The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

It's like medical science talking about create new entire limbs while they can't even correct a acne scar or a stretch mark. Dumb sh...t medical field.

Hey my wife and I both work in the medical field!

You're absolutely right though. We're just scratching the surface of understanding human biology.

We're much closer to being able to build cities under the sea than curing viral or bacterial infections, for instance.

[Xist]

There was a television ad for two corporation commissioners and I recognized the table PBS uses for debates and the moderator, but they blurred their opponents. They had a debate? I am watching it, but PBS does not allow you to speed up (or slow down) playback. I downloaded it, but my player does not allow that, either. I tried to upload it to YouTube, but I will probably finish watching it at 1x before it finishes uploading.

People talk about solar being cheaper, but one of the candidates claimed that solar costs 2.5 copper per kilowatt-hour, while conventional electricity costs 5 coppers.

How come California has more solar than Arizona, but electricity costs 40% more?

One of her opponents said that solar is the cheapest energy source during the work day, but people come home, the sun sets, and we still need electricity.

I rage quit when the lady said "We can use batteries!"

Oil Pan has said that batteries double the cost of solar. People have debated or refuted many things that he has said, but nobody has contradicted that point.

Do the batteries last as long as solar panels?

The one candidate keeps saying that big companies refuse to come to Arizona because we do not have renewable energy.

Couldn't the big companies cover their roofs and parking lots with solar?

She also keeps saying "We have no renewable energy."

Third in the country...

[Edit] That candidate said at least twice that the corporation commission doubled, and tripled electrical bills. I came back because I realized she actually said "Doubled, tripled, and quadrupled."

Do I need to ask for a source? Is that even possible? Quadrupled over how many years?

Fifty?

Chooseenergy.com says that the average rate in Arizona is 12.92¢. The cheapest in the country is 9.68¢ in Louisiana. They want us to believe that Arizonans paid 3.23¢ recently, one third the cheapest rate?

[oil pan 4]

No battery will last as long as solar panels.
Solar panels should be doing at least 80% of rated at 25 years, a lot of people to include my self believe panels could last around 50 years.
The absolute max life on lithium batteries is around 20 years. That means if they still work they are likley holding between 10% to 40% of original capacity.

I believe I said trackers at least double the price.

Batteries doubling the price is just the starting point.
I would probably take my panel name plate capacity in kw and install at least 3x to 7x the 20 amp hour rate in kwh worth of batteries.
With lithium you want at least around double.
The problem with lead acid is its easily charge them too fast so you have to match the battery size to the panel output.

The world can't even produce enough lithium ion batteries to make even 5% of the cars sold full electric. Right now there is no solution to producing cars and grid scale lithium batteries.
Lead acid are just too inefficient for grid scale. The charging losses would be tremendous.

The problem with solar is people like to only look at grid scale utility installed name plate prices per watt.
That means they only look at installed capacity versus price.
They don't look at total production versus price, they try to stay away from that one.

We already had some one try to float that bs that on here where solar power is cheapest. I told them to give me one example of some place that uses a lot of solar power and has cheaper electrical rates than places that use dirty power . No surprise they could not provide an answer.
To be fair I only earned an associates in applied science for power plant ops plus wind and solar power generation. So anyone who wants to talk power generation is at a severe disadvantage.

[freebeard]

The cheapest in the country is 9.68¢ in Louisiana.

Originally Posted by chooseenergy.com

The average home in the U.S. consumes 897 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per month. Bills vary by state and region, as cost per kWh differs.

I checked my most recent bill, 5.51¢ per kilowatt-hour. It's from Woody Guthrie's favorite dam, the Grand Coullee. And I consumed 322 kWh.

[redpoint5]

Whoa big spender, better slow down your furious internetting and let those electrical lines cool off ;0)

Is that the full incremental (all costs minus fixed) cost per kWh for power there? What is that utility? I thought I had it cheap on Clark PUC, paying something like $12 fixed cost plus 8 cents per kWh all in.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If that was your attempt at discussing the positive benefits of global warming, I'd be curious what you consider to be negative.

Those are the biggest problems that could result from climate change. They kinda' swamp any possible upsides.

That is kinda' my point.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Aside from trying to come up with a hypothesis that would make them famous, put their name on something, get them funded they had no reason at all.
But I wasn't talking about 19th century.

Let's play out your conspiracy theory, then - how is it possible for THOUSANDS of scientists - virtually ALL of them, to coordinate their data and papers and conclusions?

How did they travel back in time, to "get to" the 19th century scientists to invent how greenhouse gases work?

How do they get the ice to melt? How do they get the tundra to melt? How do they get planting zones to move toward the poles? How do they make thousands of species to go extinct?

How do they get wildfires to happen all year, and get so intense? How do they force people from their homes with rising sea levels?

[All Darc]

The former mayor of my city, knew as a guy who make things turn into gold after he touch (very good dealing with money and investments) died this year, and he and his family was owner of a university. This year they are finishing a large solar panel field in a large area by side of the university campus. They said the solar field will save money and pay itself in some years by generating equivalent energy for what is consumed by the university.

I honestly don't believe that such "money maker" skilled people (despite suspicious character) would invest in solar energy if they saw the energy produced per month as less economic than the energy payed from the power grid. They would not get fooled easily...

If John B. Goodenough & Maria Helena Braga's battery works, even if it stay in just 3 times the energy o actual best lithium batteries, and it get really more than 23.000 cycles, battery lifespan will be a problem from the past.

According some articles from skeptics I saw, the alleged growing power density after dozens of recharges, can be due electrolity polarization working as a capacitor. I saw articles of skeptics that said the power will never reach 10 or 20 times the capacity of the actual lithium batteries, since the lab batteries, according hin, use much more electrolyte proportions than factory batteries. So maybe the only "scam" about it it's just the electrolyte proportion.



I have some faith in Braga & Goodenough battery. Even if it get just 2x or 3x the power density of actual best lithium batteries, if would be a revolution, allowing use of sodium, geting much cheaper, fast recharge, not flamable, working in cold or hot conditions, providing way much more charge cycles.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The problem with solar is people like to only look at grid scale utility installed name plate prices per watt.
That means they only look at installed capacity versus price.
They don't look at total production versus price, they try to stay away from that one.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Why I love print.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345272099/

Once it's out there it's rather difficult to delete.

Anybody can print a book. But, where is the evidence? If they print a lie - do you believe it?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was talking about the global warming scientists being politically motivated to ignore certain things that don't agree with the narrative.

According to the UN the only way to fix global warming is to give them unlimited money, or a $1.70 a gallon gasoline tax, implement a 10 to 15% vat tax, implement a carbon tax system and give all that money to them with 0 accountability.
Which happens to be their solution for all the world's ills, you know give them money and don't ask where it goes.

Just turning off all fossil fuel power and going to renewables isn't good enough for them.

You keep repeating that there are "things that don't agree with the narrative". The one thing you say is that scientists are not accounting for the sun.

Which is simply wrong.

So, why do you keep repeating something that is wrong? It only makes you not credible on this.