Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Yes, I am referring to the absolute idiocy of forcing wind and solar through government fiat. Wind and solar typically can't be justified on thier own merits and have to be forced into the system as a replacement for fossil fuels by government regulation. All that does is weaken critical infrastructure. Thus when the baseload fails because it is no longer robust, people die since wind and solar can't be counted on. And those deaths are entirely due to the AGW panic porn and those that spread it.

Just watch what happens this winter in Europe.

 

I don't even slightly agree that government has to "force" wind energy.

We have wind energy in the USA. Wind generation in the US central states from Texas up to the Canadian border has proven to be profitable. It also springs up in other regions. In Iowa, the fuel type that produces the most electricity is wind, not some fossil fuel.

That's not going to bring down our energy plan.

And, your death scenario has nothing to do with wind. It has to do with the quality of the grid and the energy plan. For example, in the Texas disaster wind performed up to specification for that weather condition.

In that case, fossil fuel generation would undoubtedly not have failed if the list of deficits in their system had been corrected. Also, it would have been a huge help if they hadn't isolated their grid such that other regions couldn't help them out. With attention to those issues one would have to believe that lives would not have been lost.

 

Why is it every time someone starts a new thread on some exciting climate news this old bilge is re pumped.
China is doing huge amounts towards renewable energy, but they manufacture much of the goods you buy. So it is your Co2 not there's.
And America is still the dirty man of the planet.
But in any case its about renewable energy, why would anyone not want that.

 

Just a note, we (central nebraska) fired up an auxiliary natural gas unit that hadn’t operated for several years to send power to Texas during the ice storm. Their grid is not as isolated as some believe. I’m not sure who else “helped out” but we did.

 

Only when electric demand and prices are high.

It is not a permanent replacement for other forms of electric generation, it only helps provide power during peak demand times. There is a big reason why it provides less than 10% of the electricity in the US. And it will never provide more than a fractional amount of electricity for many reasons.

 

Yet China pumps out over twice the amounts that the US does.

And funny, how the same somehow does not seem to apply to the US because it is also a major producer of things used around the world (including China).

Seems to me you are being very selective in your attempts to justify your silly claims.

 

China is the leading CO2 emitter and the leading builder of coal-fired generating plants.
Renewable energy is only a sound choice if there is fossil fuel or nuclear baseload back-up.

 

Hey, good for Nebraska!

Plus, I certainly didn't know that there were connections between the Texas grid and the other two grids in the USA, which are connected.

This makes me wonder why others didn't contribute. When there are disasters, America is supposed to pull together - like sending my tax dollars to aid victims of hurricanes in FL, NOLA, tornado devastation, etc., even though states like my native WA don't have disasters like that.

 

Those are two different issues.

China has higher CO2 emissions only because they have several times our population. On a per capita basis, we are worse than China.

And, per capita is the only rational way to measure contribution.

As for "baseload back-up", we are a long ways from having to worry about that.

For example, Iowa generates more electricity from wind than from any other "fuel". And, they are not suffering from lack of sufficient "baseload back-up".

This has all been pointed out to you before.

 

Or something else.

Me, I am mostly a big believer in hydropower. It can be stored for long periods of time, is green and renewable, and has many other benefits other than just power generation.

And it always makes me laugh when people want to talk about "renewable", and completely ignore hydro. And insist the only alternative to fossil fuels is wind and solar.

 

Sorry, that is a complete and utter failure.

Then explain India. It has a population less than 100 million fewer than China, yet emits only a fraction of that of China.

If your claim was true, then India would be in second place, with a CO2 emission level only a fraction lower than that of China. And not with emission levels less than half of those of China.

Care to explain how this completely blows away your claim?

You seem to over and over obsess over CO2, yet amazingly give a complete pass to China and condemn the US. Even though they are reducing their emissions more than any other country on the planet. Seems to me that you will never be happy, and always blame the US no matter what.

 

As I've posted in the past, the cost of wind power after removing production tax credits for all fuels is cheaper than gas.

If you don't accept that, then it's your turn to post something.

 

And I have refuted your claims before.

 

No, it is not. Because if it was, then electric companies would be moving from gas to wind.

Wind power is not reliable, it is not steady and stable, and it has yet to be proven if they can sustainably recoup their investments before the plant becomes obsolete and needs to be replaced.

You talk about "tax credits", which are largely spent in the construction of the plant. Yes, I do see that and it is simply a word game. As once the generator itself is paid off, a lot of it is profit. However, we are only now starting to see the large number of wind turbines that entered service at the start of the millennium reaching the end of their lifespan. And if there are no "tax credits" funding their replacements, care to guess how many will not be replaced?

This is a huge failure for what most people think of when it comes to "renewable energy", and that is wind and solar. Both of them are very expensive, and only last for around 20 years before they have to be replaced. And none that try to calculate their efficiency ever seem to take that into account. That as they age they become less and less efficient, until it gets to the point where they are essentially producing nothing, or fail completely due to age, wear and tear.

The actual way to think about it is as follows. It costs around $4 million to build a wind turbine. How much power does a wind turbine produce over 20 years? If it can not generate at least double the power cost in construction, then it is a failure because it will never recoup the money spend and leave enough at the end to build a new one.

 

India isn't in first place, as you point out. But after that, what its position is must be determined by comparing to what other countries are doing - not on what China is doing.

Beyond that, India is behind China in terms of technology that causes CO2 emissions.

India's need for electricity and other energy is going to sharply increase over time as they work to catch up to the first world.

They will need transportation that doesn't depend on oil, too. Like China, they can't afford the levels of pollution that occur due to dependence on oil for transportation.

 

That's not rational economics. When wind is cheaper, more wind turbines get built. THAT is what is happening.

Fossil fuel companies get a number of bonuses. It is not just wind that gets production tax credits. For example, oil companies get to claim each new well as a "startup" business and qualify for tax credits that business startups get.

We should be comparing energy sources based on unsubsidized prices.

Let's remember that you 20 year thing applies to all power investments, not just wind or solar. This is one reason we have fewer new or enhanced coal plants - investors are not confident that they will be able to pay off their loans within a 20 year period.

I agree in general with your last paragraph. But, you aren't showing a credible source for your calculations, so I can't agree with your conclusion.

Also, you have to face the fact that wind turbines are being built all over the place, and they are turning a good profit. So, the financial analysis of building a wind far is known.

 

I can’t remember the details, but a local engineer from our public power district explained it to me the week after the ice storm. We had rolling brownouts also because we sent so much power south. There is some sort of agreement between our generation facilities and theirs to help compensate shortages. My whole state is public power so maybe Texas is more likely to deal with our generating facilities than for-profit ones in other states.

I never lost any power. The engineer said I must be on a phase that powers either something involved in national security or critical medical devices because all other lines took a turn without power. I think an hour or so at a time. Now I’m a bit curious because I’m 40 mikes from any hospital and 200 miles from anything involved in national security. Maybe it’s just because my neighbor down the road is on the local power district board…LOL. Either way it’s my good fortune I guess!

Oh, Nebraska power districts always send crews to restore power after hurricanes. I believe crews from Lincoln and Omaha went for Ian.

Isn’t fire the predominant natural disaster in WA?

 

True. WA has actually lost a few small towns due to being totally overrun by fire. These are mostly very small towns built in forest lands in the Cascade mountains, areas of sparse population and no defense against wildfire.

The damage to structures and lives isn't like NOLA or Southeast hurricanes or even just the cold snap in Texas. But, the fires can be spectacular and destroy a lot of timber.

 

But your claim was that China is excessively high based on population. That is false, as the amounts from India prove.

You can't simply make a claim based on population, then spin it off in a completely different direction when that is proven wrong, and expect to be taken seriously.

 

No, it really is not. We are already seeing the number of new wind turbines is not really increasing, but that they are starting to simply replace older ones that have failed or reached the end of their lifespan.

Not really, because most conventional power plants last much longer than 20 years. Yes, things like gas, oil, and coal power plants as well as hydro plant and nuclear power plants need regular maintenance. But they do not expect to be completely torn down after about 20 years and completely replaced.

And that is why you keep failing in your claims. As I challenged you already, take all of the power generated for the lifespan of a new $4 million dollar wind turbine and add it together. If it does not equal at least $8 million or more, it is a loss. And even that is being generous, as a great many fail prematurely so the cost of those failures must be spread among the rest in use by the company.

The difference is, that wind turbines simply last a decade or two at most then have to be completely rebuilt, most times from the ground up. Solar also sees the majority of the plant simply discarded and a new one built in its place. Solar is actually unique, in that each year they lose about 5% of their efficiency. After a decade, they are only producing about half the electricity that they did when they were new. That is why when before the Mir was deorbited, some were considering having her link up with ISS and salvage some of the components like the solar panels. But even considering the expense of lifting those into orbit, it was decided to not bother as there was not enough lifespan left in them to make it worth the hassle.

And we are seeing this now in homes, as the "solar energy wave" of 2 decades ago is now starting to see solar panels that are useless being removed from the roofs of homes. And a great many owners are simply electing to not replace them at all, as they rarely delivered what was promised. In fact, the entire "solar roof" industry has been in trouble for a while now, as companies even like Tesla are largely backing away from them.

 

Yes - I clearly stated that I'm not judging based on population.

I'm making my arguments based on per capita measurement, not total population. The reason is that having more people isn't a factor in determining who is being a good steward of our atmosphere.

We are definitely worse than China on a per capita basis.

The USA is better on greenhouse gas emissions than is India on a per capita basis.

India is set for a huge increase in energy use as their country advances. So, that is a legitimate concern.

 

$4M is well on the high side. And, as for the rest I don't accept your numbers. Also, the 20 year investment period I mentioned has to do with whether a new project can get construction funding.

Finally, solar panels have vastly improved in both life time and efficiency over that period. Specifying 2 decades old technology is a preposterous failure in determining how to plan for the future.

Please cite analysis by a respected site.

 

OK, so you are basing it on population, and also not basing it on population?

You see, that is the problem when the quote system is so easy to use. It proves when you are talking out your ass.

 

Please look up "per capita".

You have used "population" to mean the population of a country.

There is a huge difference, since countries have vastly different populations.

 

OK, then fine. Provide me actual references that state I am wrong.

To be honest, I could not care less if you accept "my numbers" or not. Don't like them, fine. Then give us some actual verifiable references.

But this is where you always seem to fail. Which is a constant source of amusement for me and others. Watching you spin in circles over and over as your silly claims are so easily refuted.

And no, solar panels have increased in lifespan, but the problem of the breaking down of the crystalline structure that is relied upon to produce electricity is still in the roughly 5% per year range. The only difference now is that the panels will last longer than they will actually produce any usable amount of power.

But please, how about a reference to verify that they have somehow magically resolved the issue with the degradation of solar cells.

And in the last 5 years or so, it is believed that the degradation has decreased, to a point. They will produce more power for longer, primarily because of coatings being used. But when that coating finally degrades, the panel itself fails even more rapidly.

No other "power solutions" like wind and solar require complete replacement within 2 decades or so. None.