50 to 1

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk......

In Europe, Coal Regains Its Crown - Forbes

 

[Saigon]

Skooks -

Please address post #17.

No one is interested in your homophobic spamming.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Indirectly, the rush to coal is being driven by Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power in the wake of the 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan. Exactly how Germany – which has been a major coal power since the mid-18th century – will replace generation from nuclear plants remains uncertain, but clearly, for now, coal is the answer. Stating that “fossil fuel-fired power plants are essential for a secure energy supply,” a 2011 study from the Economics Ministry in Berlin called for the construction of around 17 major new power plants by 2022. If some of those turn out to be coal-fired plants it will signal a major setback for Europe’s plans for a carbon-free electrical sector and the failure of the EU carbon trading scheme."

In Europe, Coal Regains Its Crown - Forbes

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[skookerasbil]

because "costs" matter.........except to the k00ks.

 

[Saigon]

Skooks -

Please address post #17.

No one is interested in your homophobic spamming.

 

[editec]

Oh there's plenty of wealth to adapt to climate change.

Believe me, the super-wealthy aren't going to suffer much. They're quite prepared for the changes they know are coming.

There, now don't you feel better?

 

[Abraham3]

Yachts. They automatically keep up with rising sea levels, you can drive them to wherever you find the temperature most pleasant and by keeping away from the shoreline, there's no need to listen to the whining of the rabble.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is a deeper issue here. Things like small scale solar and wind create a way for the average consumer to become independent of the energy corperations for powering their homes. EV's mean that you can power your own vehicle for 90% of your driving. And that is not something that the corperations want to see at all. So, use any method available, in any media avaliable, to lie about the efficiency and costs of the new technologies.

 

[Abraham3]

There is a deeper issue here. Things like small scale solar and wind create a way for the average consumer to become independent of the energy corperations for powering their homes. EV's mean that you can power your own vehicle for 90% of your driving. And that is not something that the corperations want to see at all. So, use any method available, in any media avaliable, to lie about the efficiency and costs of the new technologies.

Particularly with the advent of home-sized hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's absolutely ZERO reason to panic about climate change. Because you'd be in the minority.

HOWEVER...

If enough people stop caring about protecting this planet then it will eventually become a problem.

And hopefully we can just pass the buck forward.

I see no reason to lay waste to the environment just because it seems less expensive, but when we start talking about cutting the standard of living for everyone on the planet in order to prevent the climate from changing a bit sooner than the natural cycles would have brought it about, you lost my support. Besides, no one has yet explained why I should be more concerned about the planet getting warmer than I should about it getting colder. We might be uncomfortable if the planet warms up, but it is better than being buried under thousands of meters of ice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW-

I don't think there is any reason to panic - but every reason to listen to the science and plan accordingly.

Ironically, most solutions to climate change will actually save people money in the long run.

New forms of energy will be cheaper, cleaner and more sustainable than what we have now.

I suspect many extremists realise this themselves, but have painted themselves into a bit of a corner on this issue.

Plan accordingly? When do you plan to start planning according to the science? The sceince tells us that if we totally eliminate CO2 emissions we will go into an ice age that will bury Finland under a sheet of ice that will dwarf those mountains your country is so proud of.

The science of economics also tells us that the less expensive option will happen even if the government sets out to prevent it. That means that, if your claim that alternative energy is actually less expensive were true, it wouldn't need governments to mandate it. Since it clearly does, you are ignoring science simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. If you want to argue that we should switch to other forms of energy, feel free, but stick to actual science when you do it. If you do that you will find that there are well informed people who agree with you, and they will help you learn how to present your arguments better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

New forms of energy will be cheaper, cleaner and more sustainable than what we have now.

Now all you have to do is find one.

Why only one?

Breeder reactors, solar thermal and tidal will all be a part of the energy mix 20 years from now, and all seem to be provide cheap, clean energy. No one form of energy will suit every country on earth...different conditions will always favour different solutions.

I can't figure out why people have become so bitterly opposed to new technology, but certainly the amount of money they are costing themselves is likely to be considerable.

All of those are more expensive that fossil fuels. Additionally, the environmental impact of turning a tidal basin into a power plant is currently unknown. It will certainly disrupt the local sea life as we do everything we can to make sure that coral does not grow inside the turbine generators. Unless you have a permeable barrier that will allow water to flow freely while keeping out any organism or dissolved minerals that would damage the machinery, tidal power will remain a pipe dream because there are less damaging ways to generate power.

See what I mean about planning according to science?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

S.J.

There are valid reasons for countries like Japan to avoid nuclear power when there are other alternatives on the table. In Finland, I have no problem with nuclear.

I totally agree that some opposition to nuclear is irrational, but nowhere near as irrational as opposition to technologies like wind or tidal. It's an emotional topic, and many of the reactions from right and left owe more to emotion than logic.

There are no rational reasons that apply only to one country for avoiding nuclear power. All of the valid reasons for not using it apply equally to Finland and Japan.

I already explained the perfectly rational reasons not to use tidal generators. I admit they might one day be dealt with, but the current technology leaves a lot to be desired. As for wind, the reason it is not in widespread use is that we cannot turn it on and off. It is either there, or it isn't, and it refuses to respond to our needs, which is why it is a lot more expensive than a gas turbine generator to run. The provider has to be able to sell his excess energy production when there is no demand, or find a way to store it. Batteries are wonderful things, but they cost money.

Until you understand the science of economics, and how it applies to what we are discussing, you are not using science to plan for anything, your are actually ignoring it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

S.J .

I'm sure nobody would stop them from using wind or tidal if they could make it work and if it was reliable.

I disagree.

Both tidal and wind are reliable and clean and efficient and commercial - and yet I see posters here everyday who want them all shut down simply because they are new.

We have posters here who still think coal is the answer, for chrissakes!

It doesn't matter how posters here feel about it, if other sources produce energy efficiently and consistently, they're gonna be used.

Exactly.

Basic economics, the one science every politician hates.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Skooks -

Government are going to use cheap energy......period. Coal......oil......natural gas

Well, let's take the France as an example:

Coal = 3.9% of electricity production.

Natural gas = 3.8%

Oil= 1.8%

Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG/800px-Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG

Shall we look at other examples, or will you just admit that, as per usual, you have absolutely no idea at all what you are posting.

France gets its power from government owned reactors. You cannot argue that is less expensive than anything because France hides the costs behind multiple layers of bureaucracy. I will, however, point out that France has the highest tax rate on the planet, so it must cost a lot for something over there.

By the way, the US actually produces more electricity through nuclear power than France. Electricity in the US sells at $0.08/kwh while France sells at $0.19/kwh. Want to tell me again how much cheaper all those alternative energy sources are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This graph on UK wind energy might help:

6000 mwh? Do you have any idea how long that will last with real time demand in the UK?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh there's plenty of wealth to adapt to climate change.

Believe me, the super-wealthy aren't going to suffer much. They're quite prepared for the changes they know are coming.

There, now don't you feel better?

Of course Gore isn't going to suffer when the middle class is forced into a home the size an average master bedroom suite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a deeper issue here. Things like small scale solar and wind create a way for the average consumer to become independent of the energy corperations for powering their homes. EV's mean that you can power your own vehicle for 90% of your driving. And that is not something that the corperations want to see at all. So, use any method available, in any media avaliable, to lie about the efficiency and costs of the new technologies.

If an individual wants to do that, I say let them. Unfortunately, their neighbors disagree, which is why every neighborhood association bans the most energy efficient method for drying clothes. In other words, your problem isn't the people like me, it is the kooks that don't want you ruining their view.

 

[SSDD]

QW-

I don't think there is any reason to panic - but every reason to listen to the science and plan accordingly.

Ironically, most solutions to climate change will actually save people money in the long run.

New forms of energy will be cheaper, cleaner and more sustainable than what we have now.

I suspect many extremists realise this themselves, but have painted themselves into a bit of a corner on this issue.

There is no reason whatsoever to listen to climate science. In 1980 climate science estimated the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. Thirty three years later, in spite of increases in computer power and speed that were unimaginable back then, computer models that are orders of magnitude more complex than those simple programs that produced the 1.5 to 4.5 range back then and literally hundreds of billions of dollars spent by climate "science" on research, they have not managed to narrow the estimated sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 by even a fraction of a degree....and climate sensitivity to CO2 is the bottom line isn't it? Not even a fraction of a degree after all this time and all that money and you still believe they should be listened to and taken seriously?