GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You've still got that whole ocean acidification and mass extinction thing to deal with. Nothing like all the seafood dying to spread some starvation around.

Low CO2 means mass extinction for you and me, Jay. We know that lower CO2 in the atmosphere means less agricultural productivity and mass famines. We don't know if high CO2 means mass extinction for some marine critters, that is just a wild guess.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

we need CO2 to survive as a species? We need Oxygen to survive as a species unless you are a vegetable.

We need CO2 to allow Oxygen-producing plant life to grow, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more Oxygen gets produced.

We need CO2 to feed our source of food, wheat, grains, vegetables, fruits.....they all need CO2 to grow. Agricultural productivity rises when atmospheric CO2 increases.

Biospheric mutual compatability.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Low CO2 means mass extinction for you and me, Jay. We know that lower CO2 in the atmosphere means less agricultural productivity and mass famines. We don't know if high CO2 means mass extinction for some marine critters, that is just a wild guess.

The author of the paper you base your entire argument on thinks aquatic mass extinction is a very real concern. The big guess is on your part that returning to pre industrial CO2 levels will cause famine. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

You also willfully ignore all the research that crops in higher CO2 grow bigger but no more nutritious.

when plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says. https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving#:~:text=Not only will climate change,of CO2%2C increases the synthesis

Edited April 28, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[surrept33 + 609]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We need CO2 to allow Oxygen-producing plant life to grow, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more Oxygen gets produced.

We need CO2 to feed our source of food, wheat, grains, vegetables, fruits.....they all need CO2 to grow. Agricultural productivity rises when atmospheric CO2 increases.

Biospheric mutual compatability.

 

CO2, in the world that we know of, needs to stay in a band. 

The arctic is rapidly changing:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/N/8

If significant permafrost melting happens, a lot more GHG gets released into the air in a hurry, which causes more climate change: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change

Agriculture in some parts of the world would be greatly disrupted if the monsoons fail. 

Coral are very susceptible to increased amounts of dissolved carbonic acid (which is what a lot of CO2 ends up as) in the ocean. Coral bleaching is very much a thing:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html
 

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The author of the paper you base your entire argument on thinks aquatic mass extinction is a very real concern. The big guess is on your part that returning to pre industrial CO2 levels will cause famine. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

You also willfully ignore all the research that crops in higher CO2 grow bigger but no more nutritious.

when plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says. https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving#:~:text=Not only will climate change,of CO2%2C increases the synthesis

He is just one of many scientists whose research into solar cycles has effectively debunked the minions of mayhem who lead your cause. He may have a concern about marine life, but there is no evidence  or research yet showing that those concerns are real.

Yes, we have evidence that agricultural productivity changes in relation to atmospheric CO2. Enough to cause famines in some areas of this planet. 

There is no research linking high-CO2 crops to lower nutrition, show me something if you can find it. Nutritional values of crops are affected by many variables, and I do not see anything related to CO2 in the literature. Such an investigation must demonstrate something more than a statistical relationship, there should be an organic relationship. That blurb you quote above is not clear about anything.

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

10 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

CO2, in the world that we know of, needs to stay in a band. 

The arctic is rapidly changing:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/N/8

If significant permafrost melting happens, a lot more GHG gets released into the air in a hurry, which causes more climate change: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change

Agriculture in some parts of the world would be greatly disrupted if the monsoons fail. 

Coral are very susceptible to increased amounts of dissolved carbonic acid (which is what a lot of CO2 ends up as) in the ocean. Coral bleaching is very much a thing:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html
 

Again, you are trying to link CO2 with global warming, which is a fallacy. Global warming is related to solar cycles.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Ecocharger

[surrept33 + 609]

12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you are trying to link CO2 with global warming, which is a fallacy. Global warming is related to solar cycles.

See GHG vs solar irradiance:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html

Figure 2. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/23/2021 at 5:29 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

No, you are smelling Texas. By August California will have 2GW of new battery storage online since last August. That is more than the power shortage that led to our rolling blackouts.

If true, at what cost to the consumer? I suspect their energy prices will go much higher over the course of time. 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is no evidence that this research was done with any involvement of UC or funding. Further though as I pointed out, this paper doesn't negate the current climate policy. Remember, here in California we didn't start this whole anti fossil fuel thing because of climate change, we started it because of our bad air quality.

And the logical solution was and is to use more natural gas, not to try to eliminate it. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

If true, at what cost to the consumer? I suspect their energy prices will go much higher over the course of time. 

 

PG&E cancelled a contract with a 500MW gas plant ,replacing it with the Moss Landing battery at a savings of $5 million a year. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

And the logical solution was and is to use more natural gas, not to try to eliminate it. 

Sorry Ron, the logical solution is more renewables and especially batteries. We will be at 60% renewables by the end of the decade.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

PG&E cancelled a contract with a 500MW gas plant ,replacing it with the Moss Landing battery at a savings of $5 million a year. 

As I said, watch the prices rise. 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

PG&E cancelled a contract with a 500MW gas plant ,replacing it with the Moss Landing battery at a savings of $5 million a year. 

Battery degrades over time, NG plants don't. So doubt there will be real savings in 10 years.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sorry Ron, the logical solution is more renewables and especially batteries. We will be at 60% renewables by the end of the decade.

I have seen the claims of the green extremists for many years and watched all the failures. I will only believe what actually proves to benefit the end consumers. No tax benefits for favorite industries etc. 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sorry Ron, the logical solution is more renewables and especially batteries. We will be at 60% renewables by the end of the decade.

Well the cost of Green Energy is finally being disclosed...this will end up quite badly.

To make the tax-related math easier, let’s round that figure up to $250 million per year. Doing so – and a bit of elementary computation – shows that the oil and gas sector’s annual tax contributions to the state of Texas are roughly 54 times as great as what is contributed by the wind and solar sectors.

Despite this enormous disparity in tax revenue – and the fact that the wind and solar industries spent $66 billion building generation capacity in Texas – we have been repeatedly told that wind and solar weren’t to blame for the blackouts. Why? Because they were “expected to make up only a fraction” of what the state needed during the winter.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/04/26/after_the_texas_blackouts_follow_the_wind_and_solar_money__all_66_billion_of_it_774468.html

Edited April 28, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

As I said, watch the prices rise. 

With so many Californians fleeing the state the price will be passed on to whoever is left!!!!

[turbguy + 1,547]

2 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Battery degrades over time, NG plants don't. So doubt there will be real savings in 10 years., inspection

You think a CT, an HRSG, a Steamer, several generators, pumps, valves, all related moving parts and the lubricants don't degrade with use?  They don't require downtime, disassembly, inspection, repairs and unexpected failures? 

That ain't cheap either.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Battery degrades over time, NG plants don't. So doubt there will be real savings in 10 years.

Depends on how much the value the battery adds to the system. We have massive curtailments of renewables that batteries will be able to turn into valuable power at peak demand hours.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

10 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You think a CT, an HRSG, a Steamer, several generators, pumps, valves, all related moving parts and the lubricants don't degrade with use?  They don't require downtime, disassembly, inspection, repairs and unexpected failures? 

That ain't cheap either.

Sure they do, but without tax incentives NG is still the better bet for years to come.  The great state of California will be in dire straits in 10 years.

Is California’s Fracking Ban A Big Deal For The Oil Industry? | OilPrice.com

Edited April 28, 2021 by Old-Ruffneck
add link

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

15 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well the cost of Green Energy is finally being disclosed...this will end up quite badly.

To make the tax-related math easier, let’s round that figure up to $250 million per year. Doing so – and a bit of elementary computation – shows that the oil and gas sector’s annual tax contributions to the state of Texas are roughly 54 times as great as what is contributed by the wind and solar sectors.

Despite this enormous disparity in tax revenue – and the fact that the wind and solar industries spent $66 billion building generation capacity in Texas – we have been repeatedly told that wind and solar weren’t to blame for the blackouts. Why? Because they were “expected to make up only a fraction” of what the state needed during the winter.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/04/26/after_the_texas_blackouts_follow_the_wind_and_solar_money__all_66_billion_of_it_774468.html

Yes, the renewable system is generally based on solar and wind for most of the year and then green hydrogen for the balance. The entire system is not developed yet and won't be for years, we are just beginning to build out the battery portion. Fossil is still the goto for the solar wind down period. 

[turbguy + 1,547]

8 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Sure they do, but without tax incentives NG is still the better bet for years to come.  The great state of California will be in dire straits in 10 years.

"A better bet" sounds like an economical argument.

Some things aren't for sale.

I can name quite a few.  And they are all REALLY important.

[surrept33 + 609]

30 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sorry Ron, the logical solution is more renewables and especially batteries. We will be at 60% renewables by the end of the decade.

It will be interesting to see if solid state batteries will be reliably manufacturable sometime this decade as well.

99.9999% of the past, it was good to have a healthy skepticism of progress in battery technology, but it feels like progress has been quicker, and a lot of commercial interest is there. In the end it is all about capital and market opportunity, and with so many mobile phones, EVs, and intermittent renewables, the market is gargantuan. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by surrept33

[surrept33 + 609]

27 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I have seen the claims of the green extremists for many years and watched all the failures. I will only believe what actually proves to benefit the end consumers. No tax benefits for favorite industries etc. 

 

Keep in mind there is hidden incumbency subsidies with the current status quo. For example, think about the existence of gas stations everywhere. Or all of the subsidies that have paid for the current (arguably unsustainable to the environment) system now and in the last 120 years.

[turbguy + 1,547]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, the renewable system is generally based on solar and wind for most of the year and then green hydrogen for the balance. The entire system is not developed yet and won't be for years, we are just beginning to build out the battery portion. Fossil is still the goto for the solar wind down period. 

To be honest, having some actual rotating equipment in the form of synchronous condensers on the line would assist the grid as well.  It is relatively trivial to convert a retired generator to that service.  I have not seen inverters sold yet that are capable of being "grid-forming".

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

To be honest, having some actual rotating equipment in the form of synchronous condensers on the line would assist the grid as well.  It is relatively trivial to convert a retired generator to that service.  I have not seen inverters sold yet that are capable of being "grid-forming".

I completely agree and as you say it is trivial to implement.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Jay McKinsey