investment.

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Stop making things up. Who is it who believes the world will end in 10 years apart from some apocalyptical Christians?( And let's face it, they're more likely to be politically right wing.) Clearly, you're just deflecting. The fact is the world can decarbonize a lot faster than was thought possible even just a few years ago thanks to the huge advances made in solar, wind, and storage technology. The last thing needed is a world epidemic of badly damaged economies that can't afford to make that investment.

 

Ten years ago we had twenty years. 

 

So what huge advances have been made in solar, wind and storage? 

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Ten years ago we had twenty years. 

 

So what huge advances have been made in solar, wind and storage? 

 

Twenty years until what?

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Twenty years until what?

 

Global warming was irreversible.

 

What huge advancements in wind, solar and storage?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So what huge advances have been made in solar, wind and storage? 

 

How can you be so completely unfamiliar with these developments?

 

It’s cheaper to build new solar than it is to operate coal plants

New analysis released by Lazard compares the levelized cost of energy for various generation technologies on a $/MWh basis and shows that renewables, specifically utility-scale solar and wind, are the economic frontrunners.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/23/its-cheaper-to-build-new-solar-than-it-is-to-operate-coal-plants/#:~:text=New analysis released by Lazard,wind%2C are the economic frontrunners.

Renewables Increasingly Beat Even Cheapest Coal Competitors on Cost
 ttps://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost

 

Solar plus Storage is Displacing Natural Gas Peaker Plants

https://www.nuvationenergy.com/resources/article/solar-plus-storage-displacing-natural-gas-peaker-plants

 

BloombergNEF: ‘Already cheaper to install new-build battery storage than peaking plants’

https://www.energy-storage.news/news/bloombergnef-lcoe-of-battery-storage-has-fallen-faster-than-solar-or-wind-i

 

Behind the numbers: The rapidly falling LCOE of battery storage

https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/behind-the-numbers-the-rapidly-falling-lcoe-of-battery-storage

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Global warming was irreversible.

Well, you got that wrong. No, what they were saying is that keeping the temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade would have a lot less severe consequences than letting it rise to 2.0 degrees centigrade.

Clearly, you know nothing at all about the subject apart from some memes provided by denialists

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How can you be so completely unfamiliar with these developments?

 

It’s cheaper to build new solar than it is to operate coal plants

New analysis released by Lazard compares the levelized cost of energy for various generation technologies on a $/MWh basis and shows that renewables, specifically utility-scale solar and wind, are the economic frontrunners.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/23/its-cheaper-to-build-new-solar-than-it-is-to-operate-coal-plants/#:~:text=New analysis released by Lazard,wind%2C are the economic frontrunners.

Renewables Increasingly Beat Even Cheapest Coal Competitors on Cost
 ttps://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost

 

Solar plus Storage is Displacing Natural Gas Peaker Plants

https://www.nuvationenergy.com/resources/article/solar-plus-storage-displacing-natural-gas-peaker-plants

 

BloombergNEF: ‘Already cheaper to install new-build battery storage than peaking plants’

https://www.energy-storage.news/news/bloombergnef-lcoe-of-battery-storage-has-fallen-faster-than-solar-or-wind-i

 

Behind the numbers: The rapidly falling LCOE of battery storage

https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/behind-the-numbers-the-rapidly-falling-lcoe-of-battery-storage

 

Yes, i know subsidies are up and prices are down. I thought you meant huge advancements in technology, sorry.

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, you got that wrong. No, what they were saying is that keeping the temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade would have a lot less severe consequences than letting it rise to 2.0 degrees centigrade.

Clearly, you know nothing at all about the subject apart from some memes provided by denialists

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, you got that wrong. No, what they were saying is that keeping the temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade would have a lot less severe consequences than letting it rise to 2.0 degrees centigrade.

Clearly, you know nothing at all about the subject apart from some memes provided by denialists

 

Okay. What about when in 2019 when  AOC said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” 

 

Ten years to go, yes?

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, i know subsidies are up and prices are down. I thought you meant huge advancements in technology, sorry.

False. Just more outdated nonsense from denialist sources. Subsidies where they still exist are way down. Unsubsidized solar and wind now easily beat coal plants. In fact it's cheaper to build solar and wind facilities than it is to keep a coal plant running. 

 

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/

 

And as the IMF pointed out, it's fossil fuels that are the beneficiaries of massive subsidies. About 6 percent of global GDP. Most of those subsidies come in the form of the cost of caring for illnesses created by the burning of fossil fuel.

Edited March 24, 2021 by placeholder

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

 

Okay. What about when in 2019 when  AOC said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” 

 

Ten years to go, yes?

You mean AOC the world famous and highly respected climatologist?  I thought she was a politician. You really must be desperate to try and find support in her words.

[mogandave]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You mean AOC the world famous and highly respected climatologist?  I thought she was a politician. You really must be desperate to try and find support in her words.

 

She is a world famous congresswoman that is spearheading the “green new deal” so while she is clearly a moron, she must have some non-morons around her to help put it together, no? 

 

 

[mogandave]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

False. Just more outdated nonsense from denialist sources. Subsidies where they still exist are way down. Unsubsidized solar and wind now easily beat coal plants. In fact it's cheaper to build solar and wind facilities than it is to keep a coal plant running. 

 

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/

 

And as the IMF pointed out, it's fossil fuels that are the beneficiaries of massive subsidies. About 6 percent of global GDP. Most of those subsidies come in the form of the cost of caring for illnesses created by the burning of fossil fuel.

 

So why does Chine make solar panels for export, yet they are dependent on coal-fired plants? 

 

You would not be able to get permits to built a coal in most of the world.

[mogandave]

48 minutes ago, placeholder said:

False. Just more outdated nonsense from denialist sources. Subsidies where they still exist are way down. Unsubsidized solar and wind now easily beat coal plants. In fact it's cheaper to build solar and wind facilities than it is to keep a coal plant running. 

 

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/

 

And as the IMF pointed out, it's fossil fuels that are the beneficiaries of massive subsidies. About 6 percent of global GDP. Most of those subsidies come in the form of the cost of caring for illnesses created by the burning of fossil fuel.

 

From your link:

 

File was apparently too big

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by mogandave
compliace

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So why does Chine make solar panels for export, yet they are dependent on coal-fired plants? 

 

You would not be able to get permits to built a coal in most of the world.

Please stop with the irrelevancies already. You asked for proofs of the decline in prices of solar, wind and storage and i gave them to you. You claimed that subsidies to wind and solar are increasing which is false. I've educated you enough. But here's a hint about China:

If you want to find out why China builds so many useless power plans, both solar and coal,  I suggest you look up the nature of how the Central Chinese govt commands regional govt to spend money on projects that generate high GDP numbers regardless of whether or not they will ever be truly productive.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

From your link:

 

 

The paragraph you are citing, (and I strongly suggest you reduce the size or the mods will most likely delete it) is in reference to comparing the cost of building new solar and wind  plants to the cost of keeping coal, gas and nuclear plants open. It has nothing to do with the graph I copied. What's more, if you take a look at the graph that the text you copied refers to, you'll not that not all the prices there are unsubidized.

It's also useful to not that the comment you copied makes no reference to the health costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Latest estimates run to about 550 billion per hear for the USA.

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please stop with the irrelevancies already. You asked for proofs of the decline in prices of solar, wind and storage and i gave them to you. You claimed that subsidies to wind and solar are increasing which is false. I've educated you enough. But here's a hint about China:

If you want to find out why China builds so many useless power plans, both solar and coal,  I suggest you look up the nature of how the Central Chinese govt commands regional govt to spend money on projects that generate high GDP numbers regardless of whether or not they will ever be truly productive.

 

i never asked for proofs of the decline of costs solar, wind and storage. I know the prices have ,and continue to come down. 

 

I asked what huge advancements in solar, wind and storage you were talking about. 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The paragraph you are citing, (and I strongly suggest you reduce the size or the mods will most likely delete it) is in reference to comparing the cost of building new solar and wind  plants to the cost of keeping coal, gas and nuclear plants open. It has nothing to do with the graph I copied. What's more, if you take a look at the graph that the text you copied refers to, you'll not that not all the prices there are unsubidized.

It's also useful to not that the comment you copied makes no reference to the health costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Latest estimates run to about 550 billion per hear for the USA.

 

Where does it say that the comparison includes the cost of a new wind and or solar plant but does not include the cost of the existing fossil fuel  plants?

 

If it were cheaper to build and supply power with a new solar plant than to continue operating an existing fossil fuel plant, every fossil fuel plant in the US would be replaced within the next few years.

[placeholder]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

Where does it say that the comparison includes the cost of a new wind and or solar plant but does not include the cost of the existing fossil fuel  plants?

 

If it were cheaper to build and supply power with a new solar plant than to continue operating an existing fossil fuel plant, every fossil fuel plant in the US would be replaced within the next few years.

Do you understand what it means to say that the cost of building a new solar power plant is actually cheaper than the cost of just running a coal fired plant? What do you mean by the "cost of the existing fossil fuel plants"?

As for fossil fuel plants disappearing...coal is already on its way out.

U.S. coal-fired power plants closing fast despite Trump's pledge of support for industry

(Reuters) - U.S. coal-fired power plants shut down at the second-fastest pace on record in 2019, despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to prop up the industry, according to data from the federal government and Thomson Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-decline-graphic-idUSKBN1ZC15A

 

And as noted earlier, gas peaker plants are also becoming uncompetitive with renewables/storage.

Solar + Storage Half The Cost Of Gas Peaker Plants — 8 MinuteEnergy

S&P Global reports the cost of solar with battery backup dropped precipitously in 2018. In a few cases in the sunny Southwest region of the United States, several tenders for solar plus storage came in at under $30 per megawatt-hour last year. Stand alone prices for installed battery storage — based on a 20 megawatt-hour system with 4 hours of storage—dropped 40% from the previous year to $357 per kilowatt-hour and are expected to keep falling. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects a further 52% reduction by 2030.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/13/solar-storage-half-the-cost-of-gas-peaker-plants-8minuteenergy/

By the way, this article is already badly out of date as regards storage. It's now down to an average of $150 per kwh. And some systems are coming in at below $100 per kwh.

 

 

[mogandave]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand what it means to say that the cost of building a new solar power plant is actually cheaper than the cost of just running a coal fired plant? What do you mean by the "cost of the existing fossil fuel plants"?

As for fossil fuel plants disappearing...coal is already on its way out.

U.S. coal-fired power plants closing fast despite Trump's pledge of support for industry

(Reuters) - U.S. coal-fired power plants shut down at the second-fastest pace on record in 2019, despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to prop up the industry, according to data from the federal government and Thomson Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-decline-graphic-idUSKBN1ZC15A

 

And as noted earlier, gas peaker plants are also becoming uncompetitive with renewables/storage.

Solar + Storage Half The Cost Of Gas Peaker Plants — 8 MinuteEnergy

S&P Global reports the cost of solar with battery backup dropped precipitously in 2018. In a few cases in the sunny Southwest region of the United States, several tenders for solar plus storage came in at under $30 per megawatt-hour last year. Stand alone prices for installed battery storage — based on a 20 megawatt-hour system with 4 hours of storage—dropped 40% from the previous year to $357 per kilowatt-hour and are expected to keep falling. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects a further 52% reduction by 2030.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/13/solar-storage-half-the-cost-of-gas-peaker-plants-8minuteenergy/

By the way, this article is already badly out of date as regards storage. It's now down to an average of $150 per kwh. And some systems are coming in at below $100 per kwh.

 

 

 

So about what percentage of power in the uS is provided by wind and solar? 

 

With the economics you outline, when do you think the US will be 100% wind and solar?

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So about what percentage of power in the uS is provided by wind and solar? 

 

With the economics you outline, when do you think the US will be 100% wind and solar?

You could look that percentage up for yourself.

 

Not necessary to get to 100% so soon. 95% would be a lot cheaper.

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

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You could look that percentage up for yourself.

 

Not necessary to get to 100% so soon. 95% would be a lot cheaper.

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

 

I thought you might know, guess i was wrong.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I thought you might know, guess i was wrong.

No, you were right. But given the tenuous relationship with the facts that you've demonstrated here, it's clear you need some encouragement  to spread your wings and gain some experience in acquiring information via a recently invented communications network  called the Internet. But I'll give you a hint: Google is your friend.

[mogandave]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

No, you were right. But given the tenuous relationship with the facts that you've demonstrated here, it's clear you need some encouragement  to spread your wings and gain some experience in acquiring information via a recently invented communications network  called the Internet. But I'll give you a hint: Google is your friend.

 

Still waiting for a few of the huge advancements in technology you were talking about but never produced.....

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Still waiting for a few of the huge advancements in technology you were talking about but never produced.....

The fact that  prices of solar cells wind turbines and batteries have declined drastically is proof enough of the huge advances in renewable technology. Or do you believe that technology is like potatoes and the decline in prices is just due to the fact we've had several years of bumper crops?

Edited March 25, 2021 by placeholder

[mogandave]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

The fact that  prices of solar cells wind turbines and batteries have declined drastically is proof enough of the huge advances in renewable technology. Or do you believe that technology is like potatoes and the decline in prices is just due to the fact we've had several years of bumper crops?

 

I believe in economies of scale, and understand that as the market grows, more suppliers will enter the market and that (all things being the same) manufacturing methods will mature and prices will come down. 

 

I do not consider those huge advancements in solar, wind and storage technologies. In much the same way I would not consider adding tractors and increasing the area to farm potatoes a huge advancement in potato farming. 

 

I would consider developing a new strain of potato that grows on top of the ground,  requires 50% less water, has no eyes and does not bruise a huge advancement in potato farming. 

 

You see it differently, I understand that. 

[placeholder]

20 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

i never asked for proofs of the decline of costs solar, wind and storage. I know the prices have ,and continue to come down. 

 

I asked what huge advancements in solar, wind and storage you were talking about. 

 

 

 

You may know it now. You didn't know it less than a day earlier when you wrote this falsehood ascribing the fall in prices to increases in subsidies:

"Yes, i know subsidies are up and prices are down. I thought you meant huge advancements in technology, sorry."

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I believe in economies of scale, and understand that as the market grows, more suppliers will enter the market and that (all things being the same) manufacturing methods will mature and prices will come down. 

 

I do not consider those huge advancements in solar, wind and storage technologies. In much the same way I would not consider adding tractors and increasing the area to farm potatoes a huge advancement in potato farming. 

 

I would consider developing a new strain of potato that grows on top of the ground,  requires 50% less water, has no eyes and does not bruise a huge advancement in potato farming. 

 

You see it differently, I understand that. 

 

Your comment about economies of scale is about as sensible as saying that reductions in the costs of microchip power do not constitute a tremendous technological advance. But if you want to play your silly semantic games as to what doesn't constitute technological breakthroughs  go elsewhere.

 

Keep in mind that I joined this conversation when you made the clueless assertion that only 60 out of 190 nations were  predicted to suffer a serious decline in credit ratings despite the fact that these 60 nations included over half the population of planet Earth and the worlds' 2 largest economies.

 

You asserted the climatologists claimed that we have only 20 years until climate was irreversible when climatologists said no such thing.

 

You claimed it was predicted that the world would end in 10 years as though it represented some sort of significant consensus and when challenged cited as the source a politician whom you gratuitously and trollishly insulted. (You know, if you want to cast aspersions on someone's intelligence, go where the evidence is.

In one post alone you managed to write 1 piece of apparent nonsense  and in the other  demonstrated a profound unfamiliarity with how fossil fuels are being hammered by renewables:

"Where does it say that the comparison includes the cost of a new wind and or solar plant but does not include the cost of the existing fossil fuel  plants?"

"If it were cheaper to build and supply power with a new solar plant than to continue operating an existing fossil fuel plant, every fossil fuel plant in the US would be replaced within the next few years."

You still haven't explained what the comment about "existing fossil fuel plants" even means. 

"

 

 

 

[mogandave]

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You may know it now. You didn't know it less than a day earlier when you wrote this falsehood ascribing the fall in prices to increases in subsidies:

"Yes, i know subsidies are up and prices are down. I thought you meant huge advancements in technology, sorry."

 

 

Your comment about economies of scale is about as sensible as saying that reductions in the costs of microchip power do not constitute a tremendous technological advance. But if you want to play your silly semantic games as to what doesn't constitute technological breakthroughs  go elsewhere.

 

Keep in mind that I joined this conversation when you made the clueless assertion that only 60 out of 190 nations were  predicted to suffer a serious decline in credit ratings despite the fact that these 60 nations included over half the population of planet Earth and the worlds' 2 largest economies.

 

You asserted the climatologists claimed that we have only 20 years until climate was irreversible when climatologists said no such thing.

 

You claimed it was predicted that the world would end in 10 years as though it represented some sort of significant consensus and when challenged cited as the source a politician whom you gratuitously and trollishly insulted. (You know, if you want to cast aspersions on someone's intelligence, go where the evidence is.

In one post alone you managed to write 1 piece of apparent nonsense  and in the other  demonstrated a profound unfamiliarity with how fossil fuels are being hammered by renewables:

"Where does it say that the comparison includes the cost of a new wind and or solar plant but does not include the cost of the existing fossil fuel  plants?"

"If it were cheaper to build and supply power with a new solar plant than to continue operating an existing fossil fuel plant, every fossil fuel plant in the US would be replaced within the next few years."

You still haven't explained what the comment about "existing fossil fuel plants" even means. 

"

 

 

 

 

I think you need to try and be more condescending. 

 

And for all that blather, you still have not shown where in your article it stays that it is cheaper to build new solar and wind plants than to than to continue operating existing plants. Nor have you provided any great advancements in wind, solar or storage beyond a drop in price. I’m not saying there are none, i’m just saying you did not point any out. 

 

You mocked AOC before I did, yes?