There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[DJL 232]

Quote

But to look at it in a 350 year window is like one one-thousandth of one second in the life of this planet and claim man is changing the climate?

That scale is exactly the issue. As you've said, climate changes, but that rate is about 1 degrees per 1000 years. We're changing at a rate of 1 degree per 50 years and hopefully we can keep that to 1 degree per 100 years. Next we do know that our emissions and land use are largely the reason for it and this is proven not just by models but by experiments measuring energy exchange and reflection in various parts of the atmosphere.

The only thing you have to hold on to is basic suspicion over why professionals say what they say. You see it as controlling your economy but you ignore the fact that denying these proven scientific truths for political purposes is also a way to control your economy as we go headlong into the inevitable economic burden causes by a climate changing faster than our species is able to adapt.

Yes, mankind will likely come out the tail end of this but it's incredibly short sited and foolhardy to continue on a path that the concensus of expertise on the planet - the same people who brought us modern medicine, weather prediction, modern industry, modern war - say could lead to the largest threat to humanity we've ever seen.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,380]

>But to look at it in a 350 year window is like one one-thousandth of one second in the
>life of this planet and claim man is changing the climate? That's batshit-crazy!

Let's say Joe shoots someone. They die. Could I argue that "he died within a minute. That is one ten thousandth of his total life. Are you saying you can tell exactly what happened to him by looking at one ten thousandth of his life? That's batshit crazy!"

No, it's not.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>But to look at it in a 350 year window is like one one-thousandth of one second in the
>life of this planet and claim man is changing the climate? That's batshit-crazy!

Let's say Joe shoots someone. They die. Could I argue that "he died within a minute. That is one ten thousandth of his total life. Are you saying you can tell exactly what happened to him by looking at one ten thousandth of his life? That's batshit crazy!"

No, it's not.

You perfectly back up my point Bill. You view everything in the span of a lifetime. The planets been around a lot longer than that. And you still have no empirical evidence to back up anything you say

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Phil1111 908]

2017 Annual Report by Aon Benfield
Weather, Climate & Catastrophe Insight

The below pdf report is from the Insurance Journal. A periodical from the insurance industry. It deals with insured and uninsured losses worldwide from weather events. 56 pages
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20180124-ab-if-annual-report-weather-climate-2017.pdf

Insured Natural Disaster Losses in 2017 Were 38% of Economic Costs of $353B...

insured losses ($134 million) absorbed by the private sector and government-sponsored programs were second costliest ever incurred – just behind the record of US$137 billion in 2011, the report said, noting that the 2017 total for insured losses is 139 percent higher the US$56 billion reported in 2016....

The record breaking weather-related events across the globe included Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in the U.S. and Caribbean, plus Typhoon Hato in China and Cyclone Debbie in Australia. For historical context, the report said, 2017’s natural catastrophe losses were 93 percent higher than the 2000-2016 average....

31 billion-dollar events occurred globally, with 16 alone in the U.S....

Wildfires caused US$14 billion of insurance losses in 2017 – the highest on record for the peril....

“The high cost of disasters in 2017 served as a reminder that we continue to face increasing levels of risk as more people and exposures are located in areas that are particularly vulnerable to major, naturally occurring events,” said Steve Bowen, Impact Forecasting director and meteorologist.

“As weather scenarios grow more volatile in their size and potential impact, it becomes more imperative than ever to identify ways to increase awareness, improve communication, and lower the insurance protection gap. We know natural disasters are going to occur. The question is how prepared are we going to be when the next one strikes?”

[rushmc 18]

Phil1111

2017 Annual Report by Aon Benfield
Weather, Climate & Catastrophe Insight

The below pdf report is from the Insurance Journal. A periodical from the insurance industry. It deals with insured and uninsured losses worldwide from weather events. 56 pages
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20180124-ab-if-annual-report-weather-climate-2017.pdf

Insured Natural Disaster Losses in 2017 Were 38% of Economic Costs of $353B...

insured losses ($134 million) absorbed by the private sector and government-sponsored programs were second costliest ever incurred – just behind the record of US$137 billion in 2011, the report said, noting that the 2017 total for insured losses is 139 percent higher the US$56 billion reported in 2016....

The record breaking weather-related events across the globe included Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in the U.S. and Caribbean, plus Typhoon Hato in China and Cyclone Debbie in Australia. For historical context, the report said, 2017’s natural catastrophe losses were 93 percent higher than the 2000-2016 average....

31 billion-dollar events occurred globally, with 16 alone in the U.S....

Wildfires caused US$14 billion of insurance losses in 2017 – the highest on record for the peril....

“The high cost of disasters in 2017 served as a reminder that we continue to face increasing levels of risk as more people and exposures are located in areas that are particularly vulnerable to major, naturally occurring events,” said Steve Bowen, Impact Forecasting director and meteorologist.

“As weather scenarios grow more volatile in their size and potential impact, it becomes more imperative than ever to identify ways to increase awareness, improve communication, and lower the insurance protection gap. We know natural disasters are going to occur. The question is how prepared are we going to be when the next one strikes?”

Which proves my point,

Which is you have no emperical data to support your sky is falling claim

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

I am pretty sure you don't know what empirical means.

Lots of empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are rising sharply due to human activity.

Empirical evidence that less CO2 is escaping the atmosphere.

Empirical evidence the planet continues to accumulate heat.

Put that all together and you have a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

[rushmc 18]

I'm pretty sure that you don't know what pretty sure means.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

I am pretty sure you don't know what empirical means.

Lots of empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are rising sharply due to human activity.

Empirical evidence that less CO2 is escaping the atmosphere.

Empirical evidence the planet continues to accumulate heat.

Put that all together and you have a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

By the way, I will not use the term pretty sure here but, thank you for making my point! You have no data that backs any of the alarmist bullshit that is the man-made global warming Hysteria.

It's amazing how many times causation has been brought up on this site. But you never bring it up when it comes to global warming. Again I thank you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[motionscribe 0]

rushmc

***I am pretty sure you don't know what empirical means.

Lots of empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are rising sharply due to human activity.

Empirical evidence that less CO2 is escaping the atmosphere.

Empirical evidence the planet continues to accumulate heat.

Put that all together and you have a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

By the way, I will not use the term pretty sure here but, thank you for making my point! You have no data that backs any of the alarmist bullshit that is the man-made global warming Hysteria.

It's amazing how many times causation has been brought up on this site. But you never bring it up when it comes to global warming. Again I thank you!

But you can't deny the sudden increase, right? So any effort to mitigate that would be a good thing, right?

...and no, that doesn't mean we have to shut down the coal plants either.

[DJL 232]

We just can't phase them out fast enough.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 18]

DJL

We just can't phase them out fast enough.

and then we can pay $0.40 a kilowatt-hour for electricity like Germany does today. Is that what you want?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

I am willing to pay a higher price for electricity but Germany has some of the highest usage taxes and fees in all of Europe, so no the US will not see 40ct/kWh. As it stands the cost of industrialized renewable power production in the US is projected to reduce the cost per kWh and this is empirically proven with historical data in the US.

So...Do you want to keep paying more? Is that what you want?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 908]

DJL

I am willing to pay a higher price for electricity but Germany has some of the highest usage taxes and fees in all of Europe, so no the US will not see 40ct/kWh. As it stands the cost of industrialized renewable power production in the US is projected to reduce the cost per kWh and this is empirically proven with historical data in the US.

So...Do you want to keep paying more? Is that what you want?

You're missing the point Marc is trying to make.

1. The old, dirty, creaky US electric grid would cost $5 trillion to replace. Where should infrastructure spending go?
https://theconversation.com/the-old-dirty-creaky-us-electric-grid-would-cost-5-trillion-to-replace-where-should-infrastructure-spending-go-68290
Above estimates from American Society of Civil Engineers.

2. Germany paid people to use electricity over the holidays because its grid is so clean
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-power-grid-pays-customers-christmas-sustainability-renewable-energy-a8141431.html

3.The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.XBJ7U817kdU

For some its all about cheap today. If their children have to pay trillions in costs to fix worn out infrastructure. Clean up polluted streams and rivers. Too bad. Its all about us, today, cheap, toss it away society.

Those Germans are so stupid. Developing a clean, robust and redundant grid. Developing pollution free environmental standards. When they could all be driving diesel F-350's and paying $2 a gallon. 'Schweinhund' MAGA.

[Rick 67]

Phil1111

1. The old, dirty, creaky US electric grid would cost $5 trillion to replace. Where should infrastructure spending go?
https://theconversation.com/the-old-dirty-creaky-us-electric-grid-would-cost-5-trillion-to-replace-where-should-infrastructure-spending-go-68290
Above estimates from American Society of Civil Engineers.

2. Germany paid people to use electricity over the holidays because its grid is so clean
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-power-grid-pays-customers-christmas-sustainability-renewable-energy-a8141431.html

3.The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.XBJ7U817kdU

For some its all about cheap today. If their children have to pay trillions in costs to fix worn out infrastructure. Clean up polluted streams and rivers. Too bad. Its all about us, today, cheap, toss it away society.

Those Germans are so stupid. Developing a clean, robust and redundant grid. Developing pollution free environmental standards. When they could all be driving diesel F-350's and paying $2 a gallon. 'Schweinhund' MAGA.

I have been seeing articles like this one about the environmental impact of the manufacturing process. Also dangerous chemicals that are in the panels themselves that will have to go somewhere when old panels are disposed of.

Maybe we will cut co2 emissions but are there other environmental costs?

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[billvon 2,380]

>Maybe we will cut co2 emissions but there are other environmental costs?

Definitely. There are no perfect solutions.

For example, solar is certainly better (in overall lifecycle) than coal, natural gas and oil. All three of those do far more damage over their whole lifecycle than solar.

But nuclear? That's harder to say. There's a lot of nuclear waste to deal with. But those plants generate so much power that, per kilowatt-hour, there's not much waste overall - and it compares more favorably to solar.

And overall, you can make a good argument that wind has less impact during manufacture than solar, just because their processes (steel forming, composite manufacture etc) are a bit cleaner. And again, that's a lot of steel and fiber - but those things can churn out ten megawatts.

[Phil1111 908]

Trump plan to reclassify nuclear waste alarms environmental groups
'The Trump administration wants to reclassify some radioactive waste left from the production of nuclear weapons to lower its threat level and make disposal cheaper and easier.'..

Reclassifying the material to low-level could save the agency billions of dollars and decades of work by essentially leaving the material in the ground, critics say....

Cleanup efforts at Hanford have been underway since the late 1980s and cost about $2 billion a year."

DOE Extends Comment Period for High-Level Waste Definition
http://nuclearactive.org/doe-extends-comment-period-for-high-level-waste-definition/
December 7th, 2018

"On Tuesday, December 4th, the Department of Energy (DOE) granted a 30-day extension of time for public comments about their proposal to change the definition of the most dangerous form of radioactive waste – high-level waste. This waste, which was created by reprocessing for nuclear weapons, makes up only about 5% of the total volume of weapons radioactive waste. But it is extremely dangerous because it contains about 98% of the radioactivity of all defense wastes. DOE proposes two categories of high-level radioactive waste: high-level waste and non-high-level waste. Comments are now due on Wednesday, January 9th, 2019, to [email protected]. Sample comments will be available after the first of the year. HLW Comment Extension "

For those who have forgotten about who the idiot in charge of these proposed revisions is, Mr. Rick Perry. Who prior to his nomination admitted he had no idea what this department even did.

Contrite Perry regrets calling for abolishing Energy Department
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/rick-perry-confirmation-hearing-233835

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry emerged unscathed from his hearing Thursday to become the next Energy Secretary, contritely rescinding his pledge to dismantle the agency and reversing course on years of comments dismissing climate change science.

MAGA, reclassify the most dangerous nuclear waste as non -dangerous rebury it in a major democrat water basin.

[rushmc 18]

DJL

I am willing to pay a higher price for electricity but Germany has some of the highest usage taxes and fees in all of Europe, so no the US will not see 40ct/kWh. As it stands the cost of industrialized renewable power production in the US is projected to reduce the cost per kWh and this is empirically proven with historical data in the US.

So...Do you want to keep paying more? Is that what you want?

Subsidized Wind generators are able to affect to a point of running a nuclear plant in Iowa out of business. staying subsidized they will be able to run coal oil and gas out as well. Once that happens and the subsidies are dropped electricity rates will climb like you've never seen.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

All the best people tell me that.

[DJL 232]

Here's the actual breakdown of subsidy allocations:

"Allocation of subsidies in the United States
On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)"

Everyone gets subsidies and all sources share the subsidies for energy efficiency, deliver, reliability, R&D, etc.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,380]

>Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

It should be noted that that does not include Price-Waterhouse, which is another $250 million a year to the nuclear industry - and has a value of over $12 billion.

[rushmc 18]

DJL

Here's the actual breakdown of subsidy allocations:

"Allocation of subsidies in the United States
On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)"

Everyone gets subsidies and all sources share the subsidies for energy efficiency, deliver, reliability, R&D, etc.

All good and fine. But I am involved and I know what is happening with the electric market today.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

Yes, you're a semi-retired operations PM at an energy company. What I posted are the actual numbers for what is and isn't getting subsidies. The energy sector will always get subsidies. Nuke will definitely always get subsidies.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[FrancoR 0]

rushmc

***We just can't phase them out fast enough.

and then we can pay $0.40 a kilowatt-hour for electricity like Germany does today. Is that what you want?

First of all, i am not paying %0.40 for a kw/h and i am not sure you will find an electrical company that has such a high price and if you do it is a rip off. I am paying 0.27€ for a kw/h and it is not the cheapest option available. Most of that is indeed taxes and a fee used to subsedise what was uncompetitive renewables, now they are competitive in some cases or are getting there.
Germany has cut on the subsedies for new renewable projects, so everyhting that is built now has a lot lower subsedies.

If it does not cost anything you are the product.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Franco,

Quote

First of all, i am not paying . . .

What you seem to be saying that rushmc does not have a clue of what he is talking about.

Nothing new there.

Jerry Baumchen

[ChrisD2.0 2]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Franco,

Quote

First of all, i am not paying . . .

What you seem to be saying that rushmc does not have a clue of what he is talking about.

Nothing new there.

Jerry Baumchen

And that Von idiot bans me????


Just so you all know the "Northwest water" passage is now fully open, first time in about 300 years give or take of recorded history that it isn't iced over and ships are using it as a shortcut to the Canada canals.

On another note I have never seen so much misinformation and misquotes and ignorance about a subject ever. Doesn't any one ever fact check, or is this some kind of contest to see who can spread the best proganda and bullpucky possible? Seeriously this is truly like watching kindergrteners debate options and stop loss in a declining market. So much hubris,...there's your sign.

Brett Bickford Did Not Commit Suicide.

He is the victim of ignorance and faulty gear. AND as in the movie: "12 Angry Men," of an ignorant and callous jury.