So they had a set of criteria! That's great!
What were the criteria?
And how were those criteria applied?
It is a shame the Sun does not shine 24 hours per day and of course don't forget those real cloudy days....What happens then?
And the criteria were...?Of course there are criteria. They're not Faux News and just ask any idiot on the street or any TVs weather person what they think causes CC.
Like I said, if you do not believe the validity of their methodology, go right ahead and reason why they're wrong and are defrauding all of us.
Okay Luutzu.
I just had a quick glance at a research paper claiming to have been authored by Cook et al.
I am concerned that I might be looking at the wrong one!
The paper that I am looking at, has admitted to only having found 34.8% endorsement, of AGW, by the 29083 authors, of the 11944 papers under consideration.
Also note that the criteria do not allow for the distinction between AGW and catastrophic AGW. (i.e some scientists counted into endorsement, may believe there is some AGW, whilst not seeing it as a significant problem).
Aside from the obvious problems (namely absence of the distinction between AGW and catastrophic AGW, and the subjective nature of the selection criteria used for determining which papers to accept into consideration), the findings within that paper cannot logically support the alarmist claims of a 97% consensus of scientific agreement with their apacolyptic assertions.
That cannot be the same paper that you claim to have read now! Can it?
Hence my reason for asking you to step me through it!
So which paper did you actually read?
8 to 10 hours a day is more than enough noco.
Cloudy days... there are no shut down or maintenance at coal powered stations? No delay or disruption to coal supplies? And coals will last forever?
Imagine the potential of just solar power alone. One day's energy from the Sun could power the entire world's energy need. It's delivered directly to our door everyday, free of charge.
Naaa... what if it's cloudy that day. Let's go and search for more coal, frack more gas, drill, dig, mine and build pipelines and rail and ships and all that...
Florida is "sinking" and so major parts of the city floods with the tide. There's a project costing $400M to build pumps and pipes and raise certain roads. Under the most optimistic scenario, all that work would keep those streets dry for about 50 years. Woo hoo!
There are plans in NY, if it's not already started, to build sea walls and emergency pump stations to its critical infrastructures... costing, from memory, about $100Billion.
Yup, $100B is the best use of resources to keep things as dry as they were, hopefully.
But ey, why risk being wrong about the existence or severity of CC.
And the cost to replace the Solar panels in 25 years will be how much?
And if they ever develop a large enough battery storage the replacement in 7 years will cost how much?
No on going cost hey.
$2 billion to build a 350MW solar farm....$5billion to build a coal fired 1600MW power station that will last 50 to 60 years......$9.14 billion to build a 1600 MW solar farm that lasts 25 years...Then probably cost twice as much again to replace the spent solar panels in 25 years ........simple arithmetic for a 3rd grade kid at school.
And the cost to replace the Solar panels in 25 years will be how much?
And if they ever develop a large enough battery storage the replacement in 7 years will cost how much?
No on going cost hey.
$2 billion to build a 350MW solar farm....$5billion to build a coal fired 1600MW power station that will last 50 to 60 years......$9.14 billion to build a 1600 MW solar farm that lasts 25 years...Then probably cost twice as much again to replace the spent solar panels in 25 years ........simple arithmetic for a 3rd grade kid at school.
What about running costs?
Solar is getting cheaper every year, coal is not. There will be a break-even point, if we haven't already reached it.
Fossil based fuel will get more expensive. It's a finite source and the easiest, most abundant, most economical places to get them are already being mined and extracted. So prices will go up and up as supplies deplete and new infrastructure to get them need to be built etc. etc.
Solar will always be there; the technology will improve and economy of scale will kick in once it's widely adopted.
You're not counting the costs to the environment, the miners, the people who breathe in its toxic fumes every day.
And IF all those scientists are right about fossil playing a major part in climate change, melting ice, rising sea, drought etc. I guess those costs are other people's problem so who cares.
And the cost of solar panels and batteries will be the same cost in 25 and 7 years respective as they are now.?
The cost to the environment and what it does to Global Warming has already been debunked....Say what you like.......You want some more proof?.....Just let me know I have plenty more in the basket.
You mean if all those well paid 77 UN Scientist are right?......Once again I have given you plenty of graphs this week to compare between so called pier revered modelling and actual...You want some more just let me know.
The efficiency of solar panels declines year by year as they get older.
Melting ice, rising sea, droughts etc??????????......Once again I have given you heaps of information debunking your claim.......If you need some more just let me know...Still have plenty in the basket.
Your argument is getting weaker by the day.
Have a nice sunny day today for tomorrow it might be cloudy and wet.
Does there exist an infinite source of supply for the materials used to produce solar panels?Fossil based fuel will get more expensive. It's a finite source and the easiest, most abundant, most economical places to get them are already being mined and extracted. So prices will go up and up as supplies deplete and new infrastructure to get them need to be built etc. etc.
Solar will always be there; the technology will improve and economy of scale will kick in once it's widely adopted.
You're not counting the costs to the environment, the miners, the people who breathe in its toxic fumes every day.
And IF all those scientists are right about fossil playing a major part in climate change, melting ice, rising sea, drought etc. I guess those costs are other people's problem so who cares.
Does there exist an infinite source of supply for the materials used to produce solar panels?
If not, are the requisite materials able to be fully recovered from expired panels through a recycling process?
If so, have the associated recycling costs been included in your "economy of scale" assessment/s?
By the way, I note your reference to "all those scientists...".
My invitation for you to join me in an exploration of your basis for belief, in the existence of same, remains open.
Yup, the thing about technology is it always get more expensive. Just look at the computers, flat screen tv, cars.
You have a talent for ignoring facts noco. I spent like an entire week talking about that paper and where they got that 97% from. Then it became clear, you leave it alone and soon enough repeat the same stuff.
So thanks but no thanks about 77 UN scientists vs your whatever "scientist".
There's already a couple of European countries producing almost all of the energy need through Solar and Wind alone. One country, the Netherlands if I remember right, produced more than 100% of their energy need on some days from solar and wind - no batteries needed.
Sweden recently announced its plan to be totally energy renewable over next decade or so. I think Germany get about 1/3 of its energy from solar - not solar farm so much as solar panels on their houses.
As I said before, my 16 cheap panels produce almost all my household's energy need over a summer quarter. Imagine how much more electricity my little shed alone could produce if the gov't make the energy companies pay fairly for the power households produce with their panels?
Anyway, even taking in your claims about solar inefficiency, it still does not make sense. I mean you worry about cloudy days... the entire system is designed for load where at least half of each day's 24 hours will not be receiving any sun [it's night time]... so just factor in to that chance of clouds and storm. Solved.
Can coal or gas powered station guarantee endless supply of their source energy? Nope. Can they even estimate the average cost of those energy over the next 10 years? Nope.
Any idiot can guarantee you the sun will rise every morning and their solar radiation will be delivered on time most days of the year - forever.
I mean, set up the solar farm... send a couple of engineer or trained technician to check and replace damaged panel now and then; maybe once a decade replace the panels with much cheaper and more efficient new generation panels.
You do realise that most of the costs in setting up solar farm comes from its main infrastructure right? The grid to the farm; the substations; the foundation for the farm; the system to control and monitor.
The panels themselves maybe take up half the total costs.
When the sun's not shining there is wind. Its the combination that will solve the issue.Clap....Clap...Clap...You have got it all wrong again Luu.
Those mentioned on my link have no connection to solar and very little power production from wind.
Perhaps next time you might do some research before making silly statements.
Enjoy the reading and have a nice sunny day when the Sun does shine.
https://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/
With the possible exception of my immediate life experiences, I do not claim to be fully informed.Of course you're fully informed. I am so, so sorry. So very sorry that's for sure.
We're interested in recycling and whether a resource is finite or not? Wow.
Let see, solar panels have a lot of glass, those are recylable; copper wiring, recycleable; plastic and aluminium frame and support, also recylable; the photo-voltaic cells... let say they're not.
That compare to LNG/oil/Coal... which part of those are recycable? Opps, once they're burnt they're recycled into CO2. Maybe tar and ash can be use for roads and bricks.
When the sun's not shining there is wind. Its the combination that will solve the issue.
Batteries can be cleaned and continually reused. You can do it yourself to your own car battery. Google it.
You reference noco gives a good outline of the advancements of clean energy up to 2012 and we have come a very long way since then. The Chinese are currently producing solar roof covering at a cost little more than roofing ion.
And don't worry too much about the science, in growing numbers the people want renewables because with their own senses they can see that Co2 climate change is a reasonable deduction and appears catastrophic.
With the possible exception of my immediate life experiences, I do not claim to be fully informed.
My questions were intended to alert you to the possibility, that there exist some further considerations, that may need to be taken into account, and also to remind you of my open invitation to potentially resolve some of our conflicting views on the purported scientific consensus).
Anyway, the photovoltaic cell, does just happen to be, the essential component, for reasons that are obvious to those understanding its function.
(If it happens to be readily recyclable, or can somehow be manufactured from a near inexhaustible supply of materials, then there may not be an issue.)
I've already mentioned discoveries that lend weight to the formerly unpopular theory, that oil is being continually produced within the Earth's mantle. (Note solar radiation, itself, is arguably finite due to the perception that the sun will ultimately expire. I merely mention this for the purposes of highlighting that things are seen as comparatively, rather than truly, infinite.)
As has already been mentioned in past posts, the fashionable opinions about finite, versus infinite supply, and "renewable" energy sources, may not prove quite so reliable as they once seemed.
If you don't believe this to be the case, then I invite you to consider the scientific law about energy being neither created nor destroyed, but only changing form.
It implies that all energy is either finite or infinite - it cannot be both! Some potential ramifications of widespread saturation of the Earth with "renewable" energy technology, may become clearer to those considering the deeper implications of that long established scientific law.
Whilst I cannot make claim to the infallibility of any branch of science, I currently have far more confidence in the soundness of that law, than I do in the apocalyptic claims of the Carbon Crusaders.
If you aren't so serious, I'd thought you're screwing with me.
We're going into the metaphysical about what is finite and infinite now?
Yes, we know the Sun isn't infinite either. But when will it start to die? In 5,000,000,000 years.
When will coal run out? Let's take noco's figure of about 185 years.
When will oil run out? Estimate have it that we've used 1/3 of known reserves; 1/3 are in places that is either too hard to get to or in too small a reservoir thta it won't be economical to get; that leaves about 1/3 of known reserves left in the tank. Or at previous rate of use, another 100 years.
Ohhhhh... it's made everyday deep under 4 miles of granite.
Let's say that's true. Where in the world do you get enough diamond encrusted drill bits to go through that? Maybe takeover Russia and liberate its industrial-grade diamond mine some asteroid created a while back?
Maybe I'm just lazy and stupid, but doesn't the sun shine pretty much everywhere, at ground level? Are there places where wind don't blow either?
---------
energy created and transformed...
yea, it's transformed into kinetic energy; heat and CO2. No?
Pretty sure I remember HS physics correctly.
Anywho
Take a trip or two into PNG and see how much Sun get up there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?