Home insurance and climate

EMH said:
LOL!!!

Ozone O3 absorbs UV. CO2 absorbs IR.

UV is 10k more powerful than IR. IR is weak. How much CO2 is in atmosphere doesn't matter. Earth will emit the same about of IR with or without CO2. The satellites and weather balloons prove that while CO2 increased, atmospheric temps did not.

YOU are the one in DENIAL.

YOU are a PARROT of FUDGE AND FRAUD.
Click to expand...
Ah well, a fool can never learn anything. And you are definitely a fool. And the fact that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of IR was proven by Foote and Tyndall by 1858. So the amount of IR that leaves the ground is less than that which escapes into space. And the heat is retained here on Earth, resulting in the measured increase of temperature in the atmosphere and oceans.
 
Old Rocks said:
How stupid does a silly ass have to be to flap yap and show no evidence, when in his previous post he presented evidence that said just the opposite of what he claimed it did? Fellow, your credibility rating is about the same as Trump's.
Click to expand...


Not knowing the difference between DATA and FUDGE, a necessary level of idiocy required to fall for CO2 FRAUD.

That article documents...

1. the ACTUAL DATA from the instruments showed NO WARMING
2. the CO2 FRAUD FUDGED the data
3. the FUDGE JOB is easily outed as complete FRAUD
 
Old Rocks said:
So the amount of IR that leaves the ground is less than that which escapes into space
Click to expand...


IR is weak. CO2 absorbs and emits IR. Everything emits IR except that which is temperature ABSOLUTE ZERO.


The ACTUAL DATA from the satellites and the balloons completely refutes CO2 FRAUD.

CO2 went up, atmospheric temps did not.

THEORY REJECTED
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
Yes, greentards want us to waste $76 trillion for less reliable, more expensive wind and solar.

Gas, coal and nuclear are better, cheaper and more reliable.
Click to expand...


and you are 100% for keeping it that way, MOSSAD.
 
EMH said:
Not knowing the difference between DATA and FUDGE, a necessary level of idiocy required to fall for CO2 FRAUD.

That article documents...

1. the ACTUAL DATA from the instruments showed NO WARMING
2. the CO2 FRAUD FUDGED the data
3. the FUDGE JOB is easily outed as complete FRAUD
Click to expand...
Liar.
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
Yes, greentards want us to waste $76 trillion for less reliable, more expensive wind and solar.

Gas, coal and nuclear are better, cheaper and more reliable.
Click to expand...
No, that is all a lie. We are going to spend a lot of money for the increase in energy that we need, and the update our antiquated grid needs. And the least costly is solar and wind. Gas is more costly, coal far more costly, and nuclear is sky high cost.
  • Onshore wind! It's the winner here, with average costs that are clearly lower than combined cycle natural gas.
  • Utility scale-solar is roughly cost competitive with natural gas, averaging a bit cheaper on its own and a bit pricier when you factor in storage.
  • Rooftop solar is expensive, but it's the orange compared to all of the other apples here. Most rooftop solar that is being installed is by homeowners, whereas the other forms of electricity are being installed by large businesses. If I want to generate electricity at my home, I can't build a wind farm or a natural gas plant, so it's not terribly relevant that rooftop solar costs more. And for many people, rooftop solar still pencils out with a positive return on investment at current prices.
  • Do you see those three yellow diamonds on the lines for nuclear, coal, and natural gas? Those show the average cost of operating those forms of energy generation, as opposed to building new ones. Between wind and utility-scale solar, it's fair to say that in some cases, it's cheaper to build new renewable energy than to operate existing nonrenewable power plants.
  • Admittedly, the cheapest renewables have the challenge of intermittency (because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine). That emphasizes the importance of grid-scale storage technologies, because we will need robust energy storage to displace the forms of energy that provide baseload electricity. These charts show that renewables are now winning on cost, and we just need them to win on performance to make fossil fuel electricity fully obsolete.


And now battery storage is much less costly;

Maine iron-air battery
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8257...taXJvbi1haXItYmF0dGVyeS1pbi1saW5jb2xuLw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4173...yZ3kvd29ybGRzLWxhcmdlc3QtYmF0dGVyeS11cw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6496...Gxpb24tdGltZXMtbW9yZS1lbmVyZ3ktbGFwdG9w&ntb=1


Interesting Engineering
US: World’s largest 8,500 MWh capacity battery to be built in Maine
The project will use iron-air batteries that are easier to build, maintain and also recycle at the end of their life. Silicon’s reign ends? Quantum switch breakthrough promises 1,0…
https://interestingengineering.com › energy › worlds-largest-battery-us

Live Science
World's biggest battery coming to Maine - Live Science
The novel iron-air battery system will store 8,500 megawatt-hours of energy once it is completed. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. …
https://www.livescience.com › technology › engineering
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f37f...cmxkcy1iaWdnZXN0LWJhdHRlcnktaW4tbWFpbmU&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8257...taXJvbi1haXItYmF0dGVyeS1pbi1saW5jb2xuLw&ntb=1
 
Old Rocks said:
No, that is all a lie. We are going to spend a lot of money for the increase in energy that we need, and the update our antiquated grid needs. And the least costly is solar and wind. Gas is more costly, coal far more costly, and nuclear is sky high cost.
  • Onshore wind! It's the winner here, with average costs that are clearly lower than combined cycle natural gas.
  • Utility scale-solar is roughly cost competitive with natural gas, averaging a bit cheaper on its own and a bit pricier when you factor in storage.
  • Rooftop solar is expensive, but it's the orange compared to all of the other apples here. Most rooftop solar that is being installed is by homeowners, whereas the other forms of electricity are being installed by large businesses. If I want to generate electricity at my home, I can't build a wind farm or a natural gas plant, so it's not terribly relevant that rooftop solar costs more. And for many people, rooftop solar still pencils out with a positive return on investment at current prices.
  • Do you see those three yellow diamonds on the lines for nuclear, coal, and natural gas? Those show the average cost of operating those forms of energy generation, as opposed to building new ones. Between wind and utility-scale solar, it's fair to say that in some cases, it's cheaper to build new renewable energy than to operate existing nonrenewable power plants.
  • Admittedly, the cheapest renewables have the challenge of intermittency (because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine). That emphasizes the importance of grid-scale storage technologies, because we will need robust energy storage to displace the forms of energy that provide baseload electricity. These charts show that renewables are now winning on cost, and we just need them to win on performance to make fossil fuel electricity fully obsolete.


And now battery storage is much less costly;

Maine iron-air battery
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8257...taXJvbi1haXItYmF0dGVyeS1pbi1saW5jb2xuLw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4173...yZ3kvd29ybGRzLWxhcmdlc3QtYmF0dGVyeS11cw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6496...Gxpb24tdGltZXMtbW9yZS1lbmVyZ3ktbGFwdG9w&ntb=1


Interesting Engineering
US: World’s largest 8,500 MWh capacity battery to be built in Maine
The project will use iron-air batteries that are easier to build, maintain and also recycle at the end of their life. Silicon’s reign ends? Quantum switch breakthrough promises 1,0…
https://interestingengineering.com › energy › worlds-largest-battery-us

Live Science
World's biggest battery coming to Maine - Live Science
The novel iron-air battery system will store 8,500 megawatt-hours of energy once it is completed. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. …
https://www.livescience.com › technology › engineering
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f37f...cmxkcy1iaWdnZXN0LWJhdHRlcnktaW4tbWFpbmU&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8257...taXJvbi1haXItYmF0dGVyeS1pbi1saW5jb2xuLw&ntb=1
Click to expand...

And the least costly is solar and wind.

Bullshit. How much would enough wind, solar and battery backup cost to power
Chicago in January?

A lot more than gas, coal and nuclear costs.

Gas is more costly, coal far more costly, and nuclear is sky high cost.

Gas and coal are cheap and reliable.
Nuclear would be cheaper with standardized designs and limits on nuisance lawsuits.
 
Old Rocks said:
No, that is all a lie. We are going to spend a lot of money for the increase in energy that we need, and the update our antiquated grid needs. And the least costly is solar and wind. Gas is more costly, coal far more costly, and nuclear is sky high cost.
  • Onshore wind! It's the winner here, with average costs that are clearly lower than combined cycle natural gas.
  • Utility scale-solar is roughly cost competitive with natural gas, averaging a bit cheaper on its own and a bit pricier when you factor in storage.
  • Rooftop solar is expensive, but it's the orange compared to all of the other apples here. Most rooftop solar that is being installed is by homeowners, whereas the other forms of electricity are being installed by large businesses. If I want to generate electricity at my home, I can't build a wind farm or a natural gas plant, so it's not terribly relevant that rooftop solar costs more. And for many people, rooftop solar still pencils out with a positive return on investment at current prices.
  • Do you see those three yellow diamonds on the lines for nuclear, coal, and natural gas? Those show the average cost of operating those forms of energy generation, as opposed to building new ones. Between wind and utility-scale solar, it's fair to say that in some cases, it's cheaper to build new renewable energy than to operate existing nonrenewable power plants.
  • Admittedly, the cheapest renewables have the challenge of intermittency (because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine). That emphasizes the importance of grid-scale storage technologies, because we will need robust energy storage to displace the forms of energy that provide baseload electricity. These charts show that renewables are now winning on cost, and we just need them to win on performance to make fossil fuel electricity fully obsolete.


And now battery storage is much less costly;

Maine iron-air battery
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8257...taXJvbi1haXItYmF0dGVyeS1pbi1saW5jb2xuLw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4173...yZ3kvd29ybGRzLWxhcmdlc3QtYmF0dGVyeS11cw&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6496...Gxpb24tdGltZXMtbW9yZS1lbmVyZ3ktbGFwdG9w&ntb=1


Interesting Engineering
US: World’s largest 8,500 MWh capacity battery to be built in Maine
The project will use iron-air batteries that are easier to build, maintain and also recycle at the end of their life. Silicon’s reign ends? Quantum switch breakthrough promises 1,0…
https://interestingengineering.com › energy › worlds-largest-battery-us

Live Science
World's biggest battery coming to Maine - Live Science
The novel iron-air battery system will store 8,500 megawatt-hours of energy once it is completed. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. …
https://www.livescience.com › technology › engineering
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f37f...cmxkcy1iaWdnZXN0LWJhdHRlcnktaW4tbWFpbmU&ntb=1
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8257...taXJvbi1haXItYmF0dGVyeS1pbi1saW5jb2xuLw&ntb=1
Click to expand...

My gawad you are so far gone into the what if endgame when the free market isn't excited by it, it take an ocean of government fiat money to get them to do anything then after the "free" money flow dries up so does the "investments" as Warren Buffet made clear he was after the subsidy money it was the ONLY reason why he did wind power when it stopped he dumped the wind power to get rid of the sudden decline in value.

Wind Power Doesn’t Make Sense: Berkshire Hathaway​


Excerpt:

“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” said Buffett in 2014. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

LINK
 
Sunsettommy said:
My gawad you are so far gone into the what if endgame when the free market isn't excited by it, it take an ocean of government fiat money to get them to do anything then after the "free" money flow dries up so does the "investments" as Warren Buffet made clear he was after the subsidy money it was the ONLY reason why he did wind power when it stopped he dumped the wind power to get rid of the sudden decline in value.

Wind Power Doesn’t Make Sense: Berkshire Hathaway​


Excerpt:

“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” said Buffett in 2014. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

LINK
Click to expand...
Everything they believe in are unicorn farts and fantasy.
 
Sunsettommy said:
They NEVER improve despite a barrage of official data placed in front of their vacant eyes.
Click to expand...
They are truly religious nutjobs. No matter how many facts are presented they simply ignore them, and quote scripture.
 
Old Rocks said:
Liar.
Click to expand...


www.nbcnews.com

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com


What's the matter, more trouble with the HEBREW to ENGLISH translation software again??
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
And the least costly is solar and wind.

Bullshit. How much would enough wind, solar and battery backup cost to power
Chicago in January?

A lot more than gas, coal and nuclear costs.

Gas is more costly, coal far more costly, and nuclear is sky high cost.

Gas and coal are cheap and reliable.
Nuclear would be cheaper with standardized designs and limits on nuisance lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Wind in January near Chicago? Yessiree. The Windy City would benefit from having a lot of wind power in January. As for solar, well there is this thing called the grid, and our southern states are getting a lot of sunshine in January. Not only that, but the iron-air batteries promise huge storage at far less cost than present batteries. 90% of the new generation installed in 2024 was renewables. For the very reason that it is less costly than gas, coal, or nuclear.
 
westwall said:
Everything they believe in are unicorn farts and fantasy.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, all those scientists in the Scientific Societies, all the people at the National Academies of Science, and all the scientists at the major Universities are fools, and only you are aware of the truth. You and a bunch of braindead MAGAts.
 
15th post
EMH said:
www.nbcnews.com

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com


What's the matter, more trouble with the HEBREW to ENGLISH translation software again??
Click to expand...
Meaning what, silly boi?
 
Sunsettommy said:
My gawad you are so far gone into the what if endgame when the free market isn't excited by it, it take an ocean of government fiat money to get them to do anything then after the "free" money flow dries up so does the "investments" as Warren Buffet made clear he was after the subsidy money it was the ONLY reason why he did wind power when it stopped he dumped the wind power to get rid of the sudden decline in value.

Wind Power Doesn’t Make Sense: Berkshire Hathaway​


Excerpt:

“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” said Buffett in 2014. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

LINK
Click to expand...
Yessirreeeeeeeeeeee........................... Oil, coal, and gas much better investment, they get much bigger subsidies than does renewables.

fossil fuel subsidies compared to renewable subsidies - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
And the least costly is solar and wind.

Bullshit. How much would enough wind, solar and battery backup cost to power
Chicago in January?

A lot more than gas, coal and nuclear costs.

Gas is more costly, coal far more costly, and nuclear is sky high cost.

Gas and coal are cheap and reliable.
Nuclear would be cheaper with standardized designs and limits on nuisance lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Go here if you dare;

 
Old Rocks said:
Wind in January near Chicago? Yessiree. The Windy City would benefit from having a lot of wind power in January. As for solar, well there is this thing called the grid, and our southern states are getting a lot of sunshine in January. Not only that, but the iron-air batteries promise huge storage at far less cost than present batteries. 90% of the new generation installed in 2024 was renewables. For the very reason that it is less costly than gas, coal, or nuclear.
Click to expand...

Wind in January near Chicago? Yessiree. The Windy City would benefit from having a lot of wind power in January.

Wind every day? LOL!
But no solar. So how much for all the wind and battery back up?

As for solar, well there is this thing called the grid, and our southern states are getting a lot of sunshine in January.

Miami has about 7 hours and 42 minutes of sunlight a day in January. 73% are sunny. Is that really a lot?

How much extra solar do we need to install in Florida to power themselves and Chicago? Sounds expensive!

90% of the new generation installed in 2024 was renewables.

Free government money and stupid mandates outlawing cheaper, more reliable fossil fuel energy, renewables make sense under those circumstances.

Not only that, but the iron-air batteries promise huge storage at far less cost than present batteries.

  • Low power density: Not suitable for mobile applications like EVs—more useful for stationary storage.
  • Efficiency: Round-trip efficiency is lower (~50–60%) than lithium-ion (~90%).
  • Size: Requires more physical space due to lower energy density.

Geez, you lose 40-50% every time you use them?
Wow! Your green energy idiocy gets better and better every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

It’s hot in Italy

< Previous Thread

Burmese python news.

Next Thread >

Similar threads

O
Interesting weather for the second week of February
Replies
14
Views
359
Anomalism
Anomalism
O
What will summer bring?
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
815
EMH
EMH
O
EV buses run at -4 degrees in Wisconsin
Replies
11
Views
165
Old Rocks
O
O
Another solution for energy storage
Replies
7
Views
265
toobfreak
toobfreak
O
Installed capacity of solar exceeding coal in China
2
Replies
30
Views
589
Anomalism
Anomalism

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom