Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 5785 times)

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4280
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #280 on: November 14, 2017, 10:24:46 AM »

Just read an article from a Portuguese climate scientist and researcher, that basically predicts for the XXI century in Portugal:

1. Rise of temperature of about 6C in the interior, and of about 4C in the coastal regions.

2. No more Spring.

3. Reduction of rainfall by 30% to 70% (more severe in the South).

4. More numerous, and longer lasting, heat waves. Today, heat waves last about 5 days. In the future, they will be more numerous, and last about 22 days.

This has a profound impact in how people think and manage resources and livelihood. Currently, Portugal has just came out of the driest October ever on record (only 30% of the rainfall amount), plus being 3C above average temperature for the month. 70% of the country is in severe drought, with one large city being supplied with water by auto tanks.

The future is dire, regardless of political sides or discussions:(

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #281 on: November 14, 2017, 10:27:43 AM »

OK.  I got it off my chest. 

Now here's a question I have because I just learned that my electric rate in New Jersey for the next two years has been re-negotiated by my town.  It will go down about 10%.  We can select from various electric suppliers.  The law allows this to keep up competition and prices lower.  Do others have this capability or are you stuck with one supplier?  (Part of the cost of about 30% is always by one supplier since it's their physical wires that carry the load.  You can select though who furnishes the electricity itself.  That's the part that's competitive.)

So, for the next two years starting in 2018, it is going down  $.013 per KWH to $0.126 from $0.139 per KWH (0.12 Euros. AUS$0.18,CAN$0.18).  That includes all sales taxes.  We don't have VAT taxes.

Here's my electricity last 12 months.    9509kwh or 792kwh per month.  9509kwh divided by 2100 square foot home size= 4.5kwh per square foot (.418kw per square meter) per year.  Note that this doesn't include heating as I heat with natural gas.  I'll provide those numbers at another time.  So my electricity is used for lights, TV's etc.  and 4 tons of air conditioning and the HVAC blower. 

Curious what others are paying and where you're located by comparison.  Are rates changing in your locale?

I figure that the cost of energy here is going down a lot due to shale and natural gas so electric production is just cheaper than it was.  That's a guess; I haven't researched it.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1332
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #282 on: November 14, 2017, 10:32:53 AM »

Trying to silence my opinion is a political act.
Nobody is trying to silence your opinion, people who disagree with you (like me) just point out where it is plain wrong. Repeating the same wrong points doesn't make them more true, to the contrary I would say.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #283 on: November 14, 2017, 10:39:26 AM »

Nobody is trying to silence your opinion, people who disagree with you (like me) just point out where it is plain wrong. Repeating the same wrong points doesn't make them more true, to the contrary I would say.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It when they call my statements "trolling" or "not part of the discussion" that they are trying to silence people who disagree with their point on policy and important issues regarding climate change.  Also, everyone here repeats themselves, endlessly.  We're up to 15 pages.  Who remembers how many in the "poofed" thread?  :)   
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1332
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #284 on: November 14, 2017, 10:57:24 AM »

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It when they call my statements "trolling" or "not part of the discussion" that they are trying to silence people who disagree with their point on policy and important issues regarding climate change.  Also, everyone here repeats themselves, endlessly.  We're up to 15 pages.  Who remembers how many in the "poofed" thread?  :)   
Well Allan, saying it once is fine, saying the same things many times over and continue to repeat them without any additional insights is trolling.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1020
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #285 on: November 14, 2017, 11:50:59 AM »

Benjamin Von Wong, a viral photographer turned environmentalist, has released a new project to raise awareness about “toxic laundry” that is full of plastic.
An estimated 94% of American tap water contains invisible plastic fibers, and Von Wong felt compelled to do something about it. “By 2025, the world’s synthetic fiber production will double – so too will the amount of microfibers in our water supply,” says Von Wong.

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/14/photo-shoot-raises-awareness-toxic-laundry-water/

Alan Goldhammer

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2500
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #286 on: November 14, 2017, 01:15:28 PM »

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It when they call my statements "trolling" or "not part of the discussion" that they are trying to silence people who disagree with their point on policy and important issues regarding climate change.  Also, everyone here repeats themselves, endlessly.  We're up to 15 pages.  Who remembers how many in the "poofed" thread?  :)   
Points have been made so let's move on from this particular discussion.  We all know that India and China were granted relief and there is not much more to discuss at this point.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2500
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #287 on: November 14, 2017, 01:18:34 PM »

OK.  I got it off my chest. 

Now here's a question I have because I just learned that my electric rate in New Jersey for the next two years has been re-negotiated by my town.  It will go down about 10%.  We can select from various electric suppliers.  The law allows this to keep up competition and prices lower.  Do others have this capability or are you stuck with one supplier?  (Part of the cost of about 30% is always by one supplier since it's their physical wires that carry the load.  You can select though who furnishes the electricity itself.  That's the part that's competitive.)

So, for the next two years starting in 2018, it is going down  $.013 per KWH to $0.126 from $0.139 per KWH (0.12 Euros. AUS$0.18,CAN$0.18).  That includes all sales taxes.  We don't have VAT taxes.

Here's my electricity last 12 months.    9509kwh or 792kwh per month.  9509kwh divided by 2100 square foot home size= 4.5kwh per square foot (.418kw per square meter) per year.  Note that this doesn't include heating as I heat with natural gas.  I'll provide those numbers at another time.  So my electricity is used for lights, TV's etc.  and 4 tons of air conditioning and the HVAC blower. 

Curious what others are paying and where you're located by comparison.  Are rates changing in your locale?

I figure that the cost of energy here is going down a lot due to shale and natural gas so electric production is just cheaper than it was.  That's a guess; I haven't researched it.
We have been able to buy both gas and electricity from multiple providers from a number of years where I live in Maryland.  Unfortunately, our local electric company was bought out by a big energy conglomerate and now wants a rate increase as they have some nuclear plants that are costing them a lot of money to run.  The old company had no nuclear plants.  My gas bill went down last winter (a combination of warmer weather and a more efficient new furnace).
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #288 on: November 14, 2017, 09:55:12 PM »

We have been able to buy both gas and electricity from multiple providers from a number of years where I live in Maryland.  Unfortunately, our local electric company was bought out by a big energy conglomerate and now wants a rate increase as they have some nuclear plants that are costing them a lot of money to run.  The old company had no nuclear plants.  My gas bill went down last winter (a combination of warmer weather and a more efficient new furnace).

I've never understood the deregulation of electricity and gas. There are only so many generation sites for electricity, only so many pipelines for gas. I never thought there was a problem with them being utilities. Breaking up the delivery "suppliers" seems like the creation of needless middlemen to me. I always assume that the mergers and acquisitions industry were the ones pushing for this, must have been a gold mine for them. On the other hand, I did see how Ontario Hydro got way too big and fat for the province's good. During the transition there were a lot of near criminals using the confusion in consumers' minds to sell them things like long-term supply contracts and other things, at a time when there was no way to determined who was legit and who wasn't. So my assumption was that the powers that be wanted it that way to skim some cash off the top. Most everyone I know feels the same. We may be wrong of course.

Our natural gas bills went down in the last few years and my home heating bills are nearly half what they used to be, but I noticed that the winters have been a little milder too. I cannot accurately parse out the effects but my gut feel is that lower gas prices accounts for most of the savings. Our home was built in 1990 and does not benefit from the insulation design improvements since then.

Our electricity bill has gone up over time, to be more or less double what it was 15 years ago when we moved here, but it has plateau'ed over the last 3-4 years. There has been a lot of criticism of electricity charges in Ontario lately but I have not experienced anything bad.

Because I travel in rural areas a lot for pleasure, I have begun to see more and more homes off the grid. They seem to be able to generate enough electricity through various means to meet their needs. Here in Eastern Ontario we have vast solar farms installed on marginal farming land and one thing we have noticed is that we've had fewer power failures over the years, but that may be due to grid improvements. Also, I believe that it is finally permitted in Ontario to sell privately generated electricity into the grid, but I may be wrong about that and it's still under discussion. I imagine that there are technical hurdles to iron out for widespread use of this (cutely called reversing meters) technology. There are a few houses in my neighbourhood that have covered their roofs with solar panels, but I've never spoken to those home owners.

A lot of homes in rural communities around here use heat pumps. There they can be relatively easily installed because it's easy to dig a large wide trough in a field. There were some test homes in urban areas that installed heat pumps based on deep narrow vertical digs (rather than shallow wide ones) in the driveway, for example. I believe that technologically, they worked out ok, but the cost of the initial dig required specialized equipment and manpower that was not cheap, for individual consumers anyway. I've wondered if anyone ever looked into such heat pumps being shared by several homes, such as in a row house or townhouse construction. In this climate (Canada) people might feel nervous having only a heat pump, and might want a separate system (electric baseboards) to serve as backup.
Logged
--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10173
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #289 on: November 14, 2017, 10:56:12 PM »

Something for Pieter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194

"China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's"

Quote
But in an interesting development, China's emissions per head of population exceeding those of the European Union for the first time... "They are still nowhere near the US or Australia, but the fact that they have surpassed the EU will be quite surprising to a lot of people."

They totally bamboozled Paris ;)

Now, something completely different (for Pieter's obsession with per capita): the US is only 11th in the world, overtaken even by the hypocrite Dutch ;)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1332
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #290 on: November 15, 2017, 02:35:08 AM »

Ah, yes.. solar panels. I remember it. Back in the 70s and 80s, in my "backward" home country, we already had them on (some of) our roofs. So, 40 years later, just when they are approaching early retirement, we still see them as young athletes, getting ready to break a new world record at the next Olympic Games?
So you judge technology on how it performed 40 years ago? And you call your old country "backwards"? Amazing  :o
Solar Panels today (in $/Watt) have improved a factor of more than 250 in the last 40 years  :P
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 02:41:55 AM by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1332
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #291 on: November 15, 2017, 02:40:22 AM »

Something for Pieter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194

"China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's"

They totally bamboozled Paris ;)
It's clear China's emissions need to go down and the indications for 2017 are not good. And it's old news, the data from 2015 already indicate that they were higher per capita then the EU (China 7.7 and the European Union 6.9) and since your table only goes to 2013 you didn't notice that. How does it feel, living in the past? Also China and the EU are still so much below the US that it feels like a hypocrite black pot critisizing a shiny kettle ;). And no, they didn't bamboozle Paris, but you know that (judging by the emoticon you put behind it)  ;D

Now, something completely different (for Pieter's obsession with per capita): the US is only 11th in the world, overtaken even by the hypocrite Dutch ;)

It seems you are so obsessed with how things worked in the past that apparently you haven't noticed that St Maarten and Curacao are no longer part of the Country "Netherlands"  ::)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 03:18:50 AM by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Ray

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9643
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #292 on: November 15, 2017, 05:08:18 AM »

Just read an article from a Portuguese climate scientist and researcher, that basically predicts for the XXI century in Portugal:

1. Rise of temperature of about 6C in the interior, and of about 4C in the coastal regions.

2. No more Spring.

3. Reduction of rainfall by 30% to 70% (more severe in the South).

4. More numerous, and longer lasting, heat waves. Today, heat waves last about 5 days. In the future, they will be more numerous, and last about 22 days.

This has a profound impact in how people think and manage resources and livelihood. Currently, Portugal has just came out of the driest October ever on record (only 30% of the rainfall amount), plus being 3C above average temperature for the month. 70% of the country is in severe drought, with one large city being supplied with water by auto tanks.

The future is dire, regardless of political sides or discussions:(

There are always record temperatures, record rain fall,  record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.

When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.

Developing new technology to produce clean energy which doesn't emit noxious chemicals and particulate carbon that are known to be harmful to human health, is very sensible. The only criticism I would have is with regard to the efficiency of such a transformation of our energy supplies.

If CO2 is demonized in order to encourage the transition, so be it. If in 30 years time, the scientific opinion about the harmful effect of CO2 on climate, were to change, and, say, the climate began to cool despite the high levels of CO2, then we could claim that no major harm has been done with regard to the problem of toxic emissions. We would not only have a network of clean energy supplies, but we would have the reserves of fossil fuels still in the ground, which could still be used to meet an incrreasing demand for reliable energy, to recharge the hundreds of millions of electric vehicles manufactured cheaply by China, for example.  ;D

However, I see a major problem with issues such as flood mitigation, access to water during conditions of drought, and the general protection of citizens from extreme weather events, sea level rises, and the sinking of cities and islands which is often more significant than sea level rise. For example, parts of Bangkok are sinking at a greater rate than the sea is rising.

In order to fix these problems, we need massive amounts of cheap energy, as well as sensible planning. Those who are promoting the transition to alternative energy supplies, such as Al Gore, often mention the benefits of new jobs that are created, which is good for the economy. That's fine, but those new jobs are not addressing the problems of the vulnerability of many cities around the world to the 'natural' extreme weather events that are a part of the historical record.

I see a conflict of interest here. The more expensive energy from 'C02-clean' power, makes it more difficult to tackle the expensive projects that are required to protect societies from extreme weather events, such as building flood-mitigation dams, re-organizing urban run-off, elevating homes above previous flood levels, strengthening houses to resist hurricanes in areas subject to hurricanes, and building levees where appropriate, and so on.

Also, the association in the media, of extreme weather events with increasing CO2 levels, tends to create the false impression in the mind of the general public that reducing atmospheric emissions of CO2 will protect them from the continuation of such extreme weather events. It won't.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4280
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #293 on: November 15, 2017, 05:39:29 AM »

There are always record temperatures, record rain fall,  record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.

When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.


In Portugal, we have been recording data since the 1800's. Neither myself, nor the author of the article, were "attempting to create unscientific alarm". FYI, in 2016 we already had the warmest Summer, again repeated in 2017. In 2017, the summer temperatures extended into autumn, abnormally high.

Some data here:

Historical records: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

Projections: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

According to the projections, the Median temp will rise about 2.5C in January. to about 5C in July. Regardless of the cause (nature, human, or combination of both), this is not good, and we need to mitigate and prepare for the changes it will cause.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6699
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #294 on: November 15, 2017, 06:32:53 AM »

There are always record temperatures, record rain fall,  record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.

When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.

In general, the most reliable data are reported since official records were systematically recorded. For many countries that means approx. since 1900 or thereabouts. Attached, the collected information on a global basis that show the deviation versus the annual global mean, which shows that temperatures have been rising since then (source). So the record highs are also mostly in recent years.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #295 on: November 15, 2017, 06:46:49 AM »

OK.  I got it off my chest. 

Now here's a question I have because I just learned that my electric rate in New Jersey for the next two years has been re-negotiated by my town.  It will go down about 10%.  We can select from various electric suppliers.  The law allows this to keep up competition and prices lower.  Do others have this capability or are you stuck with one supplier?  (Part of the cost of about 30% is always by one supplier since it's their physical wires that carry the load.  You can select though who furnishes the electricity itself.  That's the part that's competitive.)

So, for the next two years starting in 2018, it is going down  $.013 per KWH to $0.126 from $0.139 per KWH (0.12 Euros. AUS$0.18,CAN$0.18).  That includes all sales taxes.  We don't have VAT taxes.

Here's my electricity last 12 months.    9509kwh or 792kwh per month.  9509kwh divided by 2100 square foot home size= 4.5kwh per square foot (.418kw per square meter) per year.  Note that this doesn't include heating as I heat with natural gas.  I'll provide those numbers at another time.  So my electricity is used for lights, TV's etc.  and 4 tons of air conditioning and the HVAC blower. 

Curious what others are paying and where you're located by comparison.  Are rates changing in your locale?

I figure that the cost of energy here is going down a lot due to shale and natural gas so electric production is just cheaper than it was.  That's a guess; I haven't researched it.

I finally remembered what I wanted to say about this. Is there any good way of knowing whether your drops in electricity costs were due to local competition among suppliers or because of the general drop in natural gas prices? I believe (is this true or my bad memory?) that a lot of electricity in the northeast US is generated by burning gas. It would be interesting to separate out the two effects.
Logged
--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Ray

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9643
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #296 on: November 15, 2017, 07:28:00 AM »

In general, the most reliable data are reported since official records were systematically recorded. For many countries that means approx. since 1900 or thereabouts. Attached, the collected information on a global basis that show the deviation versus the annual global mean, which shows that temperatures have been rising since then (source). So the record highs are also mostly in recent years.

Cheers,
Bart

I don't think anyone is disputing that we are currently in a slight warming period. 'Warm' only has meaning in realtion to 'cool'.

The current warm period is defined in relation to the previous 'cool' period, the Little Ice Age, which occurred from around 1300 to 1870 AD.

Of course, it's understandable that those who are promoting the dangers and adverse effects of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, will try to assert that the LIA, the MWP and the Roman Warm Period were not global events, and that the current warm period is unusual and unprecedented on a global scale.

However. such assertions are or were based upon a lack of evidence on past climates in other parts of the world.
I have no faith in people who make assertions based upon a lack of evidence, but I can understand that you might, Bart, because of your faith in the accuracy of computer models as they apply to digital camera performance. ;)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/09/evidence-of-the-medieval-warm-period-in-australia-new-zealand-and-oceania/

"Conclusions
The existing studies document, that the MWP is clearly developed in Australia/Oceania. Temperatures have been elevated 950-1500 AD, with only short cooler interludes. Clear subsequent cooling is reported towards the Little Ice Age. Renewed warming occurred during ramp-up towards Modern Warm Period. There is currently no basis to say that the Modern Warm Period might be much warmer than the MWP in the region."
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #297 on: November 15, 2017, 11:04:36 AM »

I finally remembered what I wanted to say about this. Is there any good way of knowing whether your drops in electricity costs were due to local competition among suppliers or because of the general drop in natural gas prices? I believe (is this true or my bad memory?) that a lot of electricity in the northeast US is generated by burning gas. It would be interesting to separate out the two effects.
Interesting question, Bob.  From what I can gather from searches on the web, electric costs appear to have gone up slightly as an average.  So I would gather that it was from good old competition that my local township government negotiated a better rate.  One thing to consider is that this rate is guaranteed for two years.  So the utility is figuring just what their costs will be for gas or nuclear or wherever they generate the gas.  So the price is working on a prediction as well over the next two years.

It negotiated  a two year deal starting 1/1/19 with South Jersey Electric.  They're not even on the attached list.  Check the list to see just how many suppliers are available and the differences in prices.  Capitalism at work.
http://www.electricrate.com/residential-rates/new-jersey/
So the township must have called them up and negotiated directly. Homeowners and businesses have the option of switching to South Jersey or remaining with JCPL, but the negotiated rate is the best you can find so you'd be foolish not to go with the township.  The electricity rate went down 19% from what we are paying now.  That's for the electricity itself which we get from South Jersey Electric.  We still get the JCPL charge for the use of JCPL's structure as they own the wires and grid that delivers the power to your house.  That price is controlled by the Public Service Commission a government entity.  So together, the price will go down about 10% overall, a nice savings. Here's a list that shows all the competition in New Jersey where I live. 

So getting back to your question, I would say it's competition that forced prices down.  Curious how do rates work in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc?

What's interesting is that in the US, only a dozen or so states out of the 50 plus Washington DC have competition.  The rest have single suppliers whose prices are controlled by a governmental Public Service Commission.  Competition is better IMO.

New Jersey electric generation comes from about 60% gas and about 35% nuclear.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#/media/File:State_Electricity_Generation_Percentage_by_Type.png

Here's the main link that really has some interesting data about this whole topic. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

What's interesting also about this whole thing is how varied production is from state to state.  I'm sure it's similar in every country. 

Also, our newly elected governor, Democrat Murphy, favors turning NJ all green.  So although Republican Washington has backed off, many states like NJ will push for less carbon.  Of course he said that to get elected. We'll see what he'll do when his voters realize they'll be paying a lot more for electricity if his ideas are instituted.  Frankly, states and countries are making a mistake when they pick winners and losers in energy.  Let the free market work.  It reminds me when Washington forced gasoline companies to include 10% methanol in gasoline in an effort to clean up the air.  All it did was raise the price of corn where methanol comes from increasing the price of food for poor people as corn is the major grain as animal feed.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/17/10/29/governor-s-race-2017-candidates-divided-on-energy-environment/
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:10:33 AM by Alan Klein »
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1332
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #298 on: November 15, 2017, 11:16:29 AM »

What's interesting is that in the US, only a dozen or so states out of the 50 plus Washington DC have competition.  The rest have single suppliers whose prices are controlled by a governmental Public Service Commission.  Competition is better IMO.
You'll be surprized (maybe) but I agree. Both in the Netherlands as well as Belgium (and many other European countries) there is lots of competition between gas and electricity suppliers. It has reduced prices considerably. The only problem is that the grids are still controlled by (semi) government companies and the transfer and grid cost has not dropped, so now the transfer and grid costs exceed the cost of the electricity as such.

Frankly, states and countries are making a mistake when they pick winners and losers in energy.  Let the free market work. 
In general I agree with you, but if you are too strict on this new technology that can be competitive in the medium term will not get off the ground. So I don't have a problem with temporary government support but only if the technology supported can demonstrate competitiveness at a reasonable volume that it can achieve in the medium term.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #299 on: November 15, 2017, 02:17:17 PM »

You'll be surprized (maybe) but I agree. Both in the Netherlands as well as Belgium (and many other European countries) there is lots of competition between gas and electricity suppliers. It has reduced prices considerably. The only problem is that the grids are still controlled by (semi) government companies and the transfer and grid cost has not dropped, so now the transfer and grid costs exceed the cost of the electricity as such.
In general I agree with you, but if you are too strict on this new technology that can be competitive in the medium term will not get off the ground. So I don't have a problem with temporary government support but only if the technology supported can demonstrate competitiveness at a reasonable volume that it can achieve in the medium term.
I'm glad we're on the same page.  One of the issues with the grid and plant costs are they won't go away.  They have to continue maintenance and support even as more and more people go to solar at home and then are allowed to "sell" their surplus back into the grid.  Even though the plants are producing less electricity and using less carbon and atomic fuel, the plant structure, grid, and associate costs are the same.  So the cost savings from renewables are moderated by the old fixed costs.

Speaking of Belgium, and cinematography, I just saw a new release of Murder on the Orient Express.  They used Kodak 65 film which looks very nice.  Non of that digital stuff.  Good movie to see.  Oh, for those who don't know, I mentioned Belgium because Hercule Poirot is the fictional Belgian detective in the movie, created by Agatha Christie.
movie clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ewxmFcDgo

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16   Go Up