Global Warming, Is It A Man Made Hoax?

[The Barbarian]

Fossil fuel industry lobbyists have obtained large and continuing subsidies for their products.

It should be noted that other forms of energy also receive subsidies. “Every energy technology we’ve had … has benefited quite substantially from the federal government,” said Jay Bartlett, a senior research associate at the independent nonprofit Resources for the Future.

Natural gas and oil producers, for instance, receive tax preferences for exploration and development costs, and receive additional tax breaks related to extraction, among others.

According to reports from the Department of Energy and the Congressional Research Service, fossil fuels have historically received more support than renewables, but in recent years the trend has flipped — and on a per unit of energy basis, renewables currently receive far more. Because many of the renewable tax subsidies are set to expire, the CRS report estimates that fossil fuels will receive more tax benefits than renewables in 2028.

Greenhouse gas emissions are also not currently factored into the costs of various forms of energy. Instead, lawmakers have generally opted for subsidies for energy sources that have lower carbon footprints, including wind.
...
Lazard, an investment bank that has been calculating LCOE values for 12 years running, estimated in November 2018 that unsubsidized wind costs between $29-$56 per MWh, compared with $41-$74 for natural gas and $60-$143 for coal. With subsidies, wind became even more attractive, falling to just $14-$47 per MWh.

Lazard’s analysis also suggests that without subsidies, building a new wind farm in some scenarios is approaching cost-competitiveness with running existing coal and nuclear plants.

“In terms of coal, new wind is definitely cheaper in terms of building a new unit, and may even be cheaper than continuing to operate a coal plant that has already been built,” said Murray.

But not everyone comes up with such generous levelized cost estimates for wind — and there are limitations to using LCOE.

The EIA, which produces LCOE figures for future years, estimated in February that for wind facilities coming online in 2021, the average cost without subsidies would be $48.80/MWh when weighting by capacity. That’s compared with $46.70 for conventional natural gas and $40.50 for advanced natural gas (see Table A1a).

Unsubsidized LCOE Estimates

	BloombergNEF midpoint 2019 value	EIA average (capacity-weighted) in 2021	Lazard 2018 ranges
Onshore wind	$37/MWh	$48.80/MWh	$29-56/MWh
Natural Gas	$38/MWh	$40.50/MWh for advanced; $46.70/MWh for conventional	$41-74/MWh
Coal	$78/MWh	N/A	$60-143/MWh
Note: This table is for summary purposes only, and is meant to show the wide range of different results that can occur when groups are making different assumptions. Cost estimates are for new power plants only. Experts caution that different sets of LCOEs cannot be directly compared, and as we explain, there are challenges in comparing intermittent sources, such as wind, to baseload sources, including coal and natural gas.

There are areas of the country, however, where wind’s LCOE values are lower or almost identical to those of advanced natural gas. Advanced natural gas, EIA analyst Sukunta Manussawee explained over email, is the only type of natural gas plant the agency expects to be built in the future, and refers to more efficient plants that get more energy from a given amount of fuel.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/does-wind-work-without-subsidies/

 

[The Barbarian]

None of this has much to do with the ongoing increase in man-caused global temperatures. Some technologies will give us more time to deal with it. That's about all.

 

[Truth7t7]

Only when tax-payers are footing the bill! No business will run a loss for very long.


Batteries are a somewhat unique type of power... where we give up cost for convenience.


Only because they've received large sums of TAX-PAYER money to make them "economically viable".

Folks like yourself are very generous with other peoples money.

I agree, the renewables are only viable to the investor when taxpayer subsidy is involved.

California installed like 25,000 megawatts of solar in 2010-2016, only possible by the gift of taxpayer monies from Obama.

​​​​​

 

[Right Divider]

That is true of some energy related technologies, but not all.

Is there a point?

 

[Right Divider]

Now what do you think the civil engineers had in mind in regard to high level reservoirs, eh?

Wake up.

They still require ADDITIONAL energy to be maintained. They are not self-sufficient. They are a distraction from the topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

For decades, fossil fuels got higher subsidies than renewables. Now that their subsidies aren't greater than those for renewables, the inevitable is happening:


Renewables are more competitive, and coal is declining rapidly. Fracking made natural gas more economical, and it will dominate power generation for some time to come. Trump's move to end the "clean coal" program will harm coal producers for decades to come; the industry will probably never recover fully. And renewables will continue to rapidly grow as the technology improves rapidly.


And silicon will probably give way to more efficient and less costly technologies...
Physicists are pushing the performance of solar cells to levels never before reached. They have made a significant breakthrough in the chemical formula and process to make a new material. The ultra-high efficiency material called a tandem perovskite solar cell is being developed to help solve the world energy crisis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190514081554.htm

 

[eider]

None of this has much to do with the ongoing increase in man-caused global temperatures. Some technologies will give us more time to deal with it. That's about all.

Ah...... yes.
I think that there might not be enough time now. We'll be learning to cope with it rather than arrest it.

 

[eider]

They still require ADDITIONAL energy to be maintained. They are not self-sufficient. They are a distraction from the topic.

You picked an example of energy saving and storage and tried to rubbish it. It's valuable. Your ideas about what is silly are not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah...... yes.
I think that there might not be enough time now. We'll be learning to cope with it rather than arrest it.

That's probably true, since we're already seeing damage from the warming climate, such as an increase in severe storms, rising sea levels, and droughts in the western US and High Plains areas. I question whether or not we have the political will to do much before it severely damages us.

Technology probably will be the solution, but not fast enough to avoid the crunch.

 

[Right Divider]

You picked an example of energy saving and storage and tried to rubbish it. It's valuable. Your ideas about what is silly are not.

Again... this is just a DISTRACTION from the point.

Your "example of energy saving and storage" cannot sustain itself. It requires and OUTSIDE source of energy to continue in operation.

That kind of technique is a dead-end and cannot "power the future".

 

[eider]

That's probably true, since we're already seeing damage from the warming climate, such as an increase in severe storms, rising sea levels, and droughts in the western US and High Plains areas. I question whether or not we have the political will to do much before it severely damages us.

Technology probably will be the solution, but not fast enough to avoid the crunch.

Yep. I think so as well.
Question:- How much do you know about rising sea level evidence at this time?

Have you heard about a measurement yet?

I do get the impression that a rise has started already, because LATs ... Lowest astronomical tides, do not seem to retreat quite as far as in past decades. I have known this foreshore for 60 years and taken interest in tides through wildfowling, netting and longshore activities and LATs is how I have noticed rather than HATs which can rise more noticeably over astronomical projections through wind variation.

But I couldn't put a measurement on that yet.

 

[eider]

Again... this is just a DISTRACTION from the point.

Your "example of energy saving and storage" cannot sustain itself. It requires and OUTSIDE source of energy to continue in operation.

That kind of technique is a dead-end and cannot "power the future".

When we have enough wind, solar and tidal power generation we will need high level reservoirs even more because we can use surfeits of charging during storms etc to raise the water to them.

Just keep thinking of battery convenience and you'll eventually click on it. We won't be closing down highv reservoirs, certainly.

 

[Right Divider]

When we have enough wind, solar and tidal power generation we will need high level reservoirs even more because we can use surfeits of charging during storms etc to raise the water to them.

Just keep thinking of battery convenience and you'll eventually click on it. We won't be closing down highv reservoirs, certainly.

These "reservoirs" are not some magic new energy source. They are a net energy loser.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. I think so as well.
Question:- How much do you know about rising sea level evidence at this time?

Have you heard about a measurement yet?

I do get the impression that a rise has started already, because LATs ... Lowest astronomical tides, do not seem to retreat quite as far as in past decades. I have known this foreshore for 60 years and taken interest in tides through wildfowling, netting and longshore activities and LATs is how I have noticed rather than HATs which can rise more noticeably over astronomical projections through wind variation.

But I couldn't put a measurement on that yet.

It's rising. As I said, most of the rise, so far, is from thermal expansion, as the oceans warm up. But we're near the point when melting continental and alpine glaciers will begin to make a significant contribution. Climate scientists somewhat underestimated how fast that would be, so we aren't sure how soon it will happen.

For a number of reasons, the rise in sea level will not be the same everywhere. But there is an average...

Divide the vertical scale by 25.5 to get inches.

 

[Right Divider]

It's rising. As I said, most of the rise, so far, is from thermal expansion, as the oceans warm up. But we're near the point when melting continental and alpine glaciers will begin to make a significant contribution. Climate scientists somewhat underestimated how fast that would be, so we aren't sure how soon it will happen.

For a number of reasons, the rise in sea level will not be the same everywhere. But there is an average...

Divide the vertical scale by 25.5 to get inches.

When the ice age melted due to effects 100% other than man-made, how much did the global mean sea level change?

 

[Truth7t7]

That's probably true, since we're already seeing damage from the warming climate, such as an increase in severe storms, rising sea levels, and droughts in the western US and High Plains areas. I question whether or not we have the political will to do much before it severely damages us.

Technology probably will be the solution, but not fast enough to avoid the crunch.

Climate Change (Fear Mongering) Is A Commie Plot!

Wikipedia: , green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of socialism with that of green politics, ecology and alter-globalization or anti-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.^[1]

Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers, and restoring the commons.^[1]

 

[The Barbarian]

Climate Change (Fear Mongering) Is A Commie Plot!

It's an observed phenomenon. It was predicted in the 1800s,based on the absorbance of CO2 and the amount of warming was accurately predicted decades in advance by NASA scientists.

You should remember that the fact of climate change is an entirely different topic than what, if anything, we should be doing about it.

"Facts are stubborn things."
Ronald Reagan

 

[ok doser]

You should remember that the fact of climate change ...

... has always been ongoing and will always be ongoing

 

[Right Divider]

... has always been ongoing and will always be ongoing

First... the imminent treat was global cooling.... then it was global warming... and THEN... since they couldn't make up their minds.... it became "climate change".

And still I cannot get an answer about how a frozen world could greatly thaw without man-made "global warming"... I mean "climate change".

 

[eider]

It's rising. As I said, most of the rise, so far, is from thermal expansion, as the oceans warm up. But we're near the point when melting continental and alpine glaciers will begin to make a significant contribution. Climate scientists somewhat underestimated how fast that would be, so we aren't sure how soon it will happen.

For a number of reasons, the rise in sea level will not be the same everywhere. But there is an average...

Divide the vertical scale by 25.5 to get inches.

Thanks. I've downloaded that chart.
It looks as if the average sea level rise over the last 20 years has been about 2".
But that could accelerate sharply as ice melts and leaves the continents.

Since many industrial nations are determined to continue their industrial expansion using carbon-fuels, the best that we can do is to push diplomacy as far as it can go and to focus upon our own low-carbon power sources for cleaner cities, towns and lifestyles. By 2020 there will be very few IC cars on our roads (UK) and those in private ownership will be paying very high road taxes. Further to this, our emissions tests included in our annual Ministry of Transport vehicle tests are being raised and cars that fail are mostly being sent to the scrapyards.

One method of Highest Tide control that we have been working on is all about NOT trying to reclaim low marshlands as a permanent agricultural feature, but rather to use such wetlands for pastoral farming only and in emergencies to open barriers so that the sea can surge in, thus slowing the tidal impetus further up an estuary and helping to save a city. One feature of estuaries is that tidal waves take time to travel up them, a noon high tide where I live, out in the Thames estuary doesn't reach London Tower Bridge until about 1530hrs. Thank goodness it's not the other way 'round. :

I often think about the low countries...... Holland has always been an outstanding example of land reclamation and civil engineering, but a meter rise in sea levels would be a fraught situation for it. A sea wall failure wouldn't kill hundreds...... it would be thousands and thousands.