If we build the green infrastructure in the front half of this decade, as opposed to over the next four decades, we will be using primarily fossil fuel for the industrial production because the green energy doesn't yet exist, nor does the industrial capacity exist. And for that matter, to the extent that we build wind and solar is largely the extent to which the majority of the material will be produced in China and other points east - can you say, "coal power"?, good, I knew that you could.
This way is demonstrable madness.
Case in point:
Texas - how're those wind turbines turning today?
:D
Case in point:
California
The worlds 5th largest economy (+-) could hardly be more progressive in the 'Western' world, and yet...
Take a gander at the following:
100% clean energy. Will California show that it's possible?
LA Times wrote: Fewer planet-warming emissions, less risk of blackouts and no chance of igniting the wildfires sometimes sparked by traditional power lines: Those are the arguments for the $1.9-billion Pacific Transmission Expansion.
Yet state officials haven't shown much interest.
To understand why, you need to look beyond the sheen of California's impressive climate targets and navigate the labyrinth of cautious regulators and bureaucratic silos that critics say are stifling badly needed clean energy infrastructure ...
"The state is essentially sowing the seeds for the next crisis," said Danielle Osborn Mills, California director for the American Clean Power Assn., an industry trade group.
Yes, calling the powers that be 'stifling bureaucrats' is certain to get the change you need to happen, happen so much faster.
.
LA Times wrote: The California Public Utilities Commission has begun pushing utility companies to invest in batteries but has largely ignored other technologies, even though there's widespread agreement that batteries alone won't be enough to phase out fossil fuels.
Power plants fueled by natural gas and coal are only one slice of California's contribution to climate change, with cars and trucks making up the biggest share of emissions. But cleaning up transportation will depend on a power grid big enough to support millions of electric vehicles, with enough transmission lines and renewable energy generators to meet the influx of new demand.
So climate advocates were frustrated when the Public Utilities Commission set a target last year of reducing emissions from power plants by just 25% by 2030 — a slower pace than emissions fell during the previous decade.
What? They're slowing down? Who would've guessed that?
Who besides me, that is.
:D
.
LA Times wrote: Despite that criticism, the utilities commission is set to vote this Thursday on a proposal that would make its 2030 target the basis for approving or rejecting new transmission lines, such as the undersea cable. That's a big deal because transmission is critical for connecting renewable energy facilities such as solar and wind farms with cities that consume large amounts of electricity — and permitting and building new power lines is an arduous process that can take as long as a decade. But... but... we have to have this built by the end of the decade, not merely fully permitted! #### those bureaucrats anyway!
.
LA Times wrote: If the commission doesn't plan for enough new transmission today, climate advocates say, Californians in 2030 could find themselves still hooked on natural gas — or, if more gas plants shut down, facing heightened risk of blackouts.
"The accountability is lacking at this agency, and yet they are the linchpin of California meeting its climate goals," said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies.
Commission staff say they must tread carefully before compelling utilities to build new infrastructure because projects such as the $1.9-billion undersea cable are paid for by utility customers through their electric bills.
Paid for by the rate payers? Unconscionable! How dare they!
Oh wait, no that's the way it's always been. But who could've forseen this problem?
:D
.
LA Times wrote: Ed Randolph, who leads the commission's energy division, said transmission costs account for one-fifth of ratepayer bills. Those costs have risen sharply over the last decade — 17% at Southern California Edison, 14% at San Diego Gas & Electric and 10% at Pacific Gas & Electric, according to an April 2020 report. And they're likely to keep going up, with the three companies planning to spend $15 billion over the next two years to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions from their infrastructure.
In an interview last summer — shortly after the state barely avoided a second round of rolling blackouts amid an intense heat wave — Randolph said his agency was forecasting electric rate increases of 20% to 40% over the next three years.
If energy bills rise too quickly, he predicted, there could be a "ratepayer revolt" that derails California's climate goals.
"You’ll get to a point where people won’t want to buy an electric vehicle because it will be cheaper to power a car with gasoline," he said. "People won’t want to buy electric hot water heaters for their homes because boiling natural gas is clearly cheaper."
"Ratepayer revolt" you say? Good grief why hasn't someone on this thread been warning of such things?
:D
.
LA Times wrote: Wind energy developers say there are advantages to moving quickly.
They note that the government spending bill passed by Congress in December allows offshore wind projects to qualify for a 30% federal investment tax credit — but only if they begin construction by 2025. Utility ratepayers could lose out on energy bill savings if developers can't get started by then, although it's possible falling technology costs would make up some of the difference.
Falling technology costs making up the difference? Who is this guy? Bjorn Lomborg?
:D
.
LA Times wrote: But officials at the Independent System Operator "haven't seen a credible business case to justify spending any material amount of money" on either of those options, said Neil Millar, the agency's vice president of infrastructure development. And why is that? Because the grid operator can only approve transmission projects that meet an energy need identified by the Public Utilities Commission — and the commission has thus far assumed that L.A. Basin gas plants will continue to operate. It's like the person who wrote this article is clearly a genius. He's argued every point I've made in this thread on this topic. I like him!
Give this man the Pulitzer!
:D
Quark Blast wrote: Texas - how're those wind turbines turning today? Most of them are doing fine. Unlike natural gas plants.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Texas - how're those wind turbines turning today? Most of them are doing fine. Unlike natural gas plants. That's some mighty good spin there!
Wind power = FAILS at 50%
Coal/Gas = fails at 3%-10% (hard to say since some of those turbines were down for other reasons than weather)
Lesson to learn = Build more Gas backup. Well, duh!
:D
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Texas - how're those wind turbines turning today? Most of them are doing fine. Unlike natural gas plants. My understanding is that the real problem in Texas wasn't really either, but the economic system running the grid and the fact that it's intentionally isolated from the rest of the country.
Due to the way power is power is purchased by utilities from producers, on a short term spot market, there's incentive not to build excess capacity, since that just drives prices down and kills the profit from demand peaks. Or to phrase it slightly differently - the market structure prioritized costs over reliability. This is the inevitable result in any extreme situation.
Demand peaked higher than anticipated. The traditional reliable supply sources failed at much higher rates than anticipated. Wind failed at higher overall rates, but performed better than anticipated.
Wind can be backed up with de-icing equipment, as is routinely done in colder areas, but in a hot climate with wind being currently only a small fraction of the power supply, it's cheaper to skimp on that and make up shortages with the normally more expensive gas and coal. Which failed. If all the wind turbines had kept working there would have only been marginally less blackouts.
Obviously, as wind picks up more of the load, deicing will become more necessary, even for rare events.
Actually it might be even worse. I've seen some reports that natural gas plants shut down, since natural gas prices on the spot markets shot up above what they could sell the generated power for. Rather than run at a loss, they shut down.
Anyone remember another Texas based energy company - Enron?
Thanks thejeff*, that segues nicely into the LA Times article I cited, quoted and commented on at the top of this page.
.
Russian Energy Stocks Get Boost From Biden’s Green Push
Bloomberg wrote: Russia is the world’s fourth-biggest carbon emitter, but unlike other major polluters, the government doesn’t have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels. Instead, its state-owned energy companies benefit from some of the world’s lowest production costs and tax breaks, making them well placed to gain in the short term.
Global oil companies will stop investing in exploration and shift to clean energy, “but somebody still needs to produce oil,” said Ekaterina Iliouchenko, a money manager at Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH in Frankfurt, who increased exposure to Russian oil stocks last year. “That’ll be the Russians and Saudi Aramco.”
Aye, and they won't be none too worried about stoppering all those blasted CH4 leaks neither.
Were the Keystone XL to get finished we, and our close ally Canada, could be selling far cleaner oil and gas (~40% less polluting) to our friends around the world. Yes, let the worst polluters have the ch-ching and greater leverage over our allies in Europe, all the while ######### up the climate as much as possible. Sounds sensible!
* Yeah, I know - not your intention - but thanks anyway!
So... the problem QB and El Jeffe have kind of zeroed in on is that energy for profit is kind of a bad model. It's not the technology (wind did fail at 50% rate but did better than expected and could've done even better with deicing), nor is it battery storage (TX normally relies on 25% of its energy in winter from wind so capacity/distribution must be fine), its more that people make money off selling energy.
Maybe the solution isn't debating the capability of technology or people to get the job done. Maybe the problem is privatized energy companies. If it wasn't a for-profit model, there wouldn't be an incentive to screw around with pricing and such. Just a thought.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So... the problem QB and El Jeffe have kind of zeroed in on is that energy for profit is kind of a bad model. It's not the technology (wind did fail at 50% rate but did better than expected and could've done even better with deicing), nor is it battery storage (TX normally relies on 25% of its energy in winter from wind so capacity/distribution must be fine), its more that people make money off selling energy.
Maybe the solution isn't debating the capability of technology or people to get the job done. Maybe the problem is privatized energy companies. If it wasn't a for-profit model, there wouldn't be an incentive to screw around with pricing and such. Just a thought.
Not necessarily privatized energy, since most haven't failed so spectacularly, but deregulated free markets in energy.
Not that I object to public utilities, of course.
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Texas - how're those wind turbines turning today? Most of them are doing fine. Unlike natural gas plants. That's some mighty good spin there!
Wind power = FAILS at 50%
Coal/Gas = fails at 3%-10% (hard to say since some of those turbines were down for other reasons than weather)
Lesson to learn = Build more Gas backup. Well, duh!
:D You're making those numbers up for coal/gas. Half of the natural gas plants have failed in Texas, and one nuclear plant as well.
“It appears that a lot of the generation that has gone offline today has been primarily due to issues on the natural gas system,” Woodfin said during a Tuesday call with reporters.
Woodfin being a senior director at ERCOT... you know... the organization in charge of electricity in Texas.
The real problem is that Texas doesn't regulate electricity to prepare for this kind of event. And this kind of thing happens about once every 10 years.
Yes, those would be the aforementioned "other reasons". Batteries, what few there are, failed at around an 88% rate. And I just love those who claim that the wind turbines would do much better had they been de-iced.
Anyone care to guess what Deicer is made of? Can you say, "petrochemicals"? Good, I knew that you could. But we digress....
Mark wrote: So... the problem QB and El Jeffe have kind of zeroed in on is that energy for profit is kind of a bad model.... No. No, not at all. See the LA Times article linked and referenced here at the top of this page. Bill Gates says much the same thing as Lomborg. If you can't spare 13 minutes of your life just listen from 3:22 to 4:23.
Gates wants to increase federal spending on green tech research to $35 billion; a little low for Lomborgites, but OK.
Then there's the issue of steel and cement (you know? wind turbine support and superstructure? that stuff?) making up 16% of all CO2 emissions and that proportion is looking to increase as we build the equivalent of New York City every month for the next 40 years. Sounds kind of "massive, massive unlike anything the world has known, concrete and steel production necessary for this build out" to me.
Then there's the issue of needing to wait 10 years for permitting on projects that should've broken ground already.
Then all the ####### ####### lawsuits slowing and stopping major green energy projects and creating significant overhead costs either way they're decided.
Yeah, things like that.
I don't think anyone participating in this thread has watched Planet of the Humans. You really should if you care to understand how government largess will impact the GND infrastructure rollout. The LA Times article goes over all too similar facts.
As Bill Gates said, "It'll be the most amazing thing mankind has ever done." Now old Bill is hopeful when he says that and I'm not, but Bill isn't technically wrong, so we'll go with that.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: And I just love those who claim that the wind turbines would do much better had they been de-iced.
Anyone care to guess what Deicer is made of? Can you say, "petrochemicals"? Good, I knew that you could. But we digress....
It's not a car.
Wind turbines are de-iced with hot water... when they aren't equipped with internal heating units and carbon fiber coating to prevent ice formation in the first place.
Quark Blast wrote: I don't think anyone participating in this thread has watched Planet of the Humans. You really should if you care to understand how government largess will impact the GND infrastructure rollout. Planet of the Humans is largely fiction
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And I just love those who claim that the wind turbines would do much better had they been de-iced.
Anyone care to guess what Deicer is made of? Can you say, "petrochemicals"? Good, I knew that you could. But we digress....
It's not a car.
Wind turbines are de-iced with hot water... when they aren't equipped with internal heating units and carbon fiber coating to prevent ice formation in the first place. Yeah, 'cause ya know, using water to deice a 300' tall wind turbine when the weather has a -25°C windchill factor will be easypeasy.
:D
Oh, and wind turbines built "to prevent ice formation in the first place"?
Pfft! Ha! Obviously not!
:D
.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I don't think anyone participating in this thread has watched Planet of the Humans. You really should if you care to understand how government largess will impact the GND infrastructure rollout. Planet of the Humans is largely fiction Exactly the response I predicted! Thank you for proving you're not really interested in dialog.
For those who may actually be considering the "reasoned" objections to Planet of the Humans, let me critique CBs non-response for you:
1) His link to the short YouTube video is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Only worse! These guys hardly count as climate authorities nor did they do any objective journalistic investigation of Planet of the Humans themselves other than pat each other on the back whilst opining floridly, if shallowly. Might I suggest you think for yourself.
2) It's not like Michael Moore is some science denier hack. He has opinions I disagree with from time to time but the presentation of fact in Planet of the Humans can't be denied and is easily checked. He exposes the abject hypocrisy and greed of several big players. Make sure you watch the full credit roll too so you can see some who publicly backed off of their investment once the movie came out and essentially forced them to.
3) Micheal Moore himself debunks the shallow "journalism" of people like we see in the YouTube link CB provided. Might I suggest you take a moment of your life and see what he has to say in the Rolling Stone interview.
4) A number of the claims in Planet of the Humans hit rather hard at billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and well as several big players in the environmental movement. Had the information presented in Planet of the Humans, even a small fraction of it, been untrue then it would also be libel and the films producers and director would've been sued out of existence.
Boom!
Your reply indicates you didn't even watch the first 5 minutes of the video.
Also, you haven't addressed your fallacious claim about natural gas plants in Texas only failing at 3-10%. This was debunked by the ERCOT. Do you have evidence to support your claim? Or feel free to acknowledge that your claim was false. It's your pattern of being caught on claims like this, having them pointed out as false, and then you pretending like you were never caught being wrong that really hinders this thread from being more mature.
Quark Blast wrote: Oh, and wind turbines built "to prevent ice formation in the first place"?
Pfft! Ha! Obviously not!
Correct. The turbines in Texas were not equipped with internal heating units. They did not have a carbon fiber coating on the blades to prevent ice formation. That was the point.
Responsible utilities include these features. Competent regulators require them.
Texas has neither.
Quark Blast wrote: His link to the short YouTube video is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Nonsense. How are some random people on YouTube 'authority'? Where did I claim that they were?
No, the link to YouTube was simply providing evidence. A factual summation that people could evaluate themselves.
There was no 'appeal to authority'.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: Yeah, 'cause ya know, using water to deice a 300' tall wind turbine when the weather has a -25°C windchill factor will be easypeasy. Works consistently on the turbines at Mcmurdo and Mawson where infrastructure was put in place specifically for the cold.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Oh, and wind turbines built "to prevent ice formation in the first place"?
Pfft! Ha! Obviously not!
Correct. The turbines in Texas were not equipped with internal heating units. They did not have a carbon fiber coating on the blades to prevent ice formation. That was the point.
Responsible utilities include these features. Competent regulators require them.
Texas has neither. Are you even awake?
I ask that because my thesis here is that spending trillions on GND initiatives will mean trillions wasted on ###### #### and rushed government-subsidized 'green' mega-projects.
Why were the Texas turbines failing at 50%+? Because of federal subsidies, with asinine metrics for the contractors to hit in order to rake in the dough, produced a ##### end product that nevertheless met spec? Yeah?
Oh yeah! Ch-ching!
The situation in California (Cf. the LA Times article cited and linked at the top of this page - which has been completely ignored. Hmmm.... I wonder why?) and the situation in Texas both amply support my thesis.
So thanks for backing me up there!
.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: His link to the short YouTube video is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Nonsense. How are some random people on YouTube 'authority'? Where did I claim that they were?
No, the link to YouTube was simply providing evidence. A factual summation that people could evaluate themselves.
There was no 'appeal to authority'. "Random" huh? I call ####### on that claim.
If they aren't to be listened to, if they aren't authoritative in any way, why link to them?
What you provided with that link was opinion NOT evidence. Glad to see you admit that (also see my first question in this post :D) And the quality of the evidence you linked to was roundly countered by the Rolling Stone interview with Michael Moore. You might watch that and learn something.
Ba-Boom!
In other news: Oops! Well, maybe in another 30 years the wind turbines will have paid for themselves. Good thing they have diesel baseload power!
:D
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: His link to the short YouTube video is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Nonsense. How are some random people on YouTube 'authority'? Where did I claim that they were?
No, the link to YouTube was simply providing evidence. A factual summation that people could evaluate themselves.
There was no 'appeal to authority'. "Random" huh? I call ####### on that claim.
If they aren't to be listened to, if they aren't authoritative in any way, why link to them?
What you provided with that link was opinion NOT evidence. Glad to see you admit that (also see my first question in this post :D) And the quality of the evidence you linked to was roundly countered by the...
lol
First, we can't listen to them because it's an appeal to authority. Then when it's pointed out they aren't being used as "authorities" you claim we can't listen to them because they aren't authorities.
Again, your rebuttal to the video is clear evidence you didn't even watch the start of it.
Watching the Michael Moore video, he is making emotional appeals, guilt by association, and lots of bullshit. I guess I can see why you think it is a reasonable and rational reply.
Whatever boomer. So be an adult and ignore the things you perceive as "emotional appeals" and look at the greenwashing exposed in this documentary.
I'm not rational? Thanks for that!
:D
Clearly Texas got unlucky in this last roll of the dice for winter preparedness but it's not like other places aren't making similar gambles. Fires in CA anyone? Or anyone remember The Day Europe’s Power Grid Came Close to a Massive Blackout?
Indeed, my main thesis is still sound:
Governments can't do large problems well and timely.
And things are going to get worse. Markedly worse. Check this out:
Climate action is poised to punch a $9 trillion hole in petrostates’ budgets
QZ wrote: With few exceptions, economies sitting above rich reservoirs of fossil fuels develop anemic economies beset by corruption. Of 23 countries earning at least 60% of their export revenue from oil and gas—including Angola, Venezuela, and wealthy Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia—only one is a democracy....
To come up with its estimates, Carbon Tracker modeled a sustainable development scenario defined by the International Energy Agency that is likely to keep warming within 1.65°C and oil prices around $40 a barrel. That’s not far off analyst predictions that suggest oil will peak in 2028 (slightly before pre-pandemic estimates) at around 102 million barrels, before falling another 50% by 2050, according to Rystad Energy.
But climate action may stall, and a business-as-usual scenario would look markedly different. Groups such as OPEC and others predict oil prices could level off at an average of $60 per barrel without policy interventions, allowing production to rise through 2040. That’s likely to lead to catastrophic warming far above the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement.
The odd thing about these types of articles is they still talk as if a +1.5°C year 2100 is a live option. How can these "expert" reporters be that ignorant?
Anyone taking bets on the price of oil? I think $40/barrel is somewhere beyond foolishly optimistic. Hard to figure though since there's too many factors involved, most of them obscure. Surely though it will go above $50/barrel for quite some time. Let's hope I'm wrong.
The IPCC estimates in chapter 4 of its 2015 report that the globe needs to invest about $1.6 trillion each year through 2050 - so that's $56 trillion... for the Energy Sector. That means even more investment for the remaining ~70% of the global economy that emits CO2. Rough estimate then is $123 trillion or something over $5 trillion/year for the next 30 years. Or, in one word, impossible. Not because it's literally impossible, in terms of the science of it, but because human nature makes it so.
Speaking of human nature, here's a short analysis of what went wrong recently in Germany:
How Germany Lost Control of the Virus
NYT wrote: BERLIN — “We have lost control of this thing.”
Those were the words of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, surveying the country’s situation in late January at a confidential meeting. She spoke with typical precision. In Germany, which on Wednesday prolonged its current lockdown until at least March 7, things are bad: Since October, cases have soared — they are only now starting to come down — and over 50,000 people have died. An atmosphere of grim resignation prevails.
But wasn’t Germany one of the global leaders in pandemic control during the first wave? Didn’t Germans enjoy a fairly normal summer of trips to the beach and meeting with friends at beer gardens? Didn’t their children return to school, as normal, in August and September?
Yes, yes and yes. But when fall came, things started to go wrong. And it wasn’t bad luck. It was Forbidden Word.
No, it's human nature. What is the death rate in Germany? Currently it's right at 817 deaths/million population, whereas Sweden's is 1242, and France's is 1247. Among the 50 states the deaths/million are - Tx in 24th place with 1410, FL in 26th place with 1380 (27th if you include DC as its own 'state'), CA in 32nd place with 1220, NJ in 1st place with 2560, NY in 2nd place with 1590, and MA in 3rd with 2260. So Germany looks better than most places but still worse than states like UT (570 deaths/million) or ME (480).
The economic impact of Germany's relative failure is hard to gauge at present because things like unemployment are artificially high in many places and paying back the bailouts will happen over decades. Still it's worth noting that places like Sweden and Florida have been far more livable these past 10 months.
Building a Wind Turbine - I recommend watching this on mute. There's #### tons of concrete and steel involved in building those.
Too bad our global CO2 "budget" is nearly spent.
:D
On the upside We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April.
No surprise to me. There are cities around the globe that have already reached that state. Fingers crossed that the mutated Coronaviruses don't upend this state of affairs.
If you have extra beer tokens lying around you can check out the Fossil Free Funds. In theory these chaps have done all the watching out for greenwashing so you don't need to.
Quark Blast wrote: Whatever boomer. So be an adult and ignore the things you perceive as "emotional appeals" and look at the greenwashing exposed in this documentary.
This still isn't a rebuttal to the video CBD linked. And that's my point. You are dismissing it out of hand without logic or reason. You're relying on bad arguments and people making bad arguments.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
“Quark Blast” wrote: Clearly Texas got unlucky in this last roll of the dice for winter preparedness but it's not like other places aren't making similar gambles. Fires in CA anyone? Or anyone remember The Day Europe’s Power Grid Came Close to a Massive Blackout?
Indeed, my main thesis is still sound:
Governments can't do large problems well and timely.
The Federal Government, nor the State of Texas themselves built the wind turbines. They offered subsidies to assuage the cost of installation by a private company that then did what the free market often does when unregulated - as little as possible. In the absence of clear regulation the private company skimped so that they could maximize their profits - and why not? It never gets cold in Texas.
“Quark Blast” wrote: On the upside We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April.
No surprise to me. There are cities around the globe that have already reached that state. Fingers crossed that the mutated Coronaviruses don't upend this state of affairs.
Ah, another opinion column presented as actual fact...
Quote: You're relying on bad arguments and people making bad arguments. To leverage your favorite (only?) phrase when you're stymied: ########!
I rebutted CBs linked video from several angles:
1) It's an opinion piece. No research or expertise went into it. Those guys are openly in the infotainment business.
2) Did you watch the credit roll in Planet of the Humans? Because there you can see that the Sierra Club came out openly against biomass energy as a result of this documentary. Finally! Like biomass isn't obviously a total #### #### from beginning to end. Not so long ago roughly half the tropical forest destruction in SE Asia was in response to palm oil for biofuel in the EU. Bill McKibben (350.org) backed off of biomass as a result of this documentary. Aspiration shutdown their flagship fund because of this documentary and because the Sierra Club backed out of it.
3) As Planet of the Humans makes clear, the green movement is being taken over by billionaires who don't really care about the environment; at least not more than making bank. Al Gore and David Blood opened a new "sustainability" fund in the Cayman Islands - why?
4) Had the information presented in Planet of the Humans, even a small fraction of it, been untrue then it would also be libel and the films producers and director would've been sued out of existence. They were not sued.
As for Texas, when you cut power in the way they did with the rolling blackouts the knock-on effects are considerable. Most of the failure was in management of the power generating resources at hand - which is precisely my point.
Governments can't do large problems well and timely.
If you want to argue that Texas had relatively little government oversight for their power grid, fine. California has a metric ####### and yet they've got multi-billion dollar problems too. So what do these two ##### systems have in common? Why ##### government oversight of course.
:D
Lastly, for people too ####### ###### to read for themselves, here's the CV on the herd immunity claim:
We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April
WSJ wrote: Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.
By Marty Makary
Feb. 18, 2021 12:35 pm ET
Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, chief medical adviser to Sesame Care, and author of “The Price We Pay.”
Not peer reviewed, but then I never claimed it was, though it is well researched and cites relevant stats and sources. Unlike the YouTube video "rebutting" Planet of the Humans, this article is anything but infotainment and well substantiated by transparent facts. Were the author of this WSJ piece hawking ######## he's already be "voluntarily resigned" from his post.
Quark Blast wrote: Quote: You're relying on bad arguments and people making bad arguments. To leverage your favorite (only?) phrase when you're stymied: ########!
I rebutted CBs linked video from several angles:
1) It's an opinion piece. No research or expertise went into it. Those guys are openly in the infotainment business.
2) Did you watch the credit roll in Planet of the Humans? Because there you can see that the Sierra Club came out openly against biomass energy as a result of this documentary. Finally! Like biomass isn't obviously a total #### #### from beginning to end. Not so long ago roughly half the tropical forest destruction in SE Asia was in response to palm oil for biofuel in the EU. Bill McKibben (350.org) backed off of biomass as a result of this documentary. Aspiration shutdown their flagship fund because of this documentary and because the Sierra Club backed out of it.
3) As Planet of the Humans makes clear, the green movement is being taken over by billionaires who don't really care about the environment; at least not more than making bank. Al Gore and David Blood opened a new "sustainability" fund in the Cayman Islands - why?
4) Had the information presented in Planet of the Humans, even a small fraction of it, been untrue then it would also be libel and the films producers and director would've been sued out of existence. They were not sued.
As for Texas, when you cut power in the way they did with the rolling blackouts the knock-on effects are considerable. Most of the failure was in management of the power generating resources at hand - which is precisely my point.
Governments can't do large problems well and timely.
If you want to argue that Texas had relatively little government oversight for their power grid, fine. California has a metric ####### and yet they've got multi-billion dollar problems too. So what do these two ##### systems have in common? Why ##### government oversight of course.... Yeah, you're saying a lot of things... but they still aren't addressing the video linked by CBD. I'm not sure how to make this more clear.
If I responded to your post:
QB, you're WRONG. The NY Public Library isn't in Central Park, it's in Bryant Park.
Sure, the information in my comment is true.... but it's not actually a reply to anything you said.
That guy still isn't an epidemiologist.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
“Quark Blast” wrote: I rebutted CBs linked video from several angles:
1) It's an opinion piece. No research or expertise went into it. Those guys are openly in the infotainment business.
“Quark Blast” wrote: Lastly, for people too ####### ###### to read for themselves, here's the CV on the herd immunity claim:
We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April
“Important text from WSJ article heading conveniently omitted by Quarky” wrote:
OPINION / COMMENTARY
We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April
Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.
So an opinion about a Michael Moore produced film is immediately invalidated by being an opinion - but opinion editorials that you post are important and people are some sort of colorful metaphor that you’re too chicken shit to actually call them if they don’t read and immediately agree?
Grow up.
If the facts presented in Planet of the Humans were the least bit shaky, those billionaires (all of whom have outsized egos) being skewered therein would've taken all involved to court. The fact that not only did lawsuits not happen but even a few involved in biomass energy have publicly backed away from it tells us plenty about the truth of that documentary.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at certain minds objecting to what I post, that indeed seems to be a major feature of their being, but their objections being so absurd it makes one wonder whether they are actually concerned for AGW.
What could be more absurd than this in a world that's burning up?
Two-day delivery of things we collect?
Or maybe things we eat, like a Nutella Latte? Or, perhaps my old favorite, a Ferrero Rocher Frappuccino?
:D
Srsly though, our global economy is based on growth and growth is based on consumption.
If we who currently live want to be 'green', and I mean really be 'green' and not just say words, then we all (in the "West") need to take a double-digit cut in our lifestyle. Permanently*.
Do you see that happening? Even in the best of all possible worlds?
Oh look at this:
Record levels of palm oil in diesel as ‘burning food for fuel’ madness continues (7-23-2020)
So I guess not.
* And by "permanently" I mean for the remainder of our lives - easier for some than others I suppose but still a level of committment to the cause that #### few will strive for.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: If the facts presented in Planet of the Humans were the least bit shaky, those billionaires (all of whom have outsized egos) being skewered therein would've taken all involved to court. The fact that not only did lawsuits not happen but even a few involved in biomass energy have publicly backed away from it tells us plenty about the truth of that documentary. Except of course that the production of every film is done through a limited liability partnership to shield the studio from such lawsuits, and the same logic can be followed about Bowling for Columbine. As lawsuits did not actually occurs then we can glean that all statements made about the NRA and the Gun Lobby were true.
“Quark Blast” wrote: I guess I shouldn't be surprised at certain minds objecting to what I post, that indeed seems to be a major feature of their being, but their objections being so absurd it makes one wonder whether they are actually concerned for AGW. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to see you use “opinion” as your refutation of something whilst posting an opinion article a paragraph later. Intellectual dishonesty is your bread and butter
“Quark Blast” wrote: Or maybe things we eat, like a Nutella Latte? Or, perhaps my old favorite, a Ferrero Rocher Frappuccino? You think that Lattes and Frappuccino’s are meant to be eaten?
Quark Blast wrote: If the facts presented in Planet of the Humans were the least bit shaky, those billionaires (all of whom have outsized egos) being skewered therein would've taken all involved to court. The fact that not only did lawsuits not happen but even a few involved in biomass energy have publicly backed away from it tells us plenty about the truth of that documentary.
Irrelevant. See above example.
You people are so parochial!
Given the state of defamation laws in the Commonwealth and given that Sir Richard Branson was among the billionaires most certainly defamed in Planet of the Humans, had the defamatory statements not also been true those responsible for the movie would've been sued.
QED
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: You people are so parochial!
Given the state of defamation laws in the Commonwealth and given that Sir Richard Branson was among the billionaires most certainly defamed in Planet of the Humans, had the defamatory statements not also been true those responsible for the movie would've been sued.
QED
That’s the beauty of a limited liability corporation filing all taxes and permits in the United States, the production is in no way governed by the law of the realm.
Best that could be done is sue for damages and that has been hard to prove. Those who sued documentarians in the past had a high burden of proof to meet and the LLC only had production capital to begin with. You can’t sue the studio, because they are just acting as a distributor.
It’s yet another example of a corporation doing everything it can to protect itself.
Thought you were a business major.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Funny.
Seems the Texas power grid failure that is somehow proof of governmental failure could have been avoided if only... Texas had listened to the federal agency that warned them of this possibility ten years ago.
Obstinate free market conservatives and big business ignore warnings of federal regulatory agency. In other news: water = wet.
Quark Blast wrote: If the facts presented in Planet of the Humans were the least bit shaky, those billionaires (all of whom have outsized egos) being skewered therein would've taken all involved to court. The fact that not only did lawsuits not happen but even a few involved in biomass energy have publicly backed away from it tells us plenty about the truth of that documentary.
That is very naive. You assume that
A) the Streisand-Effect does not exist or is unknown to rich people and their attorneys.
B) the only way to be disingenious is to lie.
The truth is that Streisand is well known by attorneys, and there are many ways to imply things without an outright lie. For example, showing 10+ years old footage of someone talking about a single solar park to imply that that is the current state of our solar capabilities.
Quark Blast wrote: You people are so parochial!
Given the state of defamation laws in the Commonwealth and given that Sir Richard Branson was among the billionaires most certainly defamed in Planet of the Humans, had the defamatory statements not also been true those responsible for the movie would've been sued.
QED
Again... irrelevant. The movie can be wrong... about other things.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: If the facts presented in Planet of the Humans were the least bit shaky, those billionaires (all of whom have outsized egos) being skewered therein would've taken all involved to court. The fact that not only did lawsuits not happen but even a few involved in biomass energy have publicly backed away from it tells us plenty about the truth of that documentary. That is very naive. You assume that
A) the Streisand-Effect does not exist or is unknown to rich people and their attorneys.
B) the only way to be disingenious is to lie.
The truth is that Streisand is well known by attorneys, and there are many ways to imply things without an outright lie. For example, showing 10+ years old footage of someone talking about a single solar park to imply that that is the current state of our solar capabilities. Interesting that you bring up naivete. To your points:
A) You assume that there was no effort to silence the documentary Planet of the Humans. As has been pointed out in a number of videos and blogs regarding the release and reception of this movie, there was in fact considerable effort to kill it. None of those efforts included taking on the defamatory statements - because those statements are in fact true.
A) (cont.) You dismiss the fact that several biomass energy proponents hastily backed out shortly after the documentary was released. Thus tacitly recognizing that they were wrong to support biomass energy.
B) The biomass energy promoters may not have a lock on being disingenuous but they surely attempted a controlling interest. Virtually all of the promotional efforts either told outright lies, half-lies or otherwise skirted uncomfortable truths about what they were promoting. And they did so not once 10 years ago but time and time again over a span of two decades.
B) (cont.) Another way to be disingenuous is to read-into the documentary ideas which are not in fact presented therein in order to shutdown consideration of the actual facts presented. In fact more than one of the movie's detractors presents the case that 'I've watched this tripe so you don't have to and let me tell you all about it'.
No thanks, I'll have an informed opinion. That biomass energy has anything to do with mitigating AGW is a joke; an unfunny joke at that. Billionaires have leaped into the biomass energy market to make money and they don't give a ###### #### about the net CO2 emissions of their profitable projects.
Even when the facts are clearly presented and there is widespread public acknowledgement that biomass energy is a ##### ## ####, not much changes. For example:
Record levels of palm oil in diesel as ‘burning food for fuel’ madness continues (7-23-2020)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: A) You assume that there was no effort to silence the documentary Planet of the Humans. As has been pointed out in a number of videos and blogs regarding the release and reception of this movie, there was in fact considerable effort to kill it. None of those efforts included taking on the defamatory statements - because those statements are in fact true. A)You assume that the efforts to prevent theaters from booking a documentary and a lack of lawsuits related to defamation somehow speak to the veracity of any statement within the movie.
Quark Blast wrote: A) (cont.) You dismiss the fact that several biomass energy proponents hastily backed out shortly after the documentary was released. Thus tacitly recognizing that they were wrong to support biomass energy. You assume that their choice to back out had something to the documentary. It's entirely speculative on your part (like always) unless you have some sort of evidence that proponents changed their opinions because 1.) the doc said something true or 2. they even saw the documentary in the first place.
Quark Blast wrote: No thanks, I'll have an informed opinion. No you won't. You'll have an opinion that was spoon-fed to you on the editorial page of whatever business rag you read that week. Just like always.
Quark Blast wrote: Building a Wind Turbine - I recommend watching this on mute. There's #### tons of concrete and steel involved in building those. According to that video, "Turbines in the 1 to 2 MW range typically use 130 to 240 m^3 of concrete for the foundations."
We use about 4 billion m^3 of concrete... per year.
If we use a (high) figure of 200 m^3 of concrete per 1 MW of wind power we'd come out with the world's annual concrete consumption being enough to build 20,000,000 MW of wind power... which coincidentally also happens to be a little over the world's total power consumption.
Ergo, no the concrete needed for wind turbines will NOT be "massive unlike anything the world has known".
Really? 1.5 MW is the average wind turbine being installed going forward? You might need to up that number by x2. Just say'n.
They don't have to build any roads for constructing and maintaining these greatly dispersed wind 'farms'?
They don't have to essentially double, if not triple, the extent of power lines in this country in order to connect all this newly constructed wind power?
They don't have to build any roads for constructing and maintaining the new power lines?
They don't have to build and maintain a ######## of battery storage facilities to make wind power fully viable?
By using all this concrete for wind power we don't have to use it anywhere else in the world, so no net gain in concrete usage?
Because last I heard the rest of the world is expected to build the equivalent of New York City every month for the next 40 years.
Don't forget*, all this wind power has to be built within the next 30 years.
Yeah, for a single effort - wind power - I'd say that's massive unlike anything we've ever seen.
Boom!
* And don't forget, I'm not counting the new mining and manufacturing infrastructure needed to build these turbines elsewhere and ship them about the globe.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So, when someone shows that YOUR OWN NUMBERS, QB, show that it's a whole lot easier for us to fix than you claim, ... you move the goalposts, by a trivial amount?
200 m3 was above average, but let's go along with QB's x2, and then 100 more for the roads (you make numbers up QB, so I can, too.) That makes CB's 1 year 2.5. Still very reasonable.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
We've reached the 'absurd rationalizations for why QB is not wrong' stage of this particular argument.
Suffice it to say; Wind and solar power use less steel and concrete than fossil fuel power plants. Ergo, if we wish to pretend to be concerned about these (ridiculously abundant) resources we'd still want to switch to renewables so that we could meet our power needs using less of them going forward.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Even when the facts are clearly presented and there is widespread public acknowledgement that biomass energy is a ##### ## ####, not much changes.
AH, AM, AN, AS, AT, AW, AX, BE, BY, DO, EX, HA, HE, HO, IF, IT, ME, MY, OF, OH, ON, OR, OW, OX, TO, UH, UM, UP, US, WE, YO????
What is it? What two letter word is so vile, so repugnant, so vulgar, so against the morals of polite society that you dare not even type it out?
james014Aura wrote: So, when someone shows that YOUR OWN NUMBERS, QB, show that it's a whole lot easier for us to fix than you claim, ... you move the goalposts, by a trivial amount?
200 m3 was above average, but let's go along with QB's x2, and then 100 more for the roads (you make numbers up QB, so I can, too.) That makes CB's 1 year 2.5. Still very reasonable.
Wut?
No, I was implying that the typical wind turbine will be about double (at least) in power over the range (1 to 2 MW) that CB gave.
In addition, I'm not arguing that solar power uses less resources per kwh of power generated; with utility-scale battery banks I expect solar is better even than natural gas in most circumstances. The true costs for wind power however will always remain hidden behind all the greenwashing (Cf. Planet of the Humans and what has been done and is being done for biomass/biofuel power generation).
Nope, what I'm arguing is that this headlong GND boondoggle-spending of scores-to-hundreds of trillions of dollars in 30 years or less will bankrupt my retirement, all the while over-spending the remaining CO2 "budget" by hundreds of gigatons.
People, deciders and influencers, are still advocating a +1.5°C to +2.0°C year 2100 target, all the while pretending we'll get there with (among other things) global scale wind farm and biomass/biofuel energy projects.
We won't. We missed +1.5°C about 20 years ago and unless we can stop the rest of the world from building the equivalent of New York City every month for the next 40 years, we'll be sailing past +2.5°C easy peasy.
CB thinks a +2.0°C year 2100 is still within target range, and it is if you believe the hype, but I'd rather look at the data and see things as they are. And right now, all available data says the year 2100 will be no less than +2.5°C past the pre-indistrial average.
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Even when the facts are clearly presented and there is widespread public acknowledgement that biomass energy is a ##### ## ####, not much changes.
AH, AM, AN, AS, AT, AW, AX, BE, BY, DO, EX, HA, HE, HO, IF, IT, ME, MY, OF, OH, ON, OR, OW, OX, TO, UH, UM, UP, US, WE, YO????
What is it? What two letter word is so vile, so repugnant, so vulgar, so against the morals of polite society that you dare not even type it out? Unlike the script writers for WandaVision, I like to leave a little mystery from time to time. And you have another 645 guesses remaining.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: People, deciders and influencers, are still advocating a +1.5°C to +2.0°C year 2100 target, all the while pretending we'll get there So, everyone (that is, all "people") disagrees with you, but...
Quark Blast wrote: We won't. ...
CB thinks a +2.0°C year 2100 is still within target range, and it is if you believe the hype, but I'd rather look at the data and see things as they are. And right now, all available data says the year 2100 will be no less than +2.5°C past the pre-indistrial average.
All of the data supposedly supports your position. Only you can properly read it. Everyone else has it wrong.
To return to the original thread topic once again... this is why conspiracy theory nonsense continues around AGW (and many other topics). Ignorant people deluding themselves into believing they know 'the Truth' that all the world's experts (and everyone else) have missed.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: People, deciders and influencers, are still advocating a +1.5°C to +2.0°C year 2100 target, all the while pretending we'll get there So, everyone (that is, all "people") disagrees with you, but... See this ^ is why you never get anywhere with your arguments.
Where did I say "everyone" or "all" as it applies to climate change scientists, policy makers or activists disagreeing or agreeing with me?
Nope, I'm talking data.
.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: We won't. ...
CB thinks a +2.0°C year 2100 is still within target range, and it is if you believe the hype, but I'd rather look at the data and see things as they are. And right now, all available data says the year 2100 will be no less than +2.5°C past the pre-indistrial average.
All of the data supposedly supports your position. Only you can properly read it. Everyone else has it wrong.
All of the good and current data, taken in toto, certainly supports my thesis.
Also, again, certainly not "everyone" supports my thesis. I've posted citations and quotations up thread, on this page in fact, from people with whom I agree as relates to my thesis. Ironically, for some of my detractors, one of the more prominent persons is an actual child. That Teen Titan has more spine than an NBA giraffe and has done more for the cause of mitigating AGW than all of my detractors in this thread combined have done or will ever do.
Grrrreta wrote: Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. She has the problem outlined quite accurately. Where I disagree with her is the willingness of global humanity to decimate our lifestyle enough to manage a +1.5°C year 2100.
What I don't get is how anyone, who's the least bit informed on the broader topic (beyond the hard science), is still talking like we might want to act as if we're going to achieve a +1.5°C year 2100 using the GND plans being hyped. Going down that road will be a tremendous waste of resources and will demoralize the many dupes once they figure out we've been lied to. Thus risking an outcome worse than the +2.5°C year 2100 I currently expect.
Climate change: Carbon emission promises 'put Earth on red alert'
BBC wrote: {T}he latest set of national policies submitted to the UN shows emissions will merely be stabilised by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, called it a red alert for our planet.
He said: "It shows governments are nowhere close to the level of ambition needed to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees and meet the goals of the Paris (Climate) Agreement....
Dr Niklas Hohne from the New Climate Institute told BBC News: "There is a huge gap to fill if we are serious about 1.5C (the threshold nations have agreed not to pass).
"Global emissions have to be halved – but with current proposals they will only be stable. That’s really not good enough."
Gosh! Why hasn't anyone been warning us of this?
.
BBC wrote: There is a difference, though, between what governments say and what they do. And many nations have tensions between contradictory priorities. Germany, for instance, is a member of the Powering Past Coal international alliance. Yet last year it opened a new coal-fired plant.
The UK is founder of that alliance but currently is permitting a new coal mine to be dug in the face of scientific and international criticism.
It's also building a high-speed rail link that won't be carbon neutral until the back end of the century, and it has a £27bn roads programme.
The UK is also slipping away from the strict targets imposed by its climate advisors.
Golly! And how many coal fired power plants is China currently building?
China's New Coal Power Plant Capacity in 2020 More Than 3 Times Rest of World's
VoA wrote: China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.
The country won praise last year after President Xi Jinping pledged to make the country "carbon neutral" by 2060. But regulators have since come under fire for failing to properly control the coal power sector, a major source of climate-warming greenhouse gas.
Including decommissions, China's coal-fired fleet capacity rose by a net 29.8 GW in 2020, even as the rest of the world made cuts of 17.2 GW, according to research released on Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), a U.S. think tank, and the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA)....
Christine Shearer, GEM's coal program director, said China needs to ensure its short-term development plans align with long-term climate goals.
"Hopefully as the Chinese government determines its coal power capacity targets for the next five-year plan (for 2021-2025), it will severely restrict if not end new coal plant builds and accelerate retirements," she said.
Oh yes! "Hopefully" indeed!
:D
Like the Chinese government doesn't know exactly what's going on!
You see it's ###### ####### ######## like that which makes me wonder why anyone thinks a +1.5°C year 2100 is within reach*.
It is however nice to see the truth being stated. Now if they can give up the "hopefully" ######## I'll happily be less hard on these #### #####. I'm eager to see exactly how they try and sell a +2.0°C year 2100, and then later what the song-and-dance will be to sell us a +2.5°C year 2100. Ahhh... people!
:D
.
BBC wrote: Aubrey Webson, chairman of the Association of Small Island States, said: "We applaud the countries that have announced 2050 Net Zero pledges.
"But without credible 2030 pathways in their updated climate plans, those mid-century pledges are largely meaningless. This report confirms the shocking lack of urgency, and genuine action."
'Lacking credibility', you say? 'Shocking lack of urgency and genuine action', you say?
Well by all means, keep up the applause! 'Cause that'll show 'em!
:D
Maybe someday they'll get smart and put an actual scientist in charge of mediating the public discourse on AGW. Hmmm? Naw, they never will.
* Standard disclaimer regarding near-miracle tech + CC&S.
Quark Blast wrote: Climate change: Carbon emission promises 'put Earth on red alert'
BBC wrote: {T}he latest set of national policies submitted to the UN shows emissions will merely be stabilised by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, called it a red alert for our planet.
He said: "It shows governments are nowhere close to the level of ambition needed to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees and meet the goals of the Paris (Climate) Agreement....
Dr Niklas Hohne from the New Climate Institute told BBC News: "There is a huge gap to fill if we are serious about 1.5C (the threshold nations have agreed not to pass).
"Global emissions have to be halved – but with current proposals they will only be stable. That’s really not good enough."
Gosh! Why hasn't anyone been warning us of this?
.
Who are you arguing against with this tidbit? Who in this thread has claimed that we're already doing enough to meet the goals of 1.5c?
|
