Is Modern CO2 just different?

[CrusaderFrank]

In several AGWCult threads I've learned the following about CO2:

It's invading the ocean

It can melt lead on the planet Venus

According to the Vostok Ice Core, old CO2 lagged temperature on the increase and decrease for 600,000 years, but no more! Our Modern CO2 Drives the climate!

Yes! It's a driver!

Modern CO2, it's just different

 

[boedicca]

Of course it's different. Today's CO2 is caused by White Privilege.

 

[Billy_Bob]

and the victims require you be taxed to death...

 

[mamooth]

Some possibilities the OP reveals:

1. New bottle of MD 20/20

2. Creeping senility starting to sprint

3. The Voices getting louder

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some possibilities the OP reveals:

1. New bottle of MD 20/20

2. Creeping senility starting to sprint

3. The Voices getting louder

Quick, let's shut down our economy!!!

 

[Kosh]

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

 

[mamooth]

Todd, why do you advocate shutting down the economy?

Same question for Billy and Frank. Are you secretly communists? Wait, that's not a secret, so let me rephrase that. Why are you two such openly proud communists?

 

[Old Rocks]

Some possibilities the OP reveals:

1. New bottle of MD 20/20

2. Creeping senility starting to sprint

3. The Voices getting louder

Quick, let's shut down our economy!!!

Now, now, Todd, you would shut down the economy because renewables are now more economical than fossil fuels? In Texas and Oklahoma, no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

 

[westwall]

Some possibilities the OP reveals:

1. New bottle of MD 20/20

2. Creeping senility starting to sprint

3. The Voices getting louder

Quick, let's shut down our economy!!!

Now, now, Todd, you would shut down the economy because renewables are now more economical than fossil fuels? In Texas and Oklahoma, no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Here's the section of the link that olfraud omitted. These cultists just can't seem to tell the whole story..... Ever...


Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

That was old CO2, the AGWCult worships the New and Improved CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Todd, why do you advocate shutting down the economy?

Same question for Billy and Frank. Are you secretly communists? Wait, that's not a secret, so let me rephrase that. Why are you two such openly proud communists?

Silence, Fool!

Bow before the new CO2 molecule

 

[Old Rocks]

"Low end coal, 6.6 cents per kilowatt, low end gas, 6.1 cents per kilowatt, wind without subsidies, 3.7 cents per kilowatt". Right in the article, you lying ass.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

But in a straight comparison of the costs of generating power, Mr. Mir said that the amount solar and wind developers needed to earn from each kilowatt-hour they sell from new projects was often “essentially competitive with what would otherwise be had from newly constructed conventional generation.”

 

[westwall]

"Low end coal, 6.6 cents per kilowatt, low end gas, 6.1 cents per kilowatt, wind without subsidies, 3.7 cents per kilowatt". Right in the article, you lying ass.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

But in a straight comparison of the costs of generating power, Mr. Mir said that the amount solar and wind developers needed to earn from each kilowatt-hour they sell from new projects was often “essentially competitive with what would otherwise be had from newly constructed conventional generation.”

Then why take the subsidies? Their whole analysis is questionable as hell based on what is known about wind and solar production rates. They're lying through their teeth. Here in Carson City they installed huge solar arrays at the schools and very properly provided a live feed at the City Hall so you could see what was being produced.

They stopped the live feed after a few months when people started running the numbers and figured out that the modules would never pay for themselves.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

That will put the nails in the coffin of coal fired plants. They will be shutting them down by 2020. And by 2030, many of the gas fired plants. Market based decisions.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Low end coal, 6.6 cents per kilowatt, low end gas, 6.1 cents per kilowatt, wind without subsidies, 3.7 cents per kilowatt". Right in the article, you lying ass.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

But in a straight comparison of the costs of generating power, Mr. Mir said that the amount solar and wind developers needed to earn from each kilowatt-hour they sell from new projects was often “essentially competitive with what would otherwise be had from newly constructed conventional generation.”

Then why take the subsidies? Their whole analysis is questionable as hell based on what is known about wind and solar production rates. They're lying through their teeth. Here in Carson City they installed huge solar arrays at the schools and very properly provided a live feed at the City Hall so you could see what was being produced.

They stopped the live feed after a few months when people started running the numbers and figured out that the modules would never pay for themselves.

Link?

 

[rdean]

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

That was old CO2, the AGWCult worships the New and Improved CO2

No, you are wrong. The OLD CO2 could melt lead.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Low end coal, 6.6 cents per kilowatt, low end gas, 6.1 cents per kilowatt, wind without subsidies, 3.7 cents per kilowatt". Right in the article, you lying ass.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

But in a straight comparison of the costs of generating power, Mr. Mir said that the amount solar and wind developers needed to earn from each kilowatt-hour they sell from new projects was often “essentially competitive with what would otherwise be had from newly constructed conventional generation.”

Then why take the subsidies? Their whole analysis is questionable as hell based on what is known about wind and solar production rates. They're lying through their teeth. Here in Carson City they installed huge solar arrays at the schools and very properly provided a live feed at the City Hall so you could see what was being produced.

They stopped the live feed after a few months when people started running the numbers and figured out that the modules would never pay for themselves.

And why do the oil companies take their subsidies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, why do you advocate shutting down the economy?

Same question for Billy and Frank. Are you secretly communists? Wait, that's not a secret, so let me rephrase that. Why are you two such openly proud communists?

Todd, why do you advocate shutting down the economy?

I advocate the continued use of hydrocarbon fuels, the opposite of shutting down the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some possibilities the OP reveals:

1. New bottle of MD 20/20

2. Creeping senility starting to sprint

3. The Voices getting louder

Quick, let's shut down our economy!!!

Now, now, Todd, you would shut down the economy because renewables are now more economical than fossil fuels? In Texas and Oklahoma, no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Now, now, Todd, you would shut down the economy because renewables are now more economical than fossil fuels?

You know that's not true.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

You mean nobody wanted to put in a high bid for unreliable, intermittent power.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In several AGWCult threads I've learned the following about CO2:

It's invading the ocean

It can melt lead on the planet Venus

According to the Vostok Ice Core, old CO2 lagged temperature on the increase and decrease for 600,000 years, but no more! Our Modern CO2 Drives the climate!

Yes! It's a driver!

Modern CO2, it's just different

Ancient CO2 caused ice ages and warming periods hundreds and thousands of years before the first SUV.

Nowadays, this modern upstart impertinent CO2 needs human industry and capitalism to make it do all the harmful things attributed to it. Today's CO2 is pussy stuff.