The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

What, given some arbitrary cost of CO2 emissions? The cost is infinite as entropy ensures that all is lost.

If any of that were true, we'd see exactly what you propose happening.

[All Darc]

Paul McCartney about environment be affected by meat production :

https://youtu.be/ulVFWJqXNg0

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

What, given some arbitrary cost of CO2 emissions? The cost is infinite as entropy ensures that all is lost.

If any of that were true, we'd see exactly what you propose happening.

Were you referring to my post?
The point there is that most coal plants are less cost effective than new solar and wind even if you do not account for CO2.

In the end, the study determines the U.S. has reached a “sunset scenario” for coal power. The researchers conclude,

“Coal’s remaining rationale was that it was cheap if externalities weren’t included, but even that rationale is vanishing. Our report shows that coal is increasingly uneconomic against new local wind and solar resources.”

[redpoint5]

Well, I hope that news is true. The evidence would be wind/solar increasing at least in proportion to coal decreasing. It doesn't solve variability in production and demand though.

[oil pan 4]

There is no way wind and solar are always more cost effective on account they both don't work well at night.
For covering the peak yeah I bet wind and sun are cheaper in the right parts of the country.

[RedDevil]

Variations in demand and supply will lead to differences in electricity cost rates, which battery stores and flexible consumers will make use of. As they should.
With battery prices dropping and smart technology evolving I see no problem here.

[oil pan 4]

Start using batteries to store/waste grid power, well then coal is the better option to peak loads.
Unless you are trying to make electricity cost 50 cents a kwh.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

What, given some arbitrary cost of CO2 emissions? The cost is infinite as entropy ensures that all is lost.

If any of that were true, we'd see exactly what you propose happening.

No - wind and solar are cheaper than any other way to make electricity. Fracking is a bubble, and it uses a massive amount of water, and poisons it.

It is happening - renewable energy is the fastest growing sector.

[oil pan 4]

If wind and solar are really cheaper then why does china (where most of the worlds solar panels are made) open a new coal plant almost weekly?
If solar is cheaper then why is only something like 0.2% of electricity in the United States generated with solar.
If solar is cheaper why are the utilities getting so much "other people's money" to put up solar?
Aerohead pays 1 cent a kwh more for "wind power". If it's cheaper why is he paying more?

The observation doesn't support the statement.
Maybeyou are only looking at installed watts of capacity?

[redpoint5]

Yeah, but we weren't discussing fracking, we were discussing continuation of operating existing coal plants. It seems using an existing coal plant would be cheaper than building new wind and solar.

It being cheaper remains to be seen too. As I'm ALWAYS saying, if wind were cheaper, my utility would invite me to pay 2 cents less per kWh by enrolling in their wind program. The opposite is true.

So, coal customers would get a letter in the mail saying "Good news! Your bill will now be lower because of all this cheap wind power we're getting".

There probably are places that wind or solar can make electricity for cheaper than non-renewable sources, but that doesn't describe the majority of places. Perhaps Hawaii could benefit since they have the most expensive electricity and among the best locations for sunshine.