How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

[Woodznutz]

Same challenge: Show your math or STFU.

I was actually referring to the "new heavens and new earth" coming when Christ returns (which pretty much indicates that we will continue to destroy the earth and atmosphere).


But there's this,

I signed up for the off-peak electric program from my electric utility.

Old: 11 cents/kWh
New: 7 cents/kWh

90 percent of my electricity is produced during off-peak hours, making it less expensive for me, and more efficient for the utility to produce. There is no downside.

 

[abu afak]

I'm surprised you didn't implode from the irony of accusing others of not being able to compose a paragraph.

This (just one recent example) is like 25 (more like more than ALL the posts you EVER made in total) (or jc456, or Toadstool, or NoBalls, or the vast majority of RW trolls here)
You/they would be incapable of coherently putting together your case because you have none except childishly trolling up your stunted IQ politically-based denial.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

via GIPHY Don't fling the Pooh. Outstanding

www.usmessageboard.com

BIo me little guys.

`

 

[ding]

This (just one recent example) is like 25 (more like more than ALL the posts you EVER made in total) (or jc456, or Toadstool, or NoBalls, or the vast majority of RW trolls here)
You/they would be incapable of coherently putting together your case because you have none except childishly trolling up your stunted IQ politically-based denial.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

via GIPHY Don't fling the Pooh. Outstanding

www.usmessageboard.com

BIo me little guys.

`

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

 

[abu afak]

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

First I showed you were Lying with my well laid overview.
Something you could never do.
Let's be clear little putana.

Explained above.
You are Dishonest little Twerp/Troll.
But I did EMBARRASS you into write a paragraph.
Again:

CAUSATION:

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious deniers know/use, usually Lag that solar forcing... but this time led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate compared to natural cycles.

`

 

[ding]

First I showed you were Lying with my well laid overview.
Something you could never do.
Let's be clear little putana.

Explained above.
You are Dishonest little Twerp/Troll.
But I did EMBARRASS you into write a paragraph.
Again:

CAUSATION:

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious deniers know/use, usually Lag that solar forcing... but this time led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate compared to natural cycles.

`

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

 

[ding]

The radiative forcing component shown in this graphic is dishonest. CO2 radiative forcing is only 1/4 to 1/3 of this value. The rest of this value is the GHG effect of water vapor. The radiative forcing of CO2 is NOT 1.66 W/m^2.

 

[abu afak]

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

All covered in my explanation above, and the measurements of Radiation-in/Radiation-out and what didn't change was solar energy in, but the energy being reflected out into space being Blocked at the precise wavelengths of the huge Human-increased Blanket of GHGs.
It's measured, it's NOT a random historical event. (many of those also measured the same way for cause)
Your post/posting Dishonestly continuing to ignore it.
You post denial because of your 'contrary' Mental state, which is irrational on several issues and your own little Conspiracism which also extends to creation/design as well.

But again- LOL - I at least Embarrassed you into writing a paragraph (after you impLIED I didn't) you Dishonest Obnoxious little mental defective troll.
`

`

`

 

[ding]

All covered in my explanation above, and the measurements of Radiation-in/Radiation-out and what didn't change was solar energy in, but the energy being reflected out into space being Blocked at the precise wavelengths of the huge Human-increased Blanket of GHGs.
It's measured, it's NOT a random historical event. (many of those also measured the same way for cause)
Your post/posting Dishonestly continuing to ignore it.
You post denial because of your 'contrary' Mental state, which is irrational on several issues and your own little Conspiracism which also extends to creation/design as well.

But again- LOL - I at least Embarrassed you into writing a paragraph (after you impLIED I didn't) you Dishonest Obnoxious little mental defective troll.
`

`

`

Your scientist lump the urban heat island effect and feedbacks which are 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 and use the low variability solar output dataset to tune out natural effects.

 

[Samofvt]

No one will be shutting any Fossil Fuel plants unless there's the Renewable juice to replace it.
Very simple. Businesses can do math and the state can too.

Why in God's name would you want to shut Fossil Fuel plants? We need every bit of that carbon above ground so that the rain forests can grow back like they did during the last dinosaur age. The sooner we can get the ecological dynamo of earth working again, the faster we'll be able to re-populate diversity.

We just had the discussion in another thread
("could save 5.6 Bil....")
I posted this last night

​

"..Could you power the US with solar?​

Solar's abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States .https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states#:~:text=Solar's abundance and potential throughout,power the entire United States .​

​

Solar Energy in the United States​

- - -

Interesting fact: if you are going to replace gas and oil with electric energy, you need to triple that estimate of 22,000, or in other words an area the size of the state of Florida. Without looking at how they came up with the original sq miles estimate, I'll guess they simply used a raw solar output per square mile of solar farm. In reality, there are physical obstacles (lakes, rivers, hills, mountains...oh yeah, people, businesses, homes, railroads, highways, and of course agricultural land...it would be nice to eat some food ;-), so you better double that area again to account for these, plus the access roads and other structures you would need to support the farm. So basically all of the natural areas in the entire states of Florida, Georgia and part of Alabama.

22,000 sq miles is .0057 of the USA's 3.8 Million sq miles

Even if you live in a highly AG state you can use wind which is already Dotting Farm fields and earn more income for them.
But overall the land taken is MINISCULE.

Now that you have the facts you'll change opinion.. RIGHT?
LOL
`

It may be possible, but it would create an ecological and humanitarian disaster in itself. Neither wind turbines nor solar panels last forever. Both consume huge amounts of energy to produce them...as a matter of fact, you'd probably have to increase those energy numbers substantially just to produce the power needed to produce the panels and wind turbines. And when they wear out? After a couple hundred years (10 replacement cycles), you would have created so much bulky waste, you'd better set aside another whole state to store it in.

There are solutions to this problem, but going 100% wind and solar is pretty funny to think about. Save the environment by covering it over with panels and wind turbines?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It can easily be 100%. The issues with overloading the grid are largely BS. The grid has needed a major overhaul for decades already even without switching to renewables. 'Bout time they got busy. But more to the point, renewable energy is best utilized at the point of generation. Solar usage could increase dramatically right away by making secondary circuit DC house wiring standard fare. Having the grid has been nice. But it ain't been that nice. Some of us still rely on old school telephone service with no cell or smart phone, yours truly inclusive. I could easily switch to using a smart phone, but I just hate the fucking things. Everything's just too damned small for my crappy eyesight and fat fingers. Well, we could all adapt to producing our own power more too. Just as I've been rendered a dinosaur in phone land, those who resist the dramatic electric power changes soon coming will largely be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I was actually referring to the "new heavens and new earth" coming when Christ returns (which pretty much indicates that we will continue to destroy the earth and atmosphere).


But there's this,

I signed up for the off-peak electric program from my electric utility.

Old: 11 cents/kWh
New: 7 cents/kWh

90 percent of my electricity is produced during off-peak hours, making it less expensive for me, and more efficient for the utility to produce. There is no downside.

somehow, hidden in this....is the fact that your fellow energy consumers are paying for your power.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Palo Alto Discovers Recycling is a Scam | Frontpage Mag

Recycling is a scam that taxes Americans to hide their trash in the third world

www.frontpagemag.com

solar energy, recycling, climate 'change', covid pandemic, ukraine war, biden presidency...it's stunning the number of people willing to fall for any scam coming down the pike.

LOLOLOL

 

[skookerasbil]

thread

But don't take my word for it...ask the Germans.

Drrrrr

Leftist Germany Sees Green Push Wrecked by Russia Energy Shortages

 

[Woodznutz]

somehow, hidden in this....is the fact that your fellow energy consumers are paying for your power.

I have no way of knowing that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Long story short, turns out solar panels have grown so cheap that no distant generation makes economic sense. Produce electricity locally using rooftops and farms in need of shade. This is the future, like it or not. Cheap, simple, minimal maintenance, drag based windmills need to be reconsidered as well since winds often blow at night.

 

[Woodznutz]

It's either profitable or it's not.....You don't "make" profits by squandering scores of billions of taxpayer funds on technology that hasn't even reached a break-even point.

Solving problems is rarely profitable..

 

[Oddball]

Solving problems is rarely profitable..

Depends on the problem,....Personal hygiene products solve all sorts of problems.

Solving"problems" that don't exist at all is highly profitable for the technocratic/bureaucratic ruling class....And they don't need to produce a single thing that anyone would willingly buy for themselves.

 

[ding]

Long story short, turns out solar panels have grown so cheap that no distant generation makes economic sense. Produce electricity locally using rooftops and farms in need of shade. This is the future, like it or not. Cheap, simple, minimal maintenance, drag based windmills need to be reconsidered as well since winds often blow at night.

I can’t think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle other than the widespread use of solar which converts solar radiation - which would have produced heat on the earth’s surface - into electricity.

It will only take 1% of the earth’s landmass surface area being covered with solar panels to change the earth’s energy budget from net warming to net cooling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solving problems is rarely profitable..

Solving problems is the best way to make a profit.

 

[Calypso Jones]

let these envirowhackos start picking up trash after themselves.

The right does this. the left leaves big filthy messes for others to pick up AFTER them. Think Obama inauguration. think Burning man, think ANYwhere these lowlife antifa/blm congregate.