Climate Change

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Many houses are now installed with solar panels and batteries that provide more electricity to the grid that they use,...

During the day

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

...to the extent that early subsides for feeding the grid have been cancelled.   

They should never have been subsidized

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Local panels and storage also obviates the need for distribution which is why utilities gold plated the distribution grid when they saw that coming and charge consumers for it.

I do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that people not connected to the grid have to pay for the gold plating on the grid? 

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

During the day

Batteries.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They should never have been subsidized

The subsidies created rapid uptake which reduced prices and contributed to greater acceptance. CO2 emissions have benefited.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that people not connected to the grid have to pay for the gold plating on the grid? 

Everyone is connected to the grid in cities whether or not they have solar panels and batteries. The electricity rates they pay reflect the cost of wasting that money on distribution rather than encouraging people to install batteries which they could use for off peak consumption even without solar panels.

 

[Bday Prang]

22 hours ago, markclover said:

The climate change propaganda is just a way to shift the power away from the third world dictators and get everyone to drive electric cars. 

 

Africa was a desert long before humans.  Does that mean the dinosaurs did climate change as well?

I doubt it will be electric cars for all, just the elite, the rest  will be walking

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Batteries.

You said: "Many houses are now installed with solar panels and batteries that provide more electricity to the grid that they use,..."

Again, only during the day

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The subsidies created rapid uptake which reduced prices and contributed to greater acceptance. CO2 emissions have benefited.

Actually, the subsidies increased prices, but yes, CO2 was reduced. 

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Everyone is connected to the grid in cities whether or not they have solar panels and batteries.

Yes

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The electricity rates they pay reflect the cost of wasting that money on distribution rather than encouraging people to install batteries which they could use for off peak consumption even without solar panels.

Do you mean that they don't get paid for the electricity that goes back into the grid? I think the reason is that when the sun is shining, the grid already has an abundance of solar energy. 

 

I thought you said: "Many houses are now installed with solar panels and batteries that provide more electricity to the grid that they use,..."  which would imply they already had batteries, yes? In any event, there is nothing stopping them from buying more batteries is there? 

[rose33]

On 3/25/2023 at 6:45 AM, Menken said:

Population is peaking 9B and will decline back to less than where we are now.

 

My guess is fertility rates in N. America, EU and East Asia are plummeting. Many countries already offer substantial tax benefits for having children.

If western governments are promoting a green agenda, i.e., taxing petrol cars, plane travel, etc, then surely, following the same logic, there should be a tax benefit to those NOT becoming parents during their fertile years.

 

(The No Baby Bonus)

 

Slightly unequal outcomes, though, as women would get paid out at proven menopause, whereas men could only receive posthumously (and, by definition, would have no offspring to inherit). Perhaps could roll over the income tax credits and donate to a charity organisation of their choice.

 

A further benefit of reducing the birth rate in the west, would be more housing and opportunities for new migrants.

 

Note that a carbon tax should not be imposed on population growth caused by net immigration, as that would be racist / exploitative.

 

 

[Misab]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Fukushima. Nuclear waste storage. Ukraine. What's so amazing?

The one I linked to can not be compared to Fukushima these are small nuclear units and much safer. They will most likely be the future energy source

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Misab said:

The one I linked to can not be compared to Fukushima these are small nuclear units and much safer. They will most likely be the future energy source

They will be used much more but I doubt they will replace solar energy. My comment was in response to the current forms of larger nuclear reactors. Solar will continue to get cheaper and has the advantage of lower distribution costs (virtually none).

[Misab]

42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They will be used much more but I doubt they will replace solar energy. My comment was in response to the current forms of larger nuclear reactors. Solar will continue to get cheaper and has the advantage of lower distribution costs (virtually none).

 

43 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They will be used much more but I doubt they will replace solar energy. My comment was in response to the current forms of larger nuclear reactors. Solar will continue to get cheaper and has the advantage of lower distribution costs (virtually none).

Solar energy and Wind energy are absolutely number 1. But Solar is only efficient in day time.  We need to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and small Nuclear plants could be a solution. I know there is still the problem with waste. But as I heard someone say:  There are no problems only solutions ????

 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

They will be used much more but I doubt they will replace solar energy. My comment was in response to the current forms of larger nuclear reactors. Solar will continue to get cheaper and has the advantage of lower distribution costs (virtually none).

By no distribution cost you mean the power generated is used at the location of the installation, correct? Installing panels on one's roof can make a lot of sense depending on the payback period. Guys that do it themselves here often get payback in as little as as three years or even less. 

 

We hear a lot about how the cost will keep coming down, but people making the claim like to use computer chips and whatnot as a comparison. 

 

Chips are not a good comparison, as chip costs are primary process-intense, while panel (and battery) costs are primarily material-intense, so unless we have reason to believe the cost of materials will come down significantly, I don't think we will continue to see significantly lower cost with panels. With batteries perhaps. 

 

Also compare the logistical cost of panels and batteries with chips. You can airfreight a million dollars' worth of chips in a medium sized box. 

 

[JackGats]

+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.

 

Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Misab said:

 

Solar energy and Wind energy are absolutely number 1. But Solar is only efficient in day time.  We need to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and small Nuclear plants could be a solution. I know there is still the problem with waste. But as I heard someone say:  There are no problems only solutions ????

 

Solar goes off every night, and sometimes for a week at a time. Wind can be very unpredictable, and it is never really constant. When wind and solar are used, you have to have enough generating capacity take their place, which means you have to have 100% of your capacity fossil-fuel or nuclear, to back them up. 

 

Betting that some point in the future New York city is going to run on batteries fora week might not be that smart. 

 

 

[Misab]

20 hours ago, JackGats said:

+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.

 

Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).

Wow, you really see the big problems ????  Seriously, plastic waste is a huge problem when it ends up in the ocean, so is CO2, because 1/4 of that ends up in the ocean too and causes the PH to drop, and slowly makes the water more acid, it's one of the reasons our corals are dying. We get 70% of our oxygen from the sea. But never before have we polluted it as much as we do now.

 

 

[Misab]

5 minutes ago, Misab said:

Wow, you really see the big problems ????  Seriously, plastic waste is a huge problem when it ends up in the ocean, so is CO2, because 1/4 of that ends up in the ocean too and causes the PH to drop, and slowly makes the water more acid, it's one of the reasons our corals are dying. We get 70% of our oxygen from the sea. But never before have we polluted it as much as we do now.

 

 

should also mention that many rivers in Asia send plastic and other waste directly into the oceans, and have done so for decades. According to "ourworld¬indata.org/ocean-plastics", 81% of all plastic in the world's oceans comes from the rivers of Asia, of which approximately 1/3 comes from the Philippines

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, Misab said:

should also mention that many rivers in Asia send plastic and other waste directly into the oceans, and have done so for decades. According to "ourworld¬indata.org/ocean-plastics", 81% of all plastic in the world's oceans comes from the rivers of Asia, of which approximately 1/3 comes from the Philippines

Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe? 

 

Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.

 

Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.

https://www.trvst.world/waste-recycling/which-countries-buy-garbage-a-look-at-global-waste-trading/#:~:text=China was the largest importer,33 million tonnes in 2021.

[LosLobo]

On 3/29/2023 at 2:28 PM, JackGats said:

+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.

 

Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).

If you are suggesting that the world's colder regions will become habitable this may not be necessarily true.

 

If permafrost melts there may be emergent biogeochemical risks from  permafrost degradation and the land may become unusable.

 

This is now happening in parts of Russia like Siberia and will soon become problematic. 

 

An isolated Russia will not be able to solve the issue alone without Western expertise.

 

Emergent biogeochemical risks from Arctic permafrost degradation | Nature Climate Change

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by LosLobo

[placeholder]

On 3/29/2023 at 10:54 AM, Yellowtail said:

By no distribution cost you mean the power generated is used at the location of the installation, correct? Installing panels on one's roof can make a lot of sense depending on the payback period. Guys that do it themselves here often get payback in as little as as three years or even less. 

 

We hear a lot about how the cost will keep coming down, but people making the claim like to use computer chips and whatnot as a comparison. 

 

Chips are not a good comparison, as chip costs are primary process-intense, while panel (and battery) costs are primarily material-intense, so unless we have reason to believe the cost of materials will come down significantly, I don't think we will continue to see significantly lower cost with panels. With batteries perhaps. 

 

Also compare the logistical cost of panels and batteries with chips. You can airfreight a million dollars' worth of chips in a medium sized box. 

 

First, here is a record of how much costs have declined

Today, solar panels are 94% cheaper than they were in 1989. As the production and energy-generating capacity of solar panels has improved over the last few decades, the cost has dropped significantly.

This is a quintessential example of economies of scale in manufacturing. Dating back even further to the mid-1970s, every time the global cumulative capacity of photovoltaic cells doubled, prices saw the same relative decline, according to cost and capacity data analyzed by Our World in Data.

https://www.rocketsolar.com/learn/energy-efficiency/how-cost-solar-panels-has-fallen

In a way, it's true but only because the cost per kwh is already exceedingly close to zero. Less than 50 cents per kwh.

And you seem to be making the assumption that the only kind of PVs are silicon based. Other non-silicon based technologies are being developed such as perovskites that can be sprayed on a window at a further reduction in cost.

 

[Misab]

20 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe? 

 

Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.

 

Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.

https://www.trvst.world/waste-recycling/which-countries-buy-garbage-a-look-at-global-waste-trading/#:~:text=China was the largest importer,33 million tonnes in 2021.

I am familiar with the import problem. What I'm talking about here is what comes from the rivers. The culture needs to be changed; I hope the Asian countries have started information in the schools.

 

No country should be allowed to export there garbage.

[Yellowtail]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:15 PM, placeholder said:

First, here is a record of how much costs have declined

Today, solar panels are 94% cheaper than they were in 1989. As the production and energy-generating capacity of solar panels has improved over the last few decades, the cost has dropped significantly.

This is a quintessential example of economies of scale in manufacturing. Dating back even further to the mid-1970s, every time the global cumulative capacity of photovoltaic cells doubled, prices saw the same relative decline, according to cost and capacity data analyzed by Our World in Data.

https://www.rocketsolar.com/learn/energy-efficiency/how-cost-solar-panels-has-fallen

In a way, it's true but only because the cost per kwh is already exceedingly close to zero. Less than 50 cents per kwh.

And you seem to be making the assumption that the only kind of PVs are silicon based. Other non-silicon based technologies are being developed such as perovskites that can be sprayed on a window at a further reduction in cost.

 

If you take an honest look at the curve of your graph, it supports my position.

 

Look at computer costs, The cost comes down exponentially at first, and then levels out. A computer today, costs about the same (or more) as a computer costed ten years ago, and they are just not that much better. 

 

We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day. 

 

Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window. 

 

 

 

 

[BritManToo]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If you take an honest look at the curve of your graph, it supports my position.

 

Look at computer costs, The cost comes down exponentially at first, and then levels out. A computer today, costs about the same (or more) as a computer costed ten years ago, and they are just not that much better. 

 

We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day. 

 

Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window. 

Would point out Solar Panels are 25% more expensive than 2 years back.

[KhunLA]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day. 

 

Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window. 

Solar is great and one of the best investments I've made in a long time, and I've been on a roll lately, so that's saying a lot.

 

I don't consider nuclear an eco friendly energy at all.  

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Solar is great and one of the best investments I've made in a long time, and I've been on a roll lately, so that's saying a lot.

 

I don't consider nuclear an eco friendly energy at all.  

Why do you not consider nuclear eco friendly?  

[Isaan sailor]

Let me know when China, India and poor countries significantly reduce carbon emissions.  Nothing will change until that happens.

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Let me know when China, India and poor countries significantly reduce carbon emissions.  Nothing will change until that happens.

The change is already happening.

[Misab]

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

If you take an honest look at the curve of your graph, it supports my position.

 

Look at computer costs, The cost comes down exponentially at first, and then levels out. A computer today, costs about the same (or more) as a computer costed ten years ago, and they are just not that much better. 

 

We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day. 

 

Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window. 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you and yes, nuclear is clearly a much safer bet  for an alternative energy source. 

 

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why do you not consider nuclear eco friendly?  

1. Not a renewable source of energy.

2. Still no real solution, what to do with spent fuel rod.

 

Aside from being massively expensive to build & maintain & dispose of.   As proven in the past, humans can't be trusted when accidents happen.  And they have, and will continue to kill people.

 

Only thing you can say good about nuclear, is it's better than fossil fueled energy, which is estimated to kill 4-5-6-7-8+ million a year, every year.

 

Hmm ... about the same number, maybe more than covid killed, but not a headliner.  Go figure.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research

Edited April 2, 2023 by KhunLA

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

1. Not a renewable source of energy.

Nor are solar panels.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

2. Still no real solution, what to do with spent fuel rod.

Not true, disposal has been safely managed for decades. 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Aside from being massively expensive to build & maintain & dispose of.   As proven in the past, humans can't be trusted when accidents happen.  And they have, and will continue to kill people.

The cost has come down significantly, and the dangers/deaths are significantly exaggerated.  Everything kills people. 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Only thing you can say good about nuclear, is it's better than fossil fueled energy, which is estimated to kill 4-5-6-7-8+ million a year, every year.

 

Hmm ... about the same number, maybe more than covid killed, but not a headliner.  Go figure.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-fuels-pollution-deaths-research

That's hilarious, that people actually buy in even more so. 

 

How many dead if we turned off all the fossil fuel plants? 

[KhunLA]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How many dead if we turned off all the fossil fuel plants? 

They've had decades to develop and build alternative, safe, renewable sources of energy  ....   and we all knw why they haven't.

 

Everyone cries about MMGW/CC, but few do anything about it, just continue to cower & comply as they are told.

 

Embarrassing actually ... ????

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

They've had decades to develop and build alternative, safe, renewable sources of energy  ....   and we all knw why they haven't.

They? 

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Everyone cries about MMGW/CC, but few do anything about it, just continue to cower & comply as they are told.

You have a SBEV and a bunch of solar panels you love, only because people are doing something about it. 

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Embarrassing actually ... ????

Indeed

[Misab]

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

They've had decades to develop and build alternative, safe, renewable sources of energy  ....   and we all knw why they haven't.

 

Everyone cries about MMGW/CC, but few do anything about it, just continue to cower & comply as they are told.

 

Embarrassing actually ... ????

How many dead if we turned off all the fossil fuel plants? 

 

My answer is, not as many as if we don't turn off fossil fuels plants.

[placeholder]

On 3/28/2023 at 8:53 PM, Yellowtail said:

What does who's doing the distracting now mean? I thought we were trying to have a discussion. 

 

I ignored the point because to respond to it would require an example, which we all know is virtually impossible to get around here. 

 

But to be clear, I generally support make companies clean up their messes. But I do not agree that companies that were operating legally and under what was acceptable regulation fifty years ago should be made to meet new regulations. 

 

So, smog should continue to blanket cities, coal plant emissions should continue to destroy forests, crops, and spread neurotoxic mercury into the atmosphere? And rivers should still be fouled by pollution? Gasoline should contine to contain toxic lead?Because 50 years ago it was permissible? You really want to go with that?