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

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

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? 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2019/03/26/the-coal-cost-crossover-74-of-us-coal-plants-now-more-expensive-than-new-renewables-86-by-2025/?sh=1b56364322d9

18 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

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? 

 

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

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You mocked AOC before I did, yes? 

No I didn't.

I was mocking the fact that you cited a politician as support of your false characterization of where the scientific community stood on the issue of the consequences of warming. 

[mogandave]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2019/03/26/the-coal-cost-crossover-74-of-us-coal-plants-now-more-expensive-than-new-renewables-86-by-2025/?sh=1b56364322d9

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

 

Rather than regurgitating the same articles over again, why not just try answering the questions?

 

 

[mogandave]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No I didn't.

I was mocking the fact that you cited a politician as support of your false characterization of where the scientific community stood on the issue of the consequences of warming. 

 

So where does the “scientific community” stand in regard to how long we have to stop climate change before there is no stopping it?

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So where does the “scientific community” stand in regard to how long we have to stop climate change before there is no stopping it?

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

"Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades, if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years."

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

[thaibeachlovers]

13 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. 

So true.

Car motors were basically the same from invention till the advent of electric propulsion. Motors had a means of introducing fuel in a vapour form, a chamber to combust the fuel, pistons that went up and down ( with the exception of the ill fated Wankel ) and a drive shaft to covert the up and down piston motion to a rotary motion. All the improvements since invention didn't change the basic structure. It's not like petrol injection was a fundamental "advancement" per se, IMO.

Likewise with solar- converts sunlight to energy that can be used electrically, wind- converts air movement to electricity, storage- some sort of battery. Nothing significantly new or world changing, IMO.

A significant "advancement" IMO would be when computers stopped using tape and changed to components that can fit in a small box. That advancement changed the way the world works, IMO. On the other hand, most electricity is probably still generated by hydro and fossil fuel/ nuclear in thermal plants.

 

A real advancement, IMO, would be useable nuclear fusion.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So where does the “scientific community” stand in regard to how long we have to stop climate change before there is no stopping it?

IMO the largest cause of significant man made climate change would be overpopulation, but nothing much is being done to reduce population increase, so IMO nothing is going to change re stopping man made climate change, unless Gaia steps in with a solution.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Rather than regurgitating the same articles over again, why not just try answering the questions?

 

 

You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. Your latest here is a particularly lame instance of deflection.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years."

carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas

 

You might want to withdraw that statement.

 

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.

 

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So true.

Car motors were basically the same from invention till the advent of electric propulsion. Motors had a means of introducing fuel in a vapour form, a chamber to combust the fuel, pistons that went up and down ( with the exception of the ill fated Wankel ) and a drive shaft to covert the up and down piston motion to a rotary motion. All the improvements since invention didn't change the basic structure. It's not like petrol injection was a fundamental "advancement" per se, IMO.

Likewise with solar- converts sunlight to energy that can be used electrically, wind- converts air movement to electricity, storage- some sort of battery. Nothing significantly new or world changing, IMO.

A significant "advancement" IMO would be when computers stopped using tape and changed to components that can fit in a small box. That advancement changed the way the world works, IMO. On the other hand, most electricity is probably still generated by hydro and fossil fuel/ nuclear in thermal plants.

 

A real advancement, IMO, would be useable nuclear fusion.

Actually, the controlled use of combustion has been a fact for 10's of thousands of years. So, when you think about it that way, burning flammable substances to propel vehicles is really nothing significantly new or world changing. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Actually, the controlled use of combustion has been a fact for 10's of thousands of years. So, when you think about it that way, burning flammable substances to propel vehicles is really nothing significantly new or world changing. 

Wasn't that the point I was making?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wasn't that the point I was making?

Yes, but you were making it seriously. Clearly, it's a ridiculous  to claim that these innovations aren't world changing or potentially so.

[thaibeachlovers]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes, but you were making it seriously. Clearly, it's a ridiculous  to claim that these innovations aren't world changing or potentially so.

The motor car changed the world because it eliminated the horse/ donkey/ mule/ bullock etc as the main means of propulsion, just as the discovery of kerosene etc ended the necessity of killing whales for lamp oil.

However, wind and solar power haven't changed the way in which we travel, or do business, so same same. Planes still use fossil fuel as do ships ( and the vast majority of vehicles on the planet ), and that's not changing any time soon.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas

 

You might want to withdraw that statement.

 

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.

 

 

Yes, you're right, water vapor is the number one heat trapping gas.

 

Interesting that when, in the past, I point out the fundamental defect of your claims about the importance of water vapor in respect to global warming, my comments have been met with silence on your part. You seem to consistently evaporate just like the water vapor you're so fond of mentioning. And you've repeated the same misleading point in this thread. Here it is:

 

So, not so much for your sake, since clearly you've got no pertinent answer for it, but for others who might be misled, here again is the reason why your assertions about water vapor are misleading.

Water vapor is self-limiting in its concentration in the atmosphere. When it reaches a saturation point, it precipitates in a liquid or solid form of something we earthlings call rain, snow, sleet, hail etc. So it's a feedback system. Whereas other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide don't purge themselves from the atmosphere via saturation. At least I'm not aware of dry ice, or solid or liquid forms of other greenhouse gases falling out of the sky. (Granted, I haven't been to New Zealand where you claim to reside. Perhaps natural phenomena are different there.) They are part of a forcing system. It's true that over time, if far less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are belched into the atmosphere, natural process will most likely eventually reduce their levels of concentration. (The one possible troubling exception to this is methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. ) But as things now stand, production of these gases is overwhelming the various natural processes that remove them from the atmosphere.

It is true that over time, as other greenhouse gas levels rise and the atmosphere becomes warmer, the saturation level of water vapor will rise and it will contribute a bit more to warming. But that effect will disappear if other greenhouse gas levels subside.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The motor car changed the world because it eliminated the horse/ donkey/ mule/ bullock etc as the main means of propulsion, just as the discovery of kerosene etc ended the necessity of killing whales for lamp oil.

However, wind and solar power haven't changed the way in which we travel, or do business, so same same. Planes still use fossil fuel as do ships ( and the vast majority of vehicles on the planet ), and that's not changing any time soon.

First you claim to agree with me about the internal combustion engine not being world changing and now you've reversed yourself.

You'll note that I wrote "world changing or potentially so". It's very early days still for renewables and already they are having a significant effect.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First you claim to agree with me about the internal combustion engine not being world changing and now you've reversed yourself.

You'll note that I wrote "world changing or potentially so". It's very early days still for renewables and already they are having a significant effect.

I pointed out that all improvements since the internal combustion engine was invented were "improvements" and not "advancements" IMO. You seem to be confusing that post with the one where I stated the invention of the motor car was an "advancement".

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's very early days still for renewables and already they are having a significant effect.

They sure are - electricity prices have gone through the roof in countries such as Germany, due to green 'free energy' subsidies, and the government is preparing to introduce electricity rationing to stabilize the grid.

 

Welcome to the green future.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I pointed out that all improvements since the internal combustion engine was invented were "improvements" and not "advancements" IMO. You seem to be confusing that post with the one where I stated the invention of the motor car was an "advancement".

I wrote this:

"Actually, the controlled use of combustion has been a fact for 10's of thousands of years. So, when you think about it that way, burning flammable substances to propel vehicles is really nothing significantly new or world changing. "

Here's your reply:

"Wasn't that the point I was making?"

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

They sure are - electricity prices have gone through the roof in countries such as Germany, due to green 'free energy' subsidies, and the government is preparing to introduce electricity rationing to stabilize the grid.

 

Welcome to the green future.

These are teething problems. Germany decided to wean itself from nuclear power too quickly.  But what you don't take note of ae the huge subsidies that fossil fuel plants enjoy. For one thing, as the IMF has noted, externalities due to the consumpton of fossil fuel, particularly health costs, on a worldwide basis amount to over 5 trillion dollars per year. In the USA, they're estimated to cost consumers  550 billion dollars per year. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

These are teething problems. Germany decided to wean itself from nuclear power too quickly.  But what you don't take note of ae the huge subsidies that fossil fuel plants enjoy. For one thing, as the IMF has noted, externalities due to the consumpton of fossil fuel, particularly health costs, on a worldwide basis amount to over 5 trillion dollars per year. In the USA, they're estimated to cost consumers  550 billion dollars per year. 

I should add that there are legacy problems elsewhere due to the cost of paying for stranded assets. But, over time, these should diminish.

[RickBradford]

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

These are teething problems.

Ah, yes, those pesky teething problems.  Since renewables have been part of the energy mix for 25 years or so, it's surprising that nobody has solved these teething problems before.

 

They have tried, of course, but since 'green' energy is inherently so patchy and unreliable, and unable to produce stable baseload electricity, it's a very hard problem which nobody has yet come to grips with.

 

It is the Great Green Delusion again. Take away the bad things (fossil fuel) and the good things ('green' energy) will automatically rise like a beautiful flower to take its place. Things just don't work that way in the real world.

 

The underlying problem is that Green zealots actively dislike energy; if someone invented an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source tomorrow, you could bet that the Green lobby would be protesting against it next week. It's their worst nightmare.

 

 

[fredwiggy]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:23 PM, OswaldBastable said:

I see no evidence of rising seas.

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Ah, yes, those pesky teething problems.  Since renewables have been part of the energy mix for 25 years or so, it's surprising that nobody has solved these teething problems before.

 

They have tried, of course, but since 'green' energy is inherently so patchy and unreliable, and unable to produce stable baseload electricity, it's a very hard problem which nobody has yet come to grips with.

 

It is the Great Green Delusion again. Take away the bad things (fossil fuel) and the good things ('green' energy) will automatically rise like a beautiful flower to take its place. Things just don't work that way in the real world.

 

The underlying problem is that Green zealots actively dislike energy; if someone invented an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source tomorrow, you could bet that the Green lobby would be protesting against it next week. It's their worst nightmare.

 

 

 Getting to 100% will be difficult. Storage capacity infrastructure would have to fall to $20/kwh. Even at 95% the cost would have to fall to $150 per kwh. Clearly that is so unrealistic because...oh wait a minute...

Battery Pack Prices Cited Below $100/kWh for the First Time in 2020, While Market Average Sits at $137/kWh

Hong Kong and London, December 16, 2020 – Lithium-ion battery pack prices, which were above $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 89% in real terms to $137/kWh in 2020. By 2023, average prices will be close to $100/kWh, according to the latest forecast from research company BloombergNEF (BNEF).

https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-100-kwh-for-the-first-time-in-2020-while-market-average-sits-at-137-kwh/

And this is to say nothing of other storage systems like zinc oxide redox batteries which can offer a price approaching $45 per kwh depending on the size of the system. The system from Zinc8 offers the additional feature of being almost entirely recyclable.

There are also lots of non-battery potential solutions out there such as  hydrogen generated via electrolysis. Others too numerous to mention.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The underlying problem is that Green zealots actively dislike energy; if someone invented an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source tomorrow, you could bet that the Green lobby would be protesting against it next week. It's their worst nightmare.

It's usually a telltale sign that someone's argument isn't fact based when they begin to impute all sorts of unworthy and strange motives to their adversaries. After all, you can't really disprove such an imputation any more than you can prove it. And I'd like to say that hatred of energy is such a bizarre assertion that it's clearly untrue. But the fact is, ya got me fair and square.  What's especially dangerous is any mention of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I get absolutely enraged when it's mentioned. Wait a minute. I just mentioned it. Oh no...not again....Now Hulk angry. 

[RickBradford]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's usually a telltale sign that someone's argument isn't fact based when they begin to impute all sorts of unworthy and strange motives to their adversaries.

I would  generally agree with that - just look how quick the Green lobby is to call people who disagree with them 'deniers' or 'denialists', 'shills for Big Oil' and 'flat-earthers'.

 

But in this case, I think the argument that the Green/Left hates energy has some traction. The campaign against nuclear power is clearly based on political rather than scientific motives. It is absurd to suggest that nuclear power is unsafe, given the data and experience over the past 40 years.

 

Yet all the Big Green groups are vehemently against nuclear power, which is the only practical way to move towards what the Green lobby says it wants, that is a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

I wrote this:

"Actually, the controlled use of combustion has been a fact for 10's of thousands of years. So, when you think about it that way, burning flammable substances to propel vehicles is really nothing significantly new or world changing. "

Here's your reply:

"Wasn't that the point I was making?"

 

LOL. The internal combustion engine changed life in a dramatic way- no longer was the horse the main means of propulsion.

I don't know why you think it was such a non event, and how exactly was "combustion" used 10 thousand years ago, other than cooking dinner?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

I would  generally agree with that - just look how quick the Green lobby is to call people who disagree with them 'deniers' or 'denialists', 'shills for Big Oil' and 'flat-earthers'.

 

But in this case, I think the argument that the Green/Left hates energy has some traction. The campaign against nuclear power is clearly based on political rather than scientific motives. It is absurd to suggest that nuclear power is unsafe, given the data and experience over the past 40 years.

 

Yet all the Big Green groups are vehemently against nuclear power, which is the only practical way to move towards what the Green lobby says it wants, that is a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions.

Well, given that there are still those out there who deny that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, despite the mountains and oceans of evidence otherwise, I think "denialist' is a rather temperate word to describe them.

And given the massive lack of knowledge you've demonstrated about renewables, why would I accept your assertion that nuclear power 'is the only practical way to move towards what the Green lobby says it wants, that is a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions.'?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The internal combustion changed life in a dramatic way- no longer was the horse the main means of propulsion.

I don't know why you think it was such a non event, and how exactly was "combustion" used 2 thousand years ago, other than cooking dinner?

 

When I made this statement 

"Actually, the controlled use of combustion has been a fact for 10's of thousands of years. So, when you think about it that way, burning flammable substances to propel vehicles is really nothing significantly new or world changing. "

I knew it was ridiculous. It was just to encounter your ridiculous assertion about the insignificance of renewables.But you agreed with it! Here's your reply again:

"Wasn't that the point I was making?"

Do you actually read what you write?

 

 

[RickBradford]

As you well know, the word 'denialist' is used much more widely than that - it is Green/Left code for anyone who disagrees with them in any way, including Bjorn Lomborg, who believes man-made climate change is real and serious, but has ideas on how to tackle it which do not conform to Green/Left orthodoxy.

 

As for my 'assertion' about nuclear power, you are free to debate the point with your own suggestions. Even climate activists state that the current move to renewable energy is happening too slowly to deal with the problem, so something different needs to be tried. What is that going to be?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

As you well know, the word 'denialist' is used much more widely than that - it is Green/Left code for anyone who disagrees with them in any way, including Bjorn Lomborg, who believes man-made climate change is real and serious, but has ideas on how to tackle it which do not conform to Green/Left orthodoxy.

 

As for my 'assertion' about nuclear power, you are free to debate the point with your own suggestions. Even climate activists state that the current move to renewable energy is happening too slowly to deal with the problem, so something different needs to be tried. What is that going to be?

They call Bjorn Borg a denialist because he claims he believes that the earth is warming but also claims that it's not a serious problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html