Fully Sourced Failed Predictions of Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,862
5,289
290
N/A
1) Warming will end
2) Warming will end soon
3) Warming has ended
4) There has been no warming
5) Warming will be good for us
6) Just like the QAnon "Storm", the world will soon discover that scientists have been making it all up to simultaneously get rich and destroy human society which will lead to a bloody revolution that will end the global warming hysteria and put Trump back in the White House in charge of the entire planet regardless of any silly "election results".

 
1) Warming will end
2) Warming will end soon
3) Warming has ended
4) There has been no warming
5) Warming will be good for us
6) Just like the QAnon "Storm", the world will soon discover that scientists have been making it all up to simultaneously get rich and destroy human society which will lead to a bloody revolution that will end the global warming hysteria and put Trump back in the White House in charge of the entire planet regardless of any silly "election results".


When is all the free green "fuel" going to result in lower electricity costs?
 
When is all the free green "fuel" going to result in lower electricity costs?
It already has. Increases in your bill cover the cost of new construction.

"Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—natural gas, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices."


From Google AI:

"The U.S. used about 33.41 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of natural gas in 2022. This is equivalent to about 32.31 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. Natural gas was the largest source of U.S. electricity generation in 2022, accounting for about 40% of electricity generation."

What did 32.31 trillion cubic feet of natural gas cost? $0.0148/cubic foot. So, 40% of our electricity generation last year cost us $478,188,000,000. Your comments make it seem as if there's no potential to save money by eliminating the cost of fuel.
 
Last edited:
It already has. Increases in your bill cover the cost of new construction.

"Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—natural gas, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices."


It already has.

Where?

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices.

You know what else drives increases in prices?
Running natural gas power plants only when needed to even out the unreliable
output of solar and wind projects.
 
It already has.

Where?

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices.

You know what else drives increases in prices?
Running natural gas power plants only when needed to even out the unreliable
output of solar and wind projects.
You know what drives prices down? NOT running fuel-driven plants when you don't need to.
 
I bet the fuel for a 20 MW plant costs one hell of a lot more per hour than the total labor charge.

Whatever the cost of the plant, it takes a lot longer to pay for it if it runs 12 hours a day versus 24. Kind of like solar is more expensive when it's hit by 9 hours of sun vs 15 hours.
 
Whatever the cost of the plant, it takes a lot longer to pay for it if it runs 12 hours a day versus 24. Kind of like solar is more expensive when it's hit by 9 hours of sun vs 15 hours.
The solution to the problem you and yours are constantly bringing up is to build more solar farms and more wind turbines. Thanks for pointing that out.

And the more solar and wind we've got, the less fossil fuel powered plants we'll have to build.
 
The solution to the problem you and yours are constantly bringing up is to build more solar farms and more wind turbines. Thanks for pointing that out.

And the more solar and wind we've got, the less fossil fuel powered plants we'll have to build.

Exactly! If you double the amount of unreliable energy, you solve all your problems. DURR
 
Exactly! If you double the amount of unreliable energy, you solve all your problems. DURR
Wrong. You fill in the gaps. A combination of non-emitting technologies will be able to replace all fossil fuel power generation.
 
Those predictions are mostly spot on.

Earth has

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANES
NO OCEAN RISE


The only thing the Co2 FRAUD side has in the actual data is URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT...
 
Right.
If you only get 6 hours of sunlight, you "fill in the gaps" by quadrupling your solar panels.
Use wind, hydro, nuclear, wave, tidal, etc. Put panels where you get more sunlight. Use a smart grid to send energy where it's needed.

Whether or not you like renewable energy, we have to leave fossil fuels. We should have done so 20 years ago. The cost of that failure will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of the conversion.
 
Use wind, hydro, nuclear, wave, tidal, etc. Put panels where you get more sunlight. Use a smart grid to send energy where it's needed.
You envoro-moonbats won't allow any more hydro or nukes....That only leaves intermittent, low efficiency "green" scams, that have marginal -if any- ROI.
Whether or not you like renewable energy, we have to leave fossil fuels. We should have done so 20 years ago. The cost of that failure will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of the conversion.
Platitudinous dreck isn't an argument.
 
Use wind, hydro, nuclear, wave, tidal, etc. Put panels where you get more sunlight. Use a smart grid to send energy where it's needed.

Whether or not you like renewable energy, we have to leave fossil fuels. We should have done so 20 years ago. The cost of that failure will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of the conversion.

Where do you put panels at night?
You want us to move solar energy from New Mexico, for example, to Chicago?
You still need to convince your fellow greens that unreliable wind and solar
needs reliable nuclear or natural gas as backup.
Failure to do so will make green energy orders of magnitude more expensive.
 
Where do you put panels at night?
You want us to move solar energy from New Mexico, for example, to Chicago?
You still need to convince your fellow greens that unreliable wind and solar
needs reliable nuclear or natural gas as backup.
Failure to do so will make green energy orders of magnitude more expensive.
Move the electricity Speedo. I have no problem with nuclear power as primary or secondary. And green energy couldn't be made more expensive than the cost of doing nothing (as you wish to do) even if you tried.
 
Move the electricity Speedo. I have no problem with nuclear power as primary or secondary. And green energy couldn't be made more expensive than the cost of doing nothing (as you wish to do) even if you tried.

When your unreliable green energy results in blackouts, it gets really expensive.
 

Forum List

Back
Top