On November 16, 2019 at 15:08, Anthony said...
no you just don't want to accept the overwhelming evidence, but if it makes you feel better believe want you want, the reality is since both of us agree that it is not happening any time soon let's just move on... etc.Re. GlaciationsNo, you just don't want to accept the overwhelming evidence…
And yet once again one signally fails to provide any. *Re. The CCC and CCS.Most of your links are garbage, so no, I don't spend too much time on them.
Another simple assertion. One needs to offer an argument (evidence) as to why one believes what one does.Why does it need to be 500,000 (whatever) ppm before you agree it is an issue, if not who cares about your whatever number?
Once again, nit-picking a simple comparison – between today's beneficial atmospheric CO2
content and the possible concentration of a limnic style eruption. In my opinion, the damage I have seen being caused now makes the number we have now as way too high.
Another simple assertion with no basis in scientific fact. If one disagrees provide an argument (evidence) as to why.Isn't this all about a balancing act? If we produce more CO2 then is being eliminated that first number will keep on growing and getting closer to whatever number even you see as an issue. The only logical thing is to make sure that the number falls in balance.
A balancing act, indeed.
As has previously been shown, the preindustrial CO2
level was dangerously low; thus, there is an argument to be made for our being in the midst of a CO2
drought. The enhanced level of CO2
is re-greening the planet and helping in reducing world poverty and hunger.
There is simply no evidence to suggest that anthropogenic activity can cause a dangerous level of CO2
, as in the case of the deaths resulting from the limnic eruption at Lake Nyos. That would require a well of concentrated CO2
, as per the storage part of CCS – or is one claiming this to be one of my "garbage" links? *Re. Missing the point.In life, you can acknowledge your part and make the world a better place, or you can pretend it is always other people's fault and live in garbage. None of us individually can make a difference, but there are 7,5B of us, and if we all do our very small and insignificant part we can do wonders.
I have, and I do, but I'm also a realist. Galvanising a country to 'litter pick' by reducing CO2
emissions to net-zero is only beneficial if it is cost-effective and has a global effect. The plans being put forward by the CCC are certainly not the former and will do nothing for the latter. Even the ridiculous 2008 Climate Change Act acknowledges that unilateral action would be meaningless. I'm at a loss to understand why you cannot appreciate this simple fact. CO2 captured by CCS can be useful (but not in the amounts we are producing it right now, but in the future who knows)
CCS is predicated on the belief that the present level of atmospheric CO2
is dangerous - it isn't. One is also wholly oblivious of the sheer scale of the necessary operation. CO2 captured by CCS can be stored in an inert form so "went awry" sounds a bit odd if it is saved that way.
Citation required.The math does not work in your favour. If the stockpile of one plant "went awry" and got released it will still be the CO2 of one plant. If it is the stockpile of one country that "went awry" and got released it will still be the CO2 of one country. Unless all the CO2 of all the world are stored together the reality is any such scenario will become a "small" local issue. Possibly a real tragedy for the area like Chernobyl but it can't become an extinction-level event.
What're a few dead people when we have a planet save? Frankly, I'm speechless.*Re. Let me try this differently.I get that, and I feel bad it is so high. The question you should be asking yourself is why. If your utility is buying the wind electricity for .04 what is that other .14 going to?
I know why and have been at pains to highlight it. One, however, appears incapable of appreciating my reasoning and evidence; indeed, preferring instead to consider the latter garbage.
Once again, then. The difference is due to the environmental levies being applied to bills to cover the cost of the subsidies being paid to renewables operators.
My garbage evidence shows exactly where this can be seen in Government finances, though it seems one would prefer to remain ignorant of it. But even though you don't want to face it wind is your friend, not your foe.
And one's arrogance in continually trying to tell me (someone well versed in the relative costs, whereas one is obviously not) that wind is my friend is, quite simply, staggering.*Re. The Carbon Brief and GridWatch.Electricity is electricity, the price of propane or Natural gaz or coal might change depending on quantity but not the price to "buy" natural wind, light or running water. They are either there or not and when they are, they are free.
Singularly the most stupid comment one has yet made. Please provide evidence of free wind and solar. Is it that it fails to perform or that there is not enough capacity?
Both; which one would have appreciated had one the wit to follow the links I provided.Not sure what's your point the way to fix installed capacity is to install more. Like I said before there was a time when a lot more of my electricity came from Nuclear and thermal. In the very late 80's HQ they decided to change plans and focus on hydro.
Good Lord! Pray tell how many wind turbines will need to be installed to provide sufficient output if there is no wind blowing?
I've addressed this issue several times. The fact one appears incapable of understanding even this simple metric is, again, beyond me.
Note: I've also covered the converse issue of overproduction and constraint payments – that is payments to wind farm operators to turn their machines off. NO, I reject bozos opinions how many of your "experts" are electrical engineers that have installed wind farms/solar farms?
Your arrogance and ignorance are astounding. What on earth do installation engineers have to do with the practicalities and economics of wind and solar? Even a cursory investigation (which I've done) highlights their complete impracticality, but dismissing the likes of Michael Kelly as a bozo is simply contemptible.[Link: thegwpf.org]*Re. Profiteering.Then why do so many exist, why, like you said very wise investors like Warren Buffet put their money in it? why are there over 20 wind farms in Quebec with HQ buying electricity from most of them (I don't know if they buy from all, but they do buy the power from the one near my home)
"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms," Buffett said. "That’s the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." Warren BuffettMaybe they are gouging with the 0.04, but that does not explain the other 0.14 if that 0.14 gets halved that would bring you to 0.11 if the 0.4 gets halved that only brings you to 0.16 even if that 0.04 goes down to 0 you are still at 0.14 which is still a lot.
What on earth are you babbling on about? How many times do I have to you explain to you that the cost consumers pay covers the costs and profits of the supplying companies plus the government levies being applied to cover the cost of the subsidies paid to renewables suppliers? Again, why this simple fact is beyond your understanding defeats me.
Last edited by djy on November 19, 2019 04:29.