What did they get wrong?
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
You have given us one reference: a Danish man with two political science degrees, one reprimand from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and zero scientific credentials.
I’ve given you an official report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
That’s not a back and forth. That’s bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.
We can argue back and forth about what may, or may not, happen. Nobody can predict the future, although academics are arrogant enough to believe they can. Scientists can't even predict weather as its happening in a lot of cases.
The reality is until we can have an adult conversation about nuclear and China we're all just pissing in the wind.
The reality is until we can have an adult conversation about nuclear and China we're all just pissing in the wind.
Desert Hound
DA
You used to give a lot of official reports on COVID as well.
There are a ton of scientists who have differing opinions on manmade warning. You just discount them like you did scientists you didnt like during covid.
This part is spot on. China’s emissions are about twice ours. If you don’t include China and India, it won’t work.
Then again, China also has five of the world’s twelve largest solar farms and is home to the manufacturer of the world’s largest offshore wind turbine.
China is not the obstacle they once were. They’re already ahead of us.
I favor nuclear, but I can’t agree that nuclear is absolutely necessary. New large solar installations are in the gigawatt range. The world uses about 2-3 terawatts. Not impossible. Just very hard, and requires more grid upgrades than are needed if we include nuclear.
Nuclear is inevitable just on economic grounds. Hopefully, new nuclear installations will take the hard lessons from failures such as at the San Onofre rebuild into consideration.
China might self-correct. It will be hugely destabilizing from a geopolitical point of view and could even end up in a nuclear war. Depends what they do in the next 10 years and whether they've taken any lessons from COVID and what the Russians did (so far all signs point to no). The Chinese are on the verge of an unprecedented collapse of their age pyramid with only the Russians having it worse of the major countries in the word (due to the loss of so many child bearing age males in their war in Ukraine). The Chinese free ride on cheap labor seems to be coming to an end. They've hit the limits of their infrastructure. And unlike say an Ireland or a Singapore, there's push back from foreign companies using the existing infrastructure due to censorship, lockdown, and nationalization concerns. The biggest question is whether they can set up a parallel economy to the rest of the world that will allow them to survive if they are economically cut off...it's also why they are all into the BRICs despite that Russia and South Africa are basket cases because their survival only works in a multipolar world.
The bigger problem is that India (and Indonesia behind it) are not declining in population and their economy is beginning to take off. Depending on how much of climate change is being caused by humanity (I lean to the a substantial part but not all of it camp...and it's just a guess), the world can't afford another Chinese economic revolution.
Timely, and instantly misinterpreted.This seems timely.
Climate scientist says media manipulates truth about global warming
A climate change scientist has claimed the world's leading academic journals reject papers which don't 'support certain narratives' about the issue and instead favor 'distorted' research.www.dailymail.co.uk
The article is about an unwillingness to include non-climate factors in climate related articles. Specifically, most fires are (deliberately or accidentally) caused by humans. But they are worse if they hit an area made more vulnerable by climate change. All true. But the author had to drop point #1 because it distracts from the climate change argument.
That’s not good for science. But it does not imply that there are thousands of scientists who believe “nothing is really happening” or “fossil fuels have nothing to do with it.”.
But show the headline to Hound or Fox, and that’s exactly what they claim.
Energy per square foot, nothing comes close to nuclear. I find solar farms to be an eyesore and they're hardly environmentally friendly. Rooftop solar is viable, but your local energy company is fighting this tooth and nail, and Newsome is indulging them with NEM 3.0.
The vaccine devil Bill Gates has put some of his money into novel nuclear power designs, including this --
Who cares about energy per square foot? The question is total impact per gigawatt hour. For that, I’ll take a hundred acre solar farm over a coal plant any day of the week.
Eyesore? Part if the reason we never build anything anymore is we tie ourselves in red tape every time someone says “I don’t like how it looks”. We need to get past the idea that every single person gets a heckler’s veto just because they like how things used to be.
You would think, but...
Quick search came up with this article of nuclear plants under development. 1 in US, 24 in China, out of a total 56 worldwide. The one in the US will be the first built in 3 decades. This seems like a problem for the US.
Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association
Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.
world-nuclear.org
Me, and a lot of others. It's just common sense when nuclear requires 50x-75x less land than solar.
I'm not against rooftop solar. I've installed it on five of our properties and we're looking at actually creating commercial solar power plants on all of our excess roof space.
NEM 2.0 was an unrealistic gift to homeowners as part of the incentive package to stimulate rooftop or backyard solar installations. Electricity customers were paid for the surplus they put back onto the grid at about the same rate that they would have been charged for drawing that much power from the grid (referred to as the Retail Plan). Power companies went along with it until the amount of power being purchased through the Retail Plan grew so much that it was warping their finances. Under NEM 3.0, customers will be paid for their surplus at a rate comparable to what the utilities would pay for delivery from long-established power generation sources (hydro, nuclear, and large scale wind and solar sources) thus known as the Wholesale Plan. An unplanned side-effect of NEM 3.0 is that it tips the cost/benefit balance heavily in favor of home energy storage batteries.
Desert Hound
DA
You still need traditional power plants. The sun doesnt always shine....and we require on demand power. So when you build out solar power plants...you still have to have your traditional ones up and running.
Warping their finances, that's hilarious. SDGE had record profits in 2022, and both PGE and SCE were up significantly in 2022. What the public utilities don't like is any threat to their monopoly, i.e. competition.
That's just fact-free whining.
Funny, coming from a notorious liar.
Sempra to give investors record profits after SDG&E customer bill spikes
Investors of Sempra Energy, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, will receive their largest quarterly payout yet.
inewsource.org
You're just looking at the bottom line, and ignoring things like how much they pay for their power to their various sources, which was the whole point of the NEM 2.0 - NEM 3.0 comparison discussion.Funny, coming from a notorious liar.
Sempra to give investors record profits after SDG&E customer bill spikes
Investors of Sempra Energy, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, will receive their largest quarterly payout yet.
What lies?Funny, coming from a notorious liar.
Sempra to give investors record profits after SDG&E customer bill spikes
Investors of Sempra Energy, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, will receive their largest quarterly payout yet.