how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

Fox -

Your website is suspect Saigon. I doubt it is Pickens website. I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video.

Well, if is not his site, I think he might want to call his lawyers.

I don't see any contradiction myself in Pickens reducing his order for turbines now, or for relocating some turbines, and his understanding that wind will be vital in future. That is the way the market works some times, particularly with newish technologies.

He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines.

Possibly - but I think a more likely explanation is that you simply rushed to judgement. As far as we know Pickens remains committed to wind energy, and will probably remain so as long as the future for wind looks as strong as it is right now.

I'm personally more of a fan of a tidal/nuclear mix as the main sources of energy, but even so - wind has its place.

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

We should always follow their examples right comrade?

The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal. But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million. Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.

 

[Foxfyre]

I could make Cadillacs cheaper than Fords if I put a high enough tax on Fords.

 

[Saigon]

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

Wind does need back-up, as does solar, which increasingly in Europe is Natural Gas.

It isn't a grid "nightmare", it's something which Europe already deals with on a day-to-day basis without much fuss.

Solar tends to be VERY predictable, and also has the advantage of being available through peak times. Wind is obviously less predictable, but it still generates more than 50% of the energy needs of some major EU economies at peak times.

 

[PMZ]

You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?

The side which has 0.7% of scientific papers on its side is likely to be wrong.

That is how much scientific support climate change denial has.

btw.You have misunderstood the debate about CO2. The reason we need to reduce CO2 emissions is not because people might feel nauseous or get headaches as you suggest - but because CO2 drives the increase in temperatures.

You are absolutely correct of course. But the fact of warmer might not be so bad. The consequences of warmer though are changed weather patterns which can have a profound impact due the the reality that we built civilization around the old climate. A new climate will impact both our port cities and our farms, as well as the impact of extreme weather on homes.

Doing nothings absolutely unaffordable.

 

[Saigon]

. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal.

That is silly - wind is cheaper than coal everywhere and anywhere and all the time. With or without taxes.

The stats were posted earlier.

 

[PMZ]

The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise..

I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you..

The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2. To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..

This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling.

Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...

There it is.. . Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed...

BTW: Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.

The limits to your understanding get more obvious.

Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.

That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.

We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.

Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.

ROFL... LOL atmospheric CO2 is nothing like a vacum silly socko.

Perhaps the most idiotic post ever.

 

[PMZ]

The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise..

I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you..

The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2. To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..

This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling.

Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...

There it is.. . Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed...

BTW: Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.

The limits to your understanding get more obvious.

Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.

That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.

We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.

Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.

I really hate to point it out to you....but the Earths atmosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately for you your cures are worse than the illness....but that's true of all collectivist cures, they don't really want to fix anything. They just want more power.

Tell us what surrounds our atmosphere if not a vacuum.

 

[flacaltenn]

The limits to your understanding get more obvious.

Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.

That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.

We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.

Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.

I really hate to point it out to you....but the Earths atmosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately for you your cures are worse than the illness....but that's true of all collectivist cures, they don't really want to fix anything. They just want more power.

Tell us what surrounds our atmosphere if not a vacuum.

Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be?

OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2..

After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious"..

And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..

 

[PMZ]

This might be a good time to review energy costs:

Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)

Coal NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132

Biomass 120

Nuclear 112

Advanced Coal 112

Convention coal 99.6

Wind 96.8

Hydro 89.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this shows why most experts consider coal to be an outmoded technology, and why nuclear, wind, tidal, hydro and natural gas are considered to be the main fuels of the 21st century.

Tidal is not priced here, but pilot programs in Scotland, Korea, New Zealand and China suggest that it may become the cheapest source of energy available.

Nice numbers but the fact it was for "Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017" seems to change things a bit.. LOL,dude are you even capable of honesty anymore?

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

Conventional Coal 99.6
Advanced Coal 85 112.2
Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
Natural Gas Fired
NG: Conventional Combined Cycle 68.6
NG: Advanced Combined Cycle 65.5
NG: Advanced CC with CCS 87 92.8
NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132.0
NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
Advanced Nuclear 112.7
Geothermal 99.6
Biomass 83 120.2
Wind1 34 96.8
Solar PV1,2 156.9
Solar Thermal1 251.0
Hydro1 89.9

That's from your link socko.. Why not cite the full list instead of cherry picking?

And the funny part is the numbers are not only estimated but do not reflect actual costs of wind power.It does not reflect insurance. it's a huge tower with big spinning blades and not only a fire hazard but a big airborne fire hazard. Not to mention the damage it can do to birds, and the habitat destruction such wind farms will entail. Oh yes insurance will be a problem. Also where is the maintenance costs? It's meaningless list generated to sell a product..

Your costs are to build new capacity, not to run it. If you never turn them on, fueled sources are pretty cheap. If you do turn them on, fuel and waste disposal are the largest costs.

The only question left is, are you just slow or just deceptive or both?

 

[PMZ]

Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.

LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.

Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.

Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?

Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?

What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?

 

[PMZ]

The limits to your understanding get more obvious.

Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.

That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.

We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.

Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.

I really hate to point it out to you....but the Earths atmosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately for you your cures are worse than the illness....but that's true of all collectivist cures, they don't really want to fix anything. They just want more power.

Not to mention that the words "Climate Sensitivity" or logarithmic CO2 forcing function didn't penetrate his ossified brain.. I should start negging people for being non-responsive , combative and rude, but I can't neg them for being pitiful and stupid..

Watts in/Watts out HAS NOTHING to do with the absolute TEMPERATURE of the object -- unless you know the thermal properties of those materials..

Nobody said it did numbnuts or that it's even relevant.

Once a body as I have described has reached energy and temperature equilibrium, lowering the radiated watts out while maintaing watts in require a warming until energy equilibrium is restored.

 

[PMZ]

Fox -

Your website is suspect Saigon. I doubt it is Pickens website. I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video.

Well, if is not his site, I think he might want to call his lawyers.

I don't see any contradiction myself in Pickens reducing his order for turbines now, or for relocating some turbines, and his understanding that wind will be vital in future. That is the way the market works some times, particularly with newish technologies.

He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines.

Possibly - but I think a more likely explanation is that you simply rushed to judgement. As far as we know Pickens remains committed to wind energy, and will probably remain so as long as the future for wind looks as strong as it is right now.

I'm personally more of a fan of a tidal/nuclear mix as the main sources of energy, but even so - wind has its place.

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

We should always follow their examples right comrade?

Mein Herr, this is just another attempt, with another red herring, to obscure what has to be and is being done to save civilization. You trying to avoid that in order to dump the whole bill on the next generations is disingenuous to say the least.

Weather is predictable. Energy can be stored. Wind and solar provide typically during the day when demand is at peak. By charging cars at night millions of batteries store night time energy for day use.

You have the imagination of a conservative which is to say near none.

 

[PMZ]

Fox -



Well, if is not his site, I think he might want to call his lawyers.

I don't see any contradiction myself in Pickens reducing his order for turbines now, or for relocating some turbines, and his understanding that wind will be vital in future. That is the way the market works some times, particularly with newish technologies.



Possibly - but I think a more likely explanation is that you simply rushed to judgement. As far as we know Pickens remains committed to wind energy, and will probably remain so as long as the future for wind looks as strong as it is right now.

I'm personally more of a fan of a tidal/nuclear mix as the main sources of energy, but even so - wind has its place.

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

We should always follow their examples right comrade?

The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal. But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million. Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.

Why shouldn't the cost of saving civilization from the consequences of dumping waste carbon in the air not be charged to those saving money by dumping it there?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

Wind does need back-up, as does solar, which increasingly in Europe is Natural Gas.

It isn't a grid "nightmare", it's something which Europe already deals with on a day-to-day basis without much fuss.

Solar tends to be VERY predictable, and also has the advantage of being available through peak times. Wind is obviously less predictable, but it still generates more than 50% of the energy needs of some major EU economies at peak times.

"....VERY predictable ..... available at peak times"

Yeah the Europeans bought that bad Wiener and now they are FURIOUS at the surcharges and taxes on their power bills.

Here's predictable peak time Solar Power in Germany.. Paid for by MORONS who don't understand a whit about system reliability or real time load balancing..

 

[PMZ]

I really hate to point it out to you....but the Earths atmosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately for you your cures are worse than the illness....but that's true of all collectivist cures, they don't really want to fix anything. They just want more power.

Tell us what surrounds our atmosphere if not a vacuum.

Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be?

OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2..

After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious"..

And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..

I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.

Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.

All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.

 

[PMZ]

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

Wind does need back-up, as does solar, which increasingly in Europe is Natural Gas.

It isn't a grid "nightmare", it's something which Europe already deals with on a day-to-day basis without much fuss.

Solar tends to be VERY predictable, and also has the advantage of being available through peak times. Wind is obviously less predictable, but it still generates more than 50% of the energy needs of some major EU economies at peak times.

You are arguing with tiny minds who have been pursuaded that mankind is dumb, solutions are impossible, the monsters in the closets rule, we must each protect our stash because growth is a thing of the past, and somehow all smart people ended up in business and all dumb people in government.

It's a mindset delivered daily to the nation's Lazy Boys, remote controlling the media boxes, to maximum opinionating and minimum informing.

The non thinkers paradise.

They are a major indictment of our education system.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

We should always follow their examples right comrade?

The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal. But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million. Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.

Why shouldn't the cost of saving civilization from the consequences of dumping waste carbon in the air not be charged to those saving money by dumping it there?

And add to the loooooooooong list of points that went sailing right over PMZ's head. You need to pay better attention to what your Siamese twin is spouting up there.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Let's try again.

Based on the figures provided, is wind power cheaper than coal, nuclear or biomass?

btw. please don't forget to correct the fraudulent quote in you sig line!

Based on the BS figures you got off wikki it depends on the type of "fossil fuel" and methods used.. See the numbers? They are from your link and you cherry-picked your list from them.

 

[PMZ]

The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal. But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million. Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.

Why shouldn't the cost of saving civilization from the consequences of dumping waste carbon in the air not be charged to those saving money by dumping it there?

And add to the loooooooooong list of points that went sailing right over PMZ's head. You need to pay better attention to what your Siamese twin is spouting up there.

There are many ways to avoid answering inconvenient questions and you've employed most of them. I'll bet you are wishing that you had a supportable position about now.

It really is a lot easier than dancing around an unsupportable position endlessly.

 

[gslack]

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

Wind does need back-up, as does solar, which increasingly in Europe is Natural Gas.

It isn't a grid "nightmare", it's something which Europe already deals with on a day-to-day basis without much fuss.

Solar tends to be VERY predictable, and also has the advantage of being available through peak times. Wind is obviously less predictable, but it still generates more than 50% of the energy needs of some major EU economies at peak times.

"natural gas" usually found near coal or petroleum deposits...Also a hydrocarbon,often contains CO2 in the mix.. Moron. LOL