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

[placeholder]

10 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?

Also, when someone writes "As you well know" it's most likely it's not something you know." It's just more of the same kind of nonsense like casting aspersions on the motives your opponents. You know, like hatred of energy. How ridiculous can you get? Will you ever top that one? It's something to shoot for in a negative kind of way.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, when someone writes "As you well know" it's most likely it's not something you know." It's just more of the same kind of nonsense like casting aspersions on the motives your opponents. You know, like hatred of energy. How ridiculous can you get? Will you ever top that one? It's something to shoot for in a negative kind of way.

Ignoring the above blather, I ask again if you actually have any concrete suggestions as to how to fix the climate problem, given that switching to renewables cannot achieve that in time, as many activists have noted?

[placeholder]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Ignoring the above blather, I ask again if you actually have any concrete suggestions as to how to fix the climate problem, given that switching to renewables cannot achieve that in time, as many activists have noted?

Here's an article that discusses that in detail. It's already a little outdated because storage costs are falling so fast. But getting to 95 percent renewable is feasible. I've quoted a snippet:

"Trancik’s team found that if the EAF target is lowered from 100 to 95 percent, the cost target that storage must hit rises to $150/kWh. (More specifically, lowering the EAF reduced the total cost of energy storage by 25 percent for the first tier of storage technologies and 48 percent for the second tier.) That’s a much more tractable number, within reach of existing technologies."

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

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Ignoring the above blather, I ask again if you actually have any concrete suggestions as to how to fix the climate problem, given that switching to renewables cannot achieve that in time, as many activists have noted?

Right, I'm the one who's blathering. This coming from someone who has apparently a new psychological condition: energy hatred.

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Right, I'm the one who's blathering. This coming from someone who has apparently a new psychological condition: energy hatred.

I don't have "energy hatred". I love the stuff.

 

And the fact remains that no matter what renewable energy technologies may be feasible in the future, all of them are unproven, long-term projects which don't measure up to the demands of the climate activists. Even the Vox article concedes that much.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I don't have "energy hatred". I love the stuff.

 

And the fact remains that no matter what renewable energy technologies may be feasible in the future, all of them are unproven, long-term projects which don't measure up to the demands of the climate activists. Even the Vox article concedes that much.

A word dropped out. It was meant to be written:

This coming from someone who has apparently discovered a new psychological condition: energy hatred.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I don't have "energy hatred". I love the stuff.

 

And the fact remains that no matter what renewable energy technologies may be feasible in the future, all of them are unproven, long-term projects which don't measure up to the demands of the climate activists. Even the Vox article concedes that much.

Actually, according to cost stipulated by that article, the cost of current storage technology already beats that $150 per kwh goal. So, no, they are not "unproven. long term projects". That is absolutely and utterly false.  And given the huge decline in costs and the massive private sector investment in storage R&D , only a dyed-in-the-wool socialist denialist would believe that further declines are not imminent.

And as usual you cast aspersions unbacked by specifics.  What exactly these " demands of the climate activists"? Are they the demand of all climate activists? Most climate activists?

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A word dropped out. It was meant to be written:

This coming from someone who has apparently discovered a new psychological condition: energy hatred.

OK, got it.

 

It certainly is annoying when words drop out like that - I think the forum software must be getting old, or perhaps the Internet is faulty.

 

But I can't claim to have discovered the idea of energy hatred; many commentators have come to the same conclusion after seeing how the Green/Left violently opposes the use of the proven technology of nuclear power, the densest and safest form of power ever invented, in favor of unproven, subsidy-gobbling diffuse and unreliable 'green' energy sources which are very hard to scale.

[placeholder]

Just now, RickBradford said:

OK, got it.

 

It certainly is annoying when words drop out like that - I think the forum software must be getting old, or perhaps the Internet is faulty.

 

But I can't claim to have discovered the idea of energy hatred; many commentators have come to the same conclusion after seeing how the Green/Left violently opposes the use of the proven technology of nuclear power, the densest and safest form of power ever invented, in favor of unproven, subsidy-gobbling diffuse and unreliable 'green' energy sources which are very hard to scale.

Really, hatred of energy is a common meme? Can you direct me to some prominent person who claims that there are activists who hate energy as such? Activists who recoil at the touch of a sunbeam?

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Activists who recoil at the touch of a sunbeam?

Now you're just being silly.

[placeholder]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Now you're just being silly.

You're the one who claimed activists hate energy. Maybe you shouldn't propose silly formulations without understanding what they mean?

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're the one who claimed activists hate energy. Maybe you shouldn't propose silly formulations without understanding what they mean?

The meaning was quite clear when I wrote this: "The underlying problem is that Green zealots actively dislike energy; if someone invented an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source tomorrow, they would oppose it."

 

Nothing about sunbeams; they exist only in your imagination. I see I have given you far too much credit to being interested in an worthwhile conversation about this subject. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by RickBradford

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The meaning was quite clear when I wrote this: "The underlying problem is that Green zealots actively dislike energy; if someone invented an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source tomorrow, they would oppose it."

 

Nothing about sunbeams; they exist only in your imagination. I see I have given you far too much credit to being interested in an worthwhile conversation about this subject. 

What made that statement so ridiculous is that they do support an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source. What do you think solar power is? It's you who has such a low and disparaging opinion of it.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

What made that statement so ridiculous is that they do support an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source. What do you think solar power is? It's you who has such a low and disparaging opinion of it.

Come on, solar energy is not free. If it were, it wouldn't require such huge subsidies. Just because the energy source is free, that doesn't mean the energy we can make from it is free. I think most people grasped that one quite a while ago.

 

Nor is it clean; the manufacture of solar panels is a thoroughly dirty process, and the panels themselves degrade quickly.

 

I have a very high opinion of solar power; if it were economic to do it on my own property, I would invest in it immediately.

 

But as a practical alternative to fossil fuels as a stable, reliable, large-scale and cost-effective energy source to power an advanced economy, it is a non-starter.

 

Technology improves rapidly, and maybe one day we will figure out how to make it work. If that happens, I'll be the first to cheer, as a good "socialist denialist".

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Come on, solar energy is not free. If it were, it wouldn't require such huge subsidies. Just because the energy source is free, that doesn't mean the energy we can make from it is free. I think most people grasped that one quite a while ago.

 

Nor is it clean; the manufacture of solar panels is a thoroughly dirty process, and the panels themselves degrade quickly.

 

I have a very high opinion of solar power; if it were economic to do it on my own property, I would invest in it immediately.

 

But as a practical alternative to fossil fuels as a stable, reliable, large-scale and cost-effective energy source to power an advanced economy, it is a non-starter.

 

Technology improves rapidly, and maybe one day we will figure out how to make it work. If that happens, I'll be the first to cheer, as a good "socialist denialist".

Where have you been for the last 10 years? Solar no longer requires huge subsidies. Or any at all.

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

You asked me for a plan to show how renewables can power an economy. I provide a link. You make the false claim that energy storage systems required for such a plan are somewhere in the future even though lithium batteries' average price is already below that specified threshold of $150 per kwh. And there are other battery systems such as zinc air the cost of which are much lower. ANd more technology is on the way soon. Not the distant future. Solid state batteries are beginning to be manufactured. Serious capitalists are investing billions of dollars in these technologies. Do you think that they haven't done due diligence?  All you do is repeat the same assertions about renewables despite recent and not so recent facts to the contrary.

 

[placeholder]

On 3/19/2021 at 10:50 AM, placeholder said:

I did wonder about that statement and started to read the report to see in what context it was said. I haven't found it in the introduction or the conclusion. 

That said it's obvious that increasing heat and rising seas will have a disproportionately deleterious effect on those nations that can afford it least.

I did a follow up on that apparently anomalous conclusion of the report and got in touch with Reuters. They got back to me and said actually that this passage 

 

"There are caveats, there are no scientifically credible quantitative estimates of how climate change will impact social and political factors," the paper said. "Thus, our findings should be considered as conservative."

 

was not part of the report but rather of an accompanying press release.

I checked the article to see if any correction was made and so far not. So I've sent them another email asking why not.

Edited March 26, 2021 by placeholder

[RickBradford]

I have no desire to bust your delusions, but whatever those climate experts over at Vox say, the fact is that there is no major economy in the world that is anywhere near making solar power a core element of its energy strategy.

 

In fact, I doubt there is any major economy where solar makes up more than 10% of the the overall power consumption. It is boutique power; nice to talk about but fairly trivial.

 

I know the Green/Left likes easy solutions, but the real world requires addressing real problems, and the way things are going, solar just ain't making it.

 

I hope that somebody cracks the problem before we all start to go extinct in 2030, but I'm not optimistic.

[BritManToo]

52 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I have a very high opinion of solar power; if it were economic to do it on my own property, I would invest in it immediately.

Half my household electricity is supplied by 5x solar panels in my back garden.

And I don't even believe in climate change, but it saves me $$$$$$$s.

My electricity bill for a 3 bedroom house is between 600bht and 800bht a month.

Can't get much greener than that!

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I have no desire to bust your delusions, but whatever those climate experts over at Vox say, the fact is that there is no major economy in the world that is anywhere near making solar power a core element of its energy strategy.

 

In fact, I doubt there is any major economy where solar makes up more than 10% of the the overall power consumption. It is boutique power; nice to talk about but fairly trivial.

 

I know the Green/Left likes easy solutions, but the real world requires addressing real problems, and the way things are going, solar just ain't making it.

 

I hope that somebody cracks the problem before we all start to go extinct in 2030, but I'm not optimistic.

They were explaining a report from M.I.T. So no, it's not the climate experts at Vox responsible for the report. And you're the one who asked for a plan and now you're running it down with no specifics at all.

As for solar polar (why do you exclude wind power?) do you understand what geometric growth is? At what rate do you think solar power is growing in the usa on a yearly basis.  And of course, the very cheap price of solar is not going to be an inducement for capitalists to add a lot more of it.

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Half my household electricity is supplied by 5x solar panels in my back garden.

And I don't even believe in climate change, but it saves me $$$$$$$s.

My electricity bill for a 3 bedroom house is between 600bht and 800bht a month.

Can't get much greener than that!

What did it cost to install? Do you have A/C?

[RickBradford]

59 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They were explaining a report from M.I.T.

Then why not link to the report itself?

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

As for solar polar

I assume you mean 'polar solar', in which case, that strikes me as a sub-optimal solution. It is generally better to site solar energy factories near the equator, where the ambient energy is more abundant.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

do you understand what geometric growth is?

Very well. What does that have to do with renewable energy?

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And of course, the very cheap price of solar is not going to be an inducement for capitalists to add a lot more of it.

I'm not sure that's the case. Capitalists will invest in anything they think they can make a dollar out of.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Then why not link to the report itself?

 

I assume you mean 'polar solar', in which case, that strikes me as a sub-optimal solution. It is generally better to site solar energy factories near the equator, where the ambient energy is more abundant.

 

Very well. What does that have to do with renewable energy?

 

I'm not sure that's the case. Capitalists will invest in anything they think they can make a dollar out of.

It's clear you didn't read the article since you credited the plan to its authors. So sSince you didn't read the article why would you read the original report?

 

Actually, I meant solar power. But your assertion about location is not quite correct. Solar cells perform better in cooler ambient conditions so there's a tradeoff. Anyway they make economic sense well to the north. Here's an article that says they make economic sense even into southern canada. A lot depends on the cost of electricity from the power company.

https://solar.gwu.edu/does-solar-make-sense-northern-states

 

Geometric growth vs. arithmetical growth. Solar and wind are growing in use by leaps and bounds in the USA. 

"Combined, net electrical generation by wind and solar is 16.4% greater than one year ago and provided a bit more than 12.5% of total U.S. electrical production during the first six months of 2020. 

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/08/u-s-solar-and-wind-generation-grows-16-over-last-year-far-outpacing-coal-and-nuclear/

 

And in the UK...

 

"In the third quarter of 2019, some 39% of UK electricity generation was from coal, oil and gas, including 38% from gas and less than 1% from coal and oil combined.

Another 40% came from renewables, including 20% from wind, 12% from biomass and 6% from solar. Nuclear contributed most of the remainder, generating 19% of the total.

While it is unlikely that renewables will generate more electricity than fossil fuels during the full year of 2019, it is now a question of when – rather than if – this further milestone will be passed.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time

 

Huge amounts of cash are being invested in them. Worldwide there's more new investment in renewables than there is in fossil fuel plants and it's been that way for the past 10 years at least. What's more what those investment don't show, is how much more power a dollar or pound spent in 2020 on renewables buys than it did in 2010.

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2020/power-sector

 

 

[gunderhill]

Meanwhile about those rising seas https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, gunderhill said:

Meanwhile about those rising seas https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/

This prediction was made by Maldive government officials. Not by scientists.

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, gunderhill said:

Meanwhile about those rising seas https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/

A warning by the government, not a prediction, let alone a scientific prediction.

 

But if you were right that 30 years ago someone was wrong with this warning, let's do nothing, continue on the path we're on until it is too late.

[fredwiggy]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

This prediction was made by Maldive government officials. Not by scientists.

The link I provided was from the National Ocean Service.  NOAA  The ones that do the research and have been for years. Not guesses by a local scientist or arm chair quarterbacks   https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

The link I provided was from the National Ocean Service.  NOAA  The ones that do the research and have been for years. Not guesses by a local scientist or arm chair quarterbacks   https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

I don't see any reference in the linked article to the Maldives.

[RickBradford]

 

26 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A warning by the government, not a prediction, let alone a scientific prediction.

In other words, exactly the same level of analysis that we are obliged to listen to incessantly from Greta Thunberg as she advises the Pope, and then harangues the UN Climate Action Summit, the US Congress, the European Parliament and the UK Parliament.

 

Except she doesn't have any data to back her up; the Maldives researchers have 30 years of it.

[mogandave]

On 3/26/2021 at 6:15 AM, placeholder said:

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

 

Yes, the old deflection dodge...

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

In other words, exactly the same level of analysis that we are obliged to listen to incessantly from Greta Thunberg as she advises the Pope, and then harangues the UN Climate Action Summit, the US Congress, the European Parliament and the UK Parliament.

 

Except she doesn't have any data to back her up; the Maldives researchers have 30 years of it.

Except that Greta doesn't do her own predictions, she says 'listen to science'. But yes, I do agree she is the one asking, or begging, for attention  to the worlds biggest problem, a problem that really needs foresight, so good governance.