Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012

[Mr. H.]

During the Carter years, these industries had to endure his "Windfall Profits Tax", which was neither a tax nor was it calculated on profits. It was a confiscation of personal property.

On top of that, the Depletion Allowance was considered a "Tax Preference Item" subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The consequence... reduced drilling and production, failed businesses, and layoffs. Imports of crude rose and it took industry many years to recuperate.

So, you think you're "right" about anything yourself TM?

 

[Trakar]

you have never been proven correct in a prediction.

If Im wrong could you prove you have?

Just this morning I predicted that the AGW Cult would claim that the bitter cold snap in Alaska was because of ManMade Global Warming and within 3 minutes they proved my prediction.

Got link to compelling supportive evidence for this assertion?

Also, after Dems tried to steal the Walker Recall, I did not take any "If Romeny wins..." bets because I knew this would be the biggest Boss Tweedest Dem election ever

How do you try to steal a recall?

If you knew that Romney wasn't going to win why did you post all of the crap you did on the politics boards prior to the election?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...ushs-mess-quicker-than-obama.html#post6116529

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/226138-what-route-will-the-us-govt-take.html#post5365800

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...offers-no-data-to-back-it-up.html#post5737032

(I particularly liked this one)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...continues-to-dominate-romney.html#post6052729

(many, many more available to those with even rudimentary search skills)

 

[ScienceRocks]

You remove these subsidies you will increase the cost of gas for the consumer. Do you realize that if you do that the cost of food, energy and pretty much our entire economy will cost more?

This will hurt the lower class. Do you care about them???

 

[Trakar]

You remove these subsidies you will increase the cost of gas for the consumer. Do you realize that if you do that the cost of food, energy and pretty much our entire economy will cost more?

This will hurt the lower class. Do you care about them???

It is cheaper and more efficient to offset the added utility costs of those who are unduly impacted by these price increases, than it is to subsidize the production of energy by means that are going to enhance the existing anthropogenic climate forcings. A revenue-neutral carbon-tax would be a good mechanism to address these types of potential policy application inequities.

 

[bripat9643]

You remove these subsidies you will increase the cost of gas for the consumer. Do you realize that if you do that the cost of food, energy and pretty much our entire economy will cost more?

This will hurt the lower class. Do you care about them???

It is cheaper and more efficient to offset the added utility costs of those who are unduly impacted by these price increases, than it is to subsidize the production of energy by means that are going to enhance the existing anthropogenic climate forcings. A revenue-neutral carbon-tax would be a good mechanism to address these types of potential policy application inequities.

Government subsidies to the oil and gas industry are minuscule, if there are any at all.

 

[Flopper]

No matter how cheap Natural Gas is, wind will certainly be cheaper.

 

[007]

No matter how cheap Natural Gas is, wind will certainly be cheaper.

Prove it.


The title, even though it's a lie, would be truthful if it read...

"OBAMA'S WAR ON NATURAL RESOURCES IS TAKING IT'S TOLL."

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind power is a waste of money.

The typical windmill only provides 1/3 of its rated nominal output.

Large scale wind farms are a waste of money not to mention a blight on the land.

 

[Dubya]

You remove these subsidies you will increase the cost of gas for the consumer. Do you realize that if you do that the cost of food, energy and pretty much our entire economy will cost more?

This will hurt the lower class. Do you care about them???

It is cheaper and more efficient to offset the added utility costs of those who are unduly impacted by these price increases, than it is to subsidize the production of energy by means that are going to enhance the existing anthropogenic climate forcings. A revenue-neutral carbon-tax would be a good mechanism to address these types of potential policy application inequities.

Government subsidies to the oil and gas industry are minuscule, if there are any at all.

If that's the case, then you and the oil and gas industry should agree with me that we become capitalists, instead of corporatists again, cancel all leases for natural resources on public lands and economic zones, use the oil and gas service companies to develop the resources, like they do and sell the resources to the oil and gas companies at market prices, because afterall, like you say: Government subsidies to the oil and gas industry are minuscule, if there are any at all. The government can then distribute the revenue from the sales to the people and subsidize their fuel costs for a change.

Instead of paying ethanol subsidies to oil refineries to blend ethanol, we can insist they blend high octane ethanol with their low octane fuel, import crude sugar and make more ethanol than we can with our corn, like a moonshiner does, plus better animal feed.

We can allow the oil and gas industry to set a margin and make a profit, but since they have little operating expenses, they won't be able to play chinese dollars with that revenue and it can be taxed appropriately.

No one should object to this, because afterall: Government subsidies to the oil and gas industry are minuscule, if there are any at all. Look at all the money they would save on lobbying costs, because who needs lobbyists, if you can't get anything by having them!

 

[Dubya]

Wind power is a waste of money.

The typical windmill only provides 1/3 of its rated nominal output.

Large scale wind farms are a waste of money not to mention a blight on the land.

You can't see it from my house!

Why don't you show us the math on the expenses to build electricity capacity with wind and solar and how soon you can get the return on investment back?

If you aren't familiar with those calculations, what you said is just talk!

By the way, some of the best places to put wind turbines is not on the land.

 

[Trakar]

No matter how cheap Natural Gas is, wind will certainly be cheaper.

Well, wind is free, it is the little trick of using wind to generate electricity and then delivery of that electricity to consumers that make up most of the costs of wind generated electricity (and actually the same is mostly true for gas as well).

 

[westwall]

No matter how cheap Natural Gas is, wind will certainly be cheaper.

Not according to the U.S. EIA......


Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012
Release date: July 12, 2012

This paper presents average levelized costs for generating technologies that are brought on line in 20171 as represented in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) reference case.2

Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating levelized costs include overnight capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs, the levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect the levelized cost. The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives4 As with any projection, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve.

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly affect the economic viability of a new investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing resources. For example, a wind resource that would primarily displace existing natural gas generation will usually have a different value than one that would displace existing coal generation.

A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies) or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The levelized costs for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in Tables 1 and 2, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.

Policy-related factors, such as investment or production tax credits for specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies, may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification. While EIA considers all of these factors in its analysis of technology choice in the electricity sector, these concepts are not well represented in the context of levelized cost figures.
Cont.....

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

 

[Dubya]

No matter how cheap Natural Gas is, wind will certainly be cheaper.

Not according to the U.S. EIA......


Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012
Release date: July 12, 2012

This paper presents average levelized costs for generating technologies that are brought on line in 20171 as represented in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) reference case.2

Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating levelized costs include overnight capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs, the levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect the levelized cost. The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives4 As with any projection, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve.

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly affect the economic viability of a new investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing resources. For example, a wind resource that would primarily displace existing natural gas generation will usually have a different value than one that would displace existing coal generation.

A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies) or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The levelized costs for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in Tables 1 and 2, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.

Policy-related factors, such as investment or production tax credits for specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies, may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification. While EIA considers all of these factors in its analysis of technology choice in the electricity sector, these concepts are not well represented in the context of levelized cost figures.
Cont.....

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

You aren't very good at accounting so let me explain what I think was said. Let's say it's three years from now, the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hasn't improved, the multi-year arctic sea ice is for all practical purposes melted away and Greenland has melted and is showing signs of losing the buttresses for it's glaciers. In the mean time, exceptional weather events, like our drought, continues to plague the Earth.

Events will happen, it might be three years, eight years or whatever, but it isn't going to be long into the future. Mankind will know they have a Houston problem. They are going to realize those glaciers aren't solid and will melt in the oceans must faster than anticipated. The world will realize they are going to destroy every city near the coast and that includes Washington, DC and London. The cost involved is going to be enormous. We are going to lose NYC, New Orleans and the largest Naval Base in the world at Norfolk and plenty of other places. Someone is going to pay for that and it isn't just the people who live there. We could already be in the process of losing our bread basket and that affects all of our people. We are already seeing changes in the jet stream causing exceptional weather events.

The world might realize they can do certain treatments to assist our present, but to remove the problem means removing CO2. That could be a very expensive process, based on what we know now how to do it. If we tried to cool the Earth with stratospheric aerosols, we run the risk of a wrong type of volcano happening during those times.

You live a life of deception based on pennies out of your pocket, told to you by the people who steal the most, because you think you can avoid the consequence or someone else will have to pick up the tab. Unless you die real soon, it isn't going to be that way. Anyone who has insurance is already paying the price. Reinsurers or the corporations who insure insurance corporations have documented the effects of global warming. If you knew anything about old money, they don't bet to lose and they back the insurance corporations you deal with.

 

[bripat9643]

You aren't very good at accounting so let me explain what I think was said. Let's say it's three years from now, the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hasn't improved, the multi-year arctic sea ice is for all practical purposes melted away and Greenland has melted and is showing signs of losing the buttresses for it's glaciers. In the mean time, exceptional weather events, like our drought, continues to plague the Earth.

Events will happen, it might be three years, eight years or whatever, but it isn't going to be long into the future. Mankind will know they have a Houston problem. They are going to realize those glaciers aren't solid and will melt in the oceans must faster than anticipated. The world will realize they are going to destroy every city near the coast and that includes Washington, DC and London. The cost involved is going to be enormous. We are going to lose NYC, New Orleans and the largest Naval Base in the world at Norfolk and plenty of other places. Someone is going to pay for that and it isn't just the people who live there. We could already be in the process of losing our bread basket and that affects all of our people. We are already seeing changes in the jet stream causing exceptional weather events.

The world might realize they can do certain treatments to assist our present, but to remove the problem means removing CO2. That could be a very expensive process, based on what we know now how to do it. If we tried to cool the Earth with stratospheric aerosols, we run the risk of a wrong type of volcano happening during those times.

You live a life of deception based on pennies out of your pocket, told to you by the people who steal the most, because you think you can avoid the consequence or someone else will have to pick up the tab. Unless you die real soon, it isn't going to be that way. Anyone who has insurance is already paying the price. Reinsurers or the corporations who insure insurance corporations have documented the effects of global warming. If you knew anything about old money, they don't bet to lose and they back the insurance corporations you deal with.

THEY SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

You aren't very good at reality. None of your disaster scenareos are going to occur. If the globe is warming, it's not the fault of humans. It's a natural process. Life will be better for humans on a warmer earth, not more inhospitable. That's what the historical record shows.

In short, your hysterical spiel is 100% bullshit.

 

[Dubya]

You aren't very good at accounting so let me explain what I think was said. Let's say it's three years from now, the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hasn't improved, the multi-year arctic sea ice is for all practical purposes melted away and Greenland has melted and is showing signs of losing the buttresses for it's glaciers. In the mean time, exceptional weather events, like our drought, continues to plague the Earth.

Events will happen, it might be three years, eight years or whatever, but it isn't going to be long into the future. Mankind will know they have a Houston problem. They are going to realize those glaciers aren't solid and will melt in the oceans must faster than anticipated. The world will realize they are going to destroy every city near the coast and that includes Washington, DC and London. The cost involved is going to be enormous. We are going to lose NYC, New Orleans and the largest Naval Base in the world at Norfolk and plenty of other places. Someone is going to pay for that and it isn't just the people who live there. We could already be in the process of losing our bread basket and that affects all of our people. We are already seeing changes in the jet stream causing exceptional weather events.

The world might realize they can do certain treatments to assist our present, but to remove the problem means removing CO2. That could be a very expensive process, based on what we know now how to do it. If we tried to cool the Earth with stratospheric aerosols, we run the risk of a wrong type of volcano happening during those times.

You live a life of deception based on pennies out of your pocket, told to you by the people who steal the most, because you think you can avoid the consequence or someone else will have to pick up the tab. Unless you die real soon, it isn't going to be that way. Anyone who has insurance is already paying the price. Reinsurers or the corporations who insure insurance corporations have documented the effects of global warming. If you knew anything about old money, they don't bet to lose and they back the insurance corporations you deal with.

THEY SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

You aren't very good at reality. None of your disaster scenareos are going to occur. If the globe is warming, it's not the fault of humans. It's a natural process. Life will be better for humans on a warmer earth, not more inhospitable. That's what the historical record shows.

In short, your hysterical spiel is 100% bullshit.

If you have something to say about science, brapat, then say it to a man who knows science. I know you have better capacity than the idiots here, so talk science and not lazy right-wing rhetoric!

Just bring up a subject, because I'll give you grace. Let's see how we fair together! There is a section here that only allows debate, so bring it up there, if you wish. I'll just insist you follow the rules.

Anytime and that includes the rest of the idiots that post here. I'll document your stupidity, so when the shit hits the fan, they can charge you for spreading misinformation that has harmed the world. It will be up to you to explain why you did what you did.

Put your words in a place that can't be trolled and preserves it! You aren't going to find Watts going there.

The brapat I remember was nothing but a liar.

 

[westwall]

No matter how cheap Natural Gas is, wind will certainly be cheaper.

Not according to the U.S. EIA......


Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012
Release date: July 12, 2012

This paper presents average levelized costs for generating technologies that are brought on line in 20171 as represented in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) reference case.2

Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating levelized costs include overnight capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs, the levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect the levelized cost. The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives4 As with any projection, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve.

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly affect the economic viability of a new investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing resources. For example, a wind resource that would primarily displace existing natural gas generation will usually have a different value than one that would displace existing coal generation.

A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies) or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The levelized costs for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in Tables 1 and 2, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.

Policy-related factors, such as investment or production tax credits for specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies, may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification. While EIA considers all of these factors in its analysis of technology choice in the electricity sector, these concepts are not well represented in the context of levelized cost figures.
Cont.....

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

You aren't very good at accounting so let me explain what I think was said. Let's say it's three years from now, the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hasn't improved, the multi-year arctic sea ice is for all practical purposes melted away and Greenland has melted and is showing signs of losing the buttresses for it's glaciers. In the mean time, exceptional weather events, like our drought, continues to plague the Earth.

Events will happen, it might be three years, eight years or whatever, but it isn't going to be long into the future. Mankind will know they have a Houston problem. They are going to realize those glaciers aren't solid and will melt in the oceans must faster than anticipated. The world will realize they are going to destroy every city near the coast and that includes Washington, DC and London. The cost involved is going to be enormous. We are going to lose NYC, New Orleans and the largest Naval Base in the world at Norfolk and plenty of other places. Someone is going to pay for that and it isn't just the people who live there. We could already be in the process of losing our bread basket and that affects all of our people. We are already seeing changes in the jet stream causing exceptional weather events.

The world might realize they can do certain treatments to assist our present, but to remove the problem means removing CO2. That could be a very expensive process, based on what we know now how to do it. If we tried to cool the Earth with stratospheric aerosols, we run the risk of a wrong type of volcano happening during those times.

You live a life of deception based on pennies out of your pocket, told to you by the people who steal the most, because you think you can avoid the consequence or someone else will have to pick up the tab. Unless you die real soon, it isn't going to be that way. Anyone who has insurance is already paying the price. Reinsurers or the corporations who insure insurance corporations have documented the effects of global warming. If you knew anything about old money, they don't bet to lose and they back the insurance corporations you deal with.

According to the best estimates....your worst case scenario would still take on the order of 13,000 years before the effects became noticeable. Pennies out of my pockets? No, trillions of dollars robbed from the citizens of this planet you stupid twerp.

 

[Dubya]

Not according to the U.S. EIA......


Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012
Release date: July 12, 2012

This paper presents average levelized costs for generating technologies that are brought on line in 20171 as represented in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) reference case.2

Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating levelized costs include overnight capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs, the levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect the levelized cost. The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives4 As with any projection, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve.

It is important to note that, while levelized costs are a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other considerations. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly affect the economic viability of a new investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing resources. For example, a wind resource that would primarily displace existing natural gas generation will usually have a different value than one that would displace existing coal generation.

A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies) or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The levelized costs for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in Tables 1 and 2, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.

Policy-related factors, such as investment or production tax credits for specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies, may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification. While EIA considers all of these factors in its analysis of technology choice in the electricity sector, these concepts are not well represented in the context of levelized cost figures.
Cont.....

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

You aren't very good at accounting so let me explain what I think was said. Let's say it's three years from now, the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hasn't improved, the multi-year arctic sea ice is for all practical purposes melted away and Greenland has melted and is showing signs of losing the buttresses for it's glaciers. In the mean time, exceptional weather events, like our drought, continues to plague the Earth.

Events will happen, it might be three years, eight years or whatever, but it isn't going to be long into the future. Mankind will know they have a Houston problem. They are going to realize those glaciers aren't solid and will melt in the oceans must faster than anticipated. The world will realize they are going to destroy every city near the coast and that includes Washington, DC and London. The cost involved is going to be enormous. We are going to lose NYC, New Orleans and the largest Naval Base in the world at Norfolk and plenty of other places. Someone is going to pay for that and it isn't just the people who live there. We could already be in the process of losing our bread basket and that affects all of our people. We are already seeing changes in the jet stream causing exceptional weather events.

The world might realize they can do certain treatments to assist our present, but to remove the problem means removing CO2. That could be a very expensive process, based on what we know now how to do it. If we tried to cool the Earth with stratospheric aerosols, we run the risk of a wrong type of volcano happening during those times.

You live a life of deception based on pennies out of your pocket, told to you by the people who steal the most, because you think you can avoid the consequence or someone else will have to pick up the tab. Unless you die real soon, it isn't going to be that way. Anyone who has insurance is already paying the price. Reinsurers or the corporations who insure insurance corporations have documented the effects of global warming. If you knew anything about old money, they don't bet to lose and they back the insurance corporations you deal with.

According to the best estimates....your worst case scenario would still take on the order of 13,000 years before the effects became noticeable. Pennies out of my pockets? No, trillions of dollars robbed from the citizens of this planet you stupid twerp.

Dream on, it's been and it's now pennies out of your pocket. I've posted this shit before on places like WUWT. I was thrown off the site for saying free speech isn't free when someone is paying for it. I was censored all the time being on their site.

You're talking to a person of science, who has put the horse in the other quarter. Go to the debate sites and start a discussion/debate! I'm good at calling you names and I'll also good at sticking to a subject. I haven't been there, but I think they follow debating rules. Try your dumbshit in there, because I know the tactics of being too much dumb!

 

[Politico]

Bet on wind

Not where I live.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind power is a waste of money.

The typical windmill only provides 1/3 of its rated nominal output.

Large scale wind farms are a waste of money not to mention a blight on the land.

You can't see it from my house!

Why don't you show us the math on the expenses to build electricity capacity with wind and solar and how soon you can get the return on investment back?

If you aren't familiar with those calculations, what you said is just talk!

By the way, some of the best places to put wind turbines is not on the land.

Great so even more expensive offshore windmills are your solution.

The entire wind industry is based on subsidies price guarantees and mandates and unless one can factor all that in and then do the calculations without them your roi is meaningless.

 

[westwall]

You aren't very good at accounting so let me explain what I think was said. Let's say it's three years from now, the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hasn't improved, the multi-year arctic sea ice is for all practical purposes melted away and Greenland has melted and is showing signs of losing the buttresses for it's glaciers. In the mean time, exceptional weather events, like our drought, continues to plague the Earth.

Events will happen, it might be three years, eight years or whatever, but it isn't going to be long into the future. Mankind will know they have a Houston problem. They are going to realize those glaciers aren't solid and will melt in the oceans must faster than anticipated. The world will realize they are going to destroy every city near the coast and that includes Washington, DC and London. The cost involved is going to be enormous. We are going to lose NYC, New Orleans and the largest Naval Base in the world at Norfolk and plenty of other places. Someone is going to pay for that and it isn't just the people who live there. We could already be in the process of losing our bread basket and that affects all of our people. We are already seeing changes in the jet stream causing exceptional weather events.

The world might realize they can do certain treatments to assist our present, but to remove the problem means removing CO2. That could be a very expensive process, based on what we know now how to do it. If we tried to cool the Earth with stratospheric aerosols, we run the risk of a wrong type of volcano happening during those times.

You live a life of deception based on pennies out of your pocket, told to you by the people who steal the most, because you think you can avoid the consequence or someone else will have to pick up the tab. Unless you die real soon, it isn't going to be that way. Anyone who has insurance is already paying the price. Reinsurers or the corporations who insure insurance corporations have documented the effects of global warming. If you knew anything about old money, they don't bet to lose and they back the insurance corporations you deal with.

According to the best estimates....your worst case scenario would still take on the order of 13,000 years before the effects became noticeable. Pennies out of my pockets? No, trillions of dollars robbed from the citizens of this planet you stupid twerp.

Dream on, it's been and it's now pennies out of your pocket. I've posted this shit before on places like WUWT. I was thrown off the site for saying free speech isn't free when someone is paying for it. I was censored all the time being on their site.

You're talking to a person of science, who has put the horse in the other quarter. Go to the debate sites and start a discussion/debate! I'm good at calling you names and I'll also good at sticking to a subject. I haven't been there, but I think they follow debating rules. Try your dumbshit in there, because I know the tactics of being too much dumb!

No, you wipe your ass with "science". Science is neither political, nor does it bother itself with morality or with truth. Science deals in facts. Facts that you choose to either ignore or alter to suit your political goal. That makes you a whore. Not a person of science.