75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[Uncensored2008]

Nothing cheaper than solar and wind.

Solar?



Well, okay then....

 

[Stryder50]

EDIT for brevity ...

Nothing cheaper than solar and wind.

September 29, 2020
The Real Cost of Wind and Solar
By Norman Rogers

The main problem with either wind or solar is that they generate electricity erratically, depending on the wind or sunshine. In contrast, a fossil-fuel plant can generate electricity predictably upon request. Blackouts are very expensive for society, so grid operators and designers go to a lot of trouble to make sure that blackouts are rare. The electrical grid should have spare capacity sufficient to meet the largest demand peaks even when some plants are out of commission. Plants in spinning reserve status stand by ready to take over if a plant trips (breaks down). Injecting erratic electricity into the grid means that other plants have to seesaw output to balance the ups and downs of wind or solar.
....
Wind behaves erratically hour to hour. Even though the Texas 18,000-megawatt system has thousands of turbines spread over a wide area, the net output is erratic changing by thousands of megawatts in a single hour. These shifts must be balanced by fossil-fuel plants slewing their output up and down to compensate and keep load matched to generation.
...

Viewed from the effect on the economy, adding wind or solar electricity provides the benefit of reduced fuel consumption in backup fossil fuel plants. This saving in fuel amounts to about $15 per megawatt hour, the cost of natural gas to generate a megawatt hour of electricity. The cost of coal is similar. The backup fossil-fuel plant still has to have its full staff and may have more costly maintenance due to the up-down style of operation forced by the introduction of erratic energy. If the renewable energy costs more than $15 per megawatt hour, then it is not competitive. Wind or solar power actually costs around $80 per megawatt hour.


How can I claim that wind or solar cost $80 when power purchase agreements at $25 per megawatt hour are often touted in the press? Even at $25 the wind or solar is far from competitive. The gap between $80 and $25 is accounted for by subsidies. The $10 difference between $25 and $15 is also a subsidy because the purchaser is paying $25 for the electricity that could be generated in a backup fossil fuel plant, that already exists and that must exist, for $15. What are the subsidies that lower the $80 cost to the publicized $25?
...

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar

The main problem with either wind or solar is that they generate electricity erratically, depending on the wind or sunshine. In contrast, a fossil-fuel plant can generate electricity predictably upon request. Blackouts are very expensive for society,...

www.americanthinker.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Hidden Costs of Wind and Solar


Wind and solar energy sources vary rather unpredictably in output during the day, from 0% to 100%. Yet they are on a path to eventually constitute a large portion of the of the world’ energy portfolio.
The power grid manager needs to match at all times its customers’ demand with its energy generation. To do so, she must match her grid’s variable power sources with a power source that she can easily turn on or off (when her variable power source goes down). Right now, this power source is typically a gas-powered plant (it’s really a bit more complicated).
How does that impact the true system cost of solar or wind?
...
So, in the end, when we want to add 350MW to the grid with solar, our real cost (since we also need to add gas generation for the times when there is no solar) would be $1.7B + $2.8B = $4.5B, which is over 235% of our life cycle cost for solar plant alone.

What this means is that, with optimistic estimates on the availability of solar power generation, the variability of the resource has cost us 135% more than the total life cycle cost of the solar plant!
...

The Hidden Costs of Wind and Solar

Wind and solar energy sources vary rather unpredictably in output during the day, from 0% to 100%. Yet they are on a path to eventually constitute a large portion of the of the world’ energy …

energymag.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a start ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Alternative to climate change that is warming would be that which is cooling.
Do we really want to try tripping the next Ice Age via geo-engineering?
Is a slightly warmer average global climate really as bad as a much colder one, especially if it pushes closer to an Ice Age?

I didn't see anyone advocating geo-engineering. Besides, if you don't like geo-engineering, why do you seem to have no problem with pushing the Earth's GHG levels up almost 50%?

I didn't see anyone advocating geo-engineering.

A Bill Gates Venture Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere To Block The Sun. What Could Go Wrong? (forbes.com)

why do you seem to have no problem with pushing the Earth's GHG levels up almost 50%?

Because cheap, reliable energy comes in handy for an advanced economy.

Nothing cheaper than solar and wind.

That's funny!
How much does it cost your high tech factory when the wind dies down at night?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

How much would US CO2 drop if we deported 20 million illegal aliens?

better yet deport 30 million illegal aliens

Best yet: deport everyone below a certain IQ.

Racist!

How have you been Todd?

Good. And you?

Still confused I see.

 

[Mac-7]

What a brilliant piece of repartee.

I think so

not my best, but more than enough to spin you off into snide personal insults

 

[Mac-7]

Best yet: deport everyone below a certain IQ.

No, as much as that would reduce the population of biden voters, citizens have a right to be here

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Alternative to climate change that is warming would be that which is cooling.
Do we really want to try tripping the next Ice Age via geo-engineering?
Is a slightly warmer average global climate really as bad as a much colder one, especially if it pushes closer to an Ice Age?

I didn't see anyone advocating geo-engineering. Besides, if you don't like geo-engineering, why do you seem to have no problem with pushing the Earth's GHG levels up almost 50%?

I don't see humans pushing water vapor up by 50% and that's about 99+% of your GHG, if being honest.
Other GHG is CO2 at 0.04% of dry; or 400ppmd = 1/2500 ratio to nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. Even if we got to 50% more, that is still lower than what the planet has experienced in most of the past 4+ billion years.
Methane is about 0.000004% or 4ppbd, that's b=billions.

If one is saying "we have do do something" about/correcting/altering "climate change/global warming", especially anthropogenic, than that is Geo-engineering.

BTW, the "anthropogenic" part of CO2 is only about 1/3 over the recent natural levels and those barely sustain the flora.

Best solutions are to adapt and be thankful we aren't plunging into another Ice Age, which is about due given trends of past half million years.

Water vapor has NOT increased by 50%. If you have a source that says it has, put it up here. When you find that you don't, you need to fess up.

Don't bother trying to argue that 400 ppm is a small number unless you want to demonstrate the depth of your science ignorance.

Until the current increase, CO2's range had cycled between 180 and 300 ppm for the past two million years. Homo sapiens has only been on this planet for 200,000 years and human civilization of any sort has only existed for the last 5,000. If you want to look at CO2's range over the last 3.5 billion years, I'm going to have to insist that you also look at the rate of change and compare that to what's been happening in the last two centuries. It's easy to deal with a 1,000 ppm change in CO2 if it takes place over the course of 50-100,000 years; not so much if it happens in a couple centuries.

Please show us the lab work demonstrating all this excess heat from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM

 

[Mac-7]

To offset the revenue lost to tax cuts for the top 1%?

Tax revenue to the federal government increased after the tax cuts due to increased economic activity

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

theyve been wrong for 50 yrs,, not seeing any credibility here,,

and its ponly been a select few scientist,,

To what "select few scientists" do you refer?

the ones that claim climate change,, they are but a few that make the claim,, most of the others dont see it,,

I'm afraid that's complete nonsense. Numerous surveys, polls and studies have shown very high acceptance of AGW among published scientists. I have printed the list you can find in Wikipedia if you insist on seeing it. If you have a source that says otherwise, let's see that.

Science is not done by surveys and polls

 

[Sunsettommy]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

What have you been telling us?

Meanwhile from YOUR 64 page report, which you didn't read since it doesn't show up in the 6 pages of this thread:

"Survey Details

This project expands on similar surveys conducted by the Institute for Policy Integrity in 2015 and 2009, but uses a larger and more geographically diverse sample. Expert-elicitation projects like this one have recently played an influential role in climate economics, helping establish consensus on such topics as the appropriate “discount rate” to use when evaluating climate policies, and the expected magnitude of climate damages. We invited 2,169 Ph.D. economists to take a 15-question online survey focused on climate change risks, economic damage estimates, and emissions abatement. Of this pool, 738 participated, a response rate of 34% (not all respondents submitted a response to every survey question, so the sample for some questions is smaller). These economists have all published an article related to climate change in a leading economics, environmental economics, or development economics journal, and their areas of expertise cover a wide range of issues in climate economics. The survey design and related analysis sought to minimize selection bias, response bias, and anchoring bias."

bolding mine



No such expertise is seen here, it is a report full of modeling scenarios that runs to year 2220, which means this joke isn't testable at all.
===

"Climate Damages Will Be Very Costly

Respondents were asked to estimate the economic impacts of several different climate scenarios. They project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Their damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. As expected, experts believe that the risk of extremely high/catastrophic damages significantly increases at these high temperatures."

bolding mine

The damage estimates are insane since it is pegged to absurd modeling scenarios of temperature increase of which they didn't tell us WHY that is considered a reasonable estimate, it is just more unverifiable modeling constructs.

======

This is more playstation modeling bullshit!

They don't even discuss the fact that the main cause of increased economic damage comes from continued building in high risk areas where hurricanes, flooding and other regionally predicable weather damaging areas usually occur.



=====

Figure 11 at page 23 is absurd to the extreme since it goes to year 2220, here is text behind this excrement:

"Respondents project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. These damage estimates exceed those in DICE and other commonly cited IAMs, though they are consistent with past surveys (Howard & Sylvan, 2020; Pindyck, 2019). We also asked questions about impacts at higher temperatures and income levels than some past surveys. Like Nordhaus (1994), we found that climate damages do not appear to follow a quadratic path in the long run, providing some support for the earlier DICE damage function that limits climate damages to 100% of GDP."

======

Classic Pseudoscience Jabberwocky!

Meanwhile ZERO Climate and Weather related data is posted, this this report is actually dead in arrival since they don't even try to make a specific connection between REAL major weather events and REAL economic damage of REAL regions.

This is a modeling/survey construct that only people like Crick gets excited over, it is why he is a Warmist/Alarmist member, it is JUNK SCIENCE!

Pathetic!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

What have you been telling us?

Meanwhile from YOUR 64 page report, which you didn't read since it doesn't show up in the 6 pages of this thread:

"Survey Details

This project expands on similar surveys conducted by the Institute for Policy Integrity in 2015 and 2009, but uses a larger and more geographically diverse sample. Expert-elicitation projects like this one have recently played an influential role in climate economics, helping establish consensus on such topics as the appropriate “discount rate” to use when evaluating climate policies, and the expected magnitude of climate damages. We invited 2,169 Ph.D. economists to take a 15-question online survey focused on climate change risks, economic damage estimates, and emissions abatement. Of this pool, 738 participated, a response rate of 34% (not all respondents submitted a response to every survey question, so the sample for some questions is smaller). These economists have all published an article related to climate change in a leading economics, environmental economics, or development economics journal, and their areas of expertise cover a wide range of issues in climate economics. The survey design and related analysis sought to minimize selection bias, response bias, and anchoring bias."

bolding mine



No such expertise is seen here, it is a report full of modeling scenarios that runs to year 2220, which means this joke isn't testable at all.
===

"Climate Damages Will Be Very Costly

Respondents were asked to estimate the economic impacts of several different climate scenarios. They project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Their damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. As expected, experts believe that the risk of extremely high/catastrophic damages significantly increases at these high temperatures."

bolding mine

The damage estimates are insane since it is pegged to absurd modeling scenarios of temperature increase of which they didn't tell us WHY that is considered a reasonable estimate, it is just more unverifiable modeling constructs.

======

This is more playstation modeling bullshit!

They don't even discuss the fact that the main cause of increased economic damage comes from continued building in high risk areas where hurricanes, flooding and other regionally predicable weather damaging areas usually occur.



=====

Figure 11 at page 23 is absurd to the extreme since it goes to year 2220, here is text behind this excrement:

"Respondents project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. These damage estimates exceed those in DICE and other commonly cited IAMs, though they are consistent with past surveys (Howard & Sylvan, 2020; Pindyck, 2019). We also asked questions about impacts at higher temperatures and income levels than some past surveys. Like Nordhaus (1994), we found that climate damages do not appear to follow a quadratic path in the long run, providing some support for the earlier DICE damage function that limits climate damages to 100% of GDP."

======

Classic Pseudoscience Jabberwocky!

Meanwhile ZERO Climate and Weather related data is posted, this this report is actually dead in arrival since they don't even try to make a specific connection between REAL major weather events and REAL economic damage of REAL regions.

This is a modeling/survey construct that only people like Crick gets excited over, it is why he is a Warmist/Alarmist member, it is JUNK SCIENCE!

Pathetic!

Brilliant!!

Send the AGW loons to Guam

 

[ReinyDays]

"... topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase ..."
bolding mine
The damage estimates are insane since it is pegged to absurd modeling scenarios of temperature increase of which they didn't tell us WHY that is considered a reasonable estimate, it is just more unverifiable modeling constructs.

Well ... the RCP8.5 scenario would require us to set fire to all the well heads world-wide ... remember Iraq in the early 1990's ... "do nothing" and let all that oil burn for 100 years and we could see $730 trillion damage ... all that black smoke would freeze the equator ...

"we found that climate damages do not appear to follow a quadratic path in the long run, providing some support for the earlier DICE damage function that limits climate damages to 100% of GDP."

Yeah ... the damage will follow a logarithmic path ... as close to the opposite of quadratic as to make no difference ... (officially the fourth root path, c.f. SB) ...

======

Nice catch noting the OP didn't read his own reference ... just spewing his half digested liberal tofu ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

theyve been wrong for 50 yrs,, not seeing any credibility here,,

and its ponly been a select few scientist,,

To what "select few scientists" do you refer?

the ones that claim climate change,, they are but a few that make the claim,, most of the others dont see it,,

I'm afraid that's complete nonsense. Numerous surveys, polls and studies have shown very high acceptance of AGW among published scientists. I have printed the list you can find in Wikipedia if you insist on seeing it. If you have a source that says otherwise, let's see that.

survey =/= science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

theyve been wrong for 50 yrs,, not seeing any credibility here,,

and its ponly been a select few scientist,,

To what "select few scientists" do you refer?

the ones that claim climate change,, they are but a few that make the claim,, most of the others dont see it,,

I'm afraid that's complete nonsense. Numerous surveys, polls and studies have shown very high acceptance of AGW among published scientists. I have printed the list you can find in Wikipedia if you insist on seeing it. If you have a source that says otherwise, let's see that.

The lab is so cruel to fake science, of course you have surveys and polls

 

[Oddball]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

 

[jc456]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

Then why you quoting economists?

 

[Flash]

Cold front coming to Florida tomorrow bringing record low temperatures for April.

Global warming my ass.

 

[jc456]

What lies?

the link you posted. it's very simple. Doesn't surprise me you didn't know you did that.

 

[jc456]

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

The world's scientists once thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called 'experts' Are 0-50

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:” Modern doomsayers have...

www.aei.org

And so you reject all current science? No? Than stop spouting useless bullshit memes

Naptime crickster....maybe take a pillow outside on the roof in case a melty glacier comes swooshing down at you.

I supposed he doesn't know the great lakes are from glaciers that melted. He most probably thinks man was here then. It sure is amazing the science he doesn't understand.