Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Original thread:
Post 139 made on Saturday November 30, 2019 at 15:45
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,867
On November 28, 2019 at 15:59, djy said...
mentioned above, there is a distinct difference between referencing source material and merely asserting its existence.

not at all. if I say Greta said..... IF I add a link it does not make it any more valid. She might be a credible source on ditching school, but is she a climate expert? is she a socioeconomic expert...… The issue is you link to people making statements on climate, botany, electrical grid.... that are just not experts in any imagination of the word on the subjects they are discussing.

i). Of course, my comment makes sense. You opine a personal belief that atmospheric CO2 content is too high, but personal opinion is meaningless if not supported by scientific fact. I merely ask you provide that evidence.

it is supported by scientific facts, you just don't accept the conclusion.
You agree CO2 has increased, there is warming, there is flooding there is destruction. where it becomes an opinion is is the destruction enough to say "too high" like me or ""who cares I think I am OK for now and I don't care about what it really means" like you and then not "too high" yet.


ii). The issues of sea-level rise, extreme weather, poplar ice and wildfires are fully covered in post 85. There is also graph detailing how climate-related deaths have plummeted in the years between 1920 and 2017 – though no doubt you will consider it garbage because it trashes your personal opinion.

it is not that I am dismissive. It is that you are cherry picking info that I see mostly as useless that supports your case. For example does "number of deaths" show the destruction from flooding that happened in Montreal? no as far as I know no one died, did it cost the province and the individual home owners a lot of money and heartache? absolutely. It also dismisses reality, unrelated to the topic a 7.0 earthquake is a 7.0 earthquake, but if it happens in an area with a lot of up-to-date homes it will appear to be less destructive then if it happens in a third world country where the norms are less strict.

iii). The (increased?) destruction you perceive is an artefact of population growth (more people, more stuff, more damage) and nothing to do with increased weather severity. [1]

population growth can play a role in $ and casualties. My friends home did not exist 100 years ago, his dads place in the neighborhood did and it was a farmhouse surrounded by fields and now it is. But does it matter? the reality is his dad moved into that home 80 years ago and there was never flooding in the area until 2017 and 2019. The flooding did not happen because there are more people in the area and like it or not there will be population growth.

Tell that to the Chinese and Indians, and the other emerging nations to whom the proposals will condemn to perpetual poverty.

There is a big divide between the rich and the poor and I fill bad for the people in those countries that are practically reduced to slavery, but you do realize that the GDP of China is second only to the us and India is #5. I would not call the country poor

Being facetious merely highlights your childishness. Clearly my reply was aimed at your comment, 'CO2 captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form…', thus trees, coal and oil have nothing to do with the extraction of CO2 from the likes of natural gas.


The link provided is interesting, and I admire the innovation. In reality, however, the process only offsets the CO2 released in the manufacturing of the concrete and is not a solution to mass storage on the scale being envisioned by the CCC.

I was not being facetious it is just that you tend to ask for proof of the obvious. A And to me they are obvious. If plants can do it, one day we might have artificial plants (i.e. find a none natural and cost effective way to brake down CO2 and use their components. There might be solutions that are more than simple storage (why not pump a very small % of the CO2 into a new age green house and let the plants do their job and that could help feed a growing population...… also if the CO2 is stored in a retrievable manner, we can then use it if and when we find a better use for it.

As for the link I am glad you liked it there are many ways it can be used and be inert but it is the one that I personally find most interesting. A simple google search will show you others. there is also ways to use it where it is not inert or stored(like draft beer, soda fountains, dry ice....) and storage itself is a complicated subject (for the most part it tends to be used to push out other liquids and gazes.

I care not one jot about how much you pay for fuel, and I've already provided plenty of information for you to determine the information you seek. That you are too idle to carry out your own research is no concern of mine.

no, it is just the last time I did that you said that I did not know anything about UK trash sites so I want to start with numbers you accept.

More childlike facetiousness. Drying clothes on a washing line is not converting your 'free' energy into electricity, which is the problem the grown-ups are concerning themselves with.

not at all, just pointing out the obvious. Coal is not free, natural gas is not fre, radioactive material is not free…. and since they get consumed their high cost needs to be factored into the price. I pointed out the cost of wind is free and you asked me to prove it. Now you call me factious because I tried to prove the obvious.

Is there a cost of transformation. Absolutely, but that cost as well is a lot lower then the cost of transforming coal, natural gas..... into electricity.

that is, a huge (as in as far from cost-effective as one could possibly imagine) investment in load balancing mechanisms and/or storage systems.

That you describe Quebec's grid as being mixed source is somewhat disingenuous when at least 95% is supplied via baseload/despatchable hydro. Within such a grid, the intermittency of wind's measly 4% contribution can easily be accommodated.

any change takes money I never disputed that fact. But what you don`t want to see is that investing intelligently ends up saving money.

As for here, like you point out the vast majority is hydro and because it has a cost of consumables of 0 we have cheap electricity. But that was not always (going to be) the case. like I pointed out there was a time when HQ was on the road of seeing a very large chunk of its electricity being nuclear. There was plans to build over 30 plants across the country. But a change in power (gouvernment) put a stop at that. If my electricity came from expensive uranium instead of free water flow you would not be jealous of my rate today.

As for the % it does not matter if it is 3%, 4%, 5%, 25%, 30%, 50% or 100%, electricity needs load balancing in real time. the amount produced must always equal the amount consumed, that is why we talk load balancing.

The point was simply , if we have more than enough electricity and we can export it at 4 cents to the US if wind did not make sense we would not have any wind in our mix?
The wind and solar graphs at GridWatch clearly illustrate their volatility.

I never said they are not volatile. that is one of the reasons I was surprised my client had solar cells at his cottage. they have 8.5h of sunlight in the winter and then there is snow, cloudy days and heating to deal with.

And I get it, they need to make sure that if there is no wind they can still produce/buy enough electricity but when there is enough wind it beats the pants off the price of electricity made from combustibles.

iii). I find it amusing that someone believing that he's been overcharged at a mere 6 cents (Canadian) per unit of electricity, can simply dismiss a few hundred million pounds per year, for quite literally nothing, as little more than a rounding error. Clearly, your understanding of the economics of climate change is as naïve as your understanding of its science.

First I never claimed I was overcharged.
Second I never joined or supported the class action.
Thirdly a judge ruled that all Quebercer's (myself included) were overcharged.

Personally I found it all useless and idiotic.
it was 1.4B over 8 years. The number looks big but that is ~350$ per customer, that is 12 cents a day. that is less then a penny a kwh difference in what HQ should have been allowed to bill us. It is a rounding error.

the same with you, you could not see the difference in the price unless they went deep in the fractions of a p. It is not opinion it is simple grade school math.


And how crass is it for someone who refuses to carry out his own research should question the credentials of someone who has?

can you please stop with the ad hominem, they really don't make you look good?
You asked me if I thought the guy was an expert. If you are not prepared to listen to the answer don't ask the question.

That is the issue with calls to authority a person either is an authority (and nothing more needs to be said) or he is not and then it is useless because I can't question that person.

As for him doing "his research" there is no hint of it in his paper. In that way you are a lot better because I can immediately see if your conclusion is built on a house of cards nor not. Yes I might not add as many links but when you ask a question,like when I brought up storing CO2 you can ask and I can answer. Can I ask that guy what expert told him plants grow better when the filed is drenched in the fall and you need to delay planting and in the summer growth is stunted because of lack of rain even if there is more
CO2. because that guy must know something my friend who is a farmer does because he keeps on complaining about the harvest.

Really? Having invoked Warren Buffett as some sort of renewables investment guru, I was merely pointing out (in his own words) that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good; it was simply because of the subsidies/tax breaks, being offered made it worthwhile. It was just business.

As I said, on a level playing field (if the operators were forced to pay for their intermittency) no one in their right mind would ever invest in wind or solar as a grid level generator. Your inability to appreciate this simple truism, even when directly referenced, speaks volumes about your blinkered reasoning.

You missed the reason I asked completely.

I asked because I agree "that his reasoning for buying into wind energy was neither altruistic or for the greater good" like you just said. It is to make money.


the tax credit reduces the carrying cost. In essence what he is saying the taxpayer is putting up capital while not benefiting from the profits. which means he has a much better ROI and he gets his cost of capital back faster and so it is good for him.
...


Hosting Services by ipHouse