Yes I do. It's been proven in the past by me and several others on here that you are out of your element and have no clue other than your right wing think tank talking points.
Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here
- Thread starter CatDaddy4daWin
- Start date
I have never used liberal talking points. I broke down the very basic science for you in another thread. You refuse to hear it. I have a degree to teach it k-12. Unless you're a doctor, chemist, biologist, or physicist I guarantee I've spent more time in a science book.
So you are being paid by my tax dollars to teach science and you buy AGW hook, line, and sinker? More government waste. Do you receive a bonus for pushing that agenda on unsuspecting children?
Both sides have agendas.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
But by all means, you all keep your unwavering grip.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
But by all means, you all keep your unwavering grip.
Not anymore. Gave up teaching after one year. Parents like you weren't worth the head ache. Hopefully I brainwashed a few kids with my government conspiracy bs during my limited time though.
China is leading the world in energy from renewable power and is moving quickly to switch over more. Denmark produces 42% of its power by renewable power. Dubai just set the world record for energy cost at .03 cents per KWH (check your electric bill to see how that compares) solar project. Germany recently produced 88% of its power needs by renewables.
Say what you want--- the worlds most developed countries are leaving the coal mines and producing more of its power by renewable means. Even UK plans on dropping coal use. Not only is coalmining a dying industry much like whale oil, but renewables are a thriving job producing industry that the major players on the worlds chess board are using to their advantage.
Changing over to a rising clean power source that does not pollute the planet is not only a responsible decision it is an ever increasing smart business decision.
Say what you want--- the worlds most developed countries are leaving the coal mines and producing more of its power by renewable means. Even UK plans on dropping coal use. Not only is coalmining a dying industry much like whale oil, but renewables are a thriving job producing industry that the major players on the worlds chess board are using to their advantage.
Changing over to a rising clean power source that does not pollute the planet is not only a responsible decision it is an ever increasing smart business decision.
Can you link articles that discuss some of those figures? I'm especially curious about the 88% number in Germany. I think you might be confused about capacity versus kWh. During certain periods when electric use is low and renewable s are running, they can produce a high percentage of the energy needed. However, during peak periods, which are the periods for which generation capacity is installed, they usually make up a very low percentage of the capacity being generated. What I am telling you is that looking at kWh is really meaningless in the utility industry. Capacity is what is expensive and without low cost battery technology, renewable s don't have the ability to supply it. I think that will change over time, but with current technology, it just can't do it.
"Energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by nuclear power, biomass (wood and biofuels), wind, hydro and solar."
Fossil fuel use in Germany has actually INCREASED since 2011 Fukushima. They shut down 8 nuclear reactors in a knee jerk response and had to respond immediately to the decrease in capacity.
That 88% figure he gives is pure ignorance.
Fossil fuel use in Germany has actually INCREASED since 2011 Fukushima. They shut down 8 nuclear reactors in a knee jerk response and had to respond immediately to the decrease in capacity.
That 88% figure he gives is pure ignorance.
China is where the US was in the 30's and 40's as far a dam construction.
Thats why their renewable energy numbers look so much better than ours. That's how facts and numbers get adjusted to fit agenda's.
Until a way to store large amounts of power for long periods of time is developed nuclear and fossil fuel will be used as the base of our power.
Coal has currently been replaced by natural gas because its abundant and cheap. If the price of natural gas goes up again coal will make a comeback, because it's cheap and plentiful. Unless we want extremely high electricity bills with rolling blackouts.
Thats why their renewable energy numbers look so much better than ours. That's how facts and numbers get adjusted to fit agenda's.
Until a way to store large amounts of power for long periods of time is developed nuclear and fossil fuel will be used as the base of our power.
Coal has currently been replaced by natural gas because its abundant and cheap. If the price of natural gas goes up again coal will make a comeback, because it's cheap and plentiful. Unless we want extremely high electricity bills with rolling blackouts.
The amount of CO2 this country pumps into the atmosphere has decreased over the last decade. Anyone ever hear that reported? Anybody cheering this, since that stuff is supposed to be the driver of global warming ERR climate change.
How has it decreased, lots of pie-in-the-sky windmills & solar panels? Not exactly. Natural gas replacing coal in electric generation.
Why isnt this being more widely reported, universally cheered? The goal of reducing greenhouse gases is being met without planetary climate agreements, without the American people and our economy being irreparably harmed. Because of HOW it is happening, of course: hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
environmentalist wackos show their true goals and their real motivations in how they are not happy about the move to natural gas combustion turbines by electric utilities. Oh and a reminder, one of the 2 major candidates for president has promised, PROMISED to end fracking. Why? When it accomplishes the very goals of reducing CO2 in the air?
How has it decreased, lots of pie-in-the-sky windmills & solar panels? Not exactly. Natural gas replacing coal in electric generation.
Why isnt this being more widely reported, universally cheered? The goal of reducing greenhouse gases is being met without planetary climate agreements, without the American people and our economy being irreparably harmed. Because of HOW it is happening, of course: hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
environmentalist wackos show their true goals and their real motivations in how they are not happy about the move to natural gas combustion turbines by electric utilities. Oh and a reminder, one of the 2 major candidates for president has promised, PROMISED to end fracking. Why? When it accomplishes the very goals of reducing CO2 in the air?
To say that something that has happened is pure ignorance is a stupid thing to say. Here is one article of the widely reported story:
http://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so...that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/
http://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so...that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/
"Thanks to a sunny and windy day, at one point around 1pm the country’s solar, wind, hydro and biomass plants were supplying about 55 GW of the 63 GW being consumed, or 87%."
It wasn't stupid, it was dead on accurate due to the way you were attempting to represent the percentage. Biomass was the main supplier of electricity for that one hour time period. Biomass produces CO2.
It wasn't stupid, it was dead on accurate due to the way you were attempting to represent the percentage. Biomass was the main supplier of electricity for that one hour time period. Biomass produces CO2.
This is what China was doing three years ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/jan/30/china-record-solar-energy
This what China is doing today:
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/22/china-overtakes-germany-become-worlds-leading-solar-pv-country/
I understand you work in an industry that uses natural gas and supports that which supports you but still the fact remains China has been blasted by folks with agenda to do their part about energy before the US does. These articles prove they are making that effort.
Rarely do stupid people think they are stupid. You act as if all humans are born grown adults and that new industries just happen in their fully developed state. Yes that is stupid. No way around it. You'll have to excuse me I thought I had put you on ignore.
My answer is yes since I've installed CFB burner technology in coal-burners several years ago. I agree fracking for natural gas brings its own set of problems.
I do think it is a bit disingenuous to act as if science on any level is widely reported in this country. Here in Kentucky there is more in the news about Noah's ark than carbon sequestration.
Last edited:
Linked above. I appreciate your intelligent response. I do have a vague understanding how the electrical grid works. It is not lost on me that we are at the beginning of the change that is coming whether we like it or not.
Here is a simple question for some to ponder: Do you believe that fifty years from today the world will still be using coal as it's primary feedstock for electrical generation?
Actually it hasn't stopped warming...at all. Last year warmest on record and all the record temperatures have been since 2000. April warmest on record. The change in terminology was due to the fact that gloabl warming is too simplistic a term to explain what humans are doing to our home. Now I believe the Earth has an amazing ability to heal itself but some of this healing process is going to negatively affect humans.
Put down your Rush Limbaugh porno mag.
This is pretty much what I expected. May is a mild month weather wise. Electric usage is down. During those periods, renewable generation sources can look like they are doing wonderful things. However, generation capacity is not installed to meet loads in May. Capacity is installed to meet system peak loads that occur during extremely hot or cold weather. A better test is to look at the highest summer and winter demand hours and see how much of that capacity is being provided by renewable sources. It will be substantially less than in May.
I think if technology continues to advance at the current rate, the electric business could look dramatically different in 20 years than it does today. There are several questions that will arise if that comes to fruition. Will small individual owned generation resources become economically viable? If so, will people have enough confidence in the reliability of their generation system to unplug from the grid? If you don't have confidence, reserving grid capacity to serve you in the event that your generation doesn't meet your needs, or fails altogether, will not be inexpensive. It costs a lot of money to have and maintain the facilities necessary to distribute power. Will people be willing to maintain those facilities if they rely mainly on their own generation?
Will environmentalists attack the large scale manufacturing of the batteries required to make renewable energy work? Batteries are by no means environmentally friendly. How will the same people who are attacking carbon deal with batteries and what impact will that have on the development of renewable energy?
I could come up with several more questions. This is an interesting time in the industry and it is impossible to predict how things will play out. So much depends on technology and where it takes us. If it stalls, then coal will continue to be a major source of power generation. There are just no good alternatives.
sorry, it is you who are ignorant and uneducated on the subject & who do nothing but spew headlines you see on facebook news feed rather than actually understand global temperatures. Study the RSS satellite dataset from 1978 to present. Always glad to help out someone who is trying to speak about a topic they are alarmingly uninformed about, and only look stupid & foolish in their attempts.
Good response but I don't find an answer to my question here. I know you cannot predict the future so any answer by anybody is just a guess for sure. That said, Do you think coal will be the primary feedstock for electrical generation in fifty years?
BTW batteries are not the only way to store energy and lithium-ion is not the only solution as far as batteries are concerned. Japan is working on their "flow' batteries that store power in liquids, IBM has its "Poly Plus" battery, there is a Lithium metal-air battery also. One intriguing idea is using excess power to produce hydrogen for later use as a feedstock and the problem of expensive electrolysis looks to have been overcome with a new method from MIT. That would remove a huge roadblock for the use of fuel cells.
So with all that said I do not think coal will be the primary feedstock in fifty years. I think there will be a vast combination of systems interconnected in such a way generation and storage will be so intertwined that a seamless less mechanical means of generation will be the norm. I think the grid will be less about transmitting power and more about balancing and synchronizing power. That's just my guess.
Carl Mears and team at RSS have published a new paper describing a revision of their data for atmospheric temperature. The focus is on improving the “diurnal correction,” which is necessary because different regions of Earth are observed at different times of day. The upshot is that the lower atmosphere has warmed faster than was previously believed. . . . . . .
. . . . . .This should dampen the enthusiasm of deniers like Ted Cruz who have relied on satellite data from RSS to dispute global warming. But I doubt; I suspect instead that Ted Cruz will either find some new reason to deny global warming, or will go on a witch-hunt of Carl Mears and the RSS team, accusing them of fraud because the data don’t say what Ted Cruz and his ilk want it to say.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/new-dataset-from-rss-end-of-the-satellite-pause/
Here's what the paper concluded:
* The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998.
* The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites.
* The new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.
So does this new information from the source you value change your own opinion?
Last edited:
Levi, my opinion is not based on where I work. It's what I see on a day to day basis.
Capacity for load is not the same as actual load. If the conditions were perfect you might get close to capacity. Unfortunately conditions are rarely perfect, and people keep using electricity in those times.
That's why Gas has replaced coal for the time being. It's there when it's needed on demand. It's cleaner and about the same price.
Bill I just meant to say I think people who work in coal are more acquainted with the positives of coal or that people who work with natural gas know the positives of gas more so than other fuels. I think that is the normal human condition, people know best what they are most around.
I also understand why gas is such a great fuel for generation on demand. Fair enough?
I think part of the answer to this is that there is an enormous market potential for solar panels in third world countries that do not have power transmissions systems, or systems that are inadequate or unreliable, for the same reason cell phones have become a zillion dollar world-wide industry. Folks in countries who could never have a phone due to no or inadequacy infrastructure now can have one.
I answered your question about as well as I could. If technology continues to advance like it currently is, I don't think coal will continue to be a major source of generation in 50 years. That being said, I have no idea how difficult some of these technology hurdles are to overcome. Keep in mind, the problem goes beyond coming up with solutions to storage etc., it has to be accomplished with a technology that is economically viable. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if the hurdles are more difficult to overcome than many believe and coal is still a major generation source in 50 years.
I see the grid power load every day, where the power is coming from, how up and down wind power is from day to day.
In the summer there is one peak demand period, in the evening when people are getting off work, and the heat of the day is causing A/C's to work, coupled with street lights kicking on.
The Winter has 2, in the morning when people wake and turn thermostats up, and then again in the evening when they get home and again turn thermostats up.
What we're seeing a lot of now with closure of coal plants is that we're running to maintain voltage on the grid even in milder temps like now.
Ok travelling down the road of speculation and WAG's I predict from this point on there will be more nuclear plants built than coal-burners. Having been crapped on during a re-fuel I have my own experience and concerns to give a hearty endorsement of support for the nuclear solution but I can see it being a more viable stop-gap answer than coal. The threat of nuclear is the possibility of an accident, the threat of coal is inherent.
The fact that so much investment has been made in wind and the favorable prospects of the PV project in Dubai makes me believe that there has been way too much smart money bet on renewable generators to turn back. I think fracking limits how much we can depend on gas as fresh water is a dwindling resource as well. I think there will be an ever increasing momentum in the research, development, and investment in renewables for it to suddenly come to a halt. That is where the long money is going around the world and I suspect for very good reasons.
The fact that so much investment has been made in wind and the favorable prospects of the PV project in Dubai makes me believe that there has been way too much smart money bet on renewable generators to turn back. I think fracking limits how much we can depend on gas as fresh water is a dwindling resource as well. I think there will be an ever increasing momentum in the research, development, and investment in renewables for it to suddenly come to a halt. That is where the long money is going around the world and I suspect for very good reasons.
OMG you mean the American people might have to learn how to conserve energy? LOL:flushed:
BTW I like and appreciate your input and knowledge about this subject. I doubt very many people in the US could tell you what peak load is or how it might affect their lives.
There's been a big drop in load due to LED technology, more efficient Heat and air units and flat screen TV's and monitors.
While great that leads to stress on the grid as well.
The low peak is getting so low it's getting harder to turn down low enough to meet it.
That's the problem with Nukes, they produce a lot of power, but you can't turn them down.
It's like most things I suppose, there's more variables than people realize.
To me that is a good spot for the expendable power be bled off to the hydrogen electrolysis plant to produce the fuel cell feedstock. I know this is a lot of futuristic talk but so are the Nukes I predicted.
....or build pumped storage facilities, which is a renewable in my opinion, but greenies for some reason oppose them.
They produce a high amount of electricity when discharging, on demand. They also eat up a lot of excess power when pumping in low demand periods.
I like the idea of producing hydrogen with excess nuclear energy.
I like the idea of continued research and development of storage battery technology. I like it better if it comes from free market sources and not government funds.
I don't like to hear that fresh water is a dwindling resource since fresh water is dropped on us each time it rains.
I hope that coal is not the main source of energy 50 years from now as well. But it very well may be. Who knows. We came up with a better way, but people who don't understand the technology fought against to the point it became a political agenda.
I like the idea of continued research and development of storage battery technology. I like it better if it comes from free market sources and not government funds.
I don't like to hear that fresh water is a dwindling resource since fresh water is dropped on us each time it rains.
I hope that coal is not the main source of energy 50 years from now as well. But it very well may be. Who knows. We came up with a better way, but people who don't understand the technology fought against to the point it became a political agenda.