Only in your Denial Dreams. I've shown the proof with the state of Texas. You've shown a blog.
Only in your Denial Dreams. I've shown the proof with the state of Texas. You've shown a blog.
Well, no. You've cherry-picked advocacy statistics. Meanwhile, an economist's analysis gets to the bottom of the matter.
[FONT=&]". . . The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent. . . . "[/FONT]
The only fruit picking around here is from the same hands that are pecking at keyboards, without any scientific knowledge or background.
Also for example that Denmark that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewables rank very high on Forbes best country for business list.
As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica
Best Countries for Business List
Another example of ad hominem in response to evidence.
It's not an Ad Hominem attack to question your scientific sources, especially since none of them are peer reviewed. Every time I look at one of them, there are ties to the Koch Brothers and big oil money.
The only fruit picking around here is from the same hands that are pecking at keyboards, without any scientific knowledge or background.
This is likely true, unless a load is always ready to absorb the surplus.Well, no. You've cherry-picked advocacy statistics. Meanwhile, an economist's analysis gets to the bottom of the matter.
[FONT=&]". . . The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hirth predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of electricity while the value of solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent. . . . "[/FONT]
And you have that unique scientific critique ..... I suppose :roll:
I rely on the Climate Scientists of the world. I claim a marginal knowledge, and leave the heavy science to them.
No, you rely on the pundits who lie about the actual science behind their work.
You are a science denier.
Why do you think it would be a conspiracy for the people who are AGW proponentsSave it for the Conspiracy Theory forum.
Why do you think it would be a conspiracy for the people who are AGW proponents
to write articles that misrepresent the uncertainty of the scientist's statement.
It has almost become routine, a study will come out saying for example that sea levels could rise
between 30 and 200 cm by 2100, the headline says, " Scientist Say sea level could rise by 2 meters by 2100."
Yes that was the top of the range, which itself included all the worst case scenarios, but seems the ignore the
full range of the prediction.
Actually what LOP said was the Scientist produce their results with uncertainty,You entered in the middle of a conversation. My statement was this ---
I rely on the Climate Scientists of the world. I claim a marginal knowledge, and leave the heavy science to them.
LOP called the Climate Scientists "pundits" and "liars"...
Since the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and every major worldwide scientific organization has adopted the stances of the viewpoints of the majority of Climate Scientists, his viewpoints are beyond the wildest of Conspiracy Theories.
Actually what LOP said was the Scientist produce their results with uncertainty,
and the pundits writing the articles about the scientific results misrepresent those results.
Semantics, the pundits are lying about the work of the scientist.You watered-down his quote. Quote from LOP ---
"you rely on the pundits who lie about the actual science behind their work."
Semantics, the pundits are lying about the work of the scientist.
The pundits are the writers who dumb down the scientific papers into layman terms,Not the way I read it. The way I read it, he is calling the scientists "pundits". But we can agree on one thing - he doesn't put much thought into the wording of his posts, and he certainly never links to experts.
The pundits are the writers who dumb down the scientific papers into layman terms,
and misrepresent what they think the scientific papers say.
Let's not forget that the number one answer that journalism give as to why they want to be a journalist,
is, "I want to change the world!"
Semantics, the pundits are lying about the work of the scientist.
Not the way I read it. The way I read it, he is calling the scientists "pundits". But we can agree on one thing - he doesn't put much thought into the wording of his posts, and he certainly never links to experts.
I understood, but it is much more difficult to see what you do not choose to see.Yep.
My grammar never was the best.
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?