The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Sur

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I like to fact check things often (the times i did not but posted from memory I sometimes - and rightly - have been corrected if it could not be proven after all). Referencing your sources makes it easy to fact check or study the details of the matter at hand.

Anthony Watts is not a shill, as far as I can tell. He openly gives a forum to Chuck DeVore who according to Fox News is a vice president with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Academically sound research, building a case for the forgotten morals of fossil fuels while going against scientific consensus.
Well have I ever. Academically sound research IS science. And what DeVore gets paid for by Chevron and ExxonMobil is not.

There is nothing wrong with taking a skeptical view of climate research if that view is underpinned by facts, relevant data or reasonable explanations. But his article does not reveal sources (all links point to Fox news' own Energy root page); it does however insult and insinuate in almost every sentence.

Those who are in the right do what's right. If you can expose faults with facts, that's all you need.
Insult is the weapon of those who cannot stave their opinions with facts. It says nothing about the target.

Of course DeVore was not the only one reporting about Georgetown. This or this for instance are much more balanced views.

What is true in Georgetown?
The base electricity rate will rise by $4.80, while a kWh is 2 to 3 cents up on the average free market price in Texas, depending on usage. To arrive at the $1200 extra DeVore projects the average Georgetown home needs to use about 57,000 kWh yearly.
Guess what - they don't.
Georgetown does have a problem, but it is nothing like Fox news and Exxon want you to believe.

It sounds like they put up some solar panels with battery backup and started charging people 12 cents per kwh.
They aren't any where close to generating all their own electricity. They just pay more to buy "renewable feel good power" from the utility. So it's a little renewable power mixed in there, but its fully backed up by fossil fuel power. In the middle of the night when nearly all the wind turbines have stopped they're using coal fired power.
Hey if that makes you sleep well at night, go for it.
My base rate is 7 cents. I'll pass on paying more for feel good power.

[NeilBlanchard]

Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy

If Germany can do it, with about as much sun as Alaska, then almost any place can do it.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Anthony Watts is not a shill, as far as I can tell.

He's a shill. He promised to accept the results of the BEST study, that was run by Dr Richard Muller - who was a skeptic of climate change. But when Dr Muller concluded that current climate science is totally correct - Anthony Watts reneged on his commitment.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...cs-change-mind

[oil pan 4]

When money is no object anything is possible.
It looks like if Germany closes coal fired plants they are going to keep using natural gas.

[freebeard]

Top of the page for me:

Originally Posted by redpoint5

People are lazy. If there were a "Fight global warming" $10 fee that you had to opt out of on the utility bill, probably 90% of people would just pay it. If you had to opt in to pay the fee, 90% wouldn't.

Why doesn't it obey Pareto's Principle, the 80/20 Rule?


"Project Dilithium": US Military Eyes Mini Nuclear Reactors For Remote Deployments
by Tyler Durden Tue, 01/29/2019 - 20:35
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...te-deployments

Enter "Project Dilithium" - the Army's latest stab at a portable nuclear reactor, which should fit on a truck and a C-17 aircraft, set up in under 72 hours, and be able to provide up to 10 megawatts of power for three years without refueling. The reactor - weighing in at under 40 tons, must also be able to be disassembled within a week. Oh, and it's got to be meltdown-proof.

"Energy usage during contingency operations will likely increase significantly over the next few decades," reads the proposal request. "The modern operational space has amplified the need for alternative energy sources to enable mobility in forward land based and maritime military operations."
[snip]
The idea to deploy nuclear reactors in the field is not new. In 1954, the Army Corps of Engineers launched the Nuclear Power Program, during which they deployed several types and sizes of nuclear reactors from Alaska to the Panama Canal. While all of them functioned well with no issues, the Army abandoned the project amid the incredibly low cost of oil and an existing infrastructure to supply it.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

He's a shill. He promised to accept the results of the BEST study, that was run by Dr Richard Muller - who was a skeptic of climate change. But when Dr Muller concluded that current climate science is totally correct - Anthony Watts reneged on his commitment.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...cs-change-mind

Ah sorry, I should have been more clear. A shill covertly supports an interest, but as a Fox TV presenter (albeit the weather forecast) his position is hardly covert?

Then some people have a vested interest, and some just can't accept anything that does not align with their own views no matter how strong the evidence.

As Napoleon said, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Sur

It sounds like they put up some solar panels with battery backup and started charging people 12 cents per kwh.
They aren't any where close to generating all their own electricity. They just pay more to buy "renewable feel good power" from the utility. So it's a little renewable power mixed in there, but its fully backed up by fossil fuel power. In the middle of the night when nearly all the wind turbines have stopped they're using coal fired power.
Hey if that makes you sleep well at night, go for it.
My base rate is 7 cents. I'll pass on paying more for feel good power.

At the time oil price peaked and the plan was more or less break even. They do indeed burn fossil fuels, as they do have running contracts that they can't end effectively, and yes they do rely on the network for backup.

Step one is trying to run a town using 100% renewables on average. It could even compete pricewise when oil was high. It can be fully self supportive if it uses a Tesla energy store or such, but in the current situation that is not necessary yet.

Oil was high and likely will be high in the future again.
Now that oil is low and the economy is growing it is time to invest in energy saving measures and clean generation and storage, so future highs won't hurt as much.

[oil pan 4]

The city didn't succeeded in running a city off renewables.
They succeeded in paying a little more for pretend renewable power.
Only thing that was accomplished was the city got scammed by a solar salesman.

You want to know what the ultimate test for renewable electricity is?
Hawaii, not even the whole thing just one or 2 of the smaller islands, then I will believe it.
They got tons of wind, tons of solar, no fossil fuels resources and aren't connected to a large regional power grid.
So why not?

And you wonder why I'm skeptical of a city that is connected to the power grid puts up a few solar panels and charges people a little more for supposed 100% renewable energy?

[oil pan 4]

What's the worst thing that could happen to man made global warming?
Accountability.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...reliable-data/

[RedDevil]

Breitbart as a source for that?
See the headlines on there. Worth a laugh or two.
"I think God wanted Trump to be president"

Anyway, if this story is true, how come the poles are melting and our beaches are flooding, if not regularly resupplied with sand?

But no matter, if this is indeed true then most scientists will be very critical of its use.