Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 112   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 50268 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #400 on: August 07, 2019, 09:17:06 am »

I'll take that as a compliment and thank you for provide the data on wind/solar increase in Germany. 

Insofar as your first statement, I am not asking for a controlled experiment.  Just data that shows an actual decrease in CO2 over a period of time when wind/solar was increased by a decent amount that can not be clearly attributed to something else, like a very mild winter. 

A decrease in energy prices would be good too, since that is the only way you will get the overall public to adopt the technology (regardless of what it is).  Wind and solar sounds good, but people really vote with their wallets.  Even if wind and solar decrease CO2, if the price goes up too much it will never be adopted. 

We can all argue about the exact percentages.  I will agree that CO2 production goes down with wind/solar.  That makes sense.  What was surprising to the experts was that it didn't go down a lot more considering Germany uses renewables to produce 40% of their electricity.  And since the costs are now more than double what it costs for electricity in America and elsewhere in Europe, was it worth it?  What do Germans think subsidizing America, China, India, and others who don;t do anything or are not reaching their promised levels of reduction made in Paris?? 

A question about the charts.  CO2 has been going down even before renewables really kicked in.  Does anyone know why? 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #401 on: August 07, 2019, 09:27:11 am »

I would assume the majority of that decrease is due to what caused the decreases from 1990 to 2008/2009.  More then likely this would be an increase in energy efficiencies of buildings, machinery and appliances. 

Remember, architecture started going big on LEED building design in the 90s, which really help on decreasing energy consumption.  The USGBC was created in 1993 and LEED certification was introduced in 1998 and formalized in 2007.  However, even prior to this, the trend was towards better building and appliance design. 

Certainly a good thing, but nothing to do with wind and solar.  The data that matters for this conversation are during the years of the largest increase in wind/solar production, which show a stagnation. 
You answered my question before I asked it.  I should have realized it since I was involved in energy conservation project years ago.  The switchover to more efficient HVAC and lighting systems, better energy standards for appliances, TV, and other electrical and electronic equipment, etc. The main thrust started after the 1973 oil crisis.  Also, cars became more efficient, less fuel required per mile.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #402 on: August 07, 2019, 09:42:46 am »

You answered my question before I asked it.  I should have realized it since I was involved in energy conservation project years ago.  The switchover to more efficient HVAC and lighting systems, better energy standards for appliances, TV, and other electrical and electronic equipment, etc. The main thrust started after the 1973 oil crisis.  Also, cars became more efficient, less fuel required per mile.

Forgot about cars, and certainly a huge part towards decrease in CO2 seen in the first half of the provide graph. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2404
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #403 on: August 07, 2019, 09:45:44 am »

What was surprising to the experts was that it didn't go down a lot more considering Germany uses renewables to produce 40% of their electricity.
The chart Jeremyrh posted shows renewables grew to 13.1% in 2017, not 40%, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:08:00 am by faberryman »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #404 on: August 07, 2019, 09:52:01 am »

The chart Jeremyrh posted shows renewables grew to 13.1% in 2017, not 40%, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Ummmm .... ummmmm ....

Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation

I will admit though that this 40% figure I have been seeing in the news lately just seems false.  I have not yet been able to find exactly what went into determining this figure; if you know where I kind find a thorough explanation of how this was determined, please share.  (Notice I say thorough, so if you step up to the plate here, please show an article that has actual data and clearly shows the calculations used to determine it.)   

But, as they say, "figures lie and liars figure." 

I kind of feel like it is probably closer the 13% figure Jeremy supplied. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:12:15 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #405 on: August 07, 2019, 10:08:36 am »

Ummmm .... ummmmm ....

Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation
The article says that there are differing forces at work.  For example, although more production is from renewables, increasing population, the selling of that electricity to other countries, and industrial production would raise the CO2 numbers for Germany. On the other hand, higher costs for electricity and warmer weather reduces the amount of electricity used lowering CO2 production.  I think a better chart would be one the compares on the basis of percentage the CO2 produced vs total and carbon bases KWH production on an annual basis.  Shipment of electricity to foreign countries would have to be eliminated from those figures as they will distort the final percentages. 

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2404
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #406 on: August 07, 2019, 10:10:42 am »

Ummmm .... ummmmm ....
Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation
Isn't it tedious when you can find "facts" all over the map. Hard to know what to believe.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #407 on: August 07, 2019, 10:15:13 am »

Isn't it tedious when you can find "facts" all over the map. Hard to know what to believe.

Yes, yes. 

I added to this post, but I guess after you quoted me in your responce.  As I said there, I cant really figure out where they got this number.  All the articles using this figure are not supplying the data or showing the calculations that went into it. 

I really find it dubious, especially given the 13% figure Jeremy shared and just considering the shear amount of land that would need to be developed to get to 40%.  I was just merely posting this article to show where Alan got his number from.  Also, I wrote that post in a condescending manner and should not have; I apologize for that. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2404
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #408 on: August 07, 2019, 10:17:03 am »

Yes, yes. 

I added to this post, but I guess after you quoted me in your responce.  As I said there, I cant really figure out where they got this number.  All the articles using this figure are not supplying the data or showing the calculations that went into it. 

I really find it dubious, especially given the 13% figure Jeremy shared and just considering the shear amount of land that would need to be developed to get to 40%.  I was just merely posting this article to show where Alan got his number from.  Also, I wrote that post in a condescending manner and should not have; I apologize for that.
Yes, you really have to fact check every post. One of the benefits to Germany (and other Western European countries) of renewables is there is that much less oil and natural gas they have to import from Russia.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:25:56 am by faberryman »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #409 on: August 07, 2019, 10:27:42 am »

The article says that there are differing forces at work.  For example, although more production is from renewables, increasing population, the selling of that electricity to other countries, and industrial production would raise the CO2 numbers for Germany. On the other hand, higher costs for electricity and warmer weather reduces the amount of electricity used lowering CO2 production.  I think a better chart would be one the compares on the basis of percentage the CO2 produced vs total and carbon bases KWH production on an annual basis.  Shipment of electricity to foreign countries would have to be eliminated from those figures as they will distort the final percentages.

A little off from what you posted, but still interesting. 

I forget where, but in the last day looking up more information on this, I found a rather interesting stat.

Since it is the case that typically when wind and solar produce energy the most is also when we need the least amount of electricity, creating a surplus, the market value of this extra electricity drops almost to zero since no one really needs it.  So trying to sell the surplus of energy becomes impossible without taking a loss. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #410 on: August 07, 2019, 10:48:20 am »

A little off from what you posted, but still interesting. 

I forget where, but in the last day looking up more information on this, I found a rather interesting stat.

Since it is the case that typically when wind and solar produce energy the most is also when we need the least amount of electricity, creating a surplus, the market value of this extra electricity drops almost to zero since no one really needs it.  So trying to sell the surplus of energy becomes impossible without taking a loss. 

I seem to recall there are places where the utilities are paying customers to use their electricity at cheap prices because they have to dump the extra KWH somewheres.  With carbon, they just turn down the generators.  Not sure why they can't shut off solar as well.

The other issue is that government forces utilities to buy extra solar electricity produced by homes and others.  So they have carbon fuel plants sitting idle.  Meanwhile, the costs to maintain and run those carbon based plants have to be paid by someone.  They'll be needed at night and when the wind doesn't blow.  So they pass the costs on to those people who don't have renewable ability and must buy from the grid at higher prices.  So homes with solar pay less and those without pay more, usually the poorer people who can't afford solar or live in the cities.   Renewables unfairly hit those least able to afford higher electricity costs. 

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14559
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #411 on: August 07, 2019, 10:55:25 am »

If government were to get out of the "renewable" energy picture, the whole illusion would collapse overnight.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #412 on: August 07, 2019, 11:00:53 am »

If government were to get out of the "renewable" energy picture, the whole illusion would collapse overnight.

I think the left really has two options when it comes to fixing climate change. 

Adopt a process that clearly works while also bringing prices down.  As of now, all real life data shows nuclear being the only option.  If we went full in on nuclear, we would see real results in CO2 decreases and the majority of the world be for it, since it would not effect their pocket books all too much. 

The other option would be to force feeding us wind and solar.  All real life data shows it only minimally helps with CO2 while at the same time sky rocketing the price of electricity and destroying large swaths of land.  The outcome of this will be to create resentment towards trying to help with climate change and politicians who don't care about it at all (and some who even deny it) will be elected into office. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 11:29:49 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2404
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #413 on: August 07, 2019, 11:15:32 am »

I seem to recall there are places where the utilities are paying customers to use their electricity at cheap prices because they have to dump the extra KWH somewheres.  With carbon, they just turn down the generators.  Not sure why they can't shut off solar as well.

The other issue is that government forces utilities to buy extra solar electricity produced by homes and others.  So they have carbon fuel plants sitting idle.  Meanwhile, the costs to maintain and run those carbon based plants have to be paid by someone.  They'll be needed at night and when the wind doesn't blow.  So they pass the costs on to those people who don't have renewable ability and must buy from the grid at higher prices.  So homes with solar pay less and those without pay more, usually the poorer people who can't afford solar or live in the cities.   Renewables unfairly hit those least able to afford higher electricity costs.
Alan, You have complained that no one ever talks about the positives of climate change. Yet with renewable energy, all you seem to want to talk about is the negatives. It strikes me that you only want to take contrarian opinions.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #414 on: August 07, 2019, 11:25:08 am »

Alan, You have complained that no one ever talks about the positives of climate change. Yet with renewable energy, all you seem to want to talk about is the negatives. Doesn't seem entirely consistent to me.

I agree that renewables are much better than "polluting" the air with CO2 and other schmutz.  Those are real positives.  I investigated solar for my house.  But decided against it because I didn't feel the payback made sense for me.  For other people, solar makes sense and they should do it and save money for themselves.   Frankly, if we can figure out how to use water to fuel my car, I would get that car in a NYC minute (if the price was right). I don;t owe Exxon anything.


However, subsidizing a product with our tax money and raising the price of necessities like electricity for little gain does not make sense.  The concept is great and I'm all in favor of breathing better.  But let's be honest about what it really costs and the how much it really contributes to a better environment.  Maybe we should put our money in nuclear?  Or something else.

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #415 on: August 07, 2019, 11:25:39 am »

It is what the LULA Debating Society is all about.
Open to all members of the public.
Maybe we should adopt the rules of conduct becoming of a gentleman.
Robert's Rules of Order are probably too tedious for this group.
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2404
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #416 on: August 07, 2019, 11:28:30 am »

However, subsidizing a product with our tax money and raising the price of necessities like electricity for little gain does not make sense.  The concept is great and I'm all in favor of breathing better.  But let's be honest about what it really costs and the how much it really contributes to a better environment.  Maybe we should put our money in nuclear?  Or something else.
Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10009
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #417 on: August 07, 2019, 11:28:35 am »

It is what the LULA Debating Society is all about.
Open to all members of the public.
Maybe we should adopt the rules of conduct becoming of a gentleman.
Robert's Rules of Order are probably too tedious for this group.
We'd only fight over Robert's Rules. 

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #418 on: August 07, 2019, 11:30:50 am »

at least there is a printed reference  ;D
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #419 on: August 07, 2019, 11:35:10 am »

Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?

This pretty much shows that the tax breaks oil and gas get are substantionally smaller then for wind and solar. 

Debunking Democrats' claims about fossil fuel tax breaks

And even so, it is still more expensive directly to the consumer to get electricity from renewables. 

From the article,

"According to CRS, “In 2017, the value of federal tax-related support for the energy sector was estimated to be $17.8 billion. Of this, $4.6 billion (25.8%) can be attributed to tax incentives supporting fossil fuels. Tax-related support for renewables was an estimated $11.6 billion in 2017 (or 65.2% of total tax-related support for energy). The remaining tax-related support went toward nuclear energy, efficiency measures, and alternative technology vehicles.”

But there’s more to the story, because fossil fuels deliver vastly more energy return than renewables. “In 2017, fossil fuels accounted for 77.7% of U.S. primary energy production. The remaining primary energy production is attributable to renewable energy and nuclear electric resources, with shares of 12.8% and 9.5%, respectively,” according to CRS. Wind and solar power only accounted for 3.6 percentage points of total energy production.

So, 65.2% of all tax breaks in the energy sector are going towards wind/solar that only produces 12.8% of all electricity. 

You know what, percentages are so hard to think about for the normal person.  Lets restate this in fractions.  About 2/3s of all tax breaks for energy goes to a sector that only produces about an 1/8 of the total amount of electricity. 

So, sure taking away tax breaks for oil/gas would increase prices a bit, but not nearly as much as it would for wind/solar. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 12:06:26 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 112   Go Up