Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[abu afak]

`

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

`

`

I'm convinced....$76 trillion!!!

 

[abu afak]

I'm convinced....$76 trillion!!!

Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power
Peter R. Orszag
Bloomberg
September 22, 2020

​

Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power​

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As the harm from climate change becomes increasingly manifest, there is some good news: The estimated cost of reducing carbon emissions is falling rapidly. One dramatic example is an analysis by Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6...

ca.finance.yahoo.com
"...Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6 billion a year for the U.S. to move to carbon-free electricity generation by 2050.

Even if the precise numbers are off, Heal is right to emphasize that the transition to cleaner energy is much less costly today than it used to be. Three forces are changing the math.

First, renewable power costs are dropping so fast, both utility-scale solar and onshore wind power have become cheaper than natural gas or coal power, as Lazard’s levelized-cost-of-energy estimates from 2019 show. As I wrote when these numbers came out, multiple forces have driven costs down, including ongoing improvements in technology and lower capital costs. (In November, Lazard will have updated estimates of the cost of various energy technologies.)

Second, the cost of storing renewable energy is also falling. The challenge with wind and solar energy is that they are intermittent, so they require either supplemental conventional power, such as combined-cycle natural gas, or enough storage to smooth the variation relative to demand. As storage becomes more affordable than supplementation, the share of energy production based solely on renewable power can expand.
.....
Third, and crucially, many power plants are nearing the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced one way or another. That means the cost of building new facilities is a given, and shouldn’t be counted as a cost of the transition to lower-carbon electricity. ...
[......]

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power
Peter R. Orszag
Bloomberg
September 22, 2020

​

Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power​

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As the harm from climate change becomes increasingly manifest, there is some good news: The estimated cost of reducing carbon emissions is falling rapidly. One dramatic example is an analysis by Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6...

ca.finance.yahoo.com
"...Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6 billion a year for the U.S. to move to carbon-free electricity generation by 2050.

Even if the precise numbers are off, Heal is right to emphasize that the transition to cleaner energy is much less costly today than it used to be. Three forces are changing the math.

First, renewable power costs are dropping so fast, both utility-scale solar and onshore wind power have become cheaper than natural gas or coal power, as Lazard’s levelized-cost-of-energy estimates from 2019 show. As I wrote when these numbers came out, multiple forces have driven costs down, including ongoing improvements in technology and lower capital costs. (In November, Lazard will have updated estimates of the cost of various energy technologies.)

Second, the cost of storing renewable energy is also falling. The challenge with wind and solar energy is that they are intermittent, so they require either supplemental conventional power, such as combined-cycle natural gas, or enough storage to smooth the variation relative to demand. As storage becomes more affordable than supplementation, the share of energy production based solely on renewable power can expand.
.....
Third, and crucially, many power plants are nearing the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced one way or another. That means the cost of building new facilities is a given, and shouldn’t be counted as a cost of the transition to lower-carbon electricity. ...
[......]

`

.Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6 billion a year for the U.S. to move to carbon-free electricity generation by 2050.

LOL! Show the math.

(In November, Lazard will have updated estimates of the cost of various energy technologies.)

Can't wait!

The challenge with wind and solar energy is that they are intermittent, so they require either supplemental conventional power, such as combined-cycle natural gas, or enough storage to smooth the variation relative to demand.

How much storage do we need to power Chicago with solar for a cold, snowy week in January?
How much will that storage cost?

 

[Crick]

.Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University showing that it would cost only $6 billion a year for the U.S. to move to carbon-free electricity generation by 2050.

LOL! Show the math.

(In November, Lazard will have updated estimates of the cost of various energy technologies.)

Can't wait!

The challenge with wind and solar energy is that they are intermittent, so they require either supplemental conventional power, such as combined-cycle natural gas, or enough storage to smooth the variation relative to demand.

How much storage do we need to power Chicago with solar for a cold, snowy week in January?
How much will that storage cost?

Todd, could you show us that math that might make someone think that price IS an obstacle to clean power?

 

[westwall]

Todd, could you show us that math that might make someone think that price IS an obstacle to clean power?

Price is ALWAYS an obstacle when you are talking about complete replacement of an energy system.

The claim it can be done for 6 billion a year is laughable.

 

[Crick]

Price is ALWAYS an obstacle when you are talking about complete replacement of an energy system.

The claim it can be done for 6 billion a year is laughable.

Things wear out and have to be replaced. And you left out how long it's supposed to take at 6 billion a year. You must have some numbers - you've been saving them up for ages. Let's see some.

 

[westwall]

Things wear out and have to be replaced. And you left out how long it's supposed to take at 6 billion a year. You must have some numbers - you've been saving them up for ages. Let's see some.

According to the UN the estimated cost is 74 trillion.

I think they are low, but let's start there.

 

[Crick]

According to the UN the estimated cost is 74 trillion.

I think they are low, but let's start there.

Source?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, could you show us that math that might make someone think that price IS an obstacle to clean power?

I could show you that Germany has the most expensive electricity in the world.
Can you explain why all their cheap wind and cheap solar doesn't mean cheap electricity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Things wear out and have to be replaced. And you left out how long it's supposed to take at 6 billion a year. You must have some numbers - you've been saving them up for ages. Let's see some.

And you left out how long it's supposed to take at 6 billion a year.

Is it 1,000 years? 1,000,000 years?

 

[Crick]

And you left out how long it's supposed to take at 6 billion a year.

Is it 1,000 years? 1,000,000 years?

I think it was by 2050.

And, of course, you're constantly progressing; emissions would be falling that whole time. Don't treat it as something that has no effect till it's complete.

 

[abu afak]

No, science deals in observable facts.
Emphasis on OBSERVABLE

Temperature, CO2 level, (and other GHG levels), Sea Level, etc, are all Observable and Measurable Facts.

NONE of your posts shed ANY light on the topic, just hostility and denial.

You are a Demented TROLL who can't write more than a dozen words in a post.

`

 

[abu afak]

And BOOM, there you go.

Alarmists are all about science, but they Cherry Pick science, lmfao

Posting the Consense of ALL Science Orgs and large Surveys of thousands of scientists id the OPPOSITE of "Cherry Picking." "Cherry Picking was your Hapler Boobtube.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`
Note:
I do Not respond to the ONE-LINE Trolls 'jc456,' ToddsterParrot, and Mod MisterBananaPeale.

 

[jc456]

How many scientists don't have a salary?

People all paid by the same money. You ain’t too smart

 

[jc456]

Temperature, CO2 level, (and other GHG levels), Sea Level, etc, are all Observable and Measurable Facts

.012% of the atmosphere, how hot is that? Show us the hot spot. It wasn’t in Georgia yesterday!!!

Why was the temp 40 degrees down from average?

 

[EMH]

The warmers are all about PARROTING.

I'm parroting "the scientists"

Um, no, you are parroting lying fudge baking traitors and you have been the whole time.

We are still waiting for the warmers to show us ONE SINGLE PHOTO of a landmark sinking

Statue of Liberty - nope
Hawaii 5-0 beach = nope
Venice = nope

All this "melting" should be raising ocean levels but it is NOT and it is NOT because

THERE IS NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT

because

Planet Earth is NOT WARMING

and

Co2 is NOT THE CAUSE of Earth climate change.

 

[Crick]

The warmers are all about PARROTING.

I'm parroting "the scientists"

Um, no, you are parroting lying fudge baking traitors and you have been the whole time.

We are still waiting for the warmers to show us ONE SINGLE PHOTO of a landmark sinking

Statue of Liberty - nope
Hawaii 5-0 beach = nope
Venice = nope

All this "melting" should be raising ocean levels but it is NOT and it is NOT because

THERE IS NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT

because

Planet Earth is NOT WARMING

and

Co2 is NOT THE CAUSE of Earth climate change.

It astounds me that someone as stupid as these statements would indicate is capable of booting a computer and typing into it.

Ove the last century, the world's oceans have risen...

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

about 200 mm or less than 8 inches. So, when you look at a Hawaiian beach or Venice, Italy or the Statue of Liberty (and ignore the diurnal tides and any actual sinking or uplift experienced by the land these points are sitting on) how likely is it that you would be able to see a change of 8 inches in a century?

So, what scientist are YOU following EMH? THEY would have known this. They would never have told you to look at the Statue of Liberty. But, along with your completely unsuported speculation that all the world's scientists are lying, you think that proves there is no warming. This all just shows you to be as dumb as a fucking rock.

 

[EMH]

It astounds me that someone as stupid as these statements would indicate is capable of booting a computer and typing into it.

Ove the last century, the world's oceans have risen...

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

about 200 mm or less than 8 inches. So, when you look at a Hawaiian beach or Venice, Italy or the Statue of Liberty (and ignore the diurnal tides and any actual sinking or uplift experienced by the land these points are sitting on) how likely is it that you would be able to see a change of 8 inches in a century?

So, what scientist are YOU following EMH? THEY would have known this. They would never have told you to look at the Statue of Liberty. But, along with your completely unsuported speculation that all the world's scientists are lying, you think that proves there is no warming. This all just shows you to be as dumb as a fucking rock.

FUDGE is all they have. Absolutely NOTHING is "sinking" except Pacific Islands approaching the PROF...


No photos of landmarks sinking, no photos of "Osama" in Saudi - same demographic behind both treasonous frauds...


This is why... The entire claim of "ice melt" is a LIE... ALWAYS HAS BEEN

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.




Or perhaps that explains that, besides the FUDGE Crick posts, there is ZERO, NONE, NADA evidence of "ocean rise."

 

[Crick]

FUDGE is all they have. Absolutely NOTHING is "sinking" except Pacific Islands approaching the PROF...

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

No photos of landmarks sinking, no photos of "Osama" in Saudi - same demographic behind both treasonous frauds...

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

This is why... The entire claim of "ice melt" is a LIE... ALWAYS HAS BEEN

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.

The link to the study on which this 8 year old article is based gets you a "Content Not Found" page. I did a search and found it here: Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core. I also found an article also published by Cambridge the following year written by three study authors that Zwally cites who disagree with his conclusions and explain why in strict detail. This may be seen at Comment on Zwally and others (2015)-Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core.

FUDGE is all they have. Absolutely NOTHING is "sinking" except Pacific Islands approaching the PROF...

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

No photos of landmarks sinking, no photos of "Osama" in Saudi - same demographic behind both treasonous frauds...

Man are you stupid. Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

This is why... The entire claim of "ice melt" is a LIE... ALWAYS HAS BEEN

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.

The link to the study on which this 8 year old article is based gets you a "Content Not Found" page. I did a search and found it here: Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core. I also found an article also published by Cambridge the following year written by three study authors that Zwally cites who disagree with his conclusions and explain why in strict detail. This may be seen at Comment on Zwally and others (2015)-Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core.

Or perhaps that explains that, besides the FUDGE Crick posts, there is ZERO, NONE, NADA evidence of "ocean rise."

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos

Or perhaps that explains that, besides the FUDGE Crick posts, there is ZERO, NONE, NADA evidence of "ocean rise."

Read my post and examine my graph. 8 inches in the last century would not be visible on old photos