Solar levelized cost of electricity is 29% lower than any fossil fuel alternative

[SparkyJJO]

How do you know there is no long term effect? Humans have never existed at the CO2 levels we are now seeing.

According to popular theory the planet has, and plant and animal life has been. So it may be different than what we are used to, but the planet has gone through natural cycles varying temperatures and atmospheric levels. All this alarmism because it is possibly different than what WE know right now, to the point some people want to manipulate the climate (by any means) to keep it where they feel it should be at is crazy.

And again, just follow the money. A select few people are making millions off the alarmism. And you can't make much money following actual scientific theory of challenging what we know and don't know. It turned into a cult - "the science is settled!" - no, science is never "settled."

When I see politicians and a select few rich billionaires making gobs of money and/or doing anything they want while trying to force the rest of us to live the way they want us to, I immediately am critical of it.

 

[Q-Dog]

I don't know what "popular theory" you are referencing. We have the rock record and ice core samples that show fluctuating CO2 levels. Facts, not theories.

So, what if any level of CO2 that is too much?

 

[Hedges]

We have the rock record and ice core samples that show fluctuating CO2 levels.

 

[millsan1]

The earth will survive, but people may not. Maybe that is a good thing.

As George Carlin said, the Earth will just shake us off like fleas, and continue on.

 

[Q-Dog]

As George Carlin said, the Earth will just shake us off like fleas, and continue on.

I don't really care what the earth does when humans go extinct. But I would like to delay that extinction as long as possible.

 

[Brucey]

Now price that lifetime cost per MWh for that Tesla pack and add it to solar LCOE. In US marginal cost for gas and nuke power is around $35/MWh. Solar can't even touch that. Add batt cost to it and it goes off the charts.

Nuke plants tend to end up several billion over budget and several years late being put into operation.

Marginal cost so we don't have to include $5-10-15 billion in capital costs?

Here in upstate NY we pay additional fees on our power bill to prop up our local nuke plant (Ginna) which was first fired up in 1970. I think the subsidy is something like $500 million per year.

New York State Aiding Nuclear Plants With Millions in Subsidies (Published 2016)

Utility customers will pay to keep some upstate facilities operating as part of the Cuomo administration’s push to promote renewable energy sources.

www.nytimes.com

And then downstate where they shut down a nuke plant, they replaced some of that load with a bunch of natural gas plants owned by friends of the governor...so much for climate change worries.

The telsa batteries have been very successful in reducing the need to pay huge dollars to fire up nat gas peaker plants to provide frequency stabilisation etc. power available in milliseconds versus much longer for gas turbine.

Still, need something to carry baseload overnight and in crap weather. Australia is looking into some big pumped storage projects to get that extended runtime which batteries can't deliver.

 

[Hedges]

Companies in most industries must buy liability insurance, the cost of which is based on risk.

Nuclear power plants, however, are subsidized regarding insurance, by a law which caps their liability.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821

Senate extends nuclear liability-limiting law without public scrutiny. Here’s why we should care.

A 20-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act passed the US Senate on July 27, 2023 without prior public hearing. It has yet to pass the House.

thebulletin.org

Privatize profits, socialize losses.
Just like MTBE, groundwater contaminated by fracking, decommissioning oil wells.

 

[AntronX]

Nuke plants tend to end up several billion over budget and several years late being put into operation.
Marginal cost so we don't have to include $5-10-15 billion in capital costs?

True, I should have clarified that $35/MWh is for already built and running plants, not for new builds. Half the cost of new nukes in US is financing cost. The other super inflated part is not having experienced supply chain and contractors since those who worked on new nukes in the 70's have all retired and took that knowledge with them. US is having to re-learn how to build them efficiently again. At least with Vogtle 3 and 4 we are getting there.

 

[AntronX]

Here in upstate NY we pay additional fees on our power bill to prop up our local nuke plant (Ginna) which was first fired up in 1970. I think the subsidy is something like $500 million per year.

That subsidy probably pays for itself multiple times over by keeping your power prices low due to not having to buy nat gas to replace that power with. With limited nat gas infrastructure in the NE its a good thing.

And then downstate where they shut down a nuke plant, they replaced some of that load with a bunch of natural gas plants owned by friends of the governor...so much for climate change worries

That was a crime in my opinion. And they sold it to gullible public by claiming that offshore wind will replace it LOL.

 

[Sanwizard]

Because the us cost for gas is heavily subsidized.

Energy subsidies in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Again don't be fooled by vested interest

Gas is not subsidized here like Solar and wind are. In fact, the government is against all fossil fuels. Taxpayers subsidize green energy. The fuel subsidies are on Ethenol, so the farmers can afford to grow corn for fuel instead of food. For more info on this, please see the plethera of research from @aenyc

And this thread:
Post in thread 'Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?' https://diysolarforum.com/threads/c...ith-a-battery-break-through.25299/post-940966

 

[OffGridForGood]

Carbon capture can be implemented by saving money, not by spending it.

Why Does the Govt. Pay Farmers to Not Grow Crops?

Editor’s Note: Robert Frank, who recently guest-blogged for several weeks here at the Business Desk with answers to some of life’s economic ironies, once again answers questions posed by viewers. Question: Why does the government pay farmers not to grow crops? Robert Frank: Paying farmers not to...

www.pbs.org

A program that pays farmers not to farm isn't saving the planet

A decades-old program that pays farmers to leave land fallow is being heralded by the Biden administration as a climate solution, but environmentalists don’t see it that way.

www.politico.com

I see nothing worrysome about the CO2 graph here. What period does the cycle have? What is driving it?

File:Vostok Petit data.svg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 182440

handy to cut off the CO2 level on the graph at 280mmp, while current atomopheric concentration is 417.2ppm (source: Mauna Loa Observatory 2023)

 

[Hedges]

Cut off?
I didn't cut it off, that left wing rag "Wikipedia" did. Thought they were accused of being part of the Global Warming/Woke/Plandemic/Cancelling conspiracy?

 

[OffGridForGood]

Didn't say it was edited by you @Hedges ! LOL but clearly it presents "a nice picture" to not show the actual current level on the graph.

The planet certainly has seen far different atomospheric chemistry in the past, that doesn't mean we should deliberately go back to such conditions.
The most important aspect of farming is predictable weather; Upsetting the base system is thus doomed to be a huge mistake, with dire consequences.
There is no point in arguing if changing the atmospheric chemistry is 'bad' it has already been changed. The only question is do we continue to change it, attempt to slow/stop changing it, or try to reverse what has already been changed.

If we consider that the carbon we have been releasing over the last few hundred years, has been sequestured away out of the atomopheric cycle for millions of years, it would be illogical to conclude this will 'have no effect at all'.

 

[Hedges]

handy to cut off the CO2 level on the graph at 280mmp, while current atomopheric concentration is 417.2ppm (source: Mauna Loa Observatory 2023)

USGS Volcano Notice - DOI-USGS-HVO-2023-12-07T10:28:07-08:00

Carbon dioxide hits highest sustained rate ever recorded as greenhouse gases creep toward "uncharted levels," NOAA says

The "alarming pace" of increasing greenhouse gas emissions was observed the same year that the planet had one of its warmest years on record.

www.cbsnews.com

And I suppose it is normal to measure ambient air pollution for a city right at the tailpipe of an automobile?


I do think, though, that measurements going back hundreds of thousands of years would not have the same temporal resolution as those taken today with atomic mass spectrometry or whatever is now in vogue. (I think of AMS because I have built one before.) So maybe can't compare historical peaks to one year or a few years measured today.

 

[OffGridForGood]

And I doubt that the measurements are equal accuracy over the time period they measure from ice cores.
However to me it is not important to know the atmospheric CO2 historically, only to measure the change we have imposed upon it. This is far easier to measure, since every nation and the UN measure resource extraction and use. We know very well how much sequestured material we have mined and released, and how long it took to do it.
Ultimately we will have no option but to change from carbon based to other sources of energy, the volume of stored carbon is limited and we will eventually use it all up even if there was no impact at all on the climate. It makes sense to work towards the alternatives no matter what the impacts are, even if they were zero.

 

[45North]

Many scientists and politicians (especially Al Gore) are telling us there's a problem with global warming.
And we can see for ourselves more extreme weather events, sea temps rising and glaciers melting.

 

[Hedges]

And we can see for ourselves more extreme weather events

This, I'm not sure is true.
We have photos showing past weather that recent decades haven't matched.

We have measurements today from places not measured before.
And I'm familiar with what happens when measurement methods change.
You're going to have to use ice cores today and compare to ice cores from eons ago, before I start to believe measurements are equivalent.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Many scientists and politicians (especially Al Gore) are telling us there's a problem with global warming.
And we can see for ourselves more extreme weather events, sea temps rising and glaciers melting.

Al Gore is the last person I'd take seriously on this. He is very much a "do as I say not as I do" guy.

 

[fromport]

We have photos showing past weather that recent decades haven't matched.

Weather != climate!
Are you saying there is nothing going on and there is no need to change anything ?

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Hedges]

No, but I am saying I am not convinced human caused changes are significant, compared to larger trends driven by the Earth itself and the solar system.

I am not an expert on the subject by any means. Can't say I have studied it in any detail.
I accept that CO2 absorbs some light. The claim of sea level rising 3' seems plausible to me, as I have made my own estimate of Antarctic ice volume and ocean's surface area. But I also understand that the Continental Shelf, now 400' under water, was ocean front property 15,000 years ago. So pardon me if I turn a deaf ear to Chicken Little.



So I know just enough to be highly doubtful of the claims I hear. Especially when I hear the solutions (take money from people), and the current approach of giving consideration to third-world developing nations like China, which is only the second country to land hardware on mars if I recall correctly. And is a near-peer adversary, apparently ahead of the US in some aspects.