Fossil fuels

[brenthutch 383]

Not just efficient, they are morally superior.

http://youtu.be/R5KoYJ64vjA

At 7:20 Sen. Boxer gets schooled.

[kallend 1,622]

Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them.

www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/only-7-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-avoided-coral-bleaching

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 1,904]

From Epstein's Wikipedia entry:

In 2016 Epstein testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at the invitation of the committee's chairman, James Inhofe (R-OK). Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans."


'nuff said about that deadender.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,392]

>James Inhofe (R-OK). Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans."

Of course they do! If CO2 levels get high enough, fires will have a harder time burning - and that can only help the American children who are injured and killed every year by house fires. Won't someone please think of the children?

And think of the other benefits. Carbonated drinks without the expense of a complicated machine! Jobs for doctors and health care workers specializing in hypercapnia! Reduction of overcrowding in slums and refugee areas! It's a win-win.

[ryoder 1,381]

billvon

>James Inhofe (R-OK). Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans."

Of course they do! If CO2 levels get high enough, fires will have a harder time burning - and that can only help the American children who are injured and killed every year by house fires. Won't someone please think of the children?

And think of the other benefits. Carbonated drinks without the expense of a complicated machine! Jobs for doctors and health care workers specializing in hypercapnia! Reduction of overcrowding in slums and refugee areas! It's a win-win.

And layoffs in the fire suppression industry.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billeisele 122]

some otherwise generally intelligent folks just can't seem to grasp the fact that solar energy raises the overall cost of power and contributes to grid instability, regulated utilities are capital intensive businesses that are required to serve customers in their area, for this they are allowed to earn a rate of return on capital investment

rates are calculated to allow that return based on historic trends of energy sales, basically rates are averages

for my area solar availability with the best technology is about 23%, the customers with solar rely on the utility for the balance of their energy needs

the utility has been politically forced to invest in solar but they still have to have the same amount of traditional generation sources

the utility looses energy sales and has to invest more money, that equals rate increases

effective next month there will be a surcharge on every customers bill to cover the solar costs, classic social welfare

it's not difficult to understand yet folks still want to claim it's not true, rates rise when generation is added that has a cost above the current avoided cost of production

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[gowlerk 1,904]

Quote

some otherwise generally intelligent folks just can't seem to grasp the fact that solar energy raises the overall cost of power and contributes to grid instability, regulated utilities are capital intensive businesses that are required to serve customers in their area, for this they are allowed to earn a rate of return on capital investment

I don't know who those people are, but I understand that a stable grid will not be achieved by relying on solar alone. I find that some "otherwise generally intelligent folks just can't seem to grasp the fact that" cost is not the only factor that matters.

I value my good steady reliable energy supply first. Cleaning up that supply second. And within reason the cost of the supply third.

The utility will make a profit no matter what. Electric companies are regulated monopolies with a guaranteed overall rate of return. That's why they are considered good conservative and safe boring investments.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billeisele 122]

"the cost of the supply third."

"utility will make a profit no matter what. Electric companies are regulated monopolies with a guaranteed overall rate of return."
=========================

What do you consider a reasonable cost increase?
Should those that cause the cost increase pay that cost?

For a slight clarification - the utility is not guaranteed the profit. It is an allowed rate of return. That's a big difference.

It's in the best interest of all customers that the utility remains financially healthy, it effects their financial rating. If the rating declines the cost of capital increases, and those costs are passed to customers.

When a rate case occurs the data is a 1-year look back. By the time the request is settled it's about 21 months old. At that point the utility will earn less than what was requested. It gets more complicated but that is the basic process.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billvon 2,392]

>What do you consider a reasonable cost increase?

The PUC arrives at what a reasonable rate increase is the same way they arrived at it the past 50 times they considered it.

[brenthutch 383]

kallend

Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them.

www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/only-7-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-avoided-coral-bleaching

Coral bleaching in response to an El'nino event is a well documented phenomenon. Moving on.

[brenthutch 383]

gowlerk

From Epstein's Wikipedia entry:

In 2016 Epstein testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at the invitation of the committee's chairman, James Inhofe (R-OK). Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans."


'nuff said about that deadender.

You must have missed the part about the dramatic DECREASE in the number of climate related deaths. It might just be me, but I would say that not dying is a benefit.

[gowlerk 1,904]

brenthutch

***From Epstein's Wikipedia entry:

In 2016 Epstein testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at the invitation of the committee's chairman, James Inhofe (R-OK). Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans."


'nuff said about that deadender.

You must have missed the part about the dramatic DECREASE in the number of climate related deaths. It might just be me, but I would say that not dying is a benefit.

Deadenders will believe anything. No evidence needed, just as long as it conforms.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billeisele 122]

billvon

>What do you consider a reasonable cost increase?

The PUC arrives at what a reasonable rate increase is the same way they arrived at it the past 50 times they considered it.

The question was what is one willing to pay. Not what is one forced to pay by the PUC.

In this context the question is intended to determine how much one is willing to pay to socialize the cost of generation sources that are above the avoided cost of energy.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Bill,

Quote

The question was what is one willing to pay.

A fair question. However, what I am willing to pay for food is what I know I will pay because I do it at that time.

Back in the 60's ( possibly even earlier ), we voted on building the Trojan nuclear plant. It was to be mostly owned & operated by PGE, an investor-owned utility; not a PUD. We were told that the investors would cover the entire costs.

Now that Trojan is no longer operating, the utility is now asking the ratepayers to ante up the costs of the clean-up/teardown/etc.

It is really rarely as simple as 'what is one willing to pay.'

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 383]

You want evidence that not dying is a benifit??? You are to far gone for help.

[billvon 2,392]

>The question was what is one willing to pay.

Americans, in general, are willing to pay about $150 more a year to get more renewable energy in their power mix. (From a survey in 2012, here:http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1527.html)

The question "what WILL they pay?" will be decided by the PUC for each utility.

[billvon 2,392]

>You want evidence that not dying is a benifit???

Unless it's deaths due to heat waves, or due to particulate pollution from coal power plants. Then they don't matter and should be ignored.

[billeisele 122]

billvon

>The question was what is one willing to pay.

Americans, in general, are willing to pay about $150 more a year to get more renewable energy in their power mix. (From a survey in 2012,

The question "what WILL they pay?" will be decided by the PUC for each utility.

An interesting article that seems to say different things. First off let's presume that it's not biased but factual. It infers that a $13 increase a month is OK. Then it gets garbled with other math. Let's just assume that $13 a month is what it says.

The problem with that is 80% clean would cost at least 40% more, probably much more. That number comes from our actual experience in SC.

We have a very lucrative construction contract that most likely can't be repeated. Our share is about $7 billion for 1,460 MW of nuclear. The whole project is $11 billion for 2,234 MW. The resulting rate increase (projected) is 37%. Once the plants are online rates will decrease due to lower fuel costs, probably 4-6%.

That cost mostly likely can't be repeated because: it was negotiated 5-8 years ago, the site was already owned and permitted, low transmission cost, and a rail line was already present. Compare our cost to Southern Co, they are building identical units 100 miles away. Their current estimate is $21 million, almost double our cost.

I suspect that the wording in the survey doesn't provide any education about the unintended consequences of rising utility costs. When rates rise it impacts everything. Folks with low incomes or fixed expenses are those that suffer the most. A nationwide increase would be a huge economic problem.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[kallend 1,622]

brenthutch

***
Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them.

www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/only-7-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-avoided-coral-bleaching

Coral bleaching in response to an El'nino event is a well documented phenomenon. Moving on.

Yep, SINCE 1982, and this time it's worse than anytime since records were kept. Only three global bleaching events have ever been observed, all since 1998.

As I previously wrote, coral polyps have joined the conspiracy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,392]

>An interesting article that seems to say different things. First off let's presume that it's not biased but
>factual. It infers that a $13 increase a month is OK. Then it gets garbled with other math. Let's just
>assume that $13 a month is what it says.

>The problem with that is 80% clean would cost at least 40% more, probably much more. That number
>comes from our actual experience in SC.

Agreed - at current prices.

Solar-PV prices have fallen 100 fold in 36 years, and is predicted to drop another 40% within the next 5.

Battery storage prices have fallen 12 fold in the past 25 years, and are predicted to continue to drop about 5% a year going forward. Sales of such systems to time-shift solar power are already taking off in Australia and Hawaii due to high power prices and utility issues with unreliable generation.

Load aggregation has been becoming more and more common. Initially done only by utilities in California and Hawaii, nowadays utilities use this method as a standard method of dealing with unreliable generation.

>The whole project is $11 billion for 2,234 MW.

That's $4.90/watt. The Desert Sunlight plant, a 550 megawatt plant recently completed in California, was about $3 a watt. Utility scale solar PV for new power plants is now being quoted at about $2.50 a watt.

The $164 number is useful because it's a measure of what level of improvement in technology we need to be able to achieve those costs. That improvement in technology is being driven by demand, which in turn is being driven by incentives and higher power prices.

>I suspect that the wording in the survey doesn't provide any education about the unintended
>consequences of rising utility costs.

Nor does it attempt to educate them on the health risks of the coal power plants they are relying on now. Indeed, including either one of those would invalidate the survey. The survey is valuable because it gives us a glimpse of what people, knowing what they know now, are willing to pay for cleaner power.

[brenthutch 383]

kallend

******
Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them.

www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/only-7-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-avoided-coral-bleaching

Coral bleaching in response to an El'nino event is a well documented phenomenon. Moving on.

Yep, SINCE 1982, and this time it's worse than anytime since records were kept. Only three global bleaching events have ever been observed, all since 1998.

As I previously wrote, coral polyps have joined the conspiracy.

"There is no consensus on if climate change will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker."

[kallend 1,622]

brenthutch

*********
Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them.

www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/only-7-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-avoided-coral-bleaching

Coral bleaching in response to an El'nino event is a well documented phenomenon. Moving on.

Yep, SINCE 1982, and this time it's worse than anytime since records were kept. Only three global bleaching events have ever been observed, all since 1998.

As I previously wrote, coral polyps have joined the conspiracy.

"There is no consensus on if climate change will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker."

Not relevant in the slightest to the polyps. They joined the 97% of scientists from across the world who conspired to hoax US politicians.

And that Arctic sea ice extent - lowest ever recorded this past winter. Imagine - even H2O joining the conspiracy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,622]

Wow, even the world's glaciers have joined the hoax.

glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

billvon

>You want evidence that not dying is a benifit???

Unless it's deaths due to heat waves, or due to particulate pollution from coal power plants. Then they don't matter and should be ignored.

Deaths from: Heat, cold, drought, famines, floods, wild fires, and hurricanes are all DOWN in the last eighty years! Thank you CO2!

[brenthutch 383]

kallend

************
Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them.

www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/only-7-of-the-great-barrier-reef-has-avoided-coral-bleaching

Coral bleaching in response to an El'nino event is a well documented phenomenon. Moving on.

Yep, SINCE 1982, and this time it's worse than anytime since records were kept. Only three global bleaching events have ever been observed, all since 1998.

As I previously wrote, coral polyps have joined the conspiracy.

"There is no consensus on if climate change will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker."

Not relevant in the slightest to the polyps. They joined the 97% of scientists from across the world who conspired to hoax US politicians.

And that Arctic sea ice extent - lowest ever recorded this past winter. Imagine - even H2O joining the conspiracy.

And given all of that horror the human condition has never been better. Forgive me if I don't join you in setting my hair alight