ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , global warming , green energy issues

Reply
Old 11th February 2019, 11:14 AM   #361
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,279
Oh look!

Another endless, page-gobbling squabble between Ziggurat and Belz...

Ah, what fun we have ! Aintcha glad you logged in?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:17 AM   #362
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,335
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've tried it before. Didn't work. So I gave up.

I'll take that as you NOT having any means to support your claim. Thanks for playing.
I did give some of my reasoning, and you simply ignored it. Why shouldn't I give up?

And you've never tried not being snarky or practicing the principle of charity.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:18 AM   #363
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,335
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Oh look!

Another endless, page-gobbling squabble between Ziggurat and Belz...

Ah, what fun we have ! Aintcha glad you logged in?
Even I'm bored with it. I think I'll ignore this thread now.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:18 AM   #364
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Oh look!

Another endless, page-gobbling squabble between Ziggurat and Belz...

Ah, what fun we have ! Aintcha glad you logged in?
Hey you can't say that I didn't at least try to get him to expand on his claims. Then it became about:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok that's the claim. Go on. Support it.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Why would I support a claim I haven't made?

I'm asking you to explain why you are making the claims you are making. That seems to annoy you to no end.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Can you support it or not? You can ask the Green-Dealers to support their own claims if you want. I want to know why you claim what you claimed. It's really simple. Stop whining about the other kid getting a slightly larger lollipop and make your case.
Admittedly the lollipop reference was a slight jab, but then:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.
And there we went.

Maybe we should get married already.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:19 AM   #365
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I did give some of my reasoning, and you simply ignored it.
I didn't ask you for reasoning, which is code for rephrasing your claim. I asked you to _support_ your claim, which you have not done.

Quote:
I think I'll ignore this thread now.
And yet I know the next time I'll try really hard to get you to support another claim, and you'll dodge that as well.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:29 AM   #366
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,247
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Can you support it or not? You can ask the Green-Dealers to support their own claims if you want. I want to know why you claim what you claimed. It's really simple. Stop whining about the other kid getting a slightly larger lollipop and make your case.
The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:35 AM   #367
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.
That still doesn't ruin the economy and prevent us from dealing with climate change. I mean, you say it will, but will it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:57 AM   #368
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,082
The sentiment of some seems to be: why even try to stem the bleeding unless we can full restore the limb?
I agree that, given current technology, we won't get back to "normal" CO2 levels, even if we try. We will have to adapt.
But the question remains: how much?
If we can slow temperature increase, that buys time and saves money: it's mostly a question of cost whether we have to resettle the population of half of Florida within 40 years or 100 years.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:04 PM   #369
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,860
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've already addressed this. The statu quo will cause a catastrophic increase in temperatures. How is that better?
He's probably happy to sacrifice his children's future on the alter of his own financial comfort?

We have a term for this..... "I'm alright Jack!"
__________________
#THEYAREUS “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” - Andrew Cummins
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:12 PM   #370
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,860
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The Green New Deal won't stop the temperature increase, but will cripple our ability to adapt to it.
If climate change was taking place over a period of a few hundred million years (as it has previously), life might be able to adapt biologically through evolutionary change (as it has previously), but at the current rate of change, the temperature on Earth will be unlivable in a matter of a few decades, too fast for life to adapt.

There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.
__________________
#THEYAREUS “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” - Andrew Cummins
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:15 PM   #371
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If climate change was taking place over a period of a few hundred million years (as it has previously), life might be able to adapt biologically through evolutionary change (as it has previously), but at the current rate of change, the temperature on Earth will be unlivable in a matter of a few decades, too fast for life to adapt.

There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.
We can survive a 5 degree increase, but at a tremendous cost. And by tremendous, I mean that our numbers may be reduced by 90+%. I don't find that this "statu quo" is an acceptable solution.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:30 PM   #372
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,860
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We can survive a 5 degree increase, but at a tremendous cost. And by tremendous, I mean that our numbers may be reduced by 90+%. I don't find that this "statu quo" is an acceptable solution.
... and the people who are probably best positioned to survive such a temperature rise are those nomads and tribal groups living in sub-Saharan Africa.... how ironic would that be?
__________________
#THEYAREUS “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” - Andrew Cummins
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:43 PM   #373
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
... and the people who are probably best positioned to survive such a temperature rise are those nomads and tribal groups living in sub-Saharan Africa.... how ironic would that be?
I think North America will be one of the safest places, if compared to Africa and Asia, for instance. Not sure how Europe, Oz and South America will fare.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 01:18 PM   #374
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,727
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
I am suggesting you keep the existing power grid in each country and the grid connections between each country.. First you replace all the say 1200MW coal-fired power plants with similar sized solar, wind or battery plants. So the answer is 1200MW battery plants.

At that stage you have all the CFPP replaced and well on your way to getting transpoertation away from oil by using electric vehicles.

The next stage is to reduce (hopefully to zero) the use of gas in electric power generation. As well as wind/solar/battery power you have nuclear, hydro and geothermal power plants in the power production mix..

I don't know whether waste to energy (WTE) power plants with flue gas cleaning would also be part of the solution.
I'm not sure how you replace a 1200MW coal power station with a similar sized solar one. The solar one will only produce it's peak output in the middle of the day and most of the time it will produce nothing. How do we compare them? Is that at peak? This isn't my area, so it may well be just my ignorance speaking here.

Looking at this: https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/lease-finance-0 it seems like a 1MWh system might cost $550,000. Tesla's Powerwall 2 can do 13.5kWh for $5,500.

Buffering this amount of electricity to make it anything like reliable and continuous is going to get expensive fast if we use batteries.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 01:58 PM   #375
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.



The Green New Deal cannot achieve its objective, because it's not possible to without total economic collapse, and we'll change course when the economic hit becomes big enough (which it will well before our emissions hit zero). So we will continue to emit. And temperatures will continue to rise.

Consider the Paris accord. Most countries won't hit their targets, but even if they did, that wouldn't stop global warming, only slow it down a little.

Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change? You change what you do. And that... requires money. A struggling economy has a harder time adapting than a vibrant economy.
The highlighted is absolutely false. Also "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Re: your claim that the GND won't even help at all:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...limate-change/
Quote:
The figure below, produced by Carbon Brief, shows the baseline US greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of any new policies in dark blue – based on estimates published by the Rhodium Group. A pathway consistent with limiting temperatures to below 1.5C without a massive-scale deployment of negative emissions is shown in light blue – and involves a 60% decline in emissions by 2030, reflecting the global trajectory to 1.5C. Finally, a scenario with 100% clean electricity generation by 2030 is shown in yellow – and assumes that emissions in other sectors remain flat.

US greenhouse gas emissions – in million tonnes CO2-equivalent (MtCO2eq) for a baseline no-additional-policy scenario (dark blue), a100% clean electricity by 2030 scenario (yellow), and a 1.5C-consistent pathway with a 60% decline in emissions by 2030 (light blue). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

The 100% clean electricity by 2030 goal in the new green deal would only get the US about halfway to being on a below-1.5C pathway, even if the US only took on a global-average level of ambition. Large reductions would have to come from other sectors of the economy, specifically transportation and residential, commercial, and industrial energy use.
Quote:
The proposed green new deal reflects a new focus on climate change by Democrats, advancing for the first time a set of measures that reflect the scale and speed of a mitigation response that would be consistent with a pathway limiting warming to below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
It's a beginning towards mitigating the harm.

One more thing:

Quote:
Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change?
When did the conservative argument switch from "Climate change isn't real" to "Hahaha, suckers! It's real, allright, but it's way too late to do anything about it now, losers!"?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 11th February 2019 at 02:11 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 02:01 PM   #376
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,894
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Sham deal, sham supporters
Real problem that is not going to be addressed.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 02:05 PM   #377
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,894
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.
That's like, your opinion.

Using your logic we would have been better off not fighting the Nazis in WWII.

At the same time debt is rocketing up but you don't care about that.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 02:06 PM   #378
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,894
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.







The Green New Deal cannot achieve its objective, because it's not possible to without total economic collapse, and we'll change course when the economic hit becomes big enough (which it will well before our emissions hit zero). So we will continue to emit. And temperatures will continue to rise.



Consider the Paris accord. Most countries won't hit their targets, but even if they did, that wouldn't stop global warming, only slow it down a little.



Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change? You change what you do. And that... requires money. A struggling economy has a harder time adapting than a vibrant economy.
You seem to think adapt is a viable option.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 02:20 PM   #379
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.
The wealthy are banking on being able to ride it out via migration. Mar-a-lago can just relocate to the shores of a newly balmy Greenland, and Marths's Vineyard to Newfoundland.

There is no "we" in their "adaptation" plans.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 02:58 PM   #380
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,036
Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows
Everything that's wonderful is sure to come your way
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 03:21 PM   #381
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 176
For me what is driving forward the change from CFPP and the introduction of electric vehicles in a large scale are (and in this order of importance):

1. Technological and pricing improvements for solar, and windpower projects and batteries.
2. Government strategies
3. The voting population

That is the opposite from what i would have thought 10 years ago.

I wonder when, or if, populations will demand action. One noticeable area of communities making a difference is objections to new CFPP in many locations in SE Asia.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 03:44 PM   #382
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,727
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
For me what is driving forward the change from CFPP and the introduction of electric vehicles in a large scale are (and in this order of importance):

1. Technological and pricing improvements for solar, and windpower projects and batteries.
2. Government strategies
3. The voting population

That is the opposite from what i would have thought 10 years ago.

I wonder when, or if, populations will demand action. One noticeable area of communities making a difference is objections to new CFPP in many locations in SE Asia.
It's too useful as a wedge for there to be political consensus.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:03 PM   #383
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,247
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The sentiment of some seems to be: why even try to stem the bleeding unless we can full restore the limb?
Nobody's saying let's stick with coal-fired plants forever. Nobody's saying let's not use electric vehicles. Nobody's saying that we can't build new solar power plants or wind turbines (other than the usual NIMBY and BANANA folks).

It's your side that is saying that is not enough, that we need to get rid of cows (or their farts), that we need to crisscross the country with high-speed rail at an impossible pace.

So we say, okay, how about nukes? No surprise, nukes are not allowed, because today's boomer environmentalists all cut their wisdom teeth as members of the Clamshell Alliance. That's quite transparently a sop to one shrill element of the environmental movement. Instead we'll just get rid of plane travel. Or maybe we'll let you fly electric planes, we haven't decided yet.

So go ahead with your hybrids and your solar power plants and your wind turbines. But when it comes to the crazy stuff like hsr eliminating the need for air travel in ten years, I say there are better uses for all that money.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:10 PM   #384
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Nobody's saying let's stick with coal-fired plants forever.
No but we have to stop using those plants back 25 years ago. How much longer do you plan on using them? We're already way past the line, here.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:45 PM   #385
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,727
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I'm not sure how you replace a 1200MW coal power station with a similar sized solar one. The solar one will only produce it's peak output in the middle of the day and most of the time it will produce nothing. How do we compare them? Is that at peak? This isn't my area, so it may well be just my ignorance speaking here.

Looking at this: https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/lease-finance-0 it seems like a 1MWh system might cost $550,000. Tesla's Powerwall 2 can do 13.5kWh for $5,500.

Buffering this amount of electricity to make it anything like reliable and continuous is going to get expensive fast if we use batteries.
Carrying the calculation further, at $500k/MWh that would be

$500,000 * 1,200 * 24 = $10 Billion to build a battery capable of delivering 1200MW for 24hrs. Smoothing out the power this way is going to cost trillions of dollars, isn't it?

Has anybody seen any costings of this?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:58 PM   #386
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,894
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Nobody's saying let's stick with coal-fired plants forever. Nobody's saying let's not use electric vehicles. Nobody's saying that we can't build new solar power plants or wind turbines (other than the usual NIMBY and BANANA folks).



It's your side that is saying that is not enough, that we need to get rid of cows (or their farts), that we need to crisscross the country with high-speed rail at an impossible pace.



So we say, okay, how about nukes? No surprise, nukes are not allowed, because today's boomer environmentalists all cut their wisdom teeth as members of the Clamshell Alliance. That's quite transparently a sop to one shrill element of the environmental movement. Instead we'll just get rid of plane travel. Or maybe we'll let you fly electric planes, we haven't decided yet.



So go ahead with your hybrids and your solar power plants and your wind turbines. But when it comes to the crazy stuff like hsr eliminating the need for air travel in ten years, I say there are better uses for all that money.
How do you know what will be sufficient?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 05:00 PM   #387
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I'm not sure how you replace a 1200MW coal power station with a similar sized solar one. The solar one will only produce it's peak output in the middle of the day and most of the time it will produce nothing. How do we compare them? Is that at peak? This isn't my area, so it may well be just my ignorance speaking here.

Looking at this: https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/lease-finance-0 it seems like a 1MWh system might cost $550,000. Tesla's Powerwall 2 can do 13.5kWh for $5,500.

Buffering this amount of electricity to make it anything like reliable and continuous is going to get expensive fast if we use batteries.

There are already large solar power plants
https://www.power-technology.com/fea...-power-plants/

Using batteries to the scale i mention is a new and developing technology, but the South Australia venture by Tesla is interesting
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.new...7ab8fc97cdf9b2

In my opinion there is no problem to scale a battery facility by 10x

The power generation mix has to be correct which would be different proportions of solar, wind and battery for each region. But don't forget I am talking about a first phase which substitutes renewable power for coal and oil (so no more CFPP and a massive move to electric vehicles). In the first years LNG remains. Plus of course hydro and geothermal is expanded where it can be.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 05:42 PM   #388
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,894
The Tesla installation in South Australia has been doing remarkably well. The state Government paid for it and so far the sky has not fallen in.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 05:45 PM   #389
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Carrying the calculation further, at $500k/MWh that would be

$500,000 * 1,200 * 24 = $10 Billion to build a battery capable of delivering 1200MW for 24hrs. Smoothing out the power this way is going to cost trillions of dollars, isn't it?

Has anybody seen any costings of this?
For domestic use you will need a battery that runs for say 12 hours and is then recharged. But for supporting solar and wind you don't need 24 hours of storage. You will use a power grid system as you have now so if a CFPP is shutdown for 2 weeks notice it has no effect. The battery is going to be able to step in for say 1 hour at full power or 3 to 4 hours at reduced output.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 05:57 PM   #390
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,247
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No but we have to stop using those plants back 25 years ago. How much longer do you plan on using them? We're already way past the line, here.
Until we don't need the power from them, unless rolling brownouts is your solution. Keep in mind, again, that one of the retrofits that the GND envisions is transitioning heating from natural gas (used in over 48% of US homes) to electric. Guess what? That is going to result in huge increases in electric demand in areas where natural gas heating is common.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:15 PM   #391
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Until we don't need the power from them, unless rolling brownouts is your solution. Keep in mind, again, that one of the retrofits that the GND envisions is transitioning heating from natural gas (used in over 48% of US homes) to electric. Guess what? That is going to result in huge increases in electric demand in areas where natural gas heating is common.
But:

Quote:
The fall in electricity costs from utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) projects since 2010 has been remarkable. The global weighted average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of utilityscale solar PV has fallen 73% since 2010, to USD 0.10/kWh for new projects commissioned in 2017.
Quote:
Electricity from renewables will soon be consistently cheaper than from most fossil fuels. By 2020, all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range, with most at the lower end or undercutting fossil fuels.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:21 PM   #392
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,647
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Until we don't need the power from them
That'll never happen. So what's your preference? Dropping fossil fuels, or becoming fossil fuels?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:25 PM   #393
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,894
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Until we don't need the power from them, unless rolling brownouts is your solution. Keep in mind, again, that one of the retrofits that the GND envisions is transitioning heating from natural gas (used in over 48% of US homes) to electric. Guess what? That is going to result in huge increases in electric demand in areas where natural gas heating is common.
That's been the pattern of global warming denial and was predicted about 30 years ago.

There is no warming.
There is warming but it's natural and it doesn't matter.
There is warming, it's caused by us and it doesn't matter.
There is warming, it's caused by us, it does matter but it's too late to do anything about it.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:24 PM   #394
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,819
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
There is warming, it's caused by us, it does matter but it's too late to do anything about it.
My favorite part about denialism and stalling on AGW is concern about "the economy", i.e., that doing something about it might cause a (gasp!) recession or (someone get my smelling salts!) a truly global slowdown in economic growth.

Of course it will, fool. Ecologists and other long-range thinkers have been harping on the point for the past 70 years or so that growth is ultimately unsustainable. If anything, we should be trying to slow economic growth in concert with a slowing of population growth. We need to speak like grown-ups to grown-ups, and we need folks to lead, follow, or get out of the way. The level of investment and commitment necessary over the next 20 years or so help us avoid to worst effects of AGW is something unknown to any of us who weren't here for WWII.

For the stallers and deniers out there, if you think trying to address AGW will lead to economic hardship, wait til you see how global economies deal with not addressing it.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:27 PM   #395
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Until we don't need the power from them, unless rolling brownouts is your solution. Keep in mind, again, that one of the retrofits that the GND envisions is transitioning heating from natural gas (used in over 48% of US homes) to electric. Guess what? That is going to result in huge increases in electric demand in areas where natural gas heating is common.
Yes it will and also you need the additional power for electric vehicles. There will be some savings by reducing the electric power used by oil refineries. But after the capital costs of the new power plants you will gain in the removing of the running costs of coal and gas fired power plants.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:29 PM   #396
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,919
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
For the stallers and deniers out there, if you think trying to address AGW will lead to economic hardship, wait til you see how global economies deal with not addressing it.

Exactly. Any cost/benefit analysis that disregards the costs of inaction is fatally flawed.

'But my business won't survive if I can't keep externalizing my costs!' Boo ******* hoo. Well, honestly that does suck, but that is life. Getting away with something for a long time doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't entitle one to keep getting away with it.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:45 PM   #397
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,082
Despite being around for over 60 years, nuclear power is not a mature technology: we haven't solved the waste issue, just kicked it down the road. And the safety requirements are prohibitive.
That is why building a plant today is just not economical without subsidies, direct and indirect.

I'm all for research and testing into cheaper, cleaner nuclear power and waste storage, but unlike Renewables, the technology just isn't currently available.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:52 PM   #398
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,453
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Despite being around for over 60 years, nuclear power is not a mature technology: we haven't solved the waste issue, just kicked it down the road. And the safety requirements are prohibitive.
That is why building a plant today is just not economical without subsidies, direct and indirect.

I'm all for research and testing into cheaper, cleaner nuclear power and waste storage, but unlike Renewables, the technology just isn't currently available.
Yeah.

This gets complicated and I can see both sides. The "waste" we have now isn't even clearly "waste". It's mostly usable fuel. Nuclear, while maybe not strictly "renewable", potentially has a very long usable lifetime. But we would need to use reprocessing and breeder technologies to make it comparable to truly renewable. And that raises very real problems with proliferation of nuclear weapons.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 08:03 PM   #399
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Yeah.

This gets complicated and I can see both sides. The "waste" we have now isn't even clearly "waste". It's mostly usable fuel. Nuclear, while maybe not strictly "renewable", potentially has a very long usable lifetime. But we would need to use reprocessing and breeder technologies to make it comparable to truly renewable. And that raises very real problems with proliferation of nuclear weapons.
My worry is safety, not so much with say Frsnce or USA but we need worldwide solutions and i don't see high construction and maintenance standards everywhere.

Bur certainly nuclear would be good to even out the peak demand which solar and wind are not good for.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 08:05 PM   #400
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,024
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Despite being around for over 60 years, nuclear power is not a mature technology: we haven't solved the waste issue, just kicked it down the road. And the safety requirements are prohibitive.
That is why building a plant today is just not economical without subsidies, direct and indirect.

I'm all for research and testing into cheaper, cleaner nuclear power and waste storage, but unlike Renewables, the technology just isn't currently available.
We need to put things into perspective, we haven't solved the solar waste problem either. All technologies will produce waste and increase entropy in other places in the environment

https://solarindustrymag.com/online/..._A_Primer.html


Quote:
Large quantities of sodium hydroxide are used to remove the sawing damage on the silicon wafer surfaces. In some cases, potassium hydroxide is used instead. These caustic chemicals are dangerous to the eyes, lungs and skin.
Corrosive chemicals like hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid and hydrogen fluoride are used to remove impurities from and clean semiconductor materials.
Toxic phosphine or arsine gas is used in the doping of the semiconductor material. Though these are used in small quantities, inadequate containment or accidental release poses occupational risks. Other chemicals used or produced in the doping process include phosphorous oxychloride, phosphorous trichloride, boron bromide and boron trichloride.
Isopropyl alcohol is used to clean c-Si wafers. The surface of the wafer is oxidized to silicon dioxide to protect the solar cell.
Lead is often used in solar PV electronic circuits for wiring, solder-coated copper strips, and some lead-based printing pastes.
Small quantities of silver and aluminum are used to make the electrical contacts on the cell.
Chemicals released in fugitive air emissions by known manufacturing facilities include trichloroethane, acetone, ammonia and isopropyl alcohol.
Nuclear is about as clean as it gets.
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.