Children, especially those 10 yo or less, are very low on the communicability scale.
Getting over the illness quickly and without dangerous, or even any(!), symptoms also limits the carrier factor and effectively cuts them from herd as far as the Coronavirus is concerned.
Quark Blast wrote: Children, especially those 10 yo or less, are very low on the communicability scale.
Getting over the illness quickly and without dangerous, or even any(!), symptoms also limits the carrier factor and effectively cuts them from herd as far as the Coronavirus is concerned.
Is there any way you could possibly cite the source of your info? I hadn't seen this detail in recent news reports.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Children, especially those 10 yo or less, are very low on the communicability scale.
Getting over the illness quickly and without dangerous, or even any(!), symptoms also limits the carrier factor and effectively cuts them from herd as far as the Coronavirus is concerned.
Is there any way you could possibly cite the source of your info? I hadn't seen this detail in recent news reports. There is debate about it, with conflicting reports. I've seen some recent studies saying that young kids who do get symptoms are especially good at spreading it.
Limited by most countries doing things like closing schools and keeping younger kids home thus limiting exposure, thus making it harder to test. And making it look even more like young kids don't get it. Even more, since in most cases where children do get it, they're getting it from adults in their family, we're not seeing how much spread they could contribute.
We're currently running the experiment by opening schools up and we'll get more data. Unfortunately.
What thejeff said with one important exception.
We have two countries (at least!) who have good and available data for the kinder set. Germany and Israel.
We also have good evidence that there is no seasonality to the Coronavirus (as thejeff said). Australia and Argentina being just two examples.
In addition to the small/medium sized businesses closing in my area, I've also noticed a marked increase in office/retail lease space this last month or so. Not good news.
Similarly there was a recent report on Mexico's economy. Being approximately 20% tourist dependant, it's sucking hard there. Also the official Coronavirus facts from there are seriously underreported. And we know how the largest Latin American economy is doing, since they make the top of the news cycle often, so we know that the entirety of the Americas are down double digits with no prospects of coming out of recession next year (small hope for the USA turning around by next year).
All that (and far more) means it is very reasonable to posit the beginning of the bend in the CO2 emissions curve. Though with the Amazon burning and China flailing its economy with fossil fuels and major infrastructure construction, we have some reasons to talk of an unbending of the curve. Like I said, let's wait 4 months, then we'll have a better basis for prognostication.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: Instead, an efficient civilization is able to grow faster. It can more effectively use available energy resources to make more of everything, including people. Expansion of civilization accelerates rather than declines, and so do its energy demands and CO2 emissions." QB four years ago: "improving efficiency is our only constructive way forward"
"To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY."
Congratulations. You're still wrong, but you are less wrong than you used to be.
People are free to click the links in my posts and decide for themselves if the quotations I have provided, "misrepresent what I [that is, you] post here".
There recently was a con where they were talking about beaming internet directly to every computer and smartphone. They didn't mention that in theory, human flesh that crossed one of those beams would be instant microwave nuked. I think they read my tweets because thoes adds vanished.
Any device that runs on broadcast power would soak up microwaves from the area. No tv or radio signals. It might interrupt cell phone service.
I've wondered for a while if QB was trying to get this thread killed. At this point it seems more likely than not.
The tipping points at the heart of the climate crisis
Guardian wrote: The ice losses are already following our worst-case scenarios.
... scientists are increasingly concerned that the global climate might lurch from its current state into something wholly new – which humans have no experience dealing with. Many parts of the Earth system are unstable. Once one falls, it could trigger a cascade like falling dominoes.
Hmmm... "Domino Theory" sounds familiar from one of my history classes. Are scientists nothing more than policy wonks of a different stripe? Are they tooting their own horns to enhance research funding?
Guardian wrote: We don’t know exactly how much warming would cause Greenland to pass its tipping point and begin melting unstoppably. One study estimated that it would take just 1.6C of warming – and we have already warmed the planet 1.1C since the late 19th century.
The collapse would take centuries, which is some comfort, but such collapses are difficult to turn off. Perhaps we could swiftly cool the planet to below the 1.6C threshold, but that would not suffice, as Greenland would be melting uncontrollably. Instead, says Winkelmann, we would have to cool things down much more – it’s not clear by how much. Tipping points that behave like this are sometimes described as “irreversible”, which is confusing; in reality they can be reversed, but it takes a much bigger push than the one that set them off in the first place.
It's "not clear"? Really? Sounds like you've got a chaotic system on your hands folks.
Guardian wrote: In 2009, a second study took the idea further. What if the tipping elements are interconnected? Ah yes, like dominoes!
But wait! There's more!
Guardian wrote: In 2018, Juan Rocha of the Stockholm Resilience Centre in Sweden and his colleagues mapped out all the known links between tipping points. However, Rocha says the strengths of the interconnections are still largely unknown. This, combined with the sheer number of them, and the interactions between the climate and the biosphere, means predicting the Earth’s overall response to our greenhouse gas emissions is very tricky. So, "very tricky" like it could get cooler if we keep emitting CO2?
Or "very tricky" like the year 2100 could be +2.5°C or +1.5°C or +5.5°C using our current global conditions yet getting wildly different end results?
Right Answer:
Hard to say, Chaos Theory and all that.
Guardian wrote: In 2018, researchers including Lenton and Winkelmann explored the question in a much-discussed study. “The Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions – Hothouse Earth,” they wrote. The danger threshold might be only decades away at current rates of warming. ####! What to do?
:O
Guardian wrote: Everyone who studies tipping point cascades agrees on two key points. The first is that it is crucial not to become disheartened by the magnitude of the risks; it is still possible to avoid knocking over the dominoes. Second, we should not wait for precise knowledge of exactly where the tipping points lie – which has proved difficult to determine, and might not come until it’s too late. Oh, so we're already doing it. All this alarm was just so much click baiting by The Guardian and funding hype by the scientists?
I like too how they imply that "precise knowledge" about our global climate system modeling might only come when it's "too late". Do they mean we have to wait for the year 2100 and then take a glance at our thermometers?
:D
My claims at an "A" grade for term papers/projects on climate are met with derision, yet this paid professional reporter gets world-renowned climate researchers to talk to him, and kluges together this slop at one of the better news outlets on the globe.... I want my tuition back!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: Are scientists nothing more than policy wonks of a different stripe? For the most part, no... but there are exceptions. One clear example being Roger Pielke Jr... who advertises himself as a 'scientist', but who actually has a degree in political science.
Quark Blast wrote: So, "very tricky" like it could get cooler if we keep emitting CO2?
Or "very tricky" like the year 2100 could be +2.5°C or +1.5°C or +5.5°C using our current global conditions yet getting wildly different end results?
Right Answer:
Hard to say, Chaos Theory and all that.
There is nothing to suggest that "it could get colder" and +5.5°C by 2100 "using current global conditions" is extremely implausible.
Yes, the Earth's climate is a chaotic system (indeed, it is the quintessential example of such... e.g. the butterfly effect), but the whole point of chaos theory is that we can put bounds on the uncertainties.
That we don't know exactly what will happen is very different than 'anything could happen'.
Quark Blast wrote: All this alarm was just so much click baiting by The Guardian and funding hype by the scientists? No... it's basic risk management. That we don't know the exact point when we'll cross a 'tipping point' doesn't change the fact that they exist and we are 'close' to some that would have serious consequences.
Indeed, that is my primary remaining concern with global warming. I'm convinced that the transition to clean energy will continue to accelerate and keep the forcing factors from exceeding our ability to mitigate most of the damage. However, there is a low probability of one or more feedback effects 'tipping over' and causing a much bigger problem.
Here's the thing about chaotic systems and tipping points:
A tipping point (or several linked ones) can push a chaotic system into a different attractor basin. So the answer is no we can't put limits on what our future global climate might do using the bounded chaos of our current global climate.
Hence my calling out the asininity of the article saying, "we should not wait for precise knowledge of exactly where the tipping points lie", as if precise knowledge is a thing we can actually measure for a chaotic system.
Worth noting is a comment after the article: George Darroch wrote: It's interesting that additional wind isn't part of their plans. Maui already has several wind farms, but they obviously have decided that it doesn't meet their needs at the moment. Wind compared to solar is too infrastructure and maintenance intensive to be a smart move.
Additionally, for as long as the Coronavirus is a threat to human health the drop in tourism will mean they can dismantle the coal power plant anyway.
There aren't a lot of options for placing large wind farms in Hawaii. Wind will continue to see strong growth in places where it is significantly cheaper than solar (e.g. the 'Midwest' of the US mainland), but otherwise solar is now becoming the cheapest source of power and taking over.
Case in point;
China's next 5 year energy plan calls for rapid growth of solar
That's the final nail in the coffin of coal power. China was the last place coal power was hanging on... and the central government has just abandoned it. Regional efforts to boost the economy by building coal will continue for a few years and then peter out as they become unable to sell that coal generated power due to the excess being generated by less expensive solar.
Has anyone ever managed to come up with a rationale for this massive well funded conspiracy? Underwear gnomes? Profit?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Has anyone ever managed to come up with a rationale for this massive well funded conspiracy? Underwear gnomes? Profit? The reason for the actual conspiracy seems obvious... the fossil fuel industry is fighting for survival. To stop global warming they basically have to be shrunk from the most financially successful industry in human history to a bit player. They've been resistant to that outcome.
As for the 'evil scientist conspiracy to fake global warming'... I've never seen an explanation which stands up to even cursory examination. The most common seems to be 'grant money'... which, of course, is ridiculous on its face.
CBDunkerson wrote:
As for the 'evil scientist conspiracy to fake global warming'... I've never seen an explanation which stands up to even cursory examination. The most common seems to be 'grant money'... which, of course, is ridiculous on its face.
So the scientists get the grant money, which they spend, to send themselves to the arctic freezing their butts off.
If they were smart enough to run this conspiracy, wouldn't they be smart enough to run it so they were studying somewhere with copious amounts of palm trees, alcohol in coconuts and coconut bras? Rather than locking themselves in an ice fishing hut with 5 guys on a high protein diet not seeing the sun for 6 months.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Are scientists nothing more than policy wonks of a different stripe? For the most part, no... but there are exceptions. One clear example being Roger Pielke Jr... who advertises himself as a 'scientist', but who actually has a degree in political science.
Quark Blast wrote: So, "very tricky" like it could get cooler if we keep emitting CO2?
Or "very tricky" like the year 2100 could be +2.5°C or +1.5°C or +5.5°C using our current global conditions yet getting wildly different end results?
Right Answer:
Hard to say, Chaos Theory and all that.
There is nothing to suggest that "it could get colder" and +5.5°C by 2100 "using current global conditions" is extremely implausible.
Yes, the Earth's climate is a chaotic system (indeed, it is the quintessential example of such... e.g. the butterfly effect), but the whole point of chaos theory is that we can put bounds on the uncertainties.
That we don't know exactly what will happen is very different than 'anything could happen'.
So we can't expect literal pennies from heaven. Good to know.
So the GDP numbers for the US came in and it's down 31% for the second quarter. No doubt up a little here in the third quarter (just ending). While this reduction in concomitant CO2 production is fractional to the global total, month after month these fractions are adding up. If this keeps up into next fall we could see sustained low double-digit annual reductions. Not an insignificant achievement. Coal power plant closings won't rate as high.
In other news:
Sweden maintains its winning approach to all things Coronavirus. France is still sucking, though a little less than last week. India has essentially given up kneecapping its economy - people will die but they're doing that anyway.
Businesses continue to shutter here abouts. It looks like hundreds of thousands of airline jobs will be cut by year's end - along with dependant industries losing millions more.
The bottom of the U in this U-shaped recovery is looking pretty #### flat at this point. Years not months. If the vaccines are only normally effective and governments don't follow the Swedish approach, 2021 and 2022 are going to suck like 2020 has. Good for AGW but not much else.
So the GDP numbers for the US came in and it's down 31% for the second quarter. No doubt up a little here in the third quarter (just ending). While this reduction in concomitant CO2 production is fractional to the global total, month after month these fractions are adding up. If this keeps up into next fall we could see sustained low double-digit reductions. Not an insignificant achievement. Coal power plant closings won't rate as high.
In other news:
Sweden maintains its winning approach to all things Coronavirus. France is still sucking, though a little less than last week. India has essentially given up kneecapping its economy - people will die but they're doing that anyway.
Businesses continue to shutter here abouts. It looks like hundreds of thousands of airline jobs will be cut by year's end - along with dependant industries losing millions more.
The bottom of the U in this U-shaped recovery is looking pretty #### flat at this point. Years not months. If the vaccines are only normally effective and governments don't follow the Swedish approach, 2021 and 2022 are going to suck like 2020 has. Good for AGW but not much else.
Numbers came in for France and it looks like right at 20% loss in the tourism/entertainment industry by the close of 2020. Like absolute loss. Like businesses closing and people laid off. One can safely assume that most of the other EU countries have similar numbers.
Sweden is still doing ok. The numbers of infected are up recently but deaths per capita are way down so no worries there.
Widespread effective vaccines are now estimated to be about 18 months out with the most likely scenarios, 12 months for the more optimistic ones. Not counting fun places to live like China or Russia. People in those countries are being vaccinated by year end whether they like or not.
QB: with all due respect, please stop quoting the stats for France and Sweden. Anyone that's read this thread from the time that quarantine started in the USA knows that you're a big fan of Sweden and seem to crow about France's challenges.
I'm a resident of the US. Now that I'm in quarantine and working from home I've got the news on constantly. While I don't always have the current numbers, I know what's happening here, in France and in Sweden. I have my own opinions on those situations.
However, you quoting them to me adds nothing to my understanding of human influenced climate change. Further, the constant singling out of France's misfortune only makes me want to sympathize with them more.
As it is my heart is already bleeding for the over 210,000 American families who have lost loved ones in this pandemic. I have a friend that had mild symptoms but she is ok now, though we're watching for serious long-term challenges. I also family member who is a partner in a pediatric practice. She has had to quarantine several times now and every time thank goodness she's tested negative, but these scares all take a toll.
If you enjoy comparing the victories or failures of governmental policies controlling the spread of this pandemic then please continue to do so but unless there is a direct, quantifiable climate change impact related to how well France or Sweden is doing with their infection or death per capita, or how their respective economies are faring as a result, please stop posting these updates here.
Thank you, and I look forward to more thought provoking debate about the role of human impact on climate change!
@Mark
Those are good points. My purpose in mentioning Sweden is earlier in the thread some were predicting dire consequences for their chosen approach to the Coronavirus. France OTOH chose the "smart" lockdown approach. France is still getting hammered by the Coronavirus, Sweden isn't and hasn't been since their early and long-admitted mistake of insufficient protection of mostly older citizens.
Similar dire warnings were given for Florida and yet their deaths are half of New York's despite the extra burden of more at-risk folks in Florida and nearly identical total populations in the two states.
What this has to do with AGW (since the OP has long been answered and this thread has migrated over to related facts and speculation) is the Coronavirus seems to be resulting in the first real redux in CO2 since China joined the developed nations.
Some think the CO2 emissions reductions are a blip. I think the continued economic impact of the Coronavirus will be a measurable 1-to-3 year bend in the curve from which it won't recover.
India isn't even trying to contain the Coronavirus anymore. The economic impact is too great.
Tourism and large outdoor and most indoor entertainment will be negatively impacted in the double-digits for years to come, seemingly.
Don't invest in office or retail real estate anytime soon. Most areas will not recover during a reasonable investment horizon.
But I'll lay off further specific mentions of Sweden or France, at your polite request, for the rest of 2020. My gift to you for being one of the few posters on this thread who's behavior is commendable.
:)
Thanks for understanding Quarkius Maximus. I don't mean to be a narc and I respect that you have both solid reasons and appreciation for these numbers. It's just...
This disease is cruel. I've had personal near-misses, friends and family dealing with it directly, and tons of data coming at me every day. I also work for a med device company that is intimately involved in US and international distribution efforts. Every time we get on a company-wide conf call I'm reminded of all the good and bad going on around me.
Folks in this thread can be... passionate on their opinions or points of debate. You're included in this QB. The one thing that seems to underscore all of that is that we're all interested in some kind of better, healthier future in regards to climate change.
Seeing how folks and countries are struggling with this disease may help illustrate those points may play towards that underlying goal but sometimes Q-Blast, sometimes its just... it's just too much y'know?
Log on at work, Covid stats; turn on the TV or YouTube, Covid stats; jump on social media or heck, just check my texts or take a call, Covid impacts. Thank you for respecting the request to just take a little bit of that edge off Quark Blast.
China is claiming exports are up about 13% over this time last year, GDP up nearly 10%. Sounds like ######### to me but if true then we should see better growth among "western" industrialized nations. Guess we'll see.
The IEA has released their 2020 report. CO2 numbers are still down considerably (roughly at 2010 levels) but even with a slow recovery from the Coronavirus the odds of meeting the Paris Agreement targets is only 50% under the most optimistic scenario.
The numbers aren't in the report directly but the investment in renewable power needs over the next 30 years is as insurmountable as I've argued up-thread. To the order of trillions of dollars over what one can reasonably hope for.
Read the sub-section titled:
"Getting to net zero will require unwavering efforts from all."
That's not hyperbole and since "all" of us have to be "unwavering" in our efforts, that virtually guarantees essentially none of us will.
Also, the report says wind will continue to take a backseat to solar, for like forever. Who could've seen that coming?
:D
Quote: Similar dire warnings were given for Florida and yet their deaths are half of New York's despite the extra burden of more at-risk folks in Florida and nearly identical total populations in the two states. Except that New york has been dealing with the virus for twice as long. It arrived in new york from europe and spread.
If you google "how many people in new york died from corona" you get a really handy chart you can play with for information. The chart shows a giant spike of deaths back in late april, followed by very few currently. As opposed to florida which has very few in april but a much higher death rate currently.
IEA 2020 World Energy Outlook
Some actual findings from the report;
"For projects with low cost financing that tap high quality resources, solar PV is now the cheapest source of electricity in history."
"'I see solar becoming the new king of the world's electricity markets,'" IEA executive director Fatih Birol said in a statement. 'Based on today's policy settings, it is on track to set new records for deployment every year after 2022,' he added."
Based on current stated policies: "Renewables meet 80% of global electricity demand growth during the next decade and overtake coal by 2025 as the primary means of producing electricity. By 2030, hydro, wind, solar PV, bioenergy, geothermal, concentrating solar and marine power between them provide nearly 40% of electricity supply."
Or course, actual growth of renewables will be even greater as 'stated policies' continue to change as countries switch over more and more rapidly.
Their 'stated policies' scenario shows coal and oil use being flat for the next twenty years, while natural gas increases slowly over the same time period. A more plausible 'sustainable development scenario' shows all three in global decline within the next few years.
The IEA has drastically underestimated renewables growth for more than a decade now. With this latest report they have finally caught up to reflecting the current rate of renewables deployment (i.e. 'stated policies scenario' / 'STEPS'), and taken a tentative first step (i.e. 'sustainable development scenario' / 'SDS') towards estimating what continued future renewables growth might look like.
Now we just need financing to the tune of a few tens of trillions $. Because it's not like we're spending that kind of cash mitigating the Coronavirus or anything, so we've got plenty to invest.
Also, we need no significant wars in critical regions containing unique (or near-monopoly on) key elements/compounds for green tech over the next few decades.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quote: Similar dire warnings were given for Florida and yet their deaths are half of New York's despite the extra burden of more at-risk folks in Florida and nearly identical total populations in the two states. Except that New york has been dealing with the virus for twice as long. It arrived in new york from europe and spread.
If you google "how many people in new york died from corona" you get a really handy chart you can play with for information. The chart shows a giant spike of deaths back in late april, followed by very few currently. As opposed to florida which has very few in april but a much higher death rate currently. Well I won't be moving to Florida this winter, for sure!
:D
It's really looking like a near-global 2nd wave is crashing ashore as I type. The next 12-15 months will be "interesting", no doubt.
Quark Blast wrote: Now we just need financing to the tune of a few tens of trillions $. Most countries have been doing just fine financing energy infrastructure.
Indeed, given that renewables now cost less than 'traditional' fossil fuels, it will be easier to do so going forward.
Easier outside a raging pandemic. Easier when all the world's wealthiest countries aren't sitting on a newly minted mountain of debt that's still growing at a prodigious rate.
In other words:
Easier said than done.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: Easier outside a raging pandemic. Easier when all the world's wealthiest countries aren't sitting on a newly minted mountain of debt that's still growing at a prodigious rate.
In other words:
Easier said than done.
:D
So... what? You're predicting that covid=19 will lead to the worldwide collapse of industrial society due to an inability to continue generating sufficient energy?
Who pays for decommissioning coal power plants?
The utility rate payers.
Who pays to build new power generation capacity prior to EoL for the existing capacity?
The utility rate payers.
Who backs government subsidy programs for new utility incentives?
The utility rate payers.
Most importantly, how much money will become unavailable because governments worldwide are under water at unprecedented levels thanks to the Coronavirus?
A whole ######### less than otherwise.
Which leaves how much to invest in a 2050 carbon-neutral society?
About 40% of what's needed, assuming effective vaccines by this time next year.
Who pays for decommissioning coal power plants when they get replaced by other coal power plants? Or by natural gas plants?
thejeff wrote: Who pays for decommissioning coal power plants when they get replaced by other coal power plants? Or by natural gas plants?
As if you don't know but if you want to play dumb I'll play along.
:D
Replaced at end of life (EoL) is baked into the initial investment.
Converted to natural gas before EoL is covered with money saved by the conversation to a more efficient fuel.
It's not like a solar/wind farm will fit on the footprint of a coal fired power plant, so that superfund site becomes all liability. Even more so when it's decommissioned before EoL.
Going green asap (broader economic considerations be damned) reduces profitability and those costs (those lost profits) get pushed to someone. And that someone won't be Elon Musk or Aloys Wobben.
It'll be the rate payers.
So if we're paying for the retirement of theplant wether the retirement leads to another coal plant or a solar bank isn't replacing it with solar a total non issue since you would pay the same cost for something else anyway?
Quark Blast wrote: Who pays for decommissioning coal power plants? The owners of the coal plants.
Quark Blast wrote: The utility rate payers. The owners may pass the cost on to consumers... but that only works if they are still customers. If a utility company switches from an independently owned coal plant to a solar plant then the owners of the coal plant are out of the picture and have to bear the decommissioning cost on their own.
Even if the rate payers somehow get hit with the decommissioning cost... that single point charge is offset by perpetually lower electricity generating costs going forward.
Quark Blast wrote: Most importantly, how much money will become unavailable because governments worldwide are under water at unprecedented levels thanks to the Coronavirus?
A whole ######### less than otherwise.
Which leaves how much to invest in a 2050 carbon-neutral society?
About 40% of what's needed, assuming effective vaccines by this time next year.
So... yes? You really are arguing that covid-19 is going to make it impossible to keep up with increasing global energy demands? Even though low cost renewables are making that cheaper to do than it would have been otherwise.
There is no indication that covid-19 will have anywhere close to that level of economic impact... even if it becomes endemic, with multiple new strains popping up every year for the foreseeable future.
Billionaires and their fellow investors will not pay decommissioning costs. Tax laws were created by the rich for the rich. If they benefit the little guy it's a side effect of the sausage making process.
@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.
If the "Green New Deal" goes through as planned, utility costs will roughly double for the next two decades. If you can afford that - good for you but yours is a definite minority position.
I love how in QB's world cheaper energy costs lead to higher prices. For reasons.
If the cost of buying energy from solar plants is below the cost of buying it from coal plants, then it's not going to be bought from the coal plants. The utility companies aren't going to decide to keep subsidizing coal plants even though it costs them money.
If solar power is profitable and coal isn't, more solar will be built.
thejeff wrote: I love how in QB's world cheaper energy costs lead to higher prices. For reasons.
If the cost of buying energy from solar plants is below the cost of buying it from coal plants, then it's not going to be bought from the coal plants. The utility companies aren't going to decide to keep subsidizing coal plants even though it costs them money.
If solar power is profitable and coal isn't, more solar will be built.
Right now solar isn't cheaper, because making it efficient enough for financial viability is still theoretical. Legislation, like the green new deal or others, would begin the process of subsidizing the process of turning theories into action. This threatens current industries, so the legislation is not adopted.
So in other words, we'd get full eventually if we ate our broccoli, except broccoli is kind of a pain right now and a burger from Wendy's is just as cheap. Only the Wendy's is killing us. Maybe we should ask our mom and dad what to. Oh, who's that at the door, telling our mom and dad what's good for us? Oh right, it's the manager from Wendy's...
J-town, do you happen to have any sources to back up the financials of solar? All I find are local, private companies wanting me to invest for home use.
thejeff wrote: I love how in QB's world cheaper energy costs lead to higher prices. For reasons.
If the cost of buying energy from solar plants is below the cost of buying it from coal plants, then it's not going to be bought from the coal plants. The utility companies aren't going to decide to keep subsidizing coal plants even though it costs them money.
If solar power is profitable and coal isn't, more solar will be built.
Sure. Just keep ignoring the higher utility prices in Germany these past two decades. If ignoring facts helps you feel better about not stretching your thoughts? Eh, who am I to gainsay?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Right now solar isn't cheaper Yes, it is.
That's from Lazard's just released annual Levelized Cost of Energy analysis.
Note that the $29 - $42 range for unsubsidized new utility solar is entirely below the minimum costs for new nuclear ($129), coal ($65), and natural gas ($44). It is even below the cost to continue operating most existing coal plants... which is why they are being rapidly shut down.
Quark Blast wrote: Just keep ignoring the higher utility prices in Germany these past two decades. Setting aside the vast differences between what Germany did and the current world energy outlook... solar prices were vastly higher two decades ago than they are now. That's the whole point. Solar (and wind) costs have been dropping rapidly while fossil fuel costs have continued to slowly rise. Prices vary by region, but solar started being cheaper in some areas a few years ago and now we've reached the point where it costs less than fossil fuel power nearly everywhere.
That gap will just continue to widen... especially as the vast sums currently paid to prop up fossil fuels shift more and more to subsidizing renewable power instead. Thus, going forward it will be less expensive to support growing world power needs with renewable energy than it would have been to continue using fossil fuels.
Decommissioning is a big cost you continue to avoid accounting for.
Abandoning infrastructure well before EoL is a cost you continue to avoid accounting for.
If we were to take a measured approach things would work out much better short term and be no different in 2100.
You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there. Tis the same approach to the Coronavirus which you so disparage so vehemently.
:D
|
