Europe’s Green Deal: Same Hysteria, Same Destruction

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

IF someone could successfully make cold fusion a reality, I would happily jump on board.  But I have been hearing about this since I was kid, and so far, ... naught in reality.  "Just around the corner..."

Cold fusion I agree is nonsense IMO.

The difference from when you were a kid to present day is the investment from independent (non govt) start ups and massively improved computer modelling. this isn't an easy nut to crack!

I would suggest Tom that since you were a kid there have been too many scientific breakthroughs to name! Not trying to say your old or anything but the world is moving at a much faster pace, especially on this subject.

As you can see attached the Iter project is between $22bn - $65bn depending on who you believe. Either way its a substantial amount of money.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/

[entertenter + 24]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This type of thinking is a big part of the problem with the ‘climate change’ debate! You see a warming trend, in the area you live in, and tell the rest of us to WAKE UP.

Have you ever stopped to consider that your little neck of the woods may not be representative of the entire planet. Friends of mine in the Colorado Rockies and the Northeast say it is getting noticeably colder with more snowfall the past few years. In their minds, using your metric, we are in a period of global cooling!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is how I see a global change in my country. It is very noticeable and even annoying. I couldn't go even skiing, because there is no snow! If you are not in denial you should know that there is less and less Arctic ice every year. Ice covered are is reducing by 12% every decade during the last 40 years. It means that Ice is melting everywhere else. Including glaciers. While Artic sea melting means just less ice and less albedo with weaker IR reflection, glacier melting means ocean level rising. That has also already detected by global satellite coverage. Since 1993 Sea levels have risen globally 9cm. That trend is accelerating.
Also, it is true that you will see unusual weather patterns, including more snow in some places. Generally, weather is more active. That is also true. As I live on the coast I see more destructive storms than before during a storm season. Shoreline is changing much faster than before. Some (most)places it mean erosion, someplaces emerging land.
Process is global not just unusual weather here and there.
 

 

[entertenter + 24]

Total solar irradiance has not changed. It varies only very little. Between 1360W and 1363W per square metre before it enters atmosphere. About 0.22%. If earth orbital distance from sun variability is averaged out.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdr/atmospheric/total-solar-irradiance

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

We've known about CO2's greenhouse effect since the 1850's and science has come a long way since then.  What we're doing is a massive experiment in radically changing the environment of the planet we depend on to survive.  It seems logical to have a backup plan in case things go south.

We look at the economics of oil and see that its volatility is causing a risk to the global economy.  Europe has geopolitical risk - it doesn't want to be wholly dependent on Russia or the Saudis or the Americans for its energy requirements.  China has similar issues.

So between the environmental, economic, and geopolitical risks, it's a great thing that we are exploring all avenues of creating new energy supplies.  Even ones, like fusion, that may not be operational for another 40 years. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

I didn't mean to spOIL it for you Tom, the world just changed below our feet. I am a long time investor in oil + gas companies and after losing money hand over fist, I just know that the time is up?!?

If you had 150 IQ, you would know where the burden of proof lies, and why appealing to your own authority is a very bad idea... 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/3/2020 at 3:05 PM, 0R0 said:

You can also read it the other way around and talk about using deliberate particulate cover generation over land and to avoid general particulate emissions via a move from coal to NG/LNG  while the renewables systems build out and transmission and storage capacity fill in for surge production from NG. 

Replacing heavy fuel oil by LNG for marine shipping will also have a major benefit and ultimately costs less than half as much as the switch to clean diesel. 

These two steps would reduce particulates by 1/3 and carbon by 1/4 while renewables expand. And NG+LNG save you money in the interim. 

I pointed out elsewhere that the global warming trend only started in earnest when clean air regulations kicked in around 1980. The cynic in me says that global warming is a product of the EPA and its counterparts. I.e.the environmental movement. 

The argument about plant's sun exposure being an issue is specious since it only applies at the Northern most latitudes where sunlight is marginal for plant growth. Otherwise, plants can not use more than 10% of the sunlight they receive for photosynthesis. 

Alaska is at an oblique angle to the sun yet it can produce these cabbages. That would seem to support your statement. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

We've known about CO2's greenhouse effect since the 1850's and science has come a long way since then.  What we're doing is a massive experiment in radically changing the environment of the planet we depend on to survive.  It seems logical to have a backup plan in case things go south.

We look at the economics of oil and see that its volatility is causing a risk to the global economy.  Europe has geopolitical risk - it doesn't want to be wholly dependent on Russia or the Saudis or the Americans for its energy requirements.  China has similar issues.

So between the environmental, economic, and geopolitical risks, it's a great thing that we are exploring all avenues of creating new energy supplies.  Even ones, like fusion, that may not be operational for another 40 years. 

Meanwhile, more natural gas needs to be USED rather than flared off to sell the oil more cheaply. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Regardless of my own views about oil revenues being abused by nefarious and corrupt governments and the nefarious and corrupt global cabal, I still see HYDROCARBONS - - - oil and gas and LNG (and reluctantly coal) - - - as the most efficient means of powering the civilization around the world.  Oil & Gas has allowed the industrial revolution, and provides the energy to power planes, ships, militaries, governments, cities, and modern life in general.  There are enough hydrocarbons to power the world for thousands of years.  No, the world will not run out of hydrocarbons for millennia.

• So-called "renewable" energy can AUGMENT hydrocarbon energy. 
• But "renewable" energy is nowhere near close to totally replacing hydrocarbon energy. 

"Renewable" energy 100% powering the world is exactly like the pipe dream of cheap, cold fusion energy that is "just 20 years away" for the last 50 years, a neverending promise that never gets delivered.

The U.S. Green New Deal and the new EU Green Deal would bankrupt and destroy civilization.  Insanity.  But they are great ideas if you want to kill off a chunk of the world's population. 

Pay attention to Bill Gates offering up to $100 billion dollars for a "cure" for Coronavirus.

Bill Gates says vaccines can help reduce world population

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

Bill gates is missing the message of "Empty Planet" That we turned over "Peak Babies" in OECD + China 40 years ago. In India nearing a decade ago, and globally 2018 was peak births. That means that the growth in population is slowing down and is not coming from increasing births but from extended life expectancy. Meaning from people nearing or at retirement, which consume much less per capita.  That means the world's existing infrastructure is sufficient to maintain current living standards, leaving only infrastructure investment for extending high living standards Each consecutive year in matured economies will see more schools closing, fewer new homes built, fewer cars bought, peak consumption at existing intensity distribution. As we (globally) need less infrastructure investment, more resources are available for consumption so living standards can improve if we want them to. 

I have to agree with @Wombat that While They are Running, renewables are now not just cheaper than the hydrocarbon feed for energy, but at these low interest rates, they are MUCH cheaper. The problem remaining is storage costs vs. fill in and peaking hydrocarbon plants. It is just a matter of time till Texas like switching to renewables happens everywhere - as transmission lines and solar and wind farms are built where they are useful. EVs might finally move up in range because of the new Panasonic/Tesla batteries (if you were wondering WTF TSLA?, that was why) which nearly double capacity. Making them more and more viable for taking over the car fleet, and doing so more quickly. .  

[0R0 + 6,251]

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Alaska is at an oblique angle to the sun yet it can produce these cabbages. That would seem to support your statement. 

Would really want to stuff them huge cabbage leaves. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 hours ago, entertenter said:

Total solar irradiance has not changed. It varies only very little. Between 1360W and 1363W per square metre before it enters atmosphere. About 0.22%. If earth orbital distance from sun variability is averaged out.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdr/atmospheric/total-solar-irradiance

That data is not available for long sunspot cycles. So is a meaningless argument.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

20 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The professor, who has published multiple scientific papers on the subject, said:

“The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.

Hot Damn! Love to see those solar panels go into hibernation. And maybe all those manmade climate change idiots will hibernate as well. This is the best news I've read in some time.

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

We've known about CO2's greenhouse effect since the 1850's and science has come a long way since then.  What we're doing is a massive experiment in radically changing the environment of the planet we depend on to survive.  It seems logical to have a backup plan in case things go south.

We look at the economics of oil and see that its volatility is causing a risk to the global economy.  Europe has geopolitical risk - it doesn't want to be wholly dependent on Russia or the Saudis or the Americans for its energy requirements.  China has similar issues.

So between the environmental, economic, and geopolitical risks, it's a great thing that we are exploring all avenues of creating new energy supplies.  Even ones, like fusion, that may not be operational for another 40 years. 

As shown in a chart someone posted here showing German wind installations producing energy at double the cost of installations elsewhere, it isn't a question of whether it will happen, it is a question of rushing in to it when costs are still high and efficiently was low. Meaning that you put up 30 year capital that will be made obsolete in less than a decade. That is a waste of resources. 

The geopolitical and price volatility issues should not push you into premature investment in technology that was not yet fully economically viable. It just bakes in your uncompetitive position permanently. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

That data is not available for long sunspot cycles. So is a meaningless argument.

I have also wondered about dimming due to volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, and etc. Plants might have sufficient light but it might be too cold. What do you think? Would the event, most likely, be too short?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

  Europe has geopolitical risk - it doesn't want to be wholly dependent on Russia or the Saudis or the Americans for its energy requirements.  China has similar issues.

So between the environmental, economic, and geopolitical risks, it's a great thing that we are exploring all avenues of creating new energy supplies.  Even ones, like fusion, that may not be operational for another 40 years. 

IF this were true, then Europe would be going hell bent after Liquid Thorium/Uranium Fast Breeder reactors.  Everyone on earth has Thorium and lots of it.  In fact, everyone has it piled up, maybe not in elemental form, but close as it comes up with most mining operations.  Since Europe is NOT pursuing "all avenues" of creating new energy supplies, then one can only conclude it is about their religious dogma being pursued. 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

21 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I have also wondered about dimming due to volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, and etc. Plants might have sufficient light but it might be too cold. What do you think? Would the event, most likely, be too short?

It depends on how long the volcanic activity lasts or how big the meterorite impact was. In the geological record there have been periods of masssive volcanic activity which had a big effect and likely caused extinctions, the same applies with the Chicxulub meterorite impact which was huge and appears to have caused the dinsosaur extinction. If you put hundreds of millions of tonnes of dust into the atmosphere then it will reduce the light, lower temperatures which has a knock on effect on the amount of food available to animals. It helps to think about the effect on the bottom end of the food chain for example plankton etc a lack of which affects the larger animals and predators further up the chain.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/6/2020 at 9:27 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Hot Damn! Love to see those solar panels go into hibernation. And maybe all those manmade climate change idiots will hibernate as well. This is the best news I've read in some time.

Well that's easy to calculate as the suns irradiance varies by 0.1%

Where I live in the UK 1KW  of solar panels facing south at 35 degrees angle will generate 1000 kwh / year. 

Come that 'hibernation' period they will be generating 999 kwh / year. 

hard times ahead......

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/6/2020 at 9:30 PM, 0R0 said:

As shown in a chart someone posted here showing German wind installations producing energy at double the cost of installations elsewhere, it isn't a question of whether it will happen, it is a question of rushing in to it when costs are still high and efficiently was low. Meaning that you put up 30 year capital that will be made obsolete in less than a decade. That is a waste of resources. 

The geopolitical and price volatility issues should not push you into premature investment in technology that was not yet fully economically viable. It just bakes in your uncompetitive position permanently. 

Germany did the world a favour by giving wind and solar the expansion for it to build economy of scale. 

As a result:

Onshore wind is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity

Offshore costs are falling rapidly and heading towards parity with conventional generation

Solar is now dirt cheap

Battery storage costs are falling rapidly.

[El Nikko + 2,145]

59 minutes ago, NickW said:

Germany did the world a favour by giving wind and solar the expansion for it to build economy of scale. 

As a result:

Onshore wind is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity

Offshore costs are falling rapidly and heading towards parity with conventional generation

Solar is now dirt cheap

Battery storage costs are falling rapidly.

But batteries aren't exactly green are they? Germany caused a massive overload of neighbouring countries grids when they were over producing electricity from wind.

I've got no problem with a diverse energy source but you people are insane...it's just blah blah blah

Where are the grown ups? Wait...what's that? Yes they're hiding because the grown ups are sick of being attacked by mentally ill leftist activists.

Germany isn't in a great situation right now...not sure you've noticed that?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 minutes ago, El Nikko said:

But batteries aren't exactly green are they? Germany caused a massive overload of neighbouring countries grids when they were over producing electricity from wind.

I've got no problem with a diverse energy source but you people are insane...it's just blah blah blah

Where are the grown ups? Wait...what's that? Yes they're hiding because the grown ups are sick of being attacked by mentally ill leftist activists.

Germany isn't in a great situation right now...not sure you've noticed that?

The cost of energy is too damn high! https://paylesspower.com/blog/5-countries-with-really-expensive-electricity/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

Edited February 7, 2020 by ronwagn
added reference

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Germany did the world a favour by giving wind and solar the expansion for it to build economy of scale. 

As a result:

Onshore wind is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity

Offshore costs are falling rapidly and heading towards parity with conventional generation

Solar is now dirt cheap

Battery storage costs are falling rapidly.

Yes, we are all grateful for Germany footing the bill for the optimization of renewables, as we are also grateful  to such luminaries as California. However, the consequent $0.40/kwh in both CA and Germany make them remarkably bad places to build a business that uses lots of grid energy. And they raise the cost of living. So much so that middle class people leave. 

That is not beneficial structurally for the economy. And demotes your competitiveness ranking with something that costs you money. It may have been a good thing for humanity at large, but not for Germany nor CA. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

Tom, thought you might find this interesting. Some Canadian oil sand producers doing same thing. Hope the file attached!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Tom, thought you might find this interesting. Some Canadian oil sand producers doing same thing. Hope the file attached!

No file attached.  Note there is a 2MB limit on this forum.

[Wombat + 1,028]

Quote

I try again! Sorry, no good, was Bloomberg article so copywrite! Was about Shell building their new solar plant to power their LNG plant here in Queensland. More importantly, they said that they intend to become "the largest supplier of electricity" on the planet! ie: largest in renewables. They clearly don't see a long-time future for oil+gas?

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

 

Last try, I typing the URL and hope u can see it? After all, Bloomberg let me share to Facebook, u might be a subscriber and if not, u get 3 free articles per month any way?!? Dang it, didn't work! Still, if u haven't used ur 3 free articles yet, pls visit Bloomberg site, open menu, select "Green", and search for "Shell solar Australia", and after scrolling a bit, u should find it

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 2/3/2020 at 10:04 AM, NickW said:

So far the oceans have absorbed a lot of that CO2 but its sponge effect won't last for ever. Then you start getting full on accumulation with plenty of positive feedbacks thrown in -  release of CO2 / CH4 from permafrosts, more frequent forest fires, release from soils,  oceanic outgassing.

I suppose thats one skills set we have over the Cambrian tidal sludge - an ability to consider future risks.

Algae exists.