The great global warming fraud

[badbob85037]

More data rolls in. Consider climate. Is weather the same everywhere? You know it is not the same. Is earth small or large? Compared to countries and states and humans on the planet? It is very very large. Climate at the South pole is different than the climate at the North pole. States climates are different. So, for all those who are in a panic, calm down.

View attachment 1235233

It didn't snow in Phoenix this Winter.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coal is far more efficient and inexpensive than government subsidized energy alternatives.

Lordy, lordy, this message board attracts idiots like rotten meat attracts flies. Coal is more expensive to install, and far more expensive to operate than either wind or solar.

 

[markef]

Lordy, lordy, this message board attracts idiots like rotten meat attracts flies. Coal is more expensive to install, and far more expensive to operate than either wind or solar.

View attachment 1236583

Do​

Windmills do not necessarily produce the same level of electricity production at much lower prices. While wind energy has seen significant growth and low prices, it is essential to consider the various factors that influence the cost and efficiency of wind energy production.

• Cost of Wind Energy: Wind energy prices, particularly in the central United States, have been low due to federal tax incentives and low levelized costs of energy (LCOE). However, these prices are not indicative of the same level of electricity production at much lower prices.
  
  1
• Efficiency of Wind Turbines: Wind turbines can reach efficiency levels of 50% or more during peak wind conditions, but lower wind speeds can reduce performance to around 20%. This means that while wind energy can be a cost-effective option, it may not always produce the same level of electricity production as other energy sources.
  
  1
• Performance Metrics: Wind farms have improved over time, with larger turbines and longer blades contributing to increased capacity factors. However, these improvements do not guarantee that wind energy will always produce the same level of electricity production at much lower prices.
  
  1
  
  In conclusion, while wind energy can be a cost-effective option, it is not guaranteed to produce the same level of electricity production at much lower prices. The effectiveness of wind farms in meeting energy needs and producing electricity at competitive prices is influenced by various factors, including technology, site selection, operational practices, and community acceptance.
  
  1
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  3 Sources

 

[HikerGuy83]

American Society of Civil Engineers,

A group, like most socieities whose memberships have fallen off because engineers no longer find them relevant.

Societies are generally run by research academics....some with some industrial experience.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports:

• Government policies that anticipate and prepare for impacts of climate change on the built environment.
• Revising engineering design standards, codes, regulations, and associated laws to strengthen the sustainability and resiliency of infrastructure at of being affected by climate change.
• Cooperative research among engineers and climate, weather, and life scientists to gain a better understanding of the magnitudes and consequences of future climate extremes and improve projection certainty.
• Research, development, and demonstration to advance recommended civil engineering practices and standards to effectively address climate change impacts.
• Informing practicing engineers, project stakeholders, policy makers, and decision makers about the uncertainty in predicting future climate and the reasons for the uncertainty.
• Identifying critical infrastructure that is most threatened by changing climate in a given region, informing decision makers and the public, and enhancing infrastructure resiliency.
• Informing policy makers that infrastructure investment decisions in historically disadvantaged communities should not be based solely on economic benefit to cost ratio but should also consider the impacts of climate change and social and economic equity.

That is not the attitude of it's minority constituency and is certainly not the attitude of those who don't care to belong to them.

And if you read those supports...they are bulls**t anyway.

• Informing practicing engineers, project stakeholders, policy makers, and decision makers about the uncertainty in predicting future climate and the reasons for the uncertainty.

Just what the hell does that mean?

would you like me to continue with Engineering Societies that are on board with the dangers of climate change?

Please do, it only shows that you don't know the engineering culture or the fact that these societies often focus on leading edge stuff (because it's what keeps them connected to acadademics).

Most of the practicing engineers who were at the heads of these things left or died.

I know. I left my membership to my society 20 years ago. It was worthless.

See, you posted dumb shit with nary a link backing your silly shit.

I work with them and am one. I know their attitudes. Nobody is going to poll the group because they won't like the answer they get.

The only mechanicals who support this garbage are the ones working on windmills. What a freaking self-serving bunch of bs.

And have shown what a fool you are.

Yeah....you showed us you know nothing about the real physical world.

You only know to think that a society (like those who promote the Nobel Prizes) are not political in nature.

Dumbass.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Lordy, lordy, this message board attracts idiots like rotten meat attracts flies.

And you are a prime example.

Not to mention we don't have life cycle costs which solar has very poor numbers for.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Coal is far more efficient and inexpensive than government subsidized energy alternatives.

Yes, in many cases.

But the EPA scrubber requirements are putting them out of business.

Combined cycle gas plants are really much less costly and much more efficient.

 

[Old Rocks]

The other side also has experts, data, evidence, and facts.

Top 10 Scientists Who Disagree with Climate Change

Discover the top 10 scientists who disagree with climate change, exploring their perspectives, research, and arguments against mainstream climate views.

yearofinvention.com

Top 10 Scientists Who Challenge Climate Change Consensus​

Posted on January 18, 2025 by Everly Hartford

You have scientist that prostitute their credentials. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And here is Spencer's own graph of the increase in temperature since 1979;

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, in many cases.

But the EPA scrubber requirements are putting them out of business.

Combined cycle gas plants are really much less costly and much more efficient.

Less costly to build, providing you have the time to wait for the turbines to be built. But more costly for fuel and maintenance.

 

[markef]

Yes, in many cases.

But the EPA scrubber requirements are putting them out of business.

Combined cycle gas plants are really much less costly and much more efficient.

You mention a good point. Obama promised in 2008 that if elected he was increase regulations on coal companies that would drive them into bankruptcy. Coal is still around but it is much more expensive because of heavy government regulations based upon false global warming science.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are a prime example.

Not to mention we don't have life cycle costs which solar has very poor numbers for.

What silly bullshit you spew.

80%
The Swiss solar panels, installed between 1987 and 1993, have proven to be remarkably durable, still producing over 80% of their original power after more than 30 years. This finding is a significant shift from the typical 25- to 30-year lifespan expected by manufacturers. The panels' performance is attributed to their quality materials, such as strong glass, good adhesives, and sturdy back sheets, which contribute to their longevity. The study's findings underscore the importance of solar energy as a long-term investment, with the potential for significant savings and reduced environmental impact over time.

ZME Science+5

 

[HikerGuy83]

Ah well, so you are another MAGAt liar.

That's the best you can do.

These societies are shrinking.

Their big claim to fame was networking. The internet killed a lot of that. Plus they've found ways to include non-Americans to boost membership.

When I attended our convention when I was chair for a local chapter, the main focus was on recruiting. We were told that for the first time since it's start, or society had fewer than 50% of our practicing engineers enrolled.

It's only gone hill down from there.

Often they are chaired by people at the end of the careers looking for glory. And who have been out of industry (if they were ever in it) for a while.

 

[HikerGuy83]

What silly bullshit you spew.

80%
The Swiss solar panels, installed between 1987 and 1993, have proven to be remarkably durable, still producing over 80% of their original power after more than 30 years. This finding is a significant shift from the typical 25- to 30-year lifespan expected by manufacturers. The panels' performance is attributed to their quality materials, such as strong glass, good adhesives, and sturdy back sheets, which contribute to their longevity. The study's findings underscore the importance of solar energy as a long-term investment, with the potential for significant savings and reduced environmental impact over time.
ZME Science+5

A coal plant or combined cycle plant stays at it's same efficiencey it's entire cycle.

What a moron you are.

Not to mention those will be much higher than average panes which is what you liars base your numbers on.

Keep trying dickhead. It's like watching Michael J. Fox dance in the final installment of the Back to the Future movies.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You mention a good point. Obama promised in 2008 that if elected he was increase regulations on coal companies that would drive them into bankruptcy. Coal is still around but it is much more expensive because of heavy government regulations based upon false global warming science.

As I said, scrubbers are huge and expensive and they are shutting down the plants because of them.

Some are converting, but not to renewables. They are not stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mention a good point. Obama promised in 2008 that if elected he was increase regulations on coal companies that would drive them into bankruptcy. Coal is still around but it is much more expensive because of heavy government regulations based upon false global warming science.

Oh, you mean you love the idea of lead, uranium, arsenic, and other heavy metals being ingested by our children. For that is what much of the scrubbers take out of the smoke from burning coal. We are at the point we don't need fossil fuel plants for generation, renewables with storage could supply 99% of our needs within ten years if we had the will to do it. And it would cost far less than nuclear or fossil fuels. Solar can be built far quicker than any other form of generation. And operated at less cost to the customer.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Less costly to build, providing you have the time to wait for the turbines to be built. But more costly for fuel and maintenance.

Your own chart has them as the cheapest you stupid SOS.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Oh, you mean you love the idea of lead, uranium, arsenic, and other heavy metals being ingested by our children.

Coal plants ran for a century without scrubbers. There were no reported catastrophies until someone needed one to start shutting them down. But even at that, they are still less efficient than combined cycle by almost 30% over all (which means about 1/2 of CCPP).

We are at the point we don't need fossil fuel plants for generation, renewables with storage could supply 99% of our needs within ten years if we had the will to do it.

Now, that's funny. Just real funny.

Wind projects in Arizona are being cancelled because the Biden Green Scam money has run out. Additionally, there are several wind farms where windmills have collapsed and the owner went out of business. Now people have these stupid monsters in their vision every day.

For that is what much of the scrubbers take out of the smoke from burning coal.

Yep. AGW bulls**t.

And it would cost far less than nuclear or fossil fuels.

Nuclear is much better overall. No doubt about it.

Solar can be built far quicker than any other form of generation.

It's not a matter of quicker. It's simply a matter of costs. We can wheel power as we need it So this is meaningless.

And operated at less cost to the customer.

100% horses**t.

 

[Old Rocks]

A coal plant or combined cycle plant stays at it's same efficiencey it's entire cycle.

What a moron you are.

Not to mention those will be much higher than average panes which is what you liars base your numbers on.

Keep trying dickhead. It's like watching Michael J. Fox dance in the final installment of the Back to the Future movies.

Look idiot, my trade was an industrial millwright. There is no way that a twenty year old coal plant operates at the same efficiency as a new plant without a couple of complete rebuilds. And many coal plants have been replaces by renewable simply because the cost of maintenance on them exceeded the cost of building new renewable generation.

"In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open.

Utilities, states and grid operators have said the aging plants are expensive, in bad repair and no longer needed to meet regional energy needs. But Trump’s efforts to save the dwindling coal industry have forced plant operators to continue investing in the facilities — a move that some consumer advocates fear could mean billions of dollars in added costs for customers in dozens of states."

Trump is forcing coal plants to stay open. It could cost customers billions.

In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open.

www.miamitimesonline.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Coal plants ran for a century without scrubbers. There were no reported catastrophies until someone needed one to start shutting them down. But even at that, they are still less efficient than combined cycle by almost 30% over all (which means about 1/2 of CCPP).

Now, that's funny. Just real funny.

Wind projects in Arizona are being cancelled because the Biden Green Scam money has run out. Additionally, there are several wind farms where windmills have collapsed and the owner went out of business. Now people have these stupid monsters in their vision every day.


Yep. AGW bulls**t.


Nuclear is much better overall. No doubt about it.

It's not a matter of quicker. It's simply a matter of costs. We can wheel power as we need it So this is meaningless.


100% horses**t.

Such a liar you are;

Increased risk of childhood asthma

Early-Life​

Early-life exposure to air pollution, particularly from coal generation, has been linked to an increased risk of childhood asthma. Studies have shown that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution during the first three years of life are associated with asthma incidence by early and middle childhood. This association is modified by community-level and individual-level socioeconomic circumstances, including maternal education and race. Higher risk is observed among minoritized families living in densely populated communities with fewer opportunities and resources.

Harvard University

The cumulative impact of early-life exposure to air pollution, including coal generation, contributes to the development of childhood asthma, with PM2.5 and NO2 air pollution being significant contributors. Interventions such as emission control systems or the total shutdown of coal-fired power plants have been shown to improve health among communities living near these facilities.

Nature

 

[HikerGuy83]

Look idiot, my trade was an industrial millwright. There is no way that a twenty year old coal plant operates at the same efficiency as a new plant without a couple of complete rebuilds.

They go through typical turnaround cycles and that is part of their life cycle costs. Windmills are the same.

And many coal plants have been replaces by renewable simply because the cost of maintenance on them exceeded the cost of building new renewable generation.

The cost of new generation has skyrocketed because any new generation includes the backend scrubbers. And they are not being replaced by renewables. They are absorbing excess capacity that is other places on the grid. Many cities in ARizona have applied for combined cycle systems becasue they don't want to be tied to the utilities which are betting on renewables.

"In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open.

All Trump had to do was push Biden's air quality BS (all targeted at shutting down coal plants) and that whole balance of cost would have gone back to coal.

Nevertheless...coal is not the future. Gas and nuclear ar. We have a 48" gas pipeline coming into Arizona from Texas to feed these combined cycle plants. And a couple of others are being planned.

The four corners generating station is in the process of going through a retrofit design...for gas. And a line is already headed that way.

 

[markef]

Oh, you mean you love the idea of lead, uranium, arsenic, and other heavy metals being ingested by our children. For that is what much of the scrubbers take out of the smoke from burning coal. We are at the point we don't need fossil fuel plants for generation, renewables with storage could supply 99% of our needs within ten years if we had the will to do it. And it would cost far less than nuclear or fossil fuels. Solar can be built far quicker than any other form of generation. And operated at less cost to the customer.

The jury is still out on the cost benefits of risking loss of electricity or family income to achieve reductions in gaseous emissions from coal generation. There is more at stake here than reductions in airborne particulates. What good are reductions in emissions at seriously increased living costs on poor people? This is a snapshot of a cost and benefit study of the brick industry.

Economic Analyses of Environmental Regulations

Over the past two decades, our team of environmental economists has conducted dozens of economic impact analyses for air quality rules administrated by EPA under the Clean Air Act.

www.rti.org

The Impact of Regulations on Brick Manufacturers​

The 2015 Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products, a report on the implications of clean air standards for the brick manufacturing industry, is one example of the work we’ve provided to the EPA.

EPA proposed regulating air emissions from brick manufacturing plants because they release harmful pollutants, including hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, chlorine, mercury, and other metals. The report outlines the cost and other effects of reducing emissions to certain levels using air pollution control devices. It also explores the impact on human health if the industry meets the proposed new standards.

These and other considerations create costs and benefits that factor into the effect a regulation can have on the market for brick products and the larger economy. To estimate these economic costs, we developed a simulation model of economic behavior using information collected for the industry. Because bricks are heavy and expensive to ship over long distances, brick markets are regional in nature, so we divided the country into nine regions and gathered information on brick production, consumption, and trade in each region. For other projects, we have created simulation models that consider the characteristics of the targeted industry.

Accounting for these regional differences, our brick industry model estimates the likely costs to comply with the regulation, the change in market prices, and change in production for each of nine regions. For the final standards, total U.S. annual economic loss was projected to be $27.2 million. The economic model suggests that industries can pass on $15.1 million of costs to U.S. industry and households through higher prices. Under the final standards, the model predicted an average national price increase of 1.8 percent. Overall domestic production would fall by 1.5 percent, or 52 million bricks per year.

With projects like this, it is also typical to receive requests to analyze a policy’s effect on a specific small business. For the report on the brick industry, we handled more than 50 of these requests, which helped these businesses better understand the potential impact of various regulations on their livelihood. Under the final standards, we found two to four brick manufacturing facilities were at significant risk of closure. Under less stringent standards, one to three brick manufacturing facilities were at significant risk of closure, and under more stringent standards, nine to thirteen brick manufacturing facilities were at significant risk of closure.

Our contribution was only part of the report that the EPA considered when determining which course to take. The report includes a crucial assessment of reduced emissions on public health—and the cost savings that result from that improvement. As air pollution decreases, we see fewer cases of diseases such as asthma and bronchitis, meaning that society pays less for health care and workers can be more productive.