Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[the other mike]

What’s your point?

Climate change deniers like you are dangerous conspiracy theorists and a threat to the future of our planet.

 

[the other mike]

Clean Energy Sector Employs More Than 10 Million For The First Time

Clean energy is building a new American workforce

Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of U.S.

 

[Cellblock2429]

What’s your point?

Climate change deniers like you are dangerous conspiracy theorists and a threat to the future of our planet.

/---/ I have never denied the climate has been changing - in fact, I have posted many times the climate has been changing since day one and will continue to do so no matter how much libtards raise our taxes and take our liberties away. You may now apologize for bearing false witness against me.

BTW - the point I was making is your list conveniently left out the donations by the teachers and auto workers unions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can any of the "Science Loving" AGW Cult answer the following 2 scientific questions:

1. What is the observed increase in temperature by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?
2. Please describe the process that generates the necessary energy for atmospheric CO2 to heat the deep ocean.

Specific Heat - Chemistry | Socratic

 

[the other mike]

You may now apologize for bearing false witness against me.
.

Then next time I post something that's obviously self-explanatory, don't come along with a stupid question like- duh- "what's your point ?"

 

[Markle]

Clean Energy Sector Employs More Than 10 Million For The First Time

Clean energy is building a new American workforce

Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of U.S.

Glad to see you are proud of the fact that "renewable energy" is labor intense resulting in their high cost to the consumer.

 

[the other mike]

Glad to see you are proud of the fact that "renewable energy" is labor intense resulting in their high cost to the consumer.

Deflection and spin- truth deniers favorite weapons.
I was illustrating the potential for job creation - a positive addition to the economy regardless of the climate change discussion.

 

[Crick]

CCS = Carbon Capture and Storage

 

[Cellblock2429]

Can any of the "Science Loving" AGW Cult answer the following 2 scientific questions:

1. What is the observed increase in temperature by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?
2. Please describe the process that generates the necessary energy for atmospheric CO2 to heat the deep ocean.

Specific Heat - Chemistry | Socratic

/-----/

1. What is the observed increase in temperature by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM? The answer is buried in Trump's tax returns on Line 654.
2. Please describe the process that generates the necessary energy for atmospheric CO2 to heat the deep ocean. Evil Corporate America is destroying the Environment

 

[Markle]

View attachment 250933

CCS = Carbon Capture and Storage

I'm not surprised that you refused to show your source along with a reliable link.

As you know too, the LCOE method of calculating the cost of energy is seldom used to to the many flaws it contains.

Here, for 2019.

Capital costs[edit]
For power generation capacity capital costs are often expressed as overnight cost per watt. The EIA 2019 estimates are:

• gas/oil combined cycle power plant - $1000/kW [4]
• fuel cells - $7200/kW[4]
• advanced nuclear - $6000/kW[4]
• battery storage - $2000/kW[4]
• geothermal - $2800/kW[4]
• wind - $1600/kW[4]
• offshore wind - $6500/kW[4]
• solar PV (tracking)- $2000/kW[4]
• solar PV (fixed) - $1800/kW[4]

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

 

[Crick]

At the bottom of my graphic is said DOE.

I'm not surprised you would want to reject Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) because those results look like this (from your link Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia:

Levelized cost of electricity
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset. It is often taken as a proxy for the average price that the generating asset must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime. It is a first-order economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of an electricity-generating system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital.

The levelized cost is that value for which an equal-valued fixed revenue delivered over the life of the asset's generating profile would cause the project to break even. This can be roughly calculated as the net present value of all costs over the lifetime of the asset divided by the total electrical energy output of the asset.[5]

[Graphic of LCOE equation would not copy --Ed]

Note: Some caution must be taken when using formulas for the levelized cost, as they often embody unseen assumptions, neglect effects like taxes, and may be specified in real or nominal levelized cost. For example, other versions of the above formula do not discount the electricity stream.[citation needed]
Typically the LCOE is calculated over the design lifetime of a plant, which is usually 20 to 40 years, and given in the units of currency per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-day, for example AUD/kWh or EUR/kWh or per megawatt-hour, for example AUD/MWh (as tabulated below).[6] However, care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed.[7] In particular, assumption of capacity factor has significant impact on the calculation of LCOE. Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.[7]



Many scholars,[specify] such as Paul Joskow, have described limits to the "levelized cost of electricity" metric for comparing new generating sources. In particular, LCOE ignores time effects associated with matching production to demand. This happens at two levels:

• Dispatchability, the ability of a generating system to come online, go offline, or ramp up or down, quickly as demand swings.
• The extent to which the availability profile matches or conflicts with the market demand profile.

Thermally lethargic technologies like coal and nuclear are physically incapable of fast ramping. Capital intensive technologies such as wind, solar, and nuclear are economically disadvantaged unless generating at maximum availability since the LCOE is nearly all sunk-cost capital investment. Intermittent power sources, such as wind and solar, may incur extra costs associated with needing to have storage or backup generation available.[8] At the same time, intermittent sources can be competitive if they are available to produce when demand and prices are highest, such as solar during summertime mid-day peaks seen in hot countries where air conditioning is a major consumer.[7] Despite these time limitations, leveling costs is often a necessary prerequisite for making comparisons on an equal footing before demand profiles are considered, and the levelized-cost metric is widely used for comparing technologies at the margin, where grid implications of new generation can be neglected.

Another limitation of the LCOE metric is the influence of energy efficiency and conservation (EEC).[9] EEC has caused the electricity demand of many countries to remain flat or decline. Considering only the LCOE for utility scale plants will tend to maximise generation and risks overestimating required generation due to efficiency, thus "lowballing" their LCOE. For solar systems installed at the point of end use, it is more economical to invest in EEC first, then solar (resulting in a smaller required solar system than what would be needed without the EEC measures). However, designing a solar system on the basis of LCOE would cause the smaller system LCOE to increase (as the energy generation [measured in kWh] drops faster than the system cost [$]). The whole of system life cycle cost should be considered, not just the LCOE of the energy source.[9] LCOE is not as relevant to end-users than other financial considerations such as income, cashflow, mortgage, leases, rent, and electricity bills.[9] Comparing solar investments in relation to these can make it easier for end-users to make a decision, or using cost-benefit calculations "and/or an asset’s capacity value or contribution to peak on a system or circuit level".[9]

 

[Crick]

James Inhofe

Quotes from the inimicable James Inhofe

“History already shows that this Paris Agreement will fail. This latest announcement is the president attempting to once again give the international community the appearance that he can go around Congress in order to achieve his unpopular and widely rejected climate agenda for his legacy.” [10]

“My own granddaughter came home one day and said … ‘Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?’ I did some checking, and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, they are brainwash — you have to un-brainwash them when they get out,” Inhofe said in the audio. [11]

“I always use my favorite quote of Richard Lindzen, which is that ‘controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.’ Control. That’s what they want.” [49]

“Keep in mind: the IPCC is the United Nations power plan. And it’s one that is - that’s where it all started. And It’s really important people understand that.“ [49]

“Things came out like the 97% consensus, which is a joke and has been pretty much disproven.“ [49]

“[The United Nations] have been behind the global warming movement since the 1970s. The 1970s. Stop and think about that.” [49]

Speaking on the issue of climate change in the school system: “I can assure you, that’s one thing that, hand-in-hand, Scott Pruitt and I are going to try to do something to save our next generation.” [49]

 

[Markle]

At the bottom of my graphic is said DOE.

I'm not surprised you would want to reject Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) because those results look like this (from your link Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia:

View attachment 250947

Levelized cost of electricity
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset. It is often taken as a proxy for the average price that the generating asset must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime. It is a first-order economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of an electricity-generating system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital.

The levelized cost is that value for which an equal-valued fixed revenue delivered over the life of the asset's generating profile would cause the project to break even. This can be roughly calculated as the net present value of all costs over the lifetime of the asset divided by the total electrical energy output of the asset.[5]

[Graphic of LCOE equation would not copy --Ed]

Note: Some caution must be taken when using formulas for the levelized cost, as they often embody unseen assumptions, neglect effects like taxes, and may be specified in real or nominal levelized cost. For example, other versions of the above formula do not discount the electricity stream.[citation needed]
Typically the LCOE is calculated over the design lifetime of a plant, which is usually 20 to 40 years, and given in the units of currency per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-day, for example AUD/kWh or EUR/kWh or per megawatt-hour, for example AUD/MWh (as tabulated below).[6] However, care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed.[7] In particular, assumption of capacity factor has significant impact on the calculation of LCOE. Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.[7]



Many scholars,[specify] such as Paul Joskow, have described limits to the "levelized cost of electricity" metric for comparing new generating sources. In particular, LCOE ignores time effects associated with matching production to demand. This happens at two levels:

• Dispatchability, the ability of a generating system to come online, go offline, or ramp up or down, quickly as demand swings.
• The extent to which the availability profile matches or conflicts with the market demand profile.

Thermally lethargic technologies like coal and nuclear are physically incapable of fast ramping. Capital intensive technologies such as wind, solar, and nuclear are economically disadvantaged unless generating at maximum availability since the LCOE is nearly all sunk-cost capital investment. Intermittent power sources, such as wind and solar, may incur extra costs associated with needing to have storage or backup generation available.[8] At the same time, intermittent sources can be competitive if they are available to produce when demand and prices are highest, such as solar during summertime mid-day peaks seen in hot countries where air conditioning is a major consumer.[7] Despite these time limitations, leveling costs is often a necessary prerequisite for making comparisons on an equal footing before demand profiles are considered, and the levelized-cost metric is widely used for comparing technologies at the margin, where grid implications of new generation can be neglected.

Another limitation of the LCOE metric is the influence of energy efficiency and conservation (EEC).[9] EEC has caused the electricity demand of many countries to remain flat or decline. Considering only the LCOE for utility scale plants will tend to maximise generation and risks overestimating required generation due to efficiency, thus "lowballing" their LCOE. For solar systems installed at the point of end use, it is more economical to invest in EEC first, then solar (resulting in a smaller required solar system than what would be needed without the EEC measures). However, designing a solar system on the basis of LCOE would cause the smaller system LCOE to increase (as the energy generation [measured in kWh] drops faster than the system cost [$]). The whole of system life cycle cost should be considered, not just the LCOE of the energy source.[9] LCOE is not as relevant to end-users than other financial considerations such as income, cashflow, mortgage, leases, rent, and electricity bills.[9] Comparing solar investments in relation to these can make it easier for end-users to make a decision, or using cost-benefit calculations "and/or an asset’s capacity value or contribution to peak on a system or circuit level".[9]

Like I said, a non-traditional method. Strange, but I go by what is being charged to consumers for the energy.

 

[Crick]

What is being charged to which consumers where?

LCOE is used because it is a good comparative measure.

LCOE = Sum of costs over lifetime / sum of electrical energy produced over lifetime

 

[skookerasbil]

BTW.....AOC's poll numbers tanking even in her own hyper-left district in NY. Nationwide, she is in free-fall into what we call oblivion.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What is being charged to which consumers where?

LCOE is used because it is a good comparative measure.

LCOE = Sum of costs over lifetime / sum of electrical energy produced over lifetime

I bet you didnt even bother with the report of the 20 billion dollars that was stolen in CO2 taxes by the global warming alarmists did you? You are such a pitiful petulant little girl.

 

[Crick]

I bet you didn't bother with the 6 million Jews slaughtered during World War II.

That study shows that alternative energy technologies have become more than competitive with fossil fuel sources.

 

[SSDD]

..that is how it is when you talk to dumbed down Americans...

Like yourself ?
It's what you get when you ask stupid questions.

You really are dumbed down...aren't you. I am here to talk about the science...you can't do that so you resort to that sort of post. Let me know if you ever learn enough to discuss the science..

 

[SSDD]

Lobbying Spending Database Oil & Gas, 2018 | OpenSecrets
Campaign Contributions from this industry

Exxon Mobil $11,150,000
Koch Industries $9,990,000
Chevron Corp $9,600,000
Royal Dutch Shell $8,950,000
American Petroleum Institute $6,970,000
Occidental Petroleum $6,597,424
BP $5,230,000
Marathon Petroleum $4,964,995
Phillips 66 $3,790,000
American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers $3,429,036
ConocoPhillips $3,080,000
Enbridge Inc $2,130,000
Noble Energy $2,070,000
Anadarko Petroleum $1,980,000
PDVSA $1,960,000
Valero Energy $1,800,000
Tellurian Inc $1,750,000
Nord Stream 2 AG $1,620,000
Independent Petroleum Assn of America $1,443,144
Williams Companies $1,320,000
Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America $1,300,000
Cheniere Energy $1,240,000
Equinor $1,210,000
American Gas Assn $1,010,000
Energy Transfer Equity $995,000
TransCanada Corp $920,000
Devon Energy $900,000
QEP Resources $860,000
Hess Corp $800,000
Murphy Oil $780,000
HollyFrontier Corp $740,000
EnCana Corp $720,000
PBF Energy $670,000
Chesapeake Energy $660,000
National Propane Gas Assn $660,000
WPX Energy $630,000
Domestic Petroleum Council $590,000
PetroGov LLC $470,000
CNX Resrouces $455,000
Petroleum Marketers Assn $440,000
Plains All American Pipeline $435,000
Gulf Energy Alliance $410,000
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers $400,000
National Fuel Gas Corp $390,000
Magellan Midstream Partners $385,000
Delek Group $380,000
Sinclair Oil $380,000
Denbury Resources $360,000
Golden Pass Products $360,000
G2 LNG LLC $350,000
Arctic Slope Native Assn $340,000
Enterprise Products Partners $320,000
Musket Corp $320,000
PennEast Pipeline $310,000
Stars Group $300,000
EQT Corp $295,000
Natural Gas Supply Assn $270,000
Pilot Corp $260,000
Paradigm Pipeline $260,000
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas $250,000
Marathon Oil $245,000
Buckeye Partners $240,000
CONSOL Energy $230,000
Frontera Resources $230,000
Kinder Morgan Inc $230,000
Otis Eastern Service $230,000
Philadelphia Energy Solutions $220,000
Gas Technology Institute $220,000
Colonial Pipeline $220,000
Concho Resources $210,000
Aspect Energy $210,000
Ergon Inc $210,000
National Assn of Truck Stop Operators $210,000
Bass Enterprises Production $200,000
Cook Inlet Assn $200,000
VNG Co $200,000
Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline $190,000
Loves Travel Stops & Country Stores $190,000
New Mexico Oil & Gas Assn $180,000
GPA Midstream Assn $180,000
US Oil & Gas Assn $178,894
Wintershall Holding $170,000
OMV AG $170,000
Hunt Companies $170,000
Kolmar Group $160,000
Lucas Oil $160,000
KP Kauffman Co $160,000
Oceaneering Intl $160,000
Pioneer Natural Resources $160,000
Excelerate Energy $160,000
Freeport LNG Development $160,000
Western Energy Alliance $160,000
Fairfield Geotechnologies $150,000
Enable Midstream Partners $150,000
Eagle LNG $150,000
Countrymark Cooperative $150,000
New England Fuel Institute $150,000
Mack Energy $150,000
US Oil $145,000
Tanana Chiefs Conference $140,000
Yuhuang Chemical $140,000
National Ocean Industries Assn $140,000
Offshore Marine Service Assn $140,000
Industrial Safety Training Council $130,000
Washington Gas Light Co $121,050
Nustar Energy $120,000
Neste $120,000
Neste Corp $120,000
New Jersey Resources Corp $120,000
NextDecade Corp $120,000
Canadian Assn of Petroleum Producers $120,000
Algeco Scotsman $120,000
G2X Energy $120,000
Atmos Energy $110,000
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assn $110,000
Hornbeck Offshore Services $110,000
Kern Oil & Refining Co $110,000
Veresen Inc $110,000
Halliburton Co $100,000
Association of Oil Pipe Lines $97,456
In Situ Oil Sands Alliance $95,000
Range Resources $92,200
Magnolia LNG $90,000
ARETI Group $90,000
Apache Corp $90,000
Bristol Bay Native Assn $90,000
Boardwalkd Pipelines $80,000
Enifit American Oil $80,000
Memorial Resource Development $80,000
Newfield Exploration Co $80,000
Repsol SA $80,000
Taylor Energy Co $80,000
Dragon Products $75,000
Hilcorp Alaska $60,000
National Oilheat Research Alliance $60,000
Weatherford International $60,000
Western Exploration $60,000
Propane People $50,000
American Ethane $50,000
Crescent Point Energy US $50,000
American Pipeline Contractors Assn $45,000
Tellus Operating Group $45,000
Harvey Gulf International Marine $40,000
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition $40,000
McDermott International $40,000
Iroquois Gas Transmission System $40,000
Domestic Energy Producers Alliance $36,000
Argus Media $32,000
American Public Gas Assn $30,000
Colonial Group $30,000
Jordan Cove Energy Project $30,000
New Jersey Natural Gas $30,000
Texas Resource Partners $30,000
SG Interests $20,000
National Oilwell Varco $20,000
ONEOK Inc $15,000
Alliance Pipeline $15,000
NGL Energy Partners $10,000
Lake Charles Methanol $10,000
Vinmar International $10,000
Dominion Resources $5,000

Ands that doesn't even equal to a rounding error in the amount of money spent on the climate change scam over the past 30 years...the rate of money being spent on the scam vs the money being spent fighting it is about 1000:1.

 

[SSDD]

What’s your point?

Climate change deniers like you are dangerous conspiracy theorists and a threat to the future of our planet.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that the climate change we have seen is in any way different from natural variability? Just one single piece of such evidence?

Didn't think so. And yet, you believe, and believe we are engaged in a conspiracy...you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis, and yet, you think the science is settled...