How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

[Grumblenuts]

Ho boy, another one bites the dust, investing in Big Oil far too long..

Now he sucks his thumb in wonder.. by the banks of the pissed up rope lagoon..

 

[abu afak]

As much as the tax payer would like to subsidize , only to find they're holding the bag on a sisyphean goal that wont really do what they're being told it will

I opted for well written commentary , which you've played the 'shoot the messenger' card against.

But if you want MY opinion , Big Green is globalism cloaked in the guise of salvation.

There is no issue that comes close to the mis-info , propaganda , collusion or Congressional clown show

Epic disaster indeed......

~S~

You're a Climate ILLITERATE who not only wasn't able to say/discuss a word, but whose RW Article did NOT address the Topic, it just bashes:
What Percent of the mix can we reach with renewables?
Does, ie, you article thinks it's Zero, because we're way past that on a cheapest basis alone.
`

 

[sparky]

You're a Climate ILLITERATE who not only wasn't able to say/discuss a word, but whose RW Article did NOT address the Topic, it just bashes:
What Percent of the mix can we reach with renewables?
Does, ie, you article thinks it's Zero, because we're way past that on a cheapest basis alone.
`

I owe you nothing , nor are you entitled to anything here abu

If posters do not TELL you what you want to hear, it's your bad, not theirs

~S~

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[abu afak]

I owe you nothing , nor are you entitled to anything here abu

If posters do not TELL you what you want to hear, it's your bad, not theirs

~S~

You can tell me anything you want BUT, you have to stay ON TOPIC.
Your post had ZERO to do with ""How much of the the mix renewables can be.""

That is mostly because you're clueless about this topic, and the Climate debate in general.
You, like most deniers her are partisan RW Hacks.

`

 

[sparky]

Your post had ZERO to do with ""How much of the the mix renewables can be.""

It had everything to do with it , Mr Left wing partisan denier

~S~

 

[abu afak]

It had everything to do with it , Mr Left wing partisan denier

~S~

Really?
Cite the part that goes to "What Percent of the Mix".
Unless you want to say your article says it's Zero.
`

 

[Samofvt]

Do you believe published climate science and the assessment reports of the IPCC to be a "clown show"?

I'll bite. Yes, much of what comes out of IPCC has been debunked. It has shown itself to be a political body, not a scientific one. You can follow the money if you care to learn the reasons. If they come up with conclusions that their political funders do not like, they will loose their jobs. The End.

Climate Change is real. It is expected and has been predicted for over a century by scientists.

The cause is not CO2, although warming surface temperatures of the Oceans is known to increase CO2.

CO2 is a necessary component of life, and in recent centuries, the troposphere has been in critically short supply of it. This is the primary cause of the shortage of vegetation in many parts of the world.

There will be a need for alternate energy production as fossil fuel appears to be getting harder to obtain. The solution for future energy storage will involve Carbon-based fuels, possibly generated by capturing available free Carbon and utilizing nuclear fission reactors to produce it. Lithium-based products as a storage medium are a dangerous and fool-hardy proposition. The energy density of Fuel Cell technology (Hydrogen) is not sufficient to produce good results. If politicians would get out of the way, there may be other great advancements in energy storage fields. If politicians dictate the engineering and science to be used, we are all doomed.

Covering valuable cropland with solar panels and wind turbines will cause the starvation of several generations of human beings.

Thanks!

 

[abu afak]

I'll bite .....Climate Change is real. It is expected and has been predicted for over a century by scientists.
The cause is not CO2, although warming surface temperatures of the Oceans is known to increase CO2.
..... Covering valuable cropland with solar panels and wind turbines will cause the starvation of several generations of human beings.

Thanks!

ALL evidence says CO2 and other GHGs ARE the cause of warming
See my many thread starts (many still on pg 1 or 2) and 100x that many posts.

"Covering valuable cropland with solar panels and wind turbines will cause the starvation of several generations of human beings."

The best and most common use of Solar is in Arid sunny placed, like the 4 corners area which cover NO cropland. Not to mention Tens of millions of Roofs and vertical stands arrays.
But is viable almost anywhere.

Wind is most popular in the plains states where farmers LOVE it. Being Paid 3K-12K per to DOT - Not "cover"- farmland.
Aslo on empty prairy/ranches.
Iowa gets 63% of it's electric from Renewables, Mostly Wind.
S Dakota 55%, Oklahoma 45%.

IF we were to just use Solar alone, an area the size of lake Michigan would give us all the power we need. Tiny especially if spread over 50 states.

You are clueless about power and land usage.
Clueless about CO2/GHGs and temperature.
`

 

[Samofvt]

ALL evidence says CO2 and other GHGs ARE the cause of warming
See my many thread starts (many still on pg 1 or 2) and 100x that many posts.

Your first mistake is believing correlation equals causation. ALL evidence says CO2 is weakly correlated with average temperatures.

Your second mistake is in being an alarmist. So what if there is a rise in average global temperatures? Why are you afraid?

"Covering valuable cropland with solar panels and wind turbines will cause the starvation of several generations of human beings."

The best and most common use of Solar is in Arid sunny placed, like the 4 corners area which cover NO cropland. Not to mention Tens of millions of Roofs and vertical stands arrays.
But is viable almost anywhere.

Wind is most popular in the plains states where farmers LOVE it. Being Paid 3K-12K per to DOT - Not "cover"- farmland.
Aslo on empty prairy/ranches.
Iowa gets 63% of it's electric from Renewables, Mostly Wind.
S Dakota 55%, Oklahoma 45%.

That's great, but your numbers are wrong...those numbers are the theoretical capacity based on the installed equipment. Actual output is lower and even when they are producing, it's not always available when needed. Also, your percentage estimates do not reflect the future demand requirements if you are going to run your vehicles and home heating systems with electricity. If you continue to insist on replacing hydro-carbons with electricity, your electrical demand will be 4 times what it is today. Meaning those states you cite will need 8 times the amount of installed turbines and/or solar panels.

I have no problem with a good amount of wind and solar, where it makes sense. But between the land use issues, the storage problem, and the transmission issues there are some serious problems in the future. Plus you have to remember those panels and turbines need to be replaced every 20 years +/-. The current storage batteries being used also need to be replaced about every 10 years, and none of that stuff is recyclable.

Carbon-based fuel is the perfect storage medium: recyclable into clean CO2 that can be used by living organisms (truly green). Nuclear fission reactors aren't perfect, but are relatively safe and last 50 years (maybe much longer with modern designs).

IF we were to just use Solar alone, an area the size of lake Michigan would give us all the power we need. Tiny especially if spread over 50 states.

Not even close. You would need all of the land area of Florida and Georgia combined before you even consider the fact that you can't really use every square inch of the land because of geographical features, and you also need space for the transmission lines from the solar array to the storage facility and then out to the grid. After 60 years (3 replacement cycles), you will have produced enough debris from the dead solar panels alone to fill the Grand Canyon.

You are clueless about power and land usage.
Clueless about CO2/GHGs and temperature.
`

You fail to address one of my main points: all known life is Carbon-based, and most life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere. Could you explain why you wish to reduce the levels of CO2 back to the point where life on Earth teeters on the brink of extinction?

Even if you could reduce the CO2 levels. Where are your calculations about your theoretical manipulation of the atmosphere on a global scale? Would that alter the weather more to your liking? Why are you so afraid of warmer, more normal temperatures that are predicted to happen no matter what mankind does? Remember, we are still barely coming out of an Ice Age. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, temperatures were something like 10 degrees F warmer, and there is no reason to doubt it will get that warm again someday.

I think you may want to do some more studying about the facts.

 

[abu afak]

Your first mistake is believing correlation equals causation. ALL evidence says CO2 is weakly correlated with average temperatures.

Your second mistake is in being an alarmist. So what if there is a rise in average global temperatures? Why are you afraid?

What is an alarmist... Precisely?
as Opposed to being merely someone with a 3 Digit IQ and acknowledging Global warming?
As opposed to being an anti-science low IQ MAGAt.
Every Scientific org in the World accepts AGW.. so does Exxon.
"alarmists"?
You clown.

Asked and answered many times by me.. 25? 50?

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 are leading it! 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.

That's great, but your numbers are wrong...those numbers are the theoretical capacity based on the installed equipment. Actual output is lower and even when they are producing, it's not always available when needed. Also, your percentage estimates do not
....Not even close. You would need all of the land area of Florida and Georgia combined before you even consider the fact that you can't really use every square inch of the land because of geographical features, and you also need space for the transmission lines from the solar array to the storage facility and then out to the grid. After 60 years (3 replacement cycles), you will have produced enough debris from the dead solar panels alone to fill the Grand Canyon.

The power sources ARE and would be spread out and diverse.
Spread out in Thousands of Locales from sea to shining sea... and ON it too. Rooftops as well. Not one spot.
That was just an illustration of land area actual total area, not a suggestion.
How many days does the sun shine in the SW? 330? Same with some windspots.

You fail to address one of my main points: all known life is Carbon-based, and most life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere. Could you explain why you wish to reduce the levels of CO2 back to the point where life on Earth teeters on the brink of extinction?
Even if you could reduce the CO2 levels. Where are your calculations about your theoretical manipulation of the atmosphere on a global scale? Would that alter the weather more to your liking? Why are you so afraid of warmer, more normal temperatures that are predicted to happen no matter what mankind does? Remember, we are still barely coming out of an Ice Age. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, temperatures were something like 10 degrees F warmer, and there is no reason to doubt it will get that warm again someday.

I think you may want to do some more studying about the facts.

We Evolved at 270/280 PPM not 420 PPM.
Yes dinosaurs did great much higher.. but with No Ice poles, and ergo sea level 230' Higher
Try that now.

Perhaps you've forgotten your last embarrassment after 24 MeaningLESS Links.
CLOWN CITY.

Why do temperatures plummet for tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks?

425,000 years ago CO2 peaks at 290 PPM temperatures plummet for the NEXT 75,000 YEARS! 325,000 years ago, CO2 peaks again at 300 PPM, once again, temperatures plummet for the NEXT 90,000 YEARS! Maybe CO2 does NOT drive temperature?

www.usmessageboard.com

End pt 1.

 

[abu afak]

Your first mistake is believing correlation equals causation. ALL evidence says CO2 is weakly correlated with average temperatures.

you may want to do some more studying about the facts.

LOL rookie. Pt 2.
Correlation vs causation

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming​

Who needs to study you jackass?
Me, the huge Sci consensus, Exxon?... or you.. a mere opiniated RWer who posted No science whatsoever.
`

 

[sparky]

with No more nuclear.

Energy Justice Communities Map

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is an alarmist... Precisely?
as Opposed to being merely someone with a 3 Digit IQ and acknowledging Global warming?
As opposed to being an anti-science low IQ MAGAt.
Every Scientific org in the World accepts AGW.. so does Exxon.
"alarmists"?
You clown.

Asked and answered many times by me.. 25? 50?

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 are leading it! 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 power sources ARE and would be spread out and diverse.
Spread out in Thousands of Locales from sea to shining sea... and ON it too. Rooftops as well. Not one spot.
That was just an illustration of land area actual total area, not a suggestion.
How many days does the sun shine in the SW? 330? Same with some windspots.



We Evolved at 270/280 PPM not 420 PPM.
Yes dinosaurs did great much higher.. but with No Ice poles, and ergo sea level 230' Higher
Try that now.

Perhaps you've forgotten your last embarrassment after 24 MeaningLESS Links.
CLOWN CITY.

Why do temperatures plummet for tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks?

425,000 years ago CO2 peaks at 290 PPM temperatures plummet for the NEXT 75,000 YEARS! 325,000 years ago, CO2 peaks again at 300 PPM, once again, temperatures plummet for the NEXT 90,000 YEARS! Maybe CO2 does NOT drive temperature?

www.usmessageboard.com

End pt 1.

Radiation reflected back out is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.

GHGs aren't blocking reflected radiation, idiot.

 

[jc456]

ALL evidence says CO2 and other GHGs ARE the cause of warming

except you can't show where. too fking funny.

What are renewables made with? Wait for it............................................

 

[jc456]

Radiation reflected back out is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.

GHGs aren't blocking reflected radiation, idiot.

Holy fk, abu said that. hahaahahahahaahahahah.

I wonder if he can answer how renewables are made.

 

[abu afak]

abu afak: Radiation reflected back out is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.

Toddster: GHGs aren't blocking reflected radiation, idiot.

NOAA.gov
"... These gases which are most abundant within the atmosphere exhibit almost no effect on warming the earth and its atmosphere since they do not absorb visible or infrared radiation. However, there are minor gases which comprise only a small portion of the atmosphere (about 0.43% of all air molecules, most of which are water vapor at 0.39%) that do absorb infrared radiation. These "trace" gases contribute substantially to warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere due to their abilities to contain the infrared Radiation emitted by the Earth (see below for details on the Greenhouse Effect). Since these trace gases influence the Earth in a manner somewhat similar to a greenhouse, they are referred to as GreenHouse Gases, or GHGs.

The Sun ultimately drives Earth's climate by emitting energy in the form of sunlight. Sunlight is solar Radiation mostly in the form of visible and a smaller portion as ultraviolet (UV) energy. This is also called shortwave radiation. Clouds and the Earth's surface reflect some of this incoming solar Radiation back out to space (approximately 30%), some (mostly UV) is absorbed by the atmosphere (about 20%), and the remaining half is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Sunlight absorbed by Earth's surface acts to warm the surface.

Source: Barb Deluisi, NOAA

The solar energy that has been absorbed by Earth's surface is then emitted in a different form. Since Earth is much cooler than the Sun, it emits weaker Radiation with longer wavelengths, in the infrared range. Some of this infrared Radiation passes through the atmosphere unimpeded, but the majority is absorbed by GHGs and then reemitted in all directions-towards space, to other GHG molecules, and back to Earth's surface. In this way, GHGs Block most of the infrared Radiation within the atmosphere that would otherwise escape directly into space."..."

ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - Education and Outreach

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

`

 

[Crick]

Radiation reflected back out is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.

GHGs aren't blocking reflected radiation, idiot.

You're right of course. The surface only reflects 23 Wm-2 and another 79 Wm-2 from clouds. The raradiated heat (IR) coming from the surface of the planet is much greater at 396 Wm-2. 333 wm-2 of that gets sent back to the surface by the CO2 in the air.

 

[Crick]

NOAA.gov
"... These gases which are most abundant within the atmosphere exhibit almost no effect on warming the earth and its atmosphere since they do not absorb visible or infrared radiation. However, there are minor gases which comprise only a small portion of the atmosphere (about 0.43% of all air molecules, most of which are water vapor at 0.39%) that do absorb infrared radiation. These "trace" gases contribute substantially to warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere due to their abilities to contain the infrared Radiation emitted by the Earth (see below for details on the Greenhouse Effect). Since these trace gases influence the Earth in a manner somewhat similar to a greenhouse, they are referred to as GreenHouse Gases, or GHGs.

The Sun ultimately drives Earth's climate by emitting energy in the form of sunlight. Sunlight is solar Radiation mostly in the form of visible and a smaller portion as ultraviolet (UV) energy. This is also called shortwave radiation. Clouds and the Earth's surface reflect some of this incoming solar Radiation back out to space (approximately 30%), some (mostly UV) is absorbed by the atmosphere (about 20%), and the remaining half is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Sunlight absorbed by Earth's surface acts to warm the surface.

Source: Barb Deluisi, NOAA

The solar energy that has been absorbed by Earth's surface is then emitted in a different form. Since Earth is much cooler than the Sun, it emits weaker Radiation with longer wavelengths, in the infrared range. Some of this infrared Radiation passes through the atmosphere unimpeded, but the majority is absorbed by GHGs and then reemitted in all directions-towards space, to other GHG molecules, and back to Earth's surface. In this way, GHGs Block most of the infrared Radiation within the atmosphere that would otherwise escape directly into space."..."

ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - Education and Outreach

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

`

He was gigging you for using the term "reflected".

 

[abu afak]

He was gigging you for using the term "reflected".f

OK: Blocks re-emitted sun caused IR Radiation. Blocking Solar generated heat from escaping back into space.

"Here AGAIN/Every time, ToddsterPoofette is a DISHONEST ONE-LINE (or jpg) HARASSMENT TROLL.
(oft 5 or so words with a question mark, as he can't be bothered - and no real knowledge- to Refute anything)
He has NO life and No reason for Posting except Baiting from his Wheelchair for some Tiny Detail."
`