• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The path of Wind and Solar!

longview said:
Note I said without energy storage!
Batteries are expensive and most people run in a grid assist mode, or some type of net metering.
Human caused climate change does not predict any catastrophic outcomes, this is inferred by the media,
but strangely missing from most peer reviewed studies.
Click to expand...
Thats because most studies assume an educated reader understands the outcomes are bad.

You, however, somehow miss that concept.

It doesnt take much brainpower to understand that a study like the one below, predicting the extinction of as much as a third of all plant and animal species on the planet may become extinct in 30 years is a bad thing, but maybe that comes from a poor elementary understanding of genetic diversity and biology. However, even a third grader would grasp that its not a good thing.


I mean, it was published in PNAS, which obviously is just some random journal.

But maybe the a reader is absolutely clueless about biology, and only understands dollars and cents.

This study estimates that anthropogenic extreme heat has cost us, at a minimum, $5 trillion already, and will cost much more in the future.


I realize its not as in depth and incisive as your blog posts, but I gotta wonder when you cant find peer reviewed studies that look at impacts of AGW… maybe you just are incapable of looking for them, interpreting them, or understanding them. Or maybe its just all trolling bullshit. Dunno
 
Threegoofs said:
Thats because most studies assume an educated reader understands the outcomes are bad.

You, however, somehow miss that concept.

It doesnt take much brainpower to understand that a study like the one below, predicting the extinction of as much as a third of all plant and animal species on the planet may become extinct in 30 years is a bad thing, but maybe that comes from a poor elementary understanding of genetic diversity and biology. However, even a third grader would grasp that its not a good thing.


I mean, it was published in PNAS, which obviously is just some random journal.

But maybe the a reader is absolutely clueless about biology, and only understands dollars and cents.

This study estimates that anthropogenic extreme heat has cost us, at a minimum, $5 trillion already, and will cost much more in the future.


I realize its not as in depth and incisive as your blog posts, but I gotta wonder when you cant find peer reviewed studies that look at impacts of AGW… maybe you just are incapable of looking for them, interpreting them, or understanding them. Or maybe its just all trolling bullshit. Dunno
Click to expand...
If you think one of the studies has a important quote to support your position, perhaps you should quote it?
 
longview said:
If you think one of the studies has a important quote to support your position, perhaps you should quote it?
Click to expand...
Whats the deal with this diversion tactic? Can you not read the freaking titles?

Is it because you literally cannot comprehend anything more than a sentence, or are you just so completely incurious about the massive obvious opposition to your ridiculous position?
 
Threegoofs said:
Whats the deal with this diversion tactic? Can you not read the freaking titles?

Is it because you literally cannot comprehend anything more than a sentence, or are you just so completely incurious about the massive obvious opposition to your ridiculous position?
Click to expand...
The diversion is yours, you cite articles, without quoting which portion of the article you think is important
to your position.
 
longview said:
The diversion is yours, you cite articles, without quoting which portion of the article you think is important
to your position.
Click to expand...
WTF?

Read the abstracts. Thats what actual scientists do when looking at articles. You proablby didnt know that.
 
Threegoofs said:
WTF?

Read the abstracts. Thats what actual scientists do when looking at articles. You proablby didnt know that.
Click to expand...
Again, I cannot possibly know which portion you think is important and supports your position!
 
longview said:
Again, I cannot possibly know which portion you think is important and supports your position!
Click to expand...
That says a lot.

Although just to clarify... you ARE aware that the blue colored sentences are something some call 'hyperlinks', and you can maneuver your mouse over them and click the left hand button (and this is important) AT THE SAME TIME you have the pointer over the sentence with the blue font and it will open a new screen (also known as 'web page') in your browser (you might know it as 'Chrome', 'Edge' or 'Firefox' or more likely 'Internet Explorer'. You can then read that screen and it will tell you whats important and what supports my position.
 
Threegoofs said:
That says a lot.

Although just to clarify... you ARE aware that the blue colored sentences are something some call 'hyperlinks', and you can maneuver your mouse over them and click the left hand button (and this is important) AT THE SAME TIME you have the pointer over the sentence with the blue font and it will open a new screen (also known as 'web page') in your browser (you might know it as 'Chrome', 'Edge' or 'Firefox' or more likely 'Internet Explorer'. You can then read that screen and it will tell you whats important and what supports my position.
Click to expand...
And yet you cannot seem to quote the section of the article that you think supports your point.
 
longview said:
And yet you cannot seem to quote the section of the article that you think supports your point.
Click to expand...
I guess its true. Youve never seen an article that says AGW is bad.


Because you just wont look. Even when your nose is rubbed in it.

Checks out
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess its true. Youve never seen an article that says AGW is bad.


Because you just wont look. Even when your nose is rubbed in it.

Checks out
Click to expand...
I have, but the bad predictions are framed with the uncertainty, or are based on a combination
of a high climate sensitivity to added CO2 with a high emission scenario.
When you see high year 2100 prediction with catastrophic results, it agrees with your bias,
whereas I look for the assumptions used in the prediction.
Inevitably what I find is that they used RCP8.5 combined with a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 3C or higher.
For example in your cited you unquoted PNAS study Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival
Notice how the high extinction numbers are associated with RCP8.5, a now unrealistic emission scenario!
pnas.1913007117fig04.jpeg

Finishing with the statement.
However, our results also suggest that successful implementation of the Paris Agreement targets (i.e., warming <1.5 °C by 2100, roughly equivalent to RCP4.5; ref. 30) could help reduce extinctions considerably, possibly to 16% or less by 2070.
Click to expand...
I think RCP4.5 is about what we are on track for now, and whatever else we do will reduce it.
 
longview said:
I have, but the bad predictions are framed with the uncertainty, or are based on a combination
of a high climate sensitivity to added CO2 with a high emission scenario.
When you see high year 2100 prediction with catastrophic results, it agrees with your bias,
whereas I look for the assumptions used in the prediction.
Inevitably what I find is that they used RCP8.5 combined with a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 3C or higher.
For example in your cited you unquoted PNAS study Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival
Notice how the high extinction numbers are associated with RCP8.5, a now unrealistic emission scenario!
pnas.1913007117fig04.jpeg

Finishing with the statement.

I think RCP4.5 is about what we are on track for now, and whatever else we do will reduce it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The actual path we are on only will lead to about 20% extinction.

No big deal.

What a clownshow this thread is.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. The actual path we are on only will lead to about 20% extinction.

No big deal.

What a clownshow this thread is.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that path is based on a flawed climate sensitivity, the actual 2XCO2 climate sensitivity is likely closer to 1.8C not 3C.
 
longview said:
This article does a good in laying out the problems faced by Wind and Solar power.
The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed
Click to expand...
Some bought the wind solar hype from the get go and can't see the obvious problems. Nothing wrong with W/S or with having it, if that's what you want but it's never going to power this country or any other. Fossil fuels, and nuclear are the answer but the left energy prophets have cornered the market on BS.
 
dmpi said:
I'm more excited about solar more than wind. But solar needs a program where solar panels can be effectively recycled. That's not a sexy subject and there's little funding in that area.
Click to expand...
Solar offers more possibilities. With the development of transparent solar panels by MIT entire skyscraper office buildings can be used to collect solar energy. It may not be able to power the entire building, but it could certainly offset some of the building's energy costs without having to change anything other than how the windows are made.

You are not going to be able to store wind or solar energy cost effectively. No matter what method you use, from lithium-ion batteries to man-made hydrocarbons, it will always cost at least an order of magnitude more than the same amount of energy obtained from fossil fuels. Renewables are, as the name indicates, renewable, but they are not efficiently storable.

longview is just fanatically obsessed with man-made hydrocarbons as a storage source since he read the Navy manufactures its own aviation fuel aboard its carriers. What he fails to comprehend is that the Navy is using massive amounts of electrical power from its onboard nuclear generators to create sufficient quantities of aviation fuel from the surrounding sea water. Energy for which they do not have to pay for and will have in abundance for at least 20 years, which the average individual could never possibly afford, and more energy than all the solar panels currently in existence in the US are able to provide.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Some bought the wind solar hype from the get go and can't see the obvious problems. Nothing wrong with W/S or with having it, if that's what you want but it's never going to power this country or any other. Fossil fuels, and nuclear are the answer but the left energy prophets have cornered the market on BS.
Click to expand...
There is indeed a great deal of hype involved, but there are also some practical uses.

Back in the 1970s we were using solar to heat glycol running through copper tubing on black panels. That heated glycol would then run through a series of salt-blocks in the home's interior ("salt closet") and transfer the heat collected. That heat in the salt closet would then be circulated throughout the home via the air ducts. This was in Nebraska, and it worked on even cloudy days.

During the Summer in Alaska, when there is a lot of road work being done. In some of the more remote areas where there is no electricity they rely on solar panels to charge the batteries of the flashing lights that warn drivers of construction work. Of course during the Summer there is 20+ hours of daylight, so charging the batteries is not problem. During the Winter, however, it is another story, but there is no road construction work taking place during the Winter.

So both solar and wind energy have their uses, but they also have their limitations.
 
ataraxia said:
OK, so obviously that does it. It proves that climate change science was wrong. Yay!
Click to expand...
No. It supports the idea that subsidizing renewables is not doing any significant good for the money spent. We will not get away from fossil fuel energy any time soon.
 
longview said:
I am not sure where you get that?
It does speak to our future plans of energy sustainability, that Wind and Solar cannot get us there without
massive energy storage.
Click to expand...
The indoctrinated love to take things to the extreme so they can pretend they won.
 
dmpi said:
I'm more excited about solar more than wind. But solar needs a program where solar panels can be effectively recycled. That's not a sexy subject and there's little funding in that area.
Click to expand...
Recycling solar panels would not be difficult. It at least can be done far more cost effectively than recycling windmill blades, that are now being put in landfills.
 
My2Cents said:
This article was written by an engineer in the ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY! Give me a break!

Submission by Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEng NZ, FIMechE, FIEE(rtd). Bryan has been in the electricity industry for more than 60 years
Click to expand...
So...should we NOT seek expert opinions?
 
ataraxia said:
You seem to like, promote, defend, and bring to attention anything that seems to undermine green energy science and technology, and you continuously promote skepticism towards it.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for him, bit I cannot stand all the high subsidies given out. Especially when our government keep going into debt deeper and deeper.
ataraxia said:
Just seem too consistent a general theme in all your posts to not suggest a strong underlying agenda to impede and sabotage the technology and promote popular skepticism. Why?
Click to expand...
You must love the conspiracy forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom