How to Debate a Climate Alarmists

[otto105]

No, all those things are manifestations by wizards to show sorcery to the king.

Stop using electricity....you're killing the planet. Bastard!

Renewable energy hard for you to understand?


What are you 9?

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

 

[otto105]

Yeah, still won't work. Then again if you use that technique. Just look at Bill Nye getting destroyed.

It's pretty difficult to debate chimps on any topic including the climate change hoax.

Mental chimps troll without facts, that sums up the denial side on this thread.

 

[Sunsettommy]

When I look at all the California fires and the hurricanes and the snow and the rains and the tornadoes I sure am glad there’s no such thing as climate change.

No fires, hurricanes, snow, rains or tornadoes before we started using fossil fuels, eh Einstein?

No, all those things are manifestations by wizards to show sorcery to the king.

Stop using electricity....you're killing the planet. Bastard!

Renewable energy hard for you to understand?


What are you 9?

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Really a link to a restricted site.....

Here is a much better one from GERMANY, posted by a German:

German Employer’s Association Op Ed: “No Expert Politician In Berlin Believes In Switch To Green Energies Any More”

By P Gosselin on 14. May 2019

Excerpt:

Recently, Der Spiegel wrote about how Germany’s once highly ballyhooed Energiewende (transition to green energies) has turned out to be a botched project. Then Michael Schellenberger at Forbes commented that the laws of physics tell us it was never meant to work in the first place.

Behind closed doors, no one in Berlin believes in it

Now, just days ago, energy expert Dr. Björn Peters wrote at the German Association of Employers site that the Energiewende has deteriorated to the point that: “No specialist politician in Berlin believes in the success of the Energiewende any more. Whoever you ask, everyone says this only behind closed doors and thinks that if you go to the press with it you can only lose against the ‘green’ media mainstream.”

Peters warns that what is needed in Germany is a good dose of reality and “a fresh start on energy policy.”
=================================================================================================
The NYT LIED to you, the actual energy flow is still mostly from Coal and Gas in Germany.

Then we have this to ponder over, also from Germany:

Coal [Non]Exit Debacle…Germany’s Coal Burning Could Rise Around 16% By 2030!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop using electricity....you're killing the planet. Bastard!

Renewable energy hard for you to understand?


What are you 9?

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

 

[otto105]

Renewable energy hard for you to understand?


What are you 9?

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Yeah, still won't work. Then again if you use that technique. Just look at Bill Nye getting destroyed.

I usually dont question people religious faith unless they want to chop my head off with a dull butter knife (butter knives now illegal in U.K.)

Or they want 50 million people to freeze and starve to death


AGW cultist i love it when they go all bat shit crazy and start screaming how christans want to ram their beliefs down everyones throats
BUT DO AS I SAY or ELSE we're all going to die !

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

Sounds like the Dem plan for us. Let's all reduce our standard of living.

So much for your claim that it's cheaper.

 

[otto105]

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

Sounds like the Dem plan for us. Let's all reduce our standard of living.

So much for your claim that it's cheaper.

Are you now trying to claim that Germany has a lower standard of living than us?

Cheaper to me seems to be paying less per mouth, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

Sounds like the Dem plan for us. Let's all reduce our standard of living.

So much for your claim that it's cheaper.

Are you now trying to claim that Germany has a lower standard of living than us?

Cheaper to me seems to be paying less per mouth, right?

Are you now trying to claim that Germany has a lower standard of living than us?

Did you forget to read the article you linked?

Another question is whether Americans simply have more appliances at home. Aside from air-conditioning, which is practically unknown in Germany, Americans and Germans have quite similar creature comforts at home. Granted, homes are larger in the US at around 2,400 square feet, whereas the average German home comes in closer to 1,000 square feet. Likewise, refrigerators and some other appliances are generally bigger in the US. Otherwise, the differences are not that great

Tiny, unconditioned homes with smaller appliances. Sounds like a lower standard of living.

 

[SSDD]

Dude, just stop with the willful ignorance about climate change.

Far from willful ignorance...I ask for that single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability in perfect confidence that no one is going to post any such evidence and embarrass me.

The willful ignorance is on your part...I doubt that you even question why you can't produce any such evidence.

But for shits and giggles, how do YOU explain 415+ppm of CO2 in our atmoshere and its natural cause?

I guess you are blissfully unaware (ignorant) of the fact that at the time the present ice age began atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm...and for most of earth's history it has been at least 1000ppm and often far higher. The only time atmospheric CO2 has been lower than 1000ppm is during ice ages and the periods in which the earth is climbing out of them...Cold oceans hold far more CO2 than warm oceans...as the earth warms, they outgas CO2.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040613/full

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are.

 

[SSDD]

When I look at all the California fires and the hurricanes and the snow and the rains and the tornadoes I sure am glad there’s no such thing as climate change.

No fires, hurricanes, snow, rains or tornadoes before we started using fossil fuels, eh Einstein?

No, all those things are manifestations by wizards to show sorcery to the king.

Stop using electricity....you're killing the planet. Bastard!

Renewable energy hard for you to understand?


What are you 9?

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Why, yes I do..and I read the literature which is a far better source of information than the news...clearly you need to be spoon fed your opinion so you apparently don't look at the literature or any further than the sources whoever gives you your opinion prescribe.


Die Sonne im April 2019 und der € 4500 Milliarden Flop | Die kalte Sonne

TRANSLATED CLIP:

The 4.6 trillion euro German green energies flop

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Frank Bosse
(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

The demands for the phasing out of coal, fuel and natural gas are becoming ever more shrill in Germany. At first early this year it began with the bold proposal of the coal commission, half of which was occupied by green activists from the Federal Chancellery, calling on the phase-out of coal by 2038. Then came the demand by Green party leader Robert Habeck and his green friends for the phase-out of the internal combustion engine by 2030. And when it was very dry for four weeks in April, Annalena Baerbock declared a climate crisis and called for doubling the CO2 price and a strong regulatory law!

......
The 4.6 TRILLION euro power supply
The beautiful new world of the German Greens has a hefty price. In the study, the authors assume 60% CO2 reduction, which should be achieved by 2030. By then it will cost 4 trillion euros in a good 10 years. Today’s energy supply system costs 250 billion euros per year, but that will cost 1.5 trillion more. With 60 to 75% CO2 reduction, the authors expect a further 800 billion euros. From 75 to 85% yet another trillion. From 85 to 90% CO2 reduction will cost another 1.3 trillion euros. So 1.5 trillion euros up to 60%, and another 3.1 trillion euros up to 90% make together 4.6 trillion euros.

German households are to spend €4.6 trillion to avoid 800 million tonnes of CO2. This is the amount of CO2 that China emits additionally every year.

100% renewables would cost 764 euros – monthly!
So that the parents of Fridays for Future understand the 4.6 trillion figure correctly: that’s 153 billion euros a year. With 40 million households in Germany, each household would pay 382 euros per month. And if it goes according to Greta and her followers, namely to reach 100% renewable energies in 15 years, then that would be 764 euros per month – if it does not first come to a collapse of Germany, which would be very likely. That’s 764 euros for a monthly average income in Germany of 1,890 euros. This means that the average household would fall below the defined poverty line.

What a beautiful new world.


Non-Gaussian power grid frequency fluctuations characterized by Lévy-stable laws and superstatistics

Clip:
“Multiple types of fluctuations impact the collective dynamics of power grids and thus challenge their robust operation.”

(press release) “More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find … ntegrating growing numbers of renewable power installations and microgrids onto the grid can result in larger-than-expected fluctuations in grid frequency.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b00407

Clip:
“Before considering the future, it is worth examining just how far we’ve already come without any federal CO2 regulation (for existing power plants) in the U.S. Figure 1 illustrates historical CO2 emissions and natural gas prices from 2005 through 2017 (estimated). During that period, emissions have declined from nearly 2.7 billion tons to approximately 1.9 billion tons (∼30%), while revealing a strong link to natural gas prices. To be sure, while other factors (such as renewable energy incentives) also had an impact, the clearest means by which to reduce CO2 emissions has been to reduce the cost of generating electricity with less CO2-emitting fuels (i.e., substituting natural gas for coal). So successful have market forces been under the existing regulatory framework to date that estimated 2017 CO2 emission levels are already at the CPP’s 2025 target(albeit without accounting for electricity demand growth between 2017 and 2025), well exceeding the AEO’s own Reference Case projections for 2025.”


Limited emission reductions from fuel subsidy removal except in energy-exporting regions

“Hopes are high that removing fossil fuel subsidies could help to mitigate climate change by discouraging inefficient energy consumption and leveling the playing field for renewable energy.Here we show that removing fossil fuel subsidies would have an unexpectedly small impact on global energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions and would not increase renewable energy use by 2030. Removing [fossil fuel] subsidies in most regions would deliver smaller emission reductions than the Paris Agreement (2015) climate pledges and in some regions global [fossil fuel]subsidy removal may actually lead to an increase in emissions, owing to either coal replacing subsidized oil and natural gas or natural-gas use shifting from subsidizing, energy-exporting regions to non-subsidizing, importing regions.”


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabd40/meta

Clip: “Prolonged cold spells were experienced in Ireland in the winters of 2009–10 and 2010–11, and electricity demand was relatively high at these times, whilst wind generation capacity factors were low. Such situations can cause difficulties for an electricity system with a high dependence on wind energy.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117312546

Clip: “However, promoting renewables –in liberalized power markets– creates a paradox in that successful penetration of renewables could fall victim to its own success. With the current market architecture, future deployment of renewable energy will necessarily be more costly and less scalable. Moreover, transition towards a full 100% renewable electricity sector is unattainable. Paradoxically, in order for renewable technologies to continue growing their market share, they need to co-exist with fossil fuel technologies. … The paradox is that the same market design and renewables policies that led to current success become increasingly less successful in the future as the share of renewables in the energy mix grows. … Full decarbonization of a power sector that relies on renewable technologies alone, given the current design of these markets, is not possible as conventional technologies provide important price signals. Markets would collapse if the last unit of fossil fuel technologies was phased out. In the extreme (theoretical) case of 100 percent renewables, prices would be at the renewables marginal cost, equal to zero or even negative for long periods. These prices would not be capturing the system’s costs nor would they be useful to signal operation and investment decisions. The result would be a purely administered subsidy, i.e., a non-market outcome. This is already occurring in Germany as Praktiknjo and Erdmann [31] point out and is clearly an unstable outcome. Thus, non-dispatchable technologies need to coexist with fossil fuel technologies. This outcome makes it impossible for renewables policy to reach success, defined as achieving a specified level of deployment at the lowest possible cost. With volatile, low and even negative electricity prices, investors would be discouraged from entering the market and they would require more incentives to continue to operate.”


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518300983

Clip:
“The installed capacity of wind power preserves fossil fuel dependency. … Electricity consumption intensity and its peaks have been satisfied by burning fossil fuels. … [A]s RES [renewable energy sources] increases, the expected decreasing tendency in the installed capacity of electricity generation from fossil fuels, has not been found. Despite the high share of RES in the electricity mix, RES, namely wind power and solar PV, are characterised by intermittent electricity generation. … The inability of RES-I [intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar] to satisfy high fluctuations in electricity consumption on its own constitutes one of the main obstacles to the deployment of renewables. This incapacity is due to both the intermittency of natural resource availability, and the difficulty or even impossibility of storing electricity on a large scale, to defer generation. As a consequence, RES [renewable energy sources] might not fully replace fossil sources … In fact, the characteristics of electricity consumption reinforce the need to burn fossil fuels to satisfy the demand for electricity. Specifically, the ECA results confirm the substitution effect between the installed capacity of solar PV and fossil fuels. In contrast, installed wind power capacity has required all fossil fuels and hydropower to back up its intermittency in the long-run equilibrium. The EGA outcomes show that hydropower has been substituting electricity generation through NRES [non-renewable energy sources], but that other RES have needed the flexibility of natural gas plants, to back them up. … [D]ue to the intermittency phenomenon, the growth of installed capacity of RES-I [intermittent renewable energy sources – wind power] could maintain or increase electricity generation from fossil fuels. … In short, the results indicate that the EU’s domestic electricity production systems have preserved fossil fuel generation, and include several economic inefficiencies and inefficiencies in resource allocation. … [A]n increase of 1% in the installed capacity of wind power provokes an increase of 0.26%, and 0.22% in electricity generation from oil and natural gas, respectively in the long-run.”

And I could go on with peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study stating that the idea of any significant amount of our energy being produced by renewables is a very expensive pipe dream doomed to failure. Maybe you should stop reading opinion pieces for your information and start looking at the actual scientific literature on the topic.

Unless of course, willful ignorance is your goal...

 

[SSDD]

Stop using electricity....you're killing the planet. Bastard!

Renewable energy hard for you to understand?


What are you 9?

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Do you even read your own sources...here...from your link:

"While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much."

How would you like to see your energy bill double?

 

[SSDD]

Ask the nations which have invested most heavily into renewables how it is working out for them...Check with germany and australia...ask them about wildly increasing energy costs, grid failures, and how happy the people who have to live with what has happened to once reliable energy delivery systems are.

This Germany... Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users

Do you read actual news?

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

Power prices go negative?
Is that why they pay 3 times what we pay? DURR.

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

Sounds like the Dem plan for us. Let's all reduce our standard of living.

So much for your claim that it's cheaper.

Are you now trying to claim that Germany has a lower standard of living than us?

Cheaper to me seems to be paying less per mouth, right?

Again...you don't even read your own sources..this is from the source you provided

" While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much."

 

[SSDD]

Just stop being wrong on everything... German power bills are low compared to US average

Thanks for the link.

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

I especially like the chart.

View attachment 261153


Hmmmm....34.75 versus 12.12


Just stop being wrong on everything...

You were saying? DURR

Yet, because of consumption pays the lowest mouthly amount and many Germans product extra power for the grid.

Now, about your silly assertion of having to chose between anything.


Wrong on nothing and brought facts to a dicussion unlike you how just parrots a bias.

Sounds like the Dem plan for us. Let's all reduce our standard of living.

So much for your claim that it's cheaper.

Are you now trying to claim that Germany has a lower standard of living than us?

Cheaper to me seems to be paying less per mouth, right?

Are you now trying to claim that Germany has a lower standard of living than us?

Did you forget to read the article you linked?

Another question is whether Americans simply have more appliances at home. Aside from air-conditioning, which is practically unknown in Germany, Americans and Germans have quite similar creature comforts at home. Granted, homes are larger in the US at around 2,400 square feet, whereas the average German home comes in closer to 1,000 square feet. Likewise, refrigerators and some other appliances are generally bigger in the US. Otherwise, the differences are not that great

Tiny, unconditioned homes with smaller appliances. Sounds like a lower standard of living.

He thinks living in an unconnected yurt and drinking from a puddle in the back 25 feet from your open cesspool would be the height of luxury...

 

[otto105]

So, the oceans just released CO2 during the Industrial Age?


And your to be taken seriously?