The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

Daryl wrote:Every country is different. Here the cheapest electricity comes from solar, at about 3 cents a unit. Wind is 4 cents, while coal is 8 cents.

Ah yes, welcome to the number one moron country regarding energy: Australia.

Nothing like comparing APPLES and WATTERMELONS and pretending otherwise... Why I can't stand "greenies"; Every other word used is a perverted lie and you cannot have a conversation as the language is purposefully destroyed to fit their own agenda.

Lets look at the lie: Before renewables, subsidies, and massive fees, Coal was 2 cents a unit and worked 24/7/365... No your solar is not 3c/kWh. Stop the lies. You need your lights to turn on at night and the cost of storage for when sun does not shine is not included and it should be 100%. That cost is included for coal, NG, Nuclear, oil, biomass, but not solar/wind. What a gigantic lie. When you grow up and add in the cost of all the Spinning reserve along with NG/oil/diesel peaker plants that sit around doing nothing waiting for night, or the clouds to disappear, then you can speak. Ah, but you already did this: --> Hey, lets just get rid of the most expensive aspect of solar/wind and pretend our Shit smells like roses! Yea team! Bravo! We proclaimed our Shit smells like roses and now it does! Woo HOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(Here I am assuming a unit is a kWh as used in the rest of the world)

Adults generally debate matters using facts, not by attacking others and their countries.
Our own energy industry provides generating costs for electricity, which is what I quoted. A unit is a KWh.
Old existing coal plants do produce cheaper electricity as their capital costs are sunk, although still not at 2 cents, more like 6 to 7 cents. However to build a new coal plant here they would have to charge more to cover their capital investment.
At 71 I don't need to grow up, and having studied part time all my life I'm reasonably well informed. Not a "greenie" as such, but will chose the less polluting path if it is otherwise comparable.
I do understand your commrnt about constantly spinning generators, but it is manageable. We own our own continent, that spans a number of time zones, so effectively the sun shines much longer and the wind is always blowing somewhere. A complex mix of always on HELE coal, solar, wind, hydro, pumped hydro, and an increasing amount of fast response gas turbines, all make for a less polluting and cheaper electricity supply. The big batteries smooth the delivery, allowing time for the gas to spin up.
An entire state of South Australia is now mainly powered by renewables and has a net export of power to the national grid. They have diesel generators on standby, but they are rarely used.
Despite a growing population our usage continues to decline, as we develop more efficient ways of doing things.

chuckpeterson wrote:The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

I've been hearing 20-40 years since I was in grade school 30 yaars ago. Why should I have any faith this isn't simply more of the same crying wolf?

ZVar wrote:

chuckpeterson wrote:The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

I've been hearing 20-40 years since I was in grade school 30 yaars ago. Why should I have any faith this isn't simply more of the same crying wolf?

That is why they fabricated Global Warming Theology.

ZVar wrote:

chuckpeterson wrote:The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

I've been hearing 20-40 years since I was in grade school 30 yaars ago. Why should I have any faith this isn't simply more of the same crying wolf?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:That is why they fabricated Global Warming Theology.

No. Peak Oil has been discussed ad infinitum since the 70's, but the origins of global climate-change science has its roots in the 1890's with Arrhenius concluding that a rise in CO2 would increase global temperature - which makes your statement patently false.

The problem with just repeating we only have X years of oil left without the qualifiers attached to it which usually includes no new extraction methods and no new oil-sources. It's a favorite paste-time of the media to take a statement out of context and use it as an attention-grabbing headline.

Daryl wrote:Adults generally debate matters using facts, not by attacking others and their countries.

Blatant lies are blatant lies.
If you don't like being called LIAR
then state truth.

Rolling out the lie that solar is 3c and wind 4c is a bald faced lie. Australia: Land of magic... No one else can do what we(Aussies) can do even though others are the ones designing it with superior wind resources and equal sun resources... with dirt cheap free natural gas to fill in when the Sun does not shine and wind does not blow. Sure dude, pull the other leg. That is why your electricity prices are nearly the highest in the world.

Stop the lies, then I may retract calling Australia, "land of morons." Then again, the caught blatantly lying asshats @ Cook University regarding CO2 & reefs are still employed by said university instead of bums on the street, so... go figure. Got plenty of said lying asshat bums in USA as well unfortunately. Just have not truly embraced the moronacy of Australia. Loaded with dirt cheap energy and choose the insanely expensive energy type instead. Genius. Let Europe dump Trillions into developing the stuff. They have no other option, and they have the best wind resource in the world.

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:That is why they fabricated Global Warming Theology.

the origins of global climate-change science has its roots in the 1890's with Arrhenius concluding that a rise in CO2 would increase global temperature - which makes your statement patently false.

No, your statement is actually patently false.

Stephan Boltzmans law of radiative forcing, which has NEVER been shown wrong, proves your statement false with one *.

Lets do two simple examples:

If the Earth went with 1 atm and 100% CO2, what would its surface temperature be? You know, just like Venus? What is temp at 1atm on Venus? Though for earth change out sulfur dioxide with water vapor for the clouds.

Lets look at Venus: So, we sent probes to Venus and took measurements of temp/pressure as descend. What is temp in Venus atmosphere @1atm when you remove the extra solar energy by being closer to sun? You know make their atmosphere same pressure as earth --> Exactly the same as on earth to within 0.1C.

Who knew, Physics still works. Physics laws of energy RADIATION, which have NEVER been broken, to black bodies(space) still work. Oh right, everyone already knew this in the space side of physics as this is literally how one looks at planets to see if they can support human life and see their atmosphere depth/pressure... Who knew...

There is one asterisk: The earth does not have 100% cloud cover like Venus does, so could technically turn MUCH colder, as the earth could REFLECT far more energy away currently than it does, but it can only get very slightly hotter as radiative forcing to space overrides everything just as the sun is the overriding factor for T on earth.

If you want a REALLY simple physics problem: Assume 100% of the energy we burn every second does not get absorbed by plant matter, or the ocean; How much would the temp on earth rise due to simple black body radiation law. A law which has NEVER been broken no matter what the greenie idiots claim for earth who can't do basic physics.

SUM: Energy Sun - Energy reflected by clouds + Energy burned = Stephan Bolzmanns law

Stephan Boltzmanns law = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
The equation is simple and straight forward. Of course earth is not a perfect radiator, but the clouds and water vapor are effectively so it doesn't matter what the atmospheric content is that has everyone up in a huff about.

The above has been calculated many times as this is the MAXIMUM the earth can possibly warm on long term as it is energy balance. It is far lower than the idiots are proclaiming we are all going to burn up if we add a thousand ppm to atmosphere instead of a couple hundred ppm of CO2 to atmosphere... it is beyond hilarious.

WHY? NO, CO2 does not act as a blanket. There is no such thing as a blanket in black body radiation physics unless you can literally increase the atmospheric pressure of earth. Partial pressures all add up to same thing so unless you change the TOTAL pressure, PV still= nRT.

PS: Someone just figured out that their Carbon sequestion assumption**** of the ocean(biggest carbon sink in the world by a VAST margin) was not only off by at least a factor of 2 via plankton for depth in the ocean, but that it is also logarithmic as ppm of CO2 increases... You don't say... no Shit, increase concentrations in Chemistry and Chemical process follow Logarithmic functions. Oh wait, that is Chemistry chapter 2 or so. Damn, guess those Chemistry LAWS have not been broken by the screaming idiotic CO2 is "evil" crowd either...

Relax wrote:

Daryl wrote:Adults generally debate matters using facts, not by attacking others and their countries.

Blatant lies are blatant lies.
If you don't like being called LIAR
then state truth.

Rolling out the lie that solar is 3c and wind 4c is a bald faced lie. Australia: Land of magic... No one else can do what we(Aussies) can do even though others are the ones designing it with superior wind resources and equal sun resources... with dirt cheap free natural gas to fill in when the Sun does not shine and wind does not blow. Sure dude, pull the other leg. That is why your electricity prices are nearly the highest in the world.

Stop the lies, then I may retract calling Australia, "land of morons." Then again, the caught blatantly lying asshats @ Cook University regarding CO2 & reefs are still employed by said university instead of bums on the street, so... go figure. Got plenty of said lying asshat bums in USA as well unfortunately. Just have not truly embraced the moronacy of Australia. Loaded with dirt cheap energy and choose the insanely expensive energy type instead. Genius. Let Europe dump Trillions into developing the stuff. They have no other option, and they have the best wind resource in the world.

So if it's all lies, then provide the facts refuting what Daryl said - just saying it's lies doesn't cut it because no matter what Daryl says from this point on you have made it abundantly clear that you think he is a liar and his word isn't good enough for you.

Btw, looking on the LCOE for different types of energy-sources shows a clear trend that traditional (ie. fossil-fuel based) generation is surpassed by many green technologies, including wind and solar, and the LCOE is dropping faster than for traditional generation.

And energy-prices in a country has often more to do with politics than the cost of generation itself, USA for example heavily subsidize coal and gas, both directly and indirectly through different tax-breaks.

Joat42 wrote:Btw, looking on the LCOE for different types of energy-sources shows a clear trend that traditional (ie. fossil-fuel based) generation is surpassed by many green technologies, including wind and solar, and the LCOE is dropping faster than for traditional generation.

And energy-prices in a country has often more to do with politics than the cost of generation itself, USA for example heavily subsidize coal and gas, both directly and indirectly through different tax-breaks.

Coal/Gas get zero tax breaks, if they did, the whole greenie world would scream their names. They do not as they cannot do so as they do not exist. Wind Solar certainly get production tax incentives.

LCOE is a nice fiction currently as wind/solar offload all of their variability costs onto NG, Coal, transmission of said energy as well in all analysis and they are still subtracting cost of tax production credits in their analysis. And all this assuming the current length of life is valid. So far we know that their old length of life claims are 100% false. Not one single Turbine type has lasted on average more than 15 years, let alone the claimed 30 of today in their LCOE. WHy? Wind, rain destroy the leading edges of the wind turbines and the gearboxes, main thrust bearings die about this time. Is anything different today? NO other than maybe the main bearings are better, but they have also gotten much larger and are not longevity tested.

Hell, some wind turbine locations are going through blades in less than 10 years. Is this in their LCOE? Hell no.

SO, no, whatever LCOE number you are using(EIA is my guess) it is an obvious fabricated lie for political purposes.

Relax wrote:No, your statement is actually patently false.

--snipped out ramblings--

No, my statement is 100% correct. Your ramblings doesn't disprove anything I said because it has no bearing on my assertion that Fly was wrong.

And I think I would be more prone to take you seriously if you actually where a scientist and if empirical evidence didn't point to something that doesn't fit what you say.