global warming is freezing my balls off
- Thread starter DUNNSTILLFREENALIVE
- Start date
You're looking at bad charts then, whether you're talking about total installation costs (the $162 is associated with offshore wind):
Or your talking about wholesale price per M/kWh with PPA contracts, which have been as low as $20 per MWh:
Mime, I don't know what you're calling antiquated, it's the way it is in reality. In the real world, not on paper or on a link from a website what I described to you is EXACTLY how it takes place, that is from first hand knowledge, you can choose to believe me or not, at this point I really don't care.
The wind power where it sits may be $61 a megawatt, but to get it from there to where it's needed it has to cross different power companies grids, they have to pay for the upkeep for these grids, and they charge interconnect fees. Now you can say wind really isn't $100 a mw to produce, whatever, by the time it gets to where it can be used it most definitely is. Not to mention it isn't RELIABLE, you have to maintain a primary back up for it. It is a money pit that the government is forcing on all of us.
Renewables are mandated, why? Do you honestly think 500million for a best case scenario 79 megawatts is feasible, and they aren't building a dam, there adding underwater turbines, all together it's gonna cost $1.5 billion for 300 mw, that's insane. TVA is building a 1200mw combined cycle plant for 1.19 billion right now in muhlenberg county, Which one is the better deal? Unless of course the Govt in 20 years come around forces stiff penalties on those too, which they probably will, cause it's a shell game.
The wind power where it sits may be $61 a megawatt, but to get it from there to where it's needed it has to cross different power companies grids, they have to pay for the upkeep for these grids, and they charge interconnect fees. Now you can say wind really isn't $100 a mw to produce, whatever, by the time it gets to where it can be used it most definitely is. Not to mention it isn't RELIABLE, you have to maintain a primary back up for it. It is a money pit that the government is forcing on all of us.
Renewables are mandated, why? Do you honestly think 500million for a best case scenario 79 megawatts is feasible, and they aren't building a dam, there adding underwater turbines, all together it's gonna cost $1.5 billion for 300 mw, that's insane. TVA is building a 1200mw combined cycle plant for 1.19 billion right now in muhlenberg county, Which one is the better deal? Unless of course the Govt in 20 years come around forces stiff penalties on those too, which they probably will, cause it's a shell game.
I try to be objective as I possibly can by never taking anything at face value, but the link you provided would be equivalent to one I could provide from the Sierra Club.
Chuckinden, my point is don't take everything for face value, that's all I'm getting at. Mime I didn't mean anything personal , after reflecting , I may of come across that way.
I wanted to read the entire thread but I have a deadline to go skew my data on climate change so the progressives in Congress will continue my grant. Suckers....
I would like to see a nationally televised public forum on Global Warming where a selected group of scientists from around the world that have the proper credentials would appear as a panel and take questions from both media and the public. They could ask serious questions as well as silly ones about grant money and conspiracies. Hopefully that would take us a few steps forward from the widespread ignorance and confusion that exists today.
Where the ignorance comes in is the political side of it. The extreme right doesn't care about the environment and the extreme left wants to save every tree.
You have people like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace that doesn't want a tree cut or a fish killed and protests everything and then you have people like Glen Beck that threatens to fire any of his staff that buys CFL light bulbs. People actually listens and worships these idiots. There are some on here just like that and can't think for themselves.
There just has to be a middle somewhere.
As much as there is a middle where 2+2=3, yeah. The good thing about science is it doesn't care what your particular ideology thinks of it.
Not at all. I take about 10 to 12 weekdays of vacation in the winter to hit the mountains. I took tomorrow off about 2 months ago, and it was about to pay off BIGTIME until a this morning, when the snowstorm turned into snownado.
Southern VT., where I'll be skiing, is about to experience upwards of 45mph winds. That, coupled with a severely cold and lightweight snow storm, make for borderline un-skiable conditions. Much to windy to see in front of you. Not to mention chairlift rides in that wind are stomach turning. Oh and it'll be -10 with the windchill.
Gametime decision tomorrow at 6am. Hoping for the best because this could be exceptional conditions.
Also, not liberal in the slightest.
Southern VT., where I'll be skiing, is about to experience upwards of 45mph winds. That, coupled with a severely cold and lightweight snow storm, make for borderline un-skiable conditions. Much to windy to see in front of you. Not to mention chairlift rides in that wind are stomach turning. Oh and it'll be -10 with the windchill.
Gametime decision tomorrow at 6am. Hoping for the best because this could be exceptional conditions.
Also, not liberal in the slightest.
Not sure what to make of GW, other than the fact that it's not just humans mucking it up. Growing up, I seem to remember either getting snow, or not getting snow. No inbetween crap. Blizzards, which have more to do with wind, are a rarity.. But the worst is all the freezing rain/ice storms weve gotten up in the northeast.
I swear we get more ice than snow it seems.
I swear we get more ice than snow it seems.
Effing A. 1 chairlift is open which means about 75% of the mountain is inaccessible. You want to know my nightmare? Having to go to work when I should be skiing... no.. PLANNED to be skiing. Thanks Global Warming.
Let's bring this awful thread back to life. Had two things to respond to before it disappears forever.
Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Mime, I don't know what you're calling antiquated, it's the way it is in reality. In the real world, not on paper or on a link from a website what I described to you is EXACTLY how it takes place, that is from first hand knowledge, you can choose to believe me or not, at this point I really don't care.
Yes, I'm calling the current power grid and manner in which we typically generate power antiquated, because it absolutely is just that. Antiquated and the status quo aren't mutually exclusive. Not in the least.
Our two party system is antiquated and, unfortunately, the current state of affairs that dominates national politics.
Our prevalent methods of power generation and distribution is senescent and inefficient. We rely on massive centralized turbine generators to continuously combust finite resources then distribute the resulting power via decades old grid systems reliant up thousands of miles of transmission lines, all the while the end consumer is at the mercy of a monopolistic provider guaranteed a pre-determined return by regulating agencies. It's the very definition of antiquated, and it's the reason that entities with flexible balance sheets and massive appetites for power consumption are constructing their own self sufficient micro-grids (ex US Military, Oracle, IIT, NYU, Verizon, etc) to save b/millions in electricity costs.
Our current energy infrastructure as it operates is in its waning years and will go the way of landlines. Standard utility companies that don't modify their models will follow suit.
Originally posted by Bill Derington:
The wind power where it sits may be $61 a megawatt, but to get it from there to where it's needed it has to cross different power companies grids, they have to pay for the upkeep for these grids, and they charge interconnect fees. Now you can say wind really isn't $100 a mw to produce, whatever, by the time it gets to where it can be used it most definitely is. Not to mention it isn't RELIABLE, you have to maintain a primary back up for it. It is a money pit that the government is forcing on all of us.
Thank you for proving my point re: our antiquated and inefficient energy grid system in which unnecessary middle men jack up prices for long distance transmission. The construction of DG wind farms bypasses interconnection issues.
Obviously the capacity factor for wind is lower than that of fossil fuels but a micro-grid doesn't rely solely on source of power. When wind as a fuel source is available and the demand is present, which is often, it's one of the cheaper sources of power on the market. But it's a strawman to suggest wind shouldn't be in use because of its reliability.
Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Renewables are mandated, why? Do you honestly think 500million for a best case scenario 79 megawatts is feasible, and they aren't building a dam, there adding underwater turbines, all together it's gonna cost $1.5 billion for 300 mw, that's insane. TVA is building a 1200mw combined cycle plant for 1.19 billion right now in muhlenberg county, Which one is the better deal? Unless of course the Govt in 20 years come around forces stiff penalties on those too, which they probably will, cause it's a shell game.
Renewables are mandated in some states because policy makers realize the importance of a self-sustaining, diversified energy portfolio and are aware of the total economic costs of relying on coal fired centralized power generators. Kentucky and Tennessee do not have RPS so I'm not sure why they're investing heavily in renewables other than having at least the minimum awareness of prevailing industry trends.
Obviously the cost of operating fully functioning fossil fuel plants is cheaper TODAY than building new renewable energy capacity due to the status quo bolstered by a decades old infrastructure and subsidies from local and national governments. To maximize long term benefits we need massive upgrades to the entire system from generation to distribution and consumption.
Anyone who believes our future energy needs will be completely satisfied with fossil fuel combustion utility scale power stations given our current grid limitations is either stubbornly obtuse or woefully shortsighted.
This post was edited on 3/2 7:07 PM by Mime-Is-Money[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
No, this is not the middle. Scientists have proven that the impact from human specific activities affect, and have affected, Earth's climate. The degree to which human's impact WILL LATER change our climate is still up for debate.
Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Mime, I don't know what you're calling antiquated, it's the way it is in reality. In the real world, not on paper or on a link from a website what I described to you is EXACTLY how it takes place, that is from first hand knowledge, you can choose to believe me or not, at this point I really don't care.
Yes, I'm calling the current power grid and manner in which we typically generate power antiquated, because it absolutely is just that. Antiquated and the status quo aren't mutually exclusive. Not in the least.
Our two party system is antiquated and, unfortunately, the current state of affairs that dominates national politics.
Our prevalent methods of power generation and distribution is senescent and inefficient. We rely on massive centralized turbine generators to continuously combust finite resources then distribute the resulting power via decades old grid systems reliant up thousands of miles of transmission lines, all the while the end consumer is at the mercy of a monopolistic provider guaranteed a pre-determined return by regulating agencies. It's the very definition of antiquated, and it's the reason that entities with flexible balance sheets and massive appetites for power consumption are constructing their own self sufficient micro-grids (ex US Military, Oracle, IIT, NYU, Verizon, etc) to save b/millions in electricity costs.
Our current energy infrastructure as it operates is in its waning years and will go the way of landlines. Standard utility companies that don't modify their models will follow suit.
Originally posted by Bill Derington:
The wind power where it sits may be $61 a megawatt, but to get it from there to where it's needed it has to cross different power companies grids, they have to pay for the upkeep for these grids, and they charge interconnect fees. Now you can say wind really isn't $100 a mw to produce, whatever, by the time it gets to where it can be used it most definitely is. Not to mention it isn't RELIABLE, you have to maintain a primary back up for it. It is a money pit that the government is forcing on all of us.
Thank you for proving my point re: our antiquated and inefficient energy grid system in which unnecessary middle men jack up prices for long distance transmission. The construction of DG wind farms bypasses interconnection issues.
Obviously the capacity factor for wind is lower than that of fossil fuels but a micro-grid doesn't rely solely on source of power. When wind as a fuel source is available and the demand is present, which is often, it's one of the cheaper sources of power on the market. But it's a strawman to suggest wind shouldn't be in use because of its reliability.
Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Renewables are mandated, why? Do you honestly think 500million for a best case scenario 79 megawatts is feasible, and they aren't building a dam, there adding underwater turbines, all together it's gonna cost $1.5 billion for 300 mw, that's insane. TVA is building a 1200mw combined cycle plant for 1.19 billion right now in muhlenberg county, Which one is the better deal? Unless of course the Govt in 20 years come around forces stiff penalties on those too, which they probably will, cause it's a shell game.
Renewables are mandated in some states because policy makers realize the importance of a self-sustaining, diversified energy portfolio and are aware of the total economic costs of relying on coal fired centralized power generators. Kentucky and Tennessee do not have RPS so I'm not sure why they're investing heavily in renewables other than having at least the minimum awareness of prevailing industry trends.
Obviously the cost of operating fully functioning fossil fuel plants is cheaper TODAY than building new renewable energy capacity due to the status quo bolstered by a decades old infrastructure and subsidies from local and national governments. To maximize long term benefits we need massive upgrades to the entire system from generation to distribution and consumption.
Anyone who believes our future energy needs will be completely satisfied with fossil fuel combustion utility scale power stations given our current grid limitations is either stubbornly obtuse or woefully shortsighted.
This post was edited on 3/2 7:07 PM by Mime-Is-Money[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
why does everyone point to record heat but no one ever talks about record cold?
This year winter records were broken that go back as far as the late 1800's and we've seen recorded ice levels in some lakes and rivers that we've never seen since we started keeping records.
Now does that mean its global? no
people expect the winters to be affected by global warming just as much as the summers - and I think that's the downfall of the climate change message - an expectation that doesn't align with the day to day reality.
I can remember people. discussing the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware having to push thru ice (although not necessarily large chunks), and in the late 80 or early 90's, those same people saying that the painting pointed to a time when we were in a "mini ice age" because the Delaware never had ice to that degree in this century.
Now ice has been a regular occurrence in the Delaware for several years.
Ice breakers that used to address isolated incidents on the great lakes 20 years ago now are needed to cut channels across the lakes daily at the brunt of winter
Solid scientific proof of anything? hardly but, I can see why its difficult for people to get past that the world is getting warmer when winters - at least in a few year span appear to be getting noticeably harsher. And I can only assume these talking points are why global warming moved into the more broadly incorporating term of climate change.
Its not just people jumping up during one particularly cold day - it probably has more to with the global warming community thru the media focusing the narrative to a warming planet as opposed to talking about weather extremes.
Whether they are to blame or the media , it created an environment where the message changed from global warming to climate change in order to reflect the near term change that people can relate to, and in turn I believe it created a credibility gap with the public.
This post was edited on 3/3 5:20 AM by TankedCat
This year winter records were broken that go back as far as the late 1800's and we've seen recorded ice levels in some lakes and rivers that we've never seen since we started keeping records.
Now does that mean its global? no
people expect the winters to be affected by global warming just as much as the summers - and I think that's the downfall of the climate change message - an expectation that doesn't align with the day to day reality.
I can remember people. discussing the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware having to push thru ice (although not necessarily large chunks), and in the late 80 or early 90's, those same people saying that the painting pointed to a time when we were in a "mini ice age" because the Delaware never had ice to that degree in this century.
Now ice has been a regular occurrence in the Delaware for several years.
Ice breakers that used to address isolated incidents on the great lakes 20 years ago now are needed to cut channels across the lakes daily at the brunt of winter
Solid scientific proof of anything? hardly but, I can see why its difficult for people to get past that the world is getting warmer when winters - at least in a few year span appear to be getting noticeably harsher. And I can only assume these talking points are why global warming moved into the more broadly incorporating term of climate change.
Its not just people jumping up during one particularly cold day - it probably has more to with the global warming community thru the media focusing the narrative to a warming planet as opposed to talking about weather extremes.
Whether they are to blame or the media , it created an environment where the message changed from global warming to climate change in order to reflect the near term change that people can relate to, and in turn I believe it created a credibility gap with the public.
This post was edited on 3/3 5:20 AM by TankedCat
Global warming wants your money to give other people/countries who need it more than you do. Also it empowers people who get to decide how it will be distributed.
This post was edited on 3/3 9:32 AM by wkycatfan
This post was edited on 3/3 9:32 AM by wkycatfan
A lot of people here don't understand the difference between climate and weather. For one thing the jet stream has an enormous effect on weather. It is responsible for these enormous arctic blasts that have come down over the eastern part of the United States, when all that air moves south rapidly, the warm air in the lower latitudes is displace, so you see a similar northern moving mass of air over the western part of the country all the way up to Alaska and the arctic region where they are experiencing record warm temperatures this season. These types of patterns exist independent of any effect from Global Warming. However from the climate perspective the increased ocean temperatures lead to increased moisture content which is consistent with the heavy snow falls.
Morons like Senator Inhoff are illustrative of the ignorance of the climate deniers. Carrying a snowball onto the Senate Floor and creating a show as if to say that snow in Washington DC in February is some sort of proof of something.
This post was edited on 3/3 10:15 AM by Deeeefense
Morons like Senator Inhoff are illustrative of the ignorance of the climate deniers. Carrying a snowball onto the Senate Floor and creating a show as if to say that snow in Washington DC in February is some sort of proof of something.
This post was edited on 3/3 10:15 AM by Deeeefense
Of course it depends on the jet stream. Thats why its warmer in the west this year, and colder in the east. The cold air hasnt oscellated back and forth, its stayed in the east. This isn't unusual, it just doesn't happen as frequently.
All weather is cyclical, all of it. Hurricanes, droughts, cold snaps, heat waves. There is no normal in weather, all the extremes are combined over time to come up with an average.
Deefense, don't you ever just get tired of all the climate change bs, honestly, it's just used as a lightening rod for both sides,and what Inhoff was silly, but it's no sillier than what the Dems do, hell Gore won an academy award for a movie on bullsh#t about the climate.
Its weather, it changes, it's climate it changes, we can't stop it, slow it down. We're alot more insignificant than some of you want to believe.
All weather is cyclical, all of it. Hurricanes, droughts, cold snaps, heat waves. There is no normal in weather, all the extremes are combined over time to come up with an average.
Deefense, don't you ever just get tired of all the climate change bs, honestly, it's just used as a lightening rod for both sides,and what Inhoff was silly, but it's no sillier than what the Dems do, hell Gore won an academy award for a movie on bullsh#t about the climate.
Its weather, it changes, it's climate it changes, we can't stop it, slow it down. We're alot more insignificant than some of you want to believe.
Yep.
The "settled science" is akin to me saying "I probably think like that from time to time depending on my mood" and someone interpreting me as saying " I agree 100%".
It's not heat it's above average temps, and it's due because the Jet stream hasn't moved, causing possibly the coldest February in history for most of eastern North America.
================================================================
Not really becasue it isn't BS and is supported but the most prestigious scientific organizations around the world. It's one of the gravest issues that we face as a world community and needs significant changes to avoid cataclysmic results decades down the road. What's BS is people like Inhoff that receive enormous sums of money from the fossil fuel industry to muddy the waters on the issue, the same way the tobacco manufacturers muddied the water for 2 decades over the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
HAHA Mime, That did leave itself open for attack. What I meant was that the cold energy is still there, the jet stream has stayed pushed out of alaska. Moving the cold air elsewhere causing ridiculous cold in the eastern portion of the Country.
Here in KY they're predicting below zero temps on MARCH 3!!
This post was edited on 3/3 12:41 PM by Bill Derington
Here in KY they're predicting below zero temps on MARCH 3!!
This post was edited on 3/3 12:41 PM by Bill Derington
And on the left coast we're having record average highs for January & February!! This past January was the first on record in which the Bay Area received zero rainfall.
Alaska is having record high temperatures which is causing record high heat for winter months.
the Northern Hemisphere had the 3rd warmest January on record on land, while the global land surface temp was the 2nd highest on record for the same month.
THE END
But please continue to pollute and litter the earth while you whine and cry about the f'n government (of all people) to do something about the f'n climate (of all things). The most underrated joke of all time, imho.
You make a good point here. Pollution is gonna kill us way before global warming does. The acidification and over fishing in the ocean is destroying the lifeblood of many coastal communities all over the world.
Mime, Now we're breaking it down to Northern and Southern hemispere, not globally? Don't answer that. I imagine Feruary will be a little different. My point is temperatures are never going to be exactly average, it's absurd to think they will be. It's way below average in the East this winter, nxt winter it may be way above average, it isn't climate change causing it, its weather. The drastic differences are what make up the long term average.
To the other Poster, NEVER did I say we should just pollute away. But I also don't think we should overreact either, and act like we're facing imminent doom, cause thats BS too. It's nothing more political grandstanding, thats it. Climate change has become abortion, gun control, religion, something to rile people up and raise money with. Keep the masses eyes off the real issues that we can actually do something about.
This post was edited on 3/3 2:02 PM by Bill Derington
To the other Poster, NEVER did I say we should just pollute away. But I also don't think we should overreact either, and act like we're facing imminent doom, cause thats BS too. It's nothing more political grandstanding, thats it. Climate change has become abortion, gun control, religion, something to rile people up and raise money with. Keep the masses eyes off the real issues that we can actually do something about.
This post was edited on 3/3 2:02 PM by Bill Derington