|
Third, and yet () just this March, inside of three weeks, China approved the construction of 7,960 MW of brand new coal power electrical production. Five, count them - 1, 2, 3, 4... 5! - beautiful new coal gobbling monstrosities.
You keep coming back to this kind of nonsense...
Look at 'isolated anecdote'! This proves that 'clear data trend' is wrong! Boy aren't I smart!
It's the exact same thing as the 'it was cold in Alaska yesterday, therefor global warming is fake' argument.
They'll be fine. Even NY didn't run out of ICU beds or respirators.
Fiction.
Pretty sure his NY comment was sarcasm. Or were you looking for something to disagree with, and so you decided to take it literally in order to prove that you're right?
|
|
Pretty sure his NY comment was sarcasm.
As thejeff points out, that seems inconsistent with his last few posts. The 'NY comment' is also something I have seen before, presented in all 'seriousness' (alongside the 'Sweden is doing great' claim) by right wing 'news' media in the US.
Basically, they point to empty hospital beds in rural upstate New York and say, 'See, the whole thing is overblown'... while carefully ignoring the massive death toll in areas of higher population density.
So, you want to read his post in the way that ensures an argument. That is very interesting.
Ah, so you weren't trying to disagree with him when you said this:
They'll be fine. Even NY didn't run out of ICU beds or respirators.Fiction.
My bad, I thought you were disagreeing with him. I apologize.
|
|
The rebuttals* you've provided to date to counter my plainly cited facts absolutely don't address the issues raised.
Your facts don't change the data on trends.
Yes, it was cold in Nome yesterday... the planetary temperature trend is still warming.
Yes, fossil fuels are still being used in some places... the planetary energy production trend is still towards renewable sources.
BTW, on 'rebuttals'... the Chinese coal plants, Russian tax breaks, et cetera were your 'rebuttal' to my post about IEA findings on energy consumption thus far in 2020.
You said that data "doesn't explain" your list of facts.
In short, you seem to be arguing that fossil fuels still being used in some places somehow invalidate the planetary energy production trend towards renewable sources.
See, I haven't MADE a 'rebuttal' to your facts. I've just assumed they are correct... because they don't change my point at all. Individual data points do not invalidate the overall trend.
Is this the "math" you've been talking about? 'My math' looks at trends? Yours looks at just the data points which support a pre-chosen conclusion?
|
|
I've never disputed the eventual outcome of the renewable energy trends.
You disputed the current outcome of renewable energy trends. I cited data for 2020 thus far. You said that data "doesn't explain" your list of people using fossil fuels.
Which is nonsense. There is nothing to 'explain'. That fossil fuels still exist does nothing to invalidate data showing that they are being used less often.
So, of course, you have to make up a new explanation;
What I dispute is that they are anywhere near close enough to get us to a year 2100 of +1.5°C.
An argument which appears nowhere in the post you were responding to, or indeed, any post I (or to my recollection, anyone else in this thread) have ever made. Indeed, I have said that we are NOT on track to stay below +1.5°C many times.
For the record, is why this 'discussion' continually gets derailed. Not 'quotation formatting' or 'too many words' or 'miscommunication' or any of the other excuses.
No, you initiate 'disputes' where you don't know what you are talking about, or simply to be disagreeable with no clear point at all. Then, when challenged on the facts, you have no leg to stand on and instead attempt to distract from and/or reframe the issue, inevitably ending with some unbelievably nonsensical explanation that was clearly invented after the fact.
'Oh, I was disagreeing with you because >I< believe the sky is predominantly blue.'
'You have to use the same words the same ways I define them or I just cannot understand the English language.'
'Two plus two equals five. Also air is composed of gases. Noted expert agrees with me that air is composed of gases. Why are you disagreeing with noted expert's opinion that two plus two equals five?'
It's pathetic.
You were NOT disputing "a year 2100 of +1.5°C" because nothing that could possibly be interpreted as that appeared in the text you indicated you were 'responding' to. Or is your position really that you disagree with my posts because of things I have never said?
CBD,
Let us say everyone agrees on the current trend of renewables. Why are you bringing up this fact in the thread? What is the point you are trying to make about climate change?
|
|
Let us say everyone agrees on the current trend of renewables.
If that is true, then why do people keep disagreeing with me about it?
Let's 'go to the videotape!';
Modern natural gas power plants are going to be around much longer than the 20-40 years most facilities have left in them. We as a species will continue to build them for decades to come.
Solar panels just became a commodity that is on a getting scarce trend.
I'm just not buying the solar is awesome arguments for one practical reason. Other than heavily subsidized and/or politicized construction, solar is still incredibly rare.
Without good batteries for storage solar has limited use. At least until the infrastructure gets built out. Like decades from now.
If you look at [renewables] capacity, it is easy to see nice numbers of growth that seem promising. When you look at consumption numbers, and CO2 emissions totals, we do not see numbers that are promising. We see bad numbers that appear to suggest that 5-6 degrees of warming are quite possible.
Ah, but as one could read from a slightly less recent post of mine, there is simply no way, no way, we can scale wind and solar to meet even 80% of our power needs in the next 30 years.
Because wind and solar are insufficient to get us a measurably better future. Particularly wind.
Also, renewables may be increasing at a high rate but that doesn't mean they aren't about to hit their practical limit. If everyone only ate a McDonald's then their growth rate in this country would look pretty darn good. The mere fact that everyone won't and never will means their growth rate is limited to fighting over margins in their portion of the economy. Renewables seem to me to be approaching the point where they'll be fighting over margins. Especially wind power.
...and many many more.
I don't agree with ANY of those statements. Ergo, we do NOT all agree about renewable energy trends.
|
|
The only trend I have been arguing is that the trend we are on is a +2.5°C year 2100. Minimum.
Which is it? The trend we are on, or the minimum possible trend? Those are two different things.
A plausible argument can be made for a 'current trend' towards +2.5°C by 2100 (e.g. by assuming median climate sensitivity and no further acceleration of decarbonization).
On the other hand, your '+2.5°C minimum' claim remains nonsense.
This year, so far, we've seen a reduction in carbon fuel usage that is spot on for the Paris Agreement. If we keep hammering away at our economy the way we are doing right now, from this year until 2050, then and only then do we have a shot at hitting the +1.5°C year 2100 target.
So, above you repeat your oft-made claim that +2.5°C is the minimum increase we will see by 2100... and here you directly contradict that claim. Well done.
We are not on track to be below +1.5°C in the year 2100.
A point which has never been in dispute.
+1.5°C is your hope.
You base this claim on... what exactly? Tarot readings?
If I'm 'hoping' for things, why not go big and hope that we'll develop some new technology that allows us to dial the atmospheric CO2 level up and down as needed?
Nothing you've cited in this thread supports that hope in a rigorous way.
...because I've said repeatedly for years now that +1.5°C is implausible. I don't tend to provide 'support' for things I do not believe will happen.
You are once again just flat out making up what 'my' position is. This isn't even a misrepresentative strawman. It's just a lie.
|
|
I quoted you, specifically this part:
"I have said that we are NOT on track to stay below +1.5°C many times."+1.5°C is still in play based on what you typed.
Setting aside the fact that you are now claiming that you have been denouncing my supposed '+1.5°C position' since April 30th based on your interpretation of something I wrote on May 7th...
Me saying that we are "NOT on track to stay below +1.5°C" is the reason you believe I am saying that +1.5°C is 'still in play'?
Seriously?
You stress that I used the word "below". You realize that +1.4999999999°C is "below" +1.5°C, right? There is no substantive difference between '+1.5°C by 2100' and 'below +1.5°C by 2100'. Indeed, we can't even MEASURE the temperature anomaly precisely enough to determine a 0.001°C difference.
Further, 'below' is the standard terminology used in the Paris Agreement that you are specifically lambasting for this target. The stated aim of that agreement is to keep warming "below" a target of +2.0°C, and to strive to keep it "below" even +1.5°C.
My point was that even +2.5°C isn't in play.
So... why did you, in the very same post, write; "only then do we have a shot at hitting the +1.5°C year 2100 target"?
It isn't "in play", but it could still happen?
What?
every time a new global climate model gets proposed (or a new adjustment to an existing model) the year 2100 temperature gets refined upward.
That is completely false.
Climate models produce a range of different temperatures for a given emissions scenario... not a single value. Lower the assumed emissions scenario and the projected temperature range goes down. Get more data on how deep ocean waters mix or tropical air rises and you'll see minor changes to future temperature estimates... which could as easily be in either direction... or widen/narrow the uncertainty range. Happens all the time.
The possible mechanisms whereby the temperature could be lower than current estimates are vastly outnumbered by the possible mechanisms for raising the temperature.
How could cases where currently unknown mechanisms will produce a cooling trend be "vastly outnumbered" by those which will produce a warming trend? Are you suggesting that the universe is 'hiding' 'warming data' from the human race while letting us find all the 'cooling data'?
|
|
Let's start this off with the portion of my post you purposefully fail to respond to
What is there to respond to?
Yes, +1.5°C by 2100, as aspired to by the Paris Agreement, is exceedingly implausible. Just as I previously said here... and here... and here... and here... and...
I don't think options 1) or 2) are likely to happen. I hope for 1) and shudder at 2), though I recognize either (or both!) could happen.
So, when you say that +2.5°C is the "minimum" warming we could see by 2100 you really mean something like, '+2.5°C is the lower end of the likely range but results as low as +1.5°C are theoretically possible'?
Fine. I don't believe you are that unfamiliar with the English language (and it still contradicts your other claim that emissions to date are already enough to put us over +2°C), but let's go with it.
We still disagree in that I'd put +2.5°C towards the TOP of the likely range, rather than the bottom. Yes, at current emissions levels, we are 'on track' to go over +2.5°C... but ten years ago the (then) current emissions levels had us 'on track' for over +3.5°C. Ten years from now the prognosis will again be better... because we are rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels.
It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that there could be currently poorly understood atmospheric interactions between CO2 and other chemicals that could change the net "greenhouse" properties of the CO2 but that would be a refinement of our current understanding; this side of a proverbial paradigm shift.
Let's say that's true. We've overlooked some important atmospheric chemical reaction. How does that support the claim actually in dispute here? Why would that unknown chemical reaction (or the net result of all such future discoveries) be "vastly" more likely to result in warming rather than cooling?
Let us say everyone agrees on the current trend of renewables.If that is true, then why do people keep disagreeing with me about it?
Wow... it's really hard for you to grasp when I'm making a hypothetical for us to discuss.
|
|
Ten years ago I believed that the year 2100 was going to be about +2.0°C. What's your point?
The point has nothing to do with 'beliefs'. Projected emissions have gone down as the balance of power generation has shifted. The amount of CO2 we are releasing per unit of energy has decreased. Thus, for any given set of population growth, standard of living, climate sensitivity, and other assumptions, the total resulting amount of CO2 and warming has decreased. Further, that process is ongoing. Our energy production continues to get less CO2 intensive.
In the last few years I've upped my floor estimate to be +2.5°C based on newer data.
Which is just... weird. The scientific results on climate sensitivity haven't changed all that much... they've just narrowed the uncertainty bands a little while still coming out around the same 3°C per doubling of CO2 median figure.
The only thing which HAS changed significantly is the reduced carbon intensity of energy production. Hence, less future CO2 and less warming.
If you merge older models with the newer data/models things don't change that much. That's what the IPCC does.
That ISN'T what the IPCC does, but... are you seriously arguing that you understand climate modelling better than the IPCC?
But there's good reason to suppose a number of factors, in especially the older models (~pre-2005), should be thrown out and not merged in with (and therefore dumb-down) the more current models.
Ipso facto a floor value of +2.5°C for the year 2100.
Well, at least it explains how you arrive at the conclusion you do. The most extreme example of Dunning-Kruger I have ever seen.
Within the parameters of seemingly possible atmospheric average annual temperatures we have far more room at the warmer end than we do at the cooler end from where we are now.
I think what you are talking about is some version of the 'long tail of uncertainty' for global warming. That is, while a probability distribution for decadal climate sensitivity peaks at around +3°C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 being the most likely result... a result of around +2°C on the low end is about as likely as +6°C on the high end. Likewise, results of +9°C or more are POSSIBLE on the high end, while anything below +1.5°C (again, per doubling... not 'by 2100') is just not. In short, there is more range for uncertainty on the high end... largely because we can rule out really low climate sensitivity because we have already experienced warming disproving those values.
This is not some new major breakthrough overlooked by climate models. It has been baked in to them for decades now.
|
|
Wow... it's really hard for you to grasp when I'm making a hypothetical for us to discuss.
You're right.
I have no idea why you would want to discuss, 'why we would be debating renewable energy trends if we all agreed on renewable energy trends'.
Why would we want to pretend that we all agree? And if we all agree in this alternate reality, then why WOULD we still be debating the issue? And what point is there in talking about ANY of this?
It makes no sense to me.
Wow... it's really hard for you to grasp when I'm making a hypothetical for us to discuss.You're right.
I have no idea why you would want to discuss, 'why we would be debating renewable energy trends if we all agreed on renewable energy trends'.
Why would we want to pretend that we all agree? And if we all agree in this alternate reality, then why WOULD we still be debating the issue? And what point is there in talking about ANY of this?
It makes no sense to me.
I bolded part of your post. That is not the question I was asking.
I italicized part of your post. Using a hypothetical is a tool we can use to clarify a discussion to better understand this question.
But hey, if you want to just argue without any point, please continue. If you would like to possibly move further in the discussion, let me know. I think a hypothetical would allow us to clarify some issues.
|
|
If you would like to possibly move further in the discussion, let me know.
In general, any time you have something useful or relevant to say, I'd suggest you... do that. These, 'I will only explain if you ask me too' messages are not helpful.
That's just ####### ###### argumentation for several reasons:
AKA: Factual data. Reality. That thing you want to ignore.
1) In large part because the remaining EU hasn't done what Sweden is doing and so as their economies tank it drags Sweden's down.
Let's pretend that's true. So what? Doesn't change the fact that Sweden is still going to have comparable economic impact. So... what was the point of their 'trust the people to handle it' policy? They got a higher death toll in exchange for... what, exactly?
2) Sweden has somewhere between 15% and 30% of the population exposed to the Coronavirus at present. They could be halfway to "herd immunity" whereas the rest of the EU (e.g.) will be dealing with their current infection and death rates until at least the fall of 2021 (or unless/until such time as an effective vaccine is available but that's unlikely to be for at least a year).
That could be true. OR recovering from the disease may not confer immunity from reinfection. OR the virus could mutate enough that any immunity doesn't apply to a new strain. The science is still out.
Side note: Sweden's rate of new cases per day hasn't decreased significantly yet. Many other countries (EU and otherwise) are much further along on reducing "their current infection and death rates".
Remember! The area under the curve is how many people will die and a "flatter" curve has the same area as a "spikier" one.
No, that's wrong. The steeper the curve the more cases you have at one time. That results in cases exceeding available resources and a higher death rate overall... both from the virus itself and other medical issues that couldn't be dealt with during the crisis.
3) Quality of life is a thing and the Swedes quality over the past four months exceeds anything seen elsewhere in the EU with the one admission that they didn't protect retirement communities enough, but then neither has anyone else. Their quality of life is expected to exceed the rest of the EU for the rest of this year and most if not all of next year and beyond.
If we look at 'quality of life' in economic terms then they aren't doing any better than the rest of the EU. Ergo, you must be talking about some subjective standard and we could as easily replace "Swedes" with any other group you want to pretend is doing better.
"Also, the factors are some pretty huge positive feedback loops (aka Tipping Elements), with permafrost being the largest one we have good data for and by itself the permafrost is far larger than any current group of likely negative hypotheses."
Please go back and read the part about the 'long tail' of uncertainty in my post responding to that one. Yes, a large increase in methane emissions from melting permafrost is a well known potential positive feedback... which has been included in climate models for many decades. It is one of the factors leading to the large high end uncertainty range of climate sensitivity.
In short, you are citing a factor already included in climate models as basis for your belief that warming will be higher than estimated by climate models.
As I said, the Paris Agreement is only theoretically possible without one of two things:
The Paris Agreement exists, and therefore is more than "theoretically possible".
I assume you actually mean the aspiration under the Paris Agreement to prevent not just +2°C (the main goal), but even +1.5°C. Though I'm baffled by your insistence on continuing to 'argue' a point which has never been in dispute.
You seem to think solar and wind are going to get us something special.
The end of global warming seems kinda 'special' to me, so... yeah.
I said way up thread (years ago now) that the year 2100 is going to be about as bad as it can be. Not as theoretically bad but as practically bad as it can be. Human beings in large numbers are too slow to move faster than they always have and at any rate too ######## ####### to see that they need to move faster.
These statements are too subjective for me to guess what you are trying to say. Yes, the future will be exactly as 'bad' (or as 'good') as... it will be. People will move as quickly... as they will move. Very insightful.
Warming by 2100 will be vastly less than it would have been without the past ten years of solar and wind power proliferation. The next ten years of renewable energy growth will have even greater impacts. The more than +3°C by 2100 future we were headed for at the start of the millennium is now almost certainly off the table. Staying below +2.5°C now seems well within reach, and I'd put roughly even odds on meeting the +2°C target.
If you would like to possibly move further in the discussion, let me know.In general, any time you have something useful or relevant to say, I'd suggest you... do that. These, 'I will only explain if you ask me too' messages are not helpful.
Every time I try to clarify the discussion you jump down my throat and misrepresent what I am saying.
Seeing as you constantly misrepresent what I say... yes, we do perceive recent events radically differently.
|
|
How likely do you think the immediate post-Coronavirus world is to get on a +1.5°C year 2100 path?
I don't think the current coronavirus outbreak or reactions to it will significantly impact the amount of global warming by 2100. Ergo, staying below +1.5°C remains highly unlikely.
Easily less than 5%.
I can't conceive global humanity will pull their collective heads out of their collective ###### to get on the +2.5°C path let alone the +1.5°C path.
The current pledges under the Paris Agreement work out to about +2.7°C by 2100.
Thus, if pledges improve every 5 years, as intended by the agreement and seeming inevitable from the improving costs of wind and solar, staying below +2.5°C seems far more likely than not.
Roughly 85%.
A +2.5°C year 2100 is virtually certain to tip off significant positive-feedback climate elements and if those are triggered then all other green efforts pale to insignificance.
'Significant positive-feedback climate elements' (e.g. water vapor and ice albedo) have already been 'tipped off'. It is possible that +2.5°C warming would introduce some additional large positive-feedback (e.g. ocean outgassing or self-sustaining methane release from permafrost), but not very likely. Definitely not "virtually certain".
Again, less than 5%.
As things to worry about go, positive feedbacks significantly exceeding median model projections is towards the bottom of the list. My biggest concern is that new technologies will lead to vast increases in per capita power consumption and thus allow fossil fuels to remain viable.
|
|
Since when has anyone but Norway (or similarly insignificantly large national population) met or exceeded their pledge?
The current Paris pledges are for reductions by 2030. So... nobody has met or exceeded their pledge yet.
Check back with me in ten years.
As things to worry about go, positive feedbacks significantly exceeding median model projections is towards the bottom of the list.It's well more than 5% when all factors are taken into account. More like 85%
You really believe there is an 85% chance that YOU know more about climate feedbacks than the scientists producing the IPCC climate models?
and that doesn't even get into the really stupid #### like geoengineering "solutions". There's money to be made with trying some of those, so somebody will.
A: Geoengineering would be climate forcings. Not feedbacks.
B: Every such scheme I have heard of would be prohibitively expensive... and thus unlikely to be tried.My biggest concern is that new technologies will lead to vast increases in per capita power consumption and thus allow fossil fuels to remain viable.Average global per capita power consumption will certainly go up for the next 30 years at least. Everyone has the Internet, thanks to cell networks being so cheap to install and operate, so everyone can see what it's like to be rich... so everyone will be reaching for that. And they won't be thinking, "That standard of living looks nice. I hope my great grandchildren can get there". No, they'll be grabbing that brass ring for themselves asap.
No. I'm not talking about people getting up to 'western' standards of living. That's already assumed in climate models.
I'm talking about everyone having '3D printer' style fabrication machines that can tear down and completely remodel your house over the weekend and/or personal jetpacks and/or constant connection to supercomputer levels of analytic power and/or individual user automated drone fleets... et cetera. Basically, another 'industrial revolution' level leap in power consumption.
|
|
In order to hit the target in 10 years you have to be on the path now.
Obviously false.
It is entirely possible to be 'off track' now and catch up later as costs continue to decrease and it becomes easier to do.
Who's on the path now outside of a few insignificant nations?
You don't know what you are talking about.
China and India are far from insignificant.
At that, the recent economic slowdown has likely put a lot of countries 'on track' to meet their pledges. Many of them will fall behind again as economic activity resumes, but they still have plenty of time to meet their 2030 pledges.
Well the governor of Florida apparently knew more about how (not to) lock down for the Coronavirus than did the scientists and the WHO and CDC.
That's some kind of (bad) joke, right?
Wind farms are prohibitively expensive but there's money to be made there on the backs of government subsidies.
Where do you even GET this nonsense?
Wind farms are the cheapest form of energy production for most of the planet.
That's just dumb. That won't happen for generations if ever this side of The Singularity.
You do realize that between now and 2100 (let alone all of the future after that) there will be multiple generations, right?
|
|
Yeah, because India and China don't lie about their numbers.
Neither of the analyses I linked were performed by those countries.
What you are failing to understand, setting aside the classic conspiracy thinking (i.e. 'all data disproving my beliefs must be fake!'), is that the pledges China and India made were easy for them to meet. All China pledged is to stop INCREASING emissions by 2030. That's all but guaranteed.
So yes, those two countries really are on track to meet their pledges. Which is good, because they represent nearly all of the current emissions growth.
And while it is entirely possible to be off track now and on track later, before the deadline
Great, so you agree that your previous statement that, "In order to hit the target in 10 years you have to be on the path now." was incorrect.
I've never been arguing for what's theoretically possible (something your optimistic nature does with abandon) but only for what's practically possible. And it's not practical to hit the Paris Agreement targets except on paper (as always, this side of near-miracle tech for CC&S and/or continued global catastrophe).
So we've reached the goalpost moving portion of the discussion. You're pretending that your (clearly false) statements about none of the major countries meeting their pledges were actually about the entire likelihood of the entire agreement meeting its overall targets.
As for wind farms; I've already provided multiple links showing how the vast majority of them are boondoggles or nearly so.
No, you haven't.
Tell you what. Can you provide just one link which you believe 'shows' that? Or explain why virtually every energy industry analysis group (IEA, EIA, IRENA, BNEF, etc) says that wind power is the cheapest available if it is really "prohibitively expensive"?
You do realize the topic under discussion was specifically limited to the next 30 years?
You know, the part where I stated:
"Average global per capita power consumption will certainly go up for the next 30 years at least."See that? "30 years"?
Yes, I see that you mentioned a period of 30 years, in passing, about a different topic (i.e. increases in per capita energy consumption as a result of developing countries seeking to improve standard of living), after my post about the possibility of increases in per capita energy consumption due to development of new technologies.
Basically, never said that the theoretical future technologies I was talking about would be available in the next 30 years. If you believe that you saying that something ELSE (increasing standards of living in developing countries) would happen within 30 years after my statement means that the 30 year period then applies to my statements as well then you don't understand how words work. Or time.
|
|
Right, those analyses were performed on data that those scientists measured themselves by traipsing around China and India for twenty years with a caravan of scientific instruments.
There are these things called balloons and satellites which can gather data without 'traipsing around' on the ground.
If you are going to argue that the data is wrong you need to provide some evidence of that. Otherwise, you are just believing what you want to believe... NOT what the evidence shows.
So China building coal fired power plants, even outside China, meets this "requirement" and you're ok with that?
Coal plants built outside China wouldn't impact China's pledges... but would impact those of wherever the plants were built.
Obviously, I'd prefer that every country move to clean power as quickly as possible, but the fact remains that 'current pledges' get us down to about +2.7°C warming by 2100, the fastest growing emitters are meeting those pledges, and the pledges are intended (and likely) to improve every five years. All of which makes +2.5°C by 2100 well within reach, and 'just' +2°C still very much a possibility.
I've provided links up-thread many times. That you didn't read them then is the main factor in my not re-posting them here now.
I read the links you posted. They just didn't make the case you are claiming.
Again, how do you explain energy analysts all over the world saying wind power is the cheapest form of electricity generation for most of the planet? Are they all in on the conspiracy? If wind power is so expensive then why is it being built at record pace all over the world? Global government conspiracy?
Given that they are supposedly cheaper, shouldn't the noble coal and natural gas plant operators still be able to undercut the cost of wind power? So why is more and more wind power being USED if it is so expensive?
Your belief that wind power is "prohibitively expensive" is at odds with observed reality.
You act like wind farms are maintenance free. Just set them spinning and away they go like perpetual motion machines.
I have made no such claim. You are again just making up nonsense and ascribing it to me.
Of course wind farms require maintenance. Just like any other power plant. However, the maintenance required to keep those rotors spinning is significantly less than that required for a massive coal furnace which generates explosive blasts of steam to spin much larger turbines.... and the wind itself costs nothing, unlike coal. Or natural gas. Or oil. Or uranium.
|
|
Look up the phrase "act like" and then you'll understand why this rebuttal makes no sense.
This is a text based medium. The only aspect of my 'actions' you have any knowledge of is the words that I type here. Ergo, claiming that I 'act like' something at odds with those words "makes no sense".
Says he who cites no sources.
I have linked to sources extensively in this discussion and am happy to provide more evidence for anything you dispute. Indeed, most of it is basic and overwhelmingly agreed upon information that can be verified with a simple web search.
You are the one actively refusing to provide any evidence for your radical claim that wind power is prohibitively expensive.
|
|
You cite industry rags about how good the industry is. Not very convincing.
This claim that all the sources I cite are 'industry rags' is just as obviously false as your previous claim that I did not cite sources at all. BNEF and Lazard are neither part of the wind industry nor news organizations. They're independent energy analysts.
Meanwhile, you continue to not provide ANY evidence for your position. Surely there is some coal "industry rag" or kooky conspiracy web site which you can link to that explains why independent analysts, governments, private investors, and electric utilities all over the world are all pretending that wind power is super cheap.
|
|
But you didn't cite any in your prior post, the one I objected to because it had no citations.
So we've gone from 'you have not cited any sources' to 'the sources you cited were all industry rags' to 'you did not cite any sources in this one particular message'.
Congratulations, you've finally managed to find an excuse which isn't outright false. Ridiculous, to suggest that I would need to cite the same sources in every post, yes... but not outright false.
Here's anew one for you to spew all over.
Wind Power Sources Remain More Fantasy than Reality
The 'Independent Institute' is a 'think tank' which specializes in global warming denial and other fictions. If you get your information from 'sources' like that, it explains why so many of the things you believe are just outright wrong.
Also, your 'new' article is about a year old. Many of the links in it no longer work. It correctly notes that offshore wind power is much more expensive, but then discounts all wind power without providing any comparison of onshore wind costs vs other electricity sources. It also trots out the usual obfuscations; 'dead birds!' Subsidies (again, with no comparison against the much higher subsidies received by fossil fuels)! Et cetera. It also focuses only on the US while the expansion of wind energy is happening world wide.
I predict solar will obliviate a good 3/4 of the unsubsidized wind installations within 20 years. Wind just sucks (or is that blows?) as a reliable cheap power source when all costs are considered at 20-year+ increments.
The average cost of new solar power is currently dropping below that of new wind power in many parts of the world. Soon it will be the cheaper option in most cases.
However, it is unlikely that solar could become SO inexpensive that it would make sense to shut down existing wind farms before end of life.
That said, the very fact that you are suggesting that falling solar costs would displace wind inherently concedes that wind is currently low cost. Otherwise, coal and natural gas could supplant it... no need to wait for future ultra low cost solar.
|
|
Odd though that you choose to demonize people because they bring inconvenient facts to bear on the issues of the day. But hey! Internet WTH did I expect? Logic? Reasonableness? Politeness? Maturity?
You are literally here doing the exact thing you are falsely ascribing to me.
I think wind makes sense in a few mostly coastal locations (on shore, not off). Else it's a total waste. Solar + battery storage by 2030, if not before, will outperform wind nearly everywhere wind is seriously considered and/or is already installed.
Yes, solar will likely drop below the cost of wind in most places by 2030. Battery, or other, storage is irrelevant there though as it is an issue for both. That continues to not make any case for wind being 'expensive' now.
Also, the US has a massive corridor of wind installations running through the middle of the country. One of the best wind power locations in the world. Completely landlocked. Nowhere near the coasts.
That doesn't change the fact that natural gas (let alone coal!) power plants will continue to be built for years.
Unfortunately, this is another case where you don't really say anything specific. Your "for years" could mean 'two years' and thus be very likely correct... or 'twenty years' and thus be very likely false.
Nothing like reliability to favor a technology over ######## 'green' tech hype.
Yet the actual data shows that 'hyped' wind and solar are outperforming 'reliable' fossil fuels. Over the past five years, global usage of coal has been declining while usage of natural gas is flat-lining.
Wind and solar cost less than fossil fuels for bulk power generation. Battery storage costs less than natural gas 'peaker' plants for short term demand surges.
There is no longer any global 'niche' for fossil fuels. They are only still able to compete in a few localized areas, and that won't last much longer. It is looking like Russia may be the last to give up the ghost... and that only when their economy implodes after the rest of the world abandons natural gas.