Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Eleftheros]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Please give an example of our political overlords responding to global warming with an act that made things worse.

Proposing to eliminate fossil fuels within a short timeframe has already caused massive negative consequences.

 

Apart from the ruinous "green" taxes which every Western consumer - and business - is forced to pay, or the vast amounts of taxpayer money thrown away on "climate finance", there is also the halt by banks to provide funds for power plants - especially in Africa - which would help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

 

It is a characteristic of the radical Green/Left; they love the planet, but hate people.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You're confusing me.  It was Global Warming but that was changed to Climate Change when global warming was shown not to be happening.  They changed it so that Climate Change could mean damn near anything anyone wanted.  Too much hot weather is due Climate Change.  Too much cold weather is due to Climate Change.  Too much rain is due to Climate Change.  Drought is due to Climate Change.  Disease is due to Climate Change.  Forest fires, especially Maui, are due to Climate Change.  Hurricanes off LA are due to Climate Change.  My failed marriage is due to Climate Change.  When did it get changed back?  Global Warming is such a limited concept.

There are many aspects to whatever you want to call it today.  The fact that articles, such as the OP, use consensus abundantly makes it part of the Climate Change issue.  Not the nitty gritty "science" aspects of it but it's directly related via it's inference that consensus amongst scientists makes it all true.  It's a centerpiece of the claim that "the science is settled."

Ah, your just pulling my leg and I fell for it by replying. 

Climate change is a term coined by Republican pollster Frank Luntz while working for John McCain's presidential campaign. It has worked its way into scientific papers and common usage.

 

I am sorry this confuses you.

 

 

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Proposing to eliminate fossil fuels within a short timeframe has already caused massive negative consequences.

 

Apart from the ruinous "green" taxes which every Western consumer - and business - is forced to pay, or the vast amounts of taxpayer money thrown away on "climate finance", there is also the halt by banks to provide funds for power plants - especially in Africa - which would help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

 

It is a characteristic of the radical Green/Left; they love the planet, but hate people.

What green taxes am I paying?

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports this? 

 

 

My personal experience. I own a table grape vineyard in SoCal.

 

Interestingly, during the time of Cesar Chavez (50 years ago), the harvest started in late June and ended in July. Now it ends by Memorial Day (end of May). Climate change has had a big impact on the industry.

 

 

[Danderman123]

14 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

there is also the halt by banks to provide funds for power plants - especially in Africa - which would help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

 

It is a characteristic of the radical Green/Left; they love the planet, but hate people.

China has pledged to stop funding oil and coal power plants abroad. The plan is to use photovoltaics instead, which are better suited for people who don't have access to power grids anyway.

 

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

My personal experience. I own a table grape vineyard in SoCal.

 

Interestingly, during the time of Cesar Chavez, the harvest started in late June and ended in July. Now it ends by Memorial Day (end of May). Climate change has had a big impact on the industry.

 

 

So, you made it up, thanks. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

China has pledged to stop funding oil and coal power plants abroad. The plan is to use photovoltaics instead, which are better suited for people who don't have access to power grids anyway.

 

The key word being "pledged". 

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

My personal experience. I own a table grape vineyard in SoCal.

 

Interestingly, during the time of Cesar Chavez (50 years ago), the harvest started in late June and ended in July. Now it ends by Memorial Day (end of May). Climate change has had a big impact on the industry.

 

 

Indeed a huge impact on wine in Cal

 

Climate Change Forces California Winemakers to Reconsider What Grapes Grow Where

 

How rising temperatures are altering Napa's wine-growing season

winemakers from Bordeaux to California are struggling

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Indeed a huge impact on wine in Cal

 

Climate Change Forces California Winemakers to Reconsider What Grapes Grow Where

 

How rising temperatures are altering Napa's wine-growing season

winemakers from Bordeaux to California are struggling

He said table grapes, not wine grapes.

[Eleftheros]

18 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

China has pledged to stop funding oil and coal power plants abroad. The plan is to use photovoltaics instead, which are better suited for people who don't have access to power grids anyway.

I see your point.

 

We have reliable electrical power, we're all right. Why should we let those backward peasants in the Third World have access to reliable power?

 

Yup, the Green fanatics love the planet, and hate the people.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He said table grapes, not wine grapes.

The impact of climate change on grape yields: Evidence from Australia
 

 

You don't think it affects all grapes in just about every country whether its for wine or the table? In some area's it will have a positive effect in others it can lead far lower yields

[candide]

39 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Proposing to eliminate fossil fuels within a short timeframe has already caused massive negative consequences.

 

Apart from the ruinous "green" taxes which every Western consumer - and business - is forced to pay, or the vast amounts of taxpayer money thrown away on "climate finance", there is also the halt by banks to provide funds for power plants - especially in Africa - which would help lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

 

It is a characteristic of the radical Green/Left; they love the planet, but hate people.

And It's not like so-called green technologies would ever be useful in Africa. For example, the most appropriate situation for using photovoltaic  energy would be a lot of sun, combined with a low density of traditional electricity distribution networks. That's surely not the case in Africa!

Oh wait! ????

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I see your point.

 

We have reliable electrical power, we're all right. Why should we let those backward peasants in the Third World have access to reliable power?

 

Yup, the Green fanatics love the planet, and hate the people.

No its not that. For instance South Africa relies on coal fired plants heavily, however most are old and not functioning well. Even now there is not enough to keep the lights on.

 

Replacing them with renewable solutions require less than 2-year build time (coal requires 10-12 years).

[geisha]

On 7/28/2023 at 3:31 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

The facts debunk this report as false... the 1930's were far hotter... the 1970's were far cooler... 

France , yesterday 39c, today 42c + . The hottest in history.  The heatwave has lasted 15 days now.

same in Spain, Greece , Italy and elsewhere in EU, hence the fires blazing and hundreds if not thousands of deaths. In the heat wave of 2003 in France, 15 000 people died. Enough ??

[candide]

31 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I see your point.

 

We have reliable electrical power, we're all right. Why should we let those backward peasants in the Third World have access to reliable power?

 

Yup, the Green fanatics love the planet, and hate the people.

What is your evidence that developing countries such as in Africa are going to be deprived from increased access to energy (all sources)?

[Danderman123]

54 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Indeed a huge impact on wine in Cal

 

Climate Change Forces California Winemakers to Reconsider What Grapes Grow Where

 

How rising temperatures are altering Napa's wine-growing season

winemakers from Bordeaux to California are struggling

Wine grapes are more tolerant of climate changes than table grapes, if only for the reason that a bad bunch gets assimilated by all the good grapes in the vat, whereas a bad bunch of table grapes can't be hidden.

 

So, table grapes must basically be perfect to be commercially viable, and climate change can ruin an entire industry in a region.

 

I don't have any personal experience on the impact of climate change on wine grapes.

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

What is your evidence that developing countries such as in Africa are going to be deprived from increased access to energy (all sources)?

They already are deprived of increased access to the only reliable large-scale energy source, which is currently fossil fuels.

 

The G20 countries pledged in 2021 to halt all financing for coal projects, and later that year the ban was extended to "all fossil fuel projects" overseas.

 

Where do you think developing countries get their funds from?

 

Instead, political posturing goes hand-in-hand with deliberately denying economic opportunities to the most needy.

[Danderman123]

43 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I see your point.

 

We have reliable electrical power, we're all right. Why should we let those backward peasants in the Third World have access to reliable power?

 

Yup, the Green fanatics love the planet, and hate the people.

The point is that oil and coal power plants may not work for the poor in Africa who are currently living off-grid. Solar may be their only viable option.

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

They already are deprived of increased access to the only reliable large-scale energy source, which is currently fossil fuels.

 

The G20 countries pledged in 2021 to halt all financing for coal projects, and later that year the ban was extended to "all fossil fuel projects" overseas.

 

Where do you think developing countries get their funds from?

 

Instead, political posturing goes hand-in-hand with deliberately denying economic opportunities to the most needy.

Where do you think developing countries get their funds from?

 

The World Bank. 

 

Factsheet: Eskom Just Energy Transition Project in South Africa

The Eskom Just Energy Transition Project (EJETP) is a $497 million project approved by the World Bank Group in November 2022 at the request of the Government of South Africa. It will support its public energy utility, Eskom, to decommission the 56-year-old Komati coal-fired power plant, repurpose the project area with renewable energy and batteries, and create opportunities for workers and communities. If successful, the project could provide a blueprint for a just energy transition in South Africa and beyond.

 

And also those countries that stop providing for coal plants they instead provide for renewables.

 

"By bringing together richer donor countries with poorer nations that receive international financial support, the COP26 deal aims to build a consensus among nations to stop backing polluting projects and instead support clean energy both to curb emissions and to avoid building stranded assets."

 

[candide]

23 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

They already are deprived of increased access to the only reliable large-scale energy source, which is currently fossil fuels.

 

The G20 countries pledged in 2021 to halt all financing for coal projects, and later that year the ban was extended to "all fossil fuel projects" overseas.

 

Where do you think developing countries get their funds from?

 

Instead, political posturing goes hand-in-hand with deliberately denying economic opportunities to the most needy.

Thank you for the source. However, it doesn't mean they would not have increased access to other sources.

Also (from your source), "That would cover coal, oil and gas projects that are "unabated" - meaning that they burn fossil fuels without using technology to capture the resulting CO2 emissions."

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Dude said table grapes in Southern California, not wine grapes or grapes in Australia. He made it up, which is why he is not able to support it.

 

The table grapes in California were devastated more by boneheaded state water management than anything. 

Really? Are you a grower yourself? He is:

 

27 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Wine grapes are more tolerant of climate changes than table grapes, if only for the reason that a bad bunch gets assimilated by all the good grapes in the vat, whereas a bad bunch of table grapes can't be hidden.

 

So, table grapes must basically be perfect to be commercially viable, and climate change can ruin an entire industry in a region.

 

I don't have any personal experience on the impact of climate change on wine grapes.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Climate change is a term coined by Republican pollster Frank Luntz while working for John McCain's presidential campaign. It has worked its way into scientific papers and common usage.

 

I am sorry this confuses you.

I thought liberals didn't post anything until it was fact checked.

 

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

3 National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

What else might you be wrong about?  I shudder to think. 

[Tippaporn]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The point is that oil and coal power plants may not work for the poor in Africa who are currently living off-grid. Solar may be their only viable option.

Works for everyone else.  Just not the Africans.  Stunning logic. 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks you for that admission, placeholder.  Truly.  And I am not at all being facetious.

Let me ask you this question.  Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned?  Any such instance you can find would serve as a poster child example of why consensus, or agreement, no matter the degree of it, does not make something true.  Or false.  Only proof can do this.  And even then it will always be open to the possibility that one day it may be disproved.  That is the true nature of science.  Science is not about "Hey, everybody, here's what we found to be true so everybody else shut the f up."  That is what we have here on this thread now.

Another question.  Is that what you want to be part of?

The reason I have so focused on consensus is, as I've stated several times, it is used maliciously and deceptively to give the illusion to an ill-informed and thus susceptible public that consensus makes something true.  It affords the ability to create studies about this, that, and the other - on any issue someone may wish to benefit from - tout the consensus line that "the majority of scientists agree" and thus God has spoken.  Once God has spoken then anyone who speaks against God is a heretic, an idiot - you're well aware of what is done to dissenters so I don't have to make a complete list.  And then the policy makers take over to implement exactly what they want to do.  And they have "the science" to back them.

Now I wish we lived in a world in which devious people did not exist.  But ours is not such a world  So I do not fool myself in the least and therefore look with a very discerning eye whenever policies are driven and backed by "science."  Especially . . . especially when you are not allowed to even question the "science."  Now either I'm conspiratorial or I'm just making an accurate assessment of the real world but I have noticed that there are great sums of money involved in all issues.  Climate change is most certainly, most definitely one of those issues.

Eleftheros gets it.  Many others here get it, too.

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

There's a big and obvious problem with your claim about earlier science being overturned.. Take physics. Newtonian physics until maybe a 125 years ago, used to considered a complete explanation of much of physics. But as evidence began to pour phenomenon that Newtonian physics couldn't explain, along came relativity theory and quantum theory. The thing is they could explain phenomena that Newtonian physics couldn't. 

But where are the hypotheses that could replace current theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change?  Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT came up with the IRIS hypothesis that would prove that greenhouse gasses weren't going to create warming. Something to do with the feedback thinning of stratospheric clouds that ordinarily reflected back heat. It failed. Then there was Valentina Zharkova. She came up with an hypothesis that irregularities in the earth's orbit were responsible for the current rapid rate of climate change. It turned out she forgot to account for the earth's gravity in her calculations. She failed, too.

So far, no one has come up with an hypothesis that predicts as well as  the Theory of ACC predicts the current bout of rapid climate change.

Get back to me on this when someone comes up with a better predictive hypothesis than the current theory.

To recur to relativity theory and quantum theory. No one doubts that they are the best we have so far. Also, no one doubts that the 2 currently haven't been reconciled. In certain spheres each one rules the other one out. But they're the best we have. Are you going to claim that because these 2 theories contradict each other that they don't have astonishing predictive power? And even Newtonian theory, which was superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics. is still amazingly accurate. So accurate, in fact, that it can set a course for a spaceship to rendezvous with Pluto. Is there some kind of scientific fraud at work because Relativity and Quantum Theory  haven't yet been reconciled within a broader theory? That someday a new theory will reconcile them?

You and those who share your beliefs who think that your stance is analogous to that of Copernicus, are actually on the side of Ptolemy.  You think you're on the side of Darwin, but actually on the side of religious fundamentalists.  In short, you're reactionaries.  As Thomas Kuhn noted in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the old guards of science, whether they were physicists opposed to Relativity Theory, or those opposed to the Theory of ACC have to fully pass away before the revolution is complete. The current Theory of ACC is still a young science. And the revolution still isn't quite complete.

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I thought liberals didn't post anything until it was fact checked.

 

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

3 National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

What else might you be wrong about?  I shudder to think. 

Well, if he's wrong, he's in good company. This is from The Times. You know, the company that had to retract its Climategate allegation and acknowledge it was false:

https://archive.ph/HtZZw

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frank-luntz-the-man-who-came-up-with-climate-change-and-regrets-it-6v6pp00pc

And, of course, this issue has nothing to do with the science. 

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If successful, the project could provide a blueprint for a just energy transition in South Africa and beyond.

Unfortunately your energy bills will be unaffordable.

Many agree more renewable energy is indeed worth striving for. But there are barriers stopping more renewable energy from being produced. One of those major barriers is cost. According to a U.S.-based organization, the bulk of renewable energy costs come from building the technology in the first place. A new natural gas plant might have costs around $1,000/kW (kilowatts are a measure of power capacity). While the average cost to install a solar system ranges from $2,000/kW to almost $3,700 for residential systems. Wind costs around $1,200 to $1,700/kW, according to the organization. Cost is also an issue when it comes to transmission of the electricity—the power lines and infrastructure needed to move electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s consumed. Wind and solar farms aren’t all sited near old non-renewable power plants. This means that new systems need to be set up. Other barriers to renewable energy include market entry and political/government support.

https://naturespath.com/blogs/posts/cost-renewable-energy-versus-fossil-fuels

 

In case anyone's thinking that their energy cost will be kept affordable via government grants and subsidies best keep in mind that any government grants and subsides come from tax dollars.  As your energy costs go down via grants and subsidies your taxes go up in a revised version of stealing from Peter to pay Paul.  In this version it's stealing from Peter to pay Peter.  I know it doesn't make sense but it does to politicians

Also keep in mind that green energy such as solar and wind is intermittent, which means that service would be non-existent if no sun or wind.  That would not work for businesses which require round the clock service.  To fill the gap energy must then be stored, another huge and costly expense.

1. The 2020 Cost and Performance Assessment provided installed costs for six energy storage technologies: lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, lead-acid batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, pumped storage hydro, compressed-air energy storage, and hydrogen energy storage.  The assessment adds zinc batteries, thermal energy storage, and gravitational energy storage.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment

Then consider the damage to the earth to produce whatever type of storage required, depending on MW.  And the cost and damage for depleted batteries?

And BTW, what on poor ol' earth will we do with all of those unrecyclable depleted wind turbines?  is it possible to recycle them?  At what cost?  Why has no one gotten ninto the business yet?  What's the cost of dumping them somewhere?  Will that be a hidden cost, again borne by taxpayers?

What happens to all the old wind turbines?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101

 

How about depleted batteries?  On and on and on.

Are we trying to go green without possessing the technology to do it efficiently and safely yet?

I know y'all hate those greedy oil companies.  Of course green energy will solve that problem because there won't be any greedy green energy companies, right?  At least in an ideal world, which is what green energy is all about creating.  Good people coming together holding hands singing kumbaya to save dear old earth. 

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

<snip>

And, of course, this issue has nothing to do with the science. 

Well, go take your complaint to Danderman123.  He's the one who made a post about it.  I just replied.  Whyya pickin' on little ol' me?

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There's a big and obvious problem with your claim about earlier science being overturned.. Take physics. Newtonian physics until maybe a 125 years ago, used to considered a complete explanation of much of physics. But as evidence began to pour phenomenon that Newtonian physics couldn't explain, along came relativity theory and quantum theory. The thing is they could explain phenomena that Newtonian physics couldn't. 

But where are the hypotheses that could replace current theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change?  Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT came up with the IRIS hypothesis that would prove that greenhouse gasses weren't going to create warming. Something to do with the feedback thinning of stratospheric clouds that ordinarily reflected back heat. It failed. Then there was Valentina Zharkova. She came up with an hypothesis that irregularities in the earth's orbit were responsible for the current rapid rate of climate change. It turned out she forgot to account for the earth's gravity in her calculations. She failed, too.

So far, no one has come up with an hypothesis that predicts as well as  the Theory of ACC predicts the current bout of rapid climate change.

Get back to me on this when someone comes up with a better predictive hypothesis than the current theory.

To recur to relativity theory and quantum theory. No one doubts that they are the best we have so far. Also, no one doubts that the 2 currently haven't been reconciled. In certain spheres each one rules the other one out. But they're the best we have. Are you going to claim that because these 2 theories contradict each other that they don't have astonishing predictive power? And even Newtonian theory, which was superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics. is still amazingly accurate. So accurate, in fact, that it can set a course for a spaceship to rendezvous with Pluto. Is there some kind of scientific fraud at work because Relativity and Quantum Theory  haven't yet been reconciled within a broader theory? That someday a new theory will reconcile them?

You and those who share your beliefs who think that your stance is analogous to that of Copernicus, are actually on the side of Ptolemy.  You think you're on the side of Darwin, but actually on the side of religious fundamentalists.  In short, you're reactionaries.  As Thomas Kuhn noted in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the old guards of science, whether they were physicists opposed to Relativity Theory, or those opposed to the Theory of ACC have to fully pass away before the revolution is complete. The current Theory of ACC is still a young science. And the revolution still isn't quite complete.

 

You've a bad habit of sticking words in peoples' mouths, placeholder.  My claim about earlier science being overturned?  Where?  When?  This is what you're replying to.

Let me ask you this question.  Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned?

I admit I lost interest after the third sentence.  I don't need a history lesson on science, nor am I looking to be impressed by your great scientific knowledge.  You could have just said that no scientific findings have ever been wrong (at least completely).  Or something like that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sometimes-science-is-wrong/

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Unfortunately your energy bills will be unaffordable.

Many agree more renewable energy is indeed worth striving for. But there are barriers stopping more renewable energy from being produced. One of those major barriers is cost. According to a U.S.-based organization, the bulk of renewable energy costs come from building the technology in the first place. A new natural gas plant might have costs around $1,000/kW (kilowatts are a measure of power capacity). While the average cost to install a solar system ranges from $2,000/kW to almost $3,700 for residential systems. Wind costs around $1,200 to $1,700/kW, according to the organization. Cost is also an issue when it comes to transmission of the electricity—the power lines and infrastructure needed to move electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s consumed. Wind and solar farms aren’t all sited near old non-renewable power plants. This means that new systems need to be set up. Other barriers to renewable energy include market entry and political/government support.

https://naturespath.com/blogs/posts/cost-renewable-energy-versus-fossil-fuels

 

In case anyone's thinking that their energy cost will be kept affordable via government grants and subsidies best keep in mind that any government grants and subsides come from tax dollars.  As your energy costs go down via grants and subsidies your taxes go up in a revised version of stealing from Peter to pay Paul.  In this version it's stealing from Peter to pay Peter.  I know it doesn't make sense but it does to politicians

Also keep in mind that green energy such as solar and wind is intermittent, which means that service would be non-existent if no sun or wind.  That would not work for businesses which require round the clock service.  To fill the gap energy must then be stored, another huge and costly expense.

1. The 2020 Cost and Performance Assessment provided installed costs for six energy storage technologies: lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, lead-acid batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, pumped storage hydro, compressed-air energy storage, and hydrogen energy storage.  The assessment adds zinc batteries, thermal energy storage, and gravitational energy storage.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment

Then consider the damage to the earth to produce whatever type of storage required, depending on MW.  And the cost and damage for depleted batteries?

And BTW, what on poor ol' earth will we do with all of those unrecyclable depleted wind turbines?  is it possible to recycle them?  At what cost?  Why has no one gotten ninto the business yet?  What's the cost of dumping them somewhere?  Will that be a hidden cost, again borne by taxpayers?

What happens to all the old wind turbines?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101

 

How about depleted batteries?  On and on and on.

Are we trying to go green without possessing the technology to do it efficiently and safely yet?

I know y'all hate those greedy oil companies.  Of course green energy will solve that problem because there won't be any greedy green energy companies, right?  At least in an ideal world, which is what green energy is all about creating.  Good people coming together holding hands singing kumbaya to save dear old earth. 

This is about long term planning, from your first link where you had the heading, "Unfortunately your energy bills will be unaffordable."

 

It also states this: 

Is Renewable Energy Cheaper in the Long-run?

New research shows that, in the long-run, renewable energy is more cost effective than non-renewable energy. Company Lazard considered costs over the lifespan of energy projects and found wind and utility-scale solar can be the least expensive energy generating sources. As of 2017, the cost (before tax credits that would further drop the costs) of wind power was $30-60 per megawatt-hour (a measure of energy). Large-scale solar costs are $43-53/MWh. For comparison: energy from the most efficient type of natural gas plants costs $42-78/MWh. Coal power costs at least $60/MWh. 

 

Its already in motion anyway.

 

South Africa's agreed plan:

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is in line with the government’s goal to transition South Africa toward a low-carbon,  resilient economy and society by 2050, as outlined in the Just Transition Framework for South Africa, championed by the Presidential Climate Change Commission (PCC) and endorsed by the cabinet in August 2022. In addition, according to the IRP 2019, by 2030, South Africa plans to retire 12 GW of coal plants and add 18 GW of new wind and solar PV to meet energy needs.

 

While the framework is relevant across all of South Africa’s policy development, it should play a critical role in guiding the implementation of the historic Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P) that was announced at COP26 in November 2021, in which five developed countries (France, Germany, the U.K., the U.S. and the E.U.) agreed to channel $8.5 billon to support a just and equitable transition in South Africa. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Works for everyone else.  Just not the Africans.  Stunning logic. 

No its doesn't work for everyone, Africa is huge and millions live off live grid in rural areas, solar is the way.

 

 

Solar power is the only answer to light up rural Africa