Kyoto Protocol vol.2

[timslash]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html

Can't understand, why they are sign an agreement, which will not be ratified in any case?! Why they forget abou real problems? And also i can't understand,
how we will decrease the number of emissions, if they increases every year?


Annual Data Atmospheric CO2 CO2 Now Current CO2

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was in Kyoto in November, 2001. It is the dirtiest, smelliest city I ever toured in. Will never go back there.

I can understand why they signed the first protocols there, for Kyoto is a good example of a city dying from many forms of pollution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html

Can't understand, why they are sign an agreement, which will not be ratified in any case?! Why they forget abou real problems? And also i can't understand,
how we will decrease the number of emissions, if they increases every year?


Annual Data Atmospheric CO2 CO2 Now Current CO2

US CO2 emissions have dropped, without Kyoto.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why would we want a government that quashes the US and its Constitution? The liberal trash here have already stolen trillions of dollars to redistribute as they see fit... The founding fathers left Europe because of the feudal king/servant system..

Once you realize that the whole global warming bull shit is about control and wealth redistribution you will see that it is nothing more than a power grab by Socialists and Dictators....No thanks..

 

[Old Rocks]

Why would we want a government that quashes the US and its Constitution? The liberal trash here have already stolen trillions of dollars to redistribute as they see fit... The founding fathers left Europe because of the feudal king/servant system..

Once you realize that the whole global warming bull shit is about control and wealth redistribution you will see that it is nothing more than a power grab by Socialists and Dictators....No thanks..

Irrelevant to the discussion, besides being total bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html

Can't understand, why they are sign an agreement, which will not be ratified in any case?! Why they forget abou real problems? And also i can't understand,
how we will decrease the number of emissions, if they increases every year?


Annual Data Atmospheric CO2 CO2 Now Current CO2

US CO2 emissions have dropped, without Kyoto.

Yes, they have. Mostly thanks to the increased mileage requirements on autos, and the switch from coal fired to natural gas. Now as the renewables have acheived parity with both coal and gas, we will continue to see a decline in our emissions. That is why it is important to bring the other nations, like China and India, to the table on increasing their power, and decreasing their emissions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why would we want a government that quashes the US and its Constitution? The liberal trash here have already stolen trillions of dollars to redistribute as they see fit... The founding fathers left Europe because of the feudal king/servant system..

Once you realize that the whole global warming bull shit is about control and wealth redistribution you will see that it is nothing more than a power grab by Socialists and Dictators....No thanks..

Irrelevant to the discussion, besides being total bullshit.

Obviously you haven't a clue about the federalist papers and anti-federlist papers.. But you love socialism and your king so this doesn't suprize me.

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html

Can't understand, why they are sign an agreement, which will not be ratified in any case?! Why they forget abou real problems? And also i can't understand,
how we will decrease the number of emissions, if they increases every year?


Annual Data Atmospheric CO2 CO2 Now Current CO2

US CO2 emissions have dropped, without Kyoto.

Yes, they have. Mostly thanks to the increased mileage requirements on autos, and the switch from coal fired to natural gas. Now as the renewables have acheived parity with both coal and gas, we will continue to see a decline in our emissions. That is why it is important to bring the other nations, like China and India, to the table on increasing their power, and decreasing their emissions.

Renewable are nowhere near coal and natural gas. Only those who have soaked their heads in Kool-Aid believe such nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why would we want a government that quashes the US and its Constitution? The liberal trash here have already stolen trillions of dollars to redistribute as they see fit... The founding fathers left Europe because of the feudal king/servant system..

Once you realize that the whole global warming bull shit is about control and wealth redistribution you will see that it is nothing more than a power grab by Socialists and Dictators....No thanks..

Irrelevant to the discussion, besides being total bullshit.

Obviously you haven't a clue about the federalist papers and anti-federlist papers.. But you love socialism and your king so this doesn't suprize me.

Now little Billy Boob, are you saying that you have actually read both? Because I have never seen evidence you have ever read anything beyond comic books.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

However, take away depletion allowances

Why would you do that?

No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

Writing off normal business expenses is not a subsidy.
In effect or otherwise.

 

[jc456]

Why would we want a government that quashes the US and its Constitution? The liberal trash here have already stolen trillions of dollars to redistribute as they see fit... The founding fathers left Europe because of the feudal king/servant system..

Once you realize that the whole global warming bull shit is about control and wealth redistribution you will see that it is nothing more than a power grab by Socialists and Dictators....No thanks..

Irrelevant to the discussion, besides being total bullshit.

I agree, you are totally irrelevant!!!!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Bull Shit...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Give it a few more years and solar will kick coal and natural gases ass without the government.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Bull Shit...

Where is your links and support for saying that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Bull Shit...

Where is your links and support for saying that?

Let me know when power per Kw gets below 2.2 Cents Right now most of the cost of coal fired generation is government meddling as is the subsidy of .26 cents per Kw that Solar and wind gets.. Kill the subsidy and see how fast your fairytale world crumbles...

 

[bripat9643]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard:

Education: Columbia University.

Wow, what a surprise, he went to the same school as Obama.

 

[bripat9643]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

According to Fraunhofer ISE, the cost of various energy sources is as follows:

Levelized Energy Cost (LEC, also known as Levelized Cost of Energy, abbreviated as LCOE[4]) is the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even over the lifetime of the project. It is an economic assessment of the cost of the energy-generating system including all the costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital, and is very useful in calculating the costs of generation from different sources.

Another chart put out by the U.S. department of Energy shows even more dramatic differences in levelized costs between fossil fuels and "green energy."

For instance, it lists the total levelized costs for natural gas at 66 USD/MWh and at 243 USD/MWhfor solar thermal.

You can find the chart here:

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Now, with subsidies, wind and solar beat conventional, hands down. Without subsidies, solar is close to parity, and wind still beats conventional, hands down. However, take away depletion allowances, and solar, without subsidies, beats even dirty coal right now. No depletion allowance on sunlight or wind. So those allowances are, in effect, subsidies for coal and gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Give it a few more years and solar will kick coal and natural gases ass without the government.

That's never going to happen, buddy. Oil and natural gas are getting cheaper, not more expensive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like conventional does better than renewables at sucking up taxpayer dollars.

When It Comes to Government Subsidies Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up - Businessweek

If countries priced carbon dioxide emissions from power plants somewhere near the cost they impose on the global environment, renewables would be overwhelmingly attractive. But imagine if governments just got rid of the direct and indirect subsidies that big fossil enjoys—from retail price support through strategic oil reserves, and below-market costs for drilling and mining rights to tax incentives for exploration, drilling, and leasing equipment. The removal of unfair competition would make renewable energy, including solar, the financial winner in ever more investment decisions.

The rapid advance of cost parity in solar production highlights the folly of slapping 30 percent tariffs on Chinese solar panel imports, as the U.S. Commerce Department recently did. The U.S. is blessed with a geographical location that is far sunnier than those of countries such as Germany, yet the U.S. still lags considerably behind them in the production and use of solar power. Rather than spending time making solar panel imports more expensive, why not save money, the climate, and natural security concerns by taking on Big Fossil instead?