Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[PMZ]

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

How would Oro-man handle this deflection?

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

How would Oro-man handle this deflection? would it be "red herring" or "non-responsive"?

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER. We don't DEPEND ON WIND. That's the problem. You can scream bloody lies about cities running TOTALLY on wind -- but there are none.. Wind is there for 20 minutes and gone for an hour. LARGE QTYs of it will drag the Grid to it's knees.. ESPECIALLY when the GOVT forces primary gens to idle whenever the wind blows.. It will disincentivize the construction of primary power --- THEN the lights go out all day on Tues and Friday..

How much of THAT --- should the govt FORCE US to buy????

The Crescent Dunes concentrated solar plant with energy storage is designed and built to match Las Vegas's demand peak.

Don't you wish that you were smart enough to think of solutions like that?

But that's gray thinking and you only do black or white.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage. The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels. The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile. And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare. We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost. No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls. At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid. We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment. The infrastructure has to change. The sooner we get started on it, the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time. It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas. Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point. There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.

Moving towards WHAT alternate sources??

RARE and EXPENSIVE is expected result by economic theory when you PUSH primarily "conservation".. Who's getting rich from conservation? GE paid no taxes because they got more "green credits" than they could use selling dishwashers and washing machines that would have been built and sold WITHOUT the credits.

Not Schitzoid?? How many 1Watt chargers do I have to pull out of the wall to get 30KWhrs for my Leaf to go 75 miles??

ETHANOL? Who's getting rich on ethanol? And what (predictable) perturbations to the food supply did Al Gore miss on that one?

Gasoline is priced correctly.. The government does not need more money to spend on unrelated drone weapons and horseshit Elon Musk subsidies. Know why Tesla stock is hot?
Over 50% of their "profits" came from govt kick-backs last quarter.

The reality is --- you lefty greens have squandered the opportunities and managed to botch any attempt to get REAL enviro remediation with the money you've ALREADY been given.. You got NOTHING to propose except MORE conservation and dead-end plans like shifting transport energy to the electrical grid..

Natural gas, for one. It certainly is not rare nor expensive. And yes, it is, at best, a stop-gap measure. No one is saying that it is not. But it is the longest term stop-gap solution we have. And it is far more energy efficient and less polluting that coal or fuel oil at generating electrical power. Same with regard to transportation. Yes, there is an infrastructure issue there. But then, the infrastructure we have today for gasoline wasn't built over night either. You people seem to expect solutions over night, or else none at all - meaning that you'd prefer to keep the status quo. But that's not a solution, either, nor is it an option. There are no overnight solutions. It took us 150 years to get into the situation we find ourselves in today. It is foolish to believe that we can get out of it overnight.

Well hell.. I missed Nat Gas on the Official List of Green Alternatives...

But what I didn't miss was the news this year that our US emissions are back to 1998 levels PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE of widespread adoption of Nat Gas..

Imagine that -- slaying the AGW dragon IN SPITE OF the green agenda and the roadblocks and hurdles put in the path of fracking and pipelines.. How big an effort did Obama mount to MAKE that happen eh?

Not only that --- but this "limited source" of Nat Gas doesn't include EXPLOITING those Trillions of yards of Arctic Calthrate that COULD be recovered BEFORE that giant fuel-air bomb roasts the planet..

I'm patient. But I'm also a practiced patron of engineering and science. And I know MATURE technologies when I see 'em.. We got out butts wiped on solar because we tried to stretch the envelope on GIMMICKS like Solyndra had --- rather than just automating the hell out of the manufacturing process.

Let's agree that there ARE BETTER solutions out there. However, having a GOVT pick the winners and losers is a very inefficient and dissapointing lottery. GOVT should stay in R&D and the hell OUT of mature markets.

Like I said -- you'd see hydrogen refining capability BLOOM -- without any intervention or lying or political shananigans.. ---- because it's a great biz to be in.. Especially if you leverage solar and wind to produce it OFF-grid... Same with using renewables to do large scale desalinization projects.. I've got the checkbook out --- waiting for that to happen..

Been toying with picking up Korean Auto stock.. Because THOSE guys are seeing the EV batterywagon disaster and going full tilt into fuel cells. Let the MILLIONS of Americans who know some shit --- make these choices.. NOT --- community organizers and technology adverse eco-nauts..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Abraham:

WestWall mentioned "clean coal" in his Christmas stocking list..

I've been an OPPONENT to any form "biomass conversion" that's been on the Official "alternative" list because it turns into a bait and switch for garbage incinerators.. But IF the greens are correct and you burn waste wood products and hemp for power cleanly --- then it follows that you could also burn COAL cleanly.. Given the simplicity and abundance -- I'd give them the money to "put up or STFU" on clean coal as well.. I believe it COULD be done --- complete with CO2 sequestration if YOU really want that..

 

[westwall]

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.



That seems even less apropos.




But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.



So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?



So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.


BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

And how many death threats have environmentalists received? Resorting to threats and violence never solved any problem. So is this where you really want to the conversation to turn?

I can't think of one that can actually be verified. I can think of many instances where you asshats have advocated the killing of sceptics, the imprisoning of same, the commiting to a mental facility etc., but going the other way......??? None that has been substantiated.

 

[westwall]

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.

Actually it IS cheaper to do nothing. A study recently put forth by the University of Cambridge says global warming will cost 60 trillion. The IPCC wants us to spend 76 trillion so the last time I checked it IS cheaper to do nothing.

 

[westwall]

Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.

Please feel free to show us some good science then. So far everything you have shown is shit.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Thanks for the TP, my computer just went potty...

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't I remember somebody a couple days making comments about

"That's one skeptic down"..
"There's two.."
"All three bit the dust"...

You know -- in this political correct enviro -- even biting your sandwich bread into the shape of a gun could get ya in trouble..

Yeah -- none of you newbies did any end zone dances yet...

 

[westwall]

There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage. The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels. The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile. And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare. We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost. No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls. At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid. We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment. The infrastructure has to change. The sooner we get started on it, the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time. It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas. Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point. There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.

Moving towards WHAT alternate sources??

RARE and EXPENSIVE is expected result by economic theory when you PUSH primarily "conservation".. Who's getting rich from conservation? GE paid no taxes because they got more "green credits" than they could use selling dishwashers and washing machines that would have been built and sold WITHOUT the credits.

Not Schitzoid?? How many 1Watt chargers do I have to pull out of the wall to get 30KWhrs for my Leaf to go 75 miles??

ETHANOL? Who's getting rich on ethanol? And what (predictable) perturbations to the food supply did Al Gore miss on that one?

Gasoline is priced correctly.. The government does not need more money to spend on unrelated drone weapons and horseshit Elon Musk subsidies. Know why Tesla stock is hot?
Over 50% of their "profits" came from govt kick-backs last quarter.

The reality is --- you lefty greens have squandered the opportunities and managed to botch any attempt to get REAL enviro remediation with the money you've ALREADY been given.. You got NOTHING to propose except MORE conservation and dead-end plans like shifting transport energy to the electrical grid..

Natural gas, for one. It certainly is not rare nor expensive. And yes, it is, at best, a stop-gap measure. No one is saying that it is not. But it is the longest term stop-gap solution we have. And it is far more energy efficient and less polluting that coal or fuel oil at generating electrical power. Same with regard to transportation. Yes, there is an infrastructure issue there. But then, the infrastructure we have today for gasoline wasn't built over night either. You people seem to expect solutions over night, or else none at all - meaning that you'd prefer to keep the status quo. But that's not a solution, either, nor is it an option. There are no overnight solutions. It took us 150 years to get into the situation we find ourselves in today. It is foolish to believe that we can get out of it overnight.

Still waiting for your definition of "orphan hole" your first attempt was an abject failure. C'mon mr. geologist.

 

[flacaltenn]

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.

Actually it IS cheaper to do nothing. A study recently put forth by the University of Cambridge says global warming will cost 60 trillion. The IPCC wants us to spend 76 trillion so the last time I checked it IS cheaper to do nothing.

Isn't that how the US managed to reduce to CO2 emissions to 1998 levels? By the government doing NOTHING?? In fact, the eco-left did everything they could to spoil a nat gas expansion..

We should DEFINATELY do more nothing more often...

 

[Abraham3]

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER.

No, we don't. The grid already has sufficient capacity to keep all our lights burning. When we add a KW of wind or solar, it allows us to burn less fuel in our preexisting fossil-fueled generative capacity.

 

[Abraham3]

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.

Actually it IS cheaper to do nothing. A study recently put forth by the University of Cambridge says global warming will cost 60 trillion. The IPCC wants us to spend 76 trillion so the last time I checked it IS cheaper to do nothing.

The 60 trillion was just the cost of the Arctic ice cap disappearing. There's most of a world's worth more costs to take into account. A real geologist would have known that, wouldn't they.

 

[Abraham3]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.

That seems even less apropos.

But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.

So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

"Kill zone"? "Nice shot"? Yes I do. I read FCT telling us what a nice guy you are but at the moment I'm having some difficulty accepting that assessment.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.

Perhaps I'm not. I was 34 years old at the time.

BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

Since they haven't been directed at me I wouldn't be offended but I can't approve of violence - this is supposed to be a democracy. However, when I think what sort of world you and FlaCalTenn and WestWall and your less thoughtful hangers-on are going to leave my children and their children, I can understand someone thinking about doing violence. My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to ancient sea maps, the Ice was gone within recent history.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mapas_pirireis/esp_mapaspirireis05.htm#The Maps of Antarctica

 

[Abraham3]

Still waiting for your definition of "orphan hole" your first attempt was an abject failure. C'mon mr. geologist.

Considering the searches I went through that found nothing, I think the only person with your definition of "orphan hole" is you. Why don't you link us to a geology reference or textbook that uses the term.

 

[PMZ]

What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation.

The lights go out when the country realizes that the cost and furor over a major grid overhaul and generation increase is out of reach given our finances..

Your side wants electricity to be RARE and EXPENSIVE (that's the end result of "conservation")

And many of us believe that electricity should be CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL.
Cheap and plentiful rubs leftists the wrong way since they see society as a blight on the planet anyway.

Our nuclear plants are approaching 60 yrs old.. There's more computing power in a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll than a US nuclear plant. THAT'S why we need to expedite verification of latest BEST technologies and allow them to be replicated without delay.

Let me worry about how to keep MicroSoft the hell out of the nuclear zone...

I'm actually working right now to update components for some of those old plants. We really don't want to keep patching them forever... One display that I just redesigned TRIPLED the processing power of that plant because I included a $1.50 microprocessor.

THere is so much exciting new nuclear tech out there. And we have not had the balls to let it thrive.

There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage. The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels. The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile. And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare. We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost. No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls. At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid. We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment. The infrastructure has to change. The sooner we get started on it, the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time. It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas. Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point. There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.

Moving towards WHAT alternate sources??

RARE and EXPENSIVE is expected result by economic theory when you PUSH primarily "conservation".. Who's getting rich from conservation? GE paid no taxes because they got more "green credits" than they could use selling dishwashers and washing machines that would have been built and sold WITHOUT the credits.

Not Schitzoid?? How many 1Watt chargers do I have to pull out of the wall to get 30KWhrs for my Leaf to go 75 miles??

ETHANOL? Who's getting rich on ethanol? And what (predictable) perturbations to the food supply did Al Gore miss on that one?

Gasoline is priced correctly.. The government does not need more money to spend on unrelated drone weapons and horseshit Elon Musk subsidies. Know why Tesla stock is hot?
Over 50% of their "profits" came from govt kick-backs last quarter.

The reality is --- you lefty greens have squandered the opportunities and managed to botch any attempt to get REAL enviro remediation with the money you've ALREADY been given.. You got NOTHING to propose except MORE conservation and dead-end plans like shifting transport energy to the electrical grid..

How much in fossil fuels do you think the development of just one solution, the Prius, has saved?

 

[PMZ]

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.

Actually it IS cheaper to do nothing. A study recently put forth by the University of Cambridge says global warming will cost 60 trillion. The IPCC wants us to spend 76 trillion so the last time I checked it IS cheaper to do nothing.

Doing nothing doesn't save the $76T though. It just delays it. Probably not by much though.

Not to mention the lives AGW will cost.

 

[PMZ]

Please feel free to show us some good science then. So far everything you have shown is shit.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Thanks for the TP, my computer just went potty...

Scientists know that the IPCC is the global repository of science knowledge on AGW. Non scientists think that Rush Limbaugh is, when in fact, he struggles with spelling AGW.

You picked a losing side. Again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.

That seems even less apropos.

But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.

So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?



So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

"Kill zone"? "Nice shot"? Yes I do. I read FCT telling us what a nice guy you are but at the moment I'm having some difficulty accepting that assessment.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.

Perhaps I'm not. I was 34 years old at the time.

BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

Since they haven't been directed at me I wouldn't be offended but I can't approve of violence - this is supposed to be a democracy. However, when I think what sort of world you and FlaCalTenn and WestWall and your less thoughtful hangers-on are going to leave my children and their children, I can understand someone thinking about doing violence. My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

Your waste of trillions will cost lives.

 

[flacaltenn]

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER.

No, we don't. The grid already has sufficient capacity to keep all our lights burning. When we add a KW of wind or solar, it allows us to burn less fuel in our preexisting fossil-fueled generative capacity.

That's true for mid-day solar peaking.. But it does not apply to wind.. With wind being 20 minutes up and down and a LAW that REQUIRES that you take that energy onto the grid --- you need fast-ramping generators as the primary source. Hydro can do that. Nat Gas to some extent can do that -- solar can't and coal can't.. The energy that has been contracted for and paid for in the latter cases gets dumped to ground. And cycling nat gas plants increases the wear and tear on the equipment. So you are paying for primary sources that are capable of carrying FULL GRID LOAD --- because the worst case output of your renewables is approx. zero..

Wind needs to be charged for that. I have yet to see it tallied as a cost..

Wind will fail when left to market forces because it CAN'T be contracted for. You cannot guarantee delivery. And grid operators (except in screwy Calif.) don't wake up in the morning and THEN decide where the day's energy is gonna come from..

So I ask you again to look at that graph (or find your own) and tell me --- HOW MUCH of the flaky shit should be FORCED to pay for???

Here's another one for your consideration.. This is TOTAL wind output for Germany..

And here's an article CONFIRMING what I just told you about investors not willing to put money into primary plants that must be idled or dumped...

Wind Power In Germany Puts Out Only A Small Fraction Of Rated Capacity In April. Standby Plants Losing Money

The most modern gas-fired power plant is the GUD power plant in Irrsching, which went online a year ago. It has an efficiency of about 60% when it runs near full capacity, which should be every hour of the year. But it doesn&#8217;t. To make a profit, it would need to run at least 4000 hours annually. But because renewable energy like wind and sun have priority when it comes to being feed-in into the power grid, the GUD gas plant operates only about 1600 hours per year. Therefore it is a money-loser, one that ought to be shut down. But it can&#8217;t because it always has to be on standby, ready to jump in should the wind and sun fail to deliver.

Lo and behold, poliitcians have found a solution. German Free Democrat Party (FDP) Minister Martin Zeil knows how to rescue the plant, as the daily Augsburger Allgemeinen writes:

The plant operators have announced that the plant will be shut down at least 2 years. About 100 million euros are needed to keep the power plant running said company chairman Teyssen&#8230;

&#8230;Bavaria Economics Minsister Martin Zeil declared a few days ago that Irsching V has to stay online. Otherwise grid stability and thus the electricity supply would be jeopardized. Because of this the grid operator can instruct to keep a power plant on standby, the Minister reminds. Moreover, Zeil said the state government is planning the construction of 4 new gas-fired power plants, but is unable to find an investor. Irsching V can produce almost as much electricity as a small nuclear reactor&#8230;Bavaria&#8217;s showcase power plant risks going out of business.

Pretty much a future clusterfuck with the Govt subsidizing BOTH generators to make the scheme work...

 

[PMZ]

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

"Kill zone"? "Nice shot"? Yes I do. I read FCT telling us what a nice guy you are but at the moment I'm having some difficulty accepting that assessment.



Perhaps I'm not. I was 34 years old at the time.

BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

Since they haven't been directed at me I wouldn't be offended but I can't approve of violence - this is supposed to be a democracy. However, when I think what sort of world you and FlaCalTenn and WestWall and your less thoughtful hangers-on are going to leave my children and their children, I can understand someone thinking about doing violence. My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

My mistakes might cost us more money than a perfect solution. Your mistakes will cost lives.

Your waste of trillions will cost lives.

Your mistakes don't cost us a nickel because you are irrelevant. Nobody has any reason to pay any attention to you.


Feel free to whine to your heart's content. The world listens to scientists for science, not political Dittoheads.