Home Forums > Science > Earth Science >
Climate change: The Critical Decade
Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by James R, May 23, 2011.
Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member
adoucette said: ↑
Actually no it doesn't.
From that link:
Subsidies and Support to Electric Production by Selected Primary Energy Sources
Primary Energy Source
Net Generation (billion kWh) -Subsidies in Million $ - $ subsidy per MWh
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 919 $227 $0.25 per MWh
Coal 1,946 $854 $0.44 per MWh
Hydroelectric 258 $174 $0.67 per MWh
Biomass 40 $36 $0.89 per MWh
Geothermal 15 $14 $0.92 per MWh
Nuclear 794 $1,267 $1.59 per MWh
Wind 31 $724 $23.37 per MWh
Solar 1 $174 $24.34 per MWh
Refined Coal 72 $2,156 $29.81 per MWh
Of course this was in 2007, so our wind subsidy, which is open ended, has gone up considerably because $20 of the $23.37 subsidy is based on production.
Since we had 17,000 MW installed at the end of 2007, and we have 42,000 MWs now, the wind subsidy this year will be about 2.5 times greater or roughly $1.8 billion, much more in total than Nuclear, but nuclear will provide over ten times as much power. This margin will continue to grow.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
So you've addressed half the point that I made, how about the other half? The bit where Nuclear is still more expensive than wind?
And remember, I was fairly specific in that I first suggested that the statement was specifically relavant to Texas, then generalized to the rest of the US. At best you've proved that Texas has a lower wind subsidy than average, however my statements about Texas remain true. Which leads us to another question - why are some states more heavily subsidized than others?
Trippy, Aug 14, 2011
Google AdSense Guest Advertisement
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member
Trippy said: ↑
This conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned, and here's why:
Considering total new capacity instaled, per capita, per dollar of GDP, or other wise, that only considers the last ten years, will NOT show Denmark to be a world leader, for the reasons that I have previously outlined.
Actually it does.
Virtually all new capacity has been installed in the last 10 years, and Denmark is in the top 10 of installed capacity (there is 200 GW now, there was only about 17 GW a decade ago)
So YES, of the 190 or so nations they ARE a leader.
So YES, of the 60 or so nations that have installed wind, they ARE a leader.
Not to mention that they lead the world in capacity per capita and per $ of GDP.
Which is why they are a leader.
So by your own argument, your own metrics are fundamentally flawed.
Of course they aren't.
I've been saying from the beginning who the leaders are.
US, China, Spain, Germany and Denmark are clear leaders in Wind power installations.
When judging which cars are capable of travelling at "break neck pace" which metric would be more appropriate?
Capable is not the issue.
Miles traveled in a given period of time would be the metric and would be, in this analogy equal to TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY.
Examining the total distance covered by the car since the car was manufactured - which is what you're proposing, or examining the amount of time it takes for you to double your distance from a lamp post as you drive past it - which is what I am proposing.
Except for the purposes of what we were discussing, CAPACITY INSTALLED is the ONLY relevant metric:
Developed countries have been installing renewables at a breakneck pace
Not WILL BE installing...
adoucette, Aug 14, 2011
If you will note, almost all the subsidies for both are Federal subsidies.
Wind has some unique state subsidies, but not that much in Texas.
The Federal PTC of 2c per kWh (which is HUGE) is the main driver for installing wind. Take that away and wind installations would dry up.
The question of which is more expensive is difficult to answer, but then it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Nuclear is base load capacity, wind in general is not.
Nuclear can be built about anywhere, wind is not great everywhere (it sucks in most of the Southeast for instance)
The market will sort it out, but right now, with the huge Production Tax Credit, Wind will be installed, but then there are also Nukes being built, so I'd say they are both reasonable solutions to our energy needs.
I know I said we were done here, but I had to address this:
Capable is totally the issue - in order to have installed at a breakneck pace, you must be capable of doing so, you seem to be inferring that because I used the world capable, I was referring to future ability, I'm not.
If we applied your logic, we would come to the conclusion that a 1970 Lada is capable of travelling at a breakneck pace, but an F1-Mclaren is not, and you don't even seem to understand this.
Now I'm done with this conversation.
Total BS
That is NOT at all what "my logic" would imply.
This is why I dislike analogies.
My point was about what countries HAD INSTALLED and because the time that they have been at it (virtually all installed in the last decade) the valid metric for that is clearly the amount of renewables installed.
The fact that they installed over 170 GW of capacity in the last decade supports the conclusion that they have been doing it at a fast pace.
The fact that 38 of those GWs were installed by the US shows we were one of the fastest at doing so.
If you deny that, then you really are not seeking to understand.
billvon Valued Senior Member
quadraphonics said: ↑
That would be a great point if we were talking about using products from organic farms or something.
We're not. We're talking about using corn and agricultural waste. Both are renewable.
In reality, we're talking about products from industrial farms, fed with synthetic fertilizer. Synthetic fertilizer is made out of natural gas, mostly.
Yes, and solar panels are made partly out of aluminum, which is not a renewable resource. Nevertheless, solar is a renewable source of power, even if one of the components of the hardware used to generate is not.
billvon, Aug 14, 2011
GeoJoe Registered Member
Governments can do a lot.
Man would not have landed on the moon in 1968 WITHOUT massive US government commitment.
BUT....Citizens must DEMAND action from their governments. That's how things will change.
GeoJoe, Sep 13, 2011
wellwisher Banned Banned
The government has overburdened industry and itself with too many regulations and piles of red tape. Although this creates government jobs, it slows everything down and increases the cost of doing anything, including acting on climate change.
The space program was able to achieve its unprecedented goal in a decade, because the goal was in effect, before the modern regulation crowd made the process lame and inefficient. If you tried to do the same moom shot today, it would take longer and cost much more. Back in the 1960's, a Mars mission was projected for the 1980's, but the red tape because too heavy, so it never lifted off the pad. The liberals created this bizzy body problem as part of their class warefare. Now it is coming back to bite in the butt, at a time when they need action.
Those against the green movement can simply use the piles of liberal regulations on the books and their own tactics to sabbotage the process. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. One can look for a rare frog or bug and cause overruns that can kill a windmill project. We can whine about noise and impact and foot drag for years.
The man on the moon did not have to deal with this whiney irrationality. The difference was, back then, it was a man's world versus the women's world of today. Today nagging is more important than action. Back in the day the stunt pilot took a chance for the team. Try that today.
If you could streamline government and reduce all the regulation to a rational set, and not a political set, the cost can come down for both government and industry.
wellwisher, Sep 13, 2011
whynot Registered Senior Member
James R said: ↑
The Australian Climate Commission, newly formed this year, has just published its first report. It is available here:
http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/2011/05/23/the-critical-decade/
This summarises the current conclusions from the science of global warming. At 72 pages, it's a much easier read than the last major IPCC report (which was 2007, I believe).
The Climate Commission is a government body which is tasked with giving independent and unbiased advice to the Australian government, as well as with informing the public about issues surrounding climate change.
As the report says, basically there is no scientific debate about the fact of global warming, or that human carbon emissions are largely to blame for the current warming trend. The science has now moved on from such matters. The question that governments must now face is whether to do anything about the warming, and if so, what.
I can not talk about just Australians when it comes to global warming. The government needs to make big industries more responsible for mishaps thats for sure. Like oil spills and pipes bursting into our oceans with human waste! I'm worried not just about global warming but global cautras........ect. Things that kill life on the planet.
This small pond for instance is being killed off. These are natural resev's for critters. my yard is kept open for perserving natural wild life around me. I have no fences to try and claim land that is no ones to own.
whynot, Sep 15, 2011
spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member
wellwisher said: ↑
The government has overburdened industry and itself with too many regulations and piles of red tape. Although this creates government jobs, it slows everything down and increases the cost of doing anything, including acting on climate change. ..
If there's anything business can't handle it's red tape, right? LOL.
Back in those glory days you are talking about, rivers caught fire, PCBs filled up our waterways, and toxic waste dumps were often sited in poor areas of town, thanks to little regulation.
spidergoat, Sep 15, 2011
Complaining that a pendulum has swung too far is not the same as saying you want to regress all the way back to the other extreme.
adoucette, Sep 20, 2011
I came across this today, and had a wee bit of a giggle.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Trippy, Sep 29, 2011
The title of this topic, climate change and the critical decade, summarizes the phenomena. The chosen data set is narrow, to help create the data context you need and want.
A good analogy is to look at the Dow Jones Industrial stock exchange over the past year. Next, we will focus on one day, and then explain the entire year's curve, based on that one day. This will be a crap shoot, since over the entire year the exchange went both up and down, with both minor and major spikes. By picking the correct day, we can infer that this was a bumper year for the stock market. That data will indeed appear to say that.
There is data that shows the earth was both warmer and cooler in the past, when humans were not on earth. Yet the decades we pick does not show this. Rather it will be a day in the geological years, that give us what we want.
If you assume this is but a day in the geological year, you would not limit yourself to just human activities but will also try to look for mechanisms at work, when human were not here.
origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member
Apples and oranges.
origin, Sep 30, 2011