How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

[jc456]

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.
`

off topic rant

 

[jc456]

OFF TOPIC 3 words. jc456 usual from USMB's stupidest poster. And THAT is really saying something!
A person who has never made an intelligent post, or written a paragraph, or started a thread here.
He is a high frequency one-line troll like ToddsterParrot.
`

`

why don't you report me if I'm off topic? Also, why haven't you answered how renewables are made that I asked in a previous post?

 

[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.
Click to expand...

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.
`

 

[jc456]

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

They've never explained how come when Temperature is up CO2 is down and when CO2 is up temperature is down. They have some really interesting quirks they can't quite explain!!!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.

how about 150 years?

How old is earth again?

 

[Crick]

They've never explained how come when Temperature is up CO2 is down and when CO2 is up temperature is down. They have some really interesting quirks they can't quite explain!!!!!!!!

#1 being how you remember to maintain your own food, water and oxygen levels.

Science has NO problem explaining such things because it is science that has informed us of all the various factors that affect global temperature while you attempt to sell us on a version you seem to have learned in kindergarten.

 

[jc456]

#1 being how you remember to maintain your own food, water and oxygen levels.

Science has NO problem explaining such things because it is science that has informed us of all the various factors that affect global temperature while you attempt to sell us on a version you seem to have learned in kindergarten.

so no correlation between temp and CO2, finally, thanks for getting on board with reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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."..."

Basics of the Carbon Cycle - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

`

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).

Now the moron doesn't understand the difference between emitted by the Earth and reflected by the Earth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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."
`

How was I dishonestly mocking your stupidity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Radiation reflected back out is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs. (Greenhouse gases)

Again? IR isn't "reflected back out", idiot.

 

[jc456]

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).

Now the moron doesn't understand the difference between emitted by the Earth and reflected by the Earth.

I find it funnier that abu used the words trace gases and substantially in the same sentence . That a trace of anything can be substantial is hilarious

 

[abu afak]

How was I dishonestly mocking your stupidity?

4 one sentence posts?
Can't you EVER write more than one line per?
I already explained it in detail Wheelchair Troll.
I already PORKED YOU by explaining how the GHGs trap/block Radiated heat from being re-emitted back out of the atmosphere.
Why don't you and jc456 (or Ding) go have a one-phrase marathon like you used to for pages.
I will not indulge but will again start labeling your posts for what they are as per yesterday.
Goodbye 6-word TROLL
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

4 one sentence posts?
Can't you EVER write more than one line per?
I already explained it in detail Wheelchair Troll.
I already PORKED YOU by explaining how the GHGs trap/block Radiated heat from being re-emitted back out of the atmosphere.
Why don't you and jc456 (or Ding) go have a one-phrase marathon like you used to for pages.
I will not indulge but will gain start labeling your posts for what they are as per yesterday.
Goodbye 6-word TROLL
`

I can very succinctly mock your idiocy.

It doesn't take a page of angry, unhinged and bolded text.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no such thing as "renewables." All renewables require hydrocarbons to create. Because of how long they last, they eventually need to be replaced. The mining, and manufacture of them, the materials, and the energy, require hydrocarbons. It is a fantasy and a lie that renewables do anything, it is an extra-step.

It is a waste.

It's more conversion than renewables but the jargon is not as snappy.

 

[abu afak]

It's more conversion than renewables but the jargon is not as snappy.

MisterSchlmeale is of course Mind-porked and not too bright as Increasingly Renewables are created by Power Generation from renewable energy plants.
There will always be some carbon input, but Less as a higher percent of all electric is generated by renewables.

Amazing too is how FEW people actually can address the OP question.
Even idiots could concede, ie, a meager 10%, but here? It's Bash to nothing as anything else would take effort or knowledge or publicly betraying there 100% MAGAt politics. The main high-fiving game/troll of THIS mb.
And USMB is 80% RW Trolls Led/condoned by Mods who are same.
`

 

[jc456]

MisterSchlmeale is of course Mind-porked and not too bright as Increasingly Renewables are created by Power Generation from renewable energy plants.
There will always be some carbon input, but Less as a higher percent of all electric is generated by renewables.

Amazing too is how FEW people actually can address the OP question.
Even idiots could concede, ie, a meager 10%, but here? It's Bash to nothing as anything else would take effort or knowledge or publicly betraying there 100% MAGAt politics. The main high-fiving game/troll of THIS mb.
And USMB is 80% RW Trolls Led/condoned by Mods who are same.
`

Renewables are made with hydro carbon period, dummass! Hilarious you don’t know how the material is even made

 

[abu afak]

I think we can get to 50%, probably 60% very quickly, and we are seeing that now.
The scarcity/price of oil has hastened the rush that is already running at 85% of the New generating mix Here.
After ie 60%, it starts to get tricky both technologically and reliability wise.
Any new tech my raise those numbers.

Amazingly, we are going at near at a near GND rate now without legislation.
It is not "too fast" IMO.
Wall St is very socially conscious/PC now ('ESG') and there is endless money for renewable, and double the P/E multiples for the stock prices of renewable energy cos.
Many investors/funds view buying Exxon like buying a Tobacco stock. I do not. I have lots in NatGas.

`

I want to put this up for more discussion again in light of new tech and poster knowledge/sentiment and separate the pure "Lib" bashers here from those have real concerns/objection.
(And maybe bump this again in a few years.}
`

 

[abu afak]

Your political subversion falls on deaf ears. You might as well be pissing in the wind.

I'm asking for Opinions on an issue.
It's Not "Subversion" to be doing so you IDIOT.
POST ON TOPIC or go back to citing scripture in the religion section.

`

 

[jc456]

Your political subversion falls on deaf ears. You might as well be pissing in the wind.

He is