Climate Change - Looking Back

[cybercoma]

In short, the maximum penetration for variable power like wind will remain fixed at around 10-20% of the grid that supplies the base load (which is usually much larger than a single country so quoting stats for a single country is a gross deception).

That's a pretty broad gap. It's obviously not in the 10-19% range, since Germany is at 20% now, according to citations already posted. So, I hardly think this "remains fixed," like you claim. You just don't like citing stats from a single country because it makes you wrong. If it suits your claims, you would be the first one to point to a single country's statistics.

[TimG]

That's a pretty broad gap. It's obviously not in the 10-19% range, since Germany is at 20% now, according to citations already posted.

You need to try reading the sources before you make claims.

The 20% from Germany is for all renewables - including biomass and hydroelectric.

I am talking about wind (6.2%) and solar (2.0%).

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010

20% is high. I doubt it variable power can exceed 15%

but I am acknowledging uncertainty where I believe there is some.

Edited December 19, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You aren't acknowledging anything. You're moving the goalposts as usual.

[TimG]

You aren't acknowledging anything. You're moving the goalposts as usual.

You love blame your inability to understand the context and read the source material on others. In this case, I never claimed that Germany has 20% wind/solar power. I only made points about wind/solar. You *assumed* the 20% was for wind/solar. You were wrong. And now you try blame me for 'moving the goalposts' to cover up your screw up. Quite pathetic. Edited December 19, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

No, again this is all just bunk. Any subsidies should only exist during the development of a new technology. Capital investment and subsidies in technologies like wind and solar have dramatically reduced the cost of these technologies and it continues to drop. This is exactly when we should be subsidizing.

clearly; however, as we know, over and over and over again, TimG keeps coming back with his nonsensical per/KWh fall-back... the fall-back he presumes to use to distract from anyone highlighting that fossil-fuels have had and continue to have an overwhelming percentage of subsidies as compared to renewables.

[waldo]

What we need is a honest conversation that starts by telling people that fossil fuel generation is not going away no matter what is done with wind/solar. Once people accept that reality then we can talk about appropriate levels of support for what is basically "boutique power" for wealthy yuppies.

why the weasel move? You know, you absolutely know, no one knowledgeable considers an outright end to fossil-fuels 'being a part of the mix.' We've had this discussion many times over... we've discussed at length aspects of the IEA 40 year Roadmap that most certainly includes fossil-fuels as a component in moving to required emission reduction levels. Just this past week, the EU issued it's Energy Roadmap 2050 which, of course, continues to include fossil-fuels as a component in allowing the EU, as an overall collective, to meet its target emission reduction cuts. So why the strawman... why the weasel move?

are you that hyper-sensitive to any evidence/discussion that shows increased penetration of renewables? Do you go a bit queasy when another wind turbine rises to the sky?

[waldo]

That's a pretty broad gap. It's obviously not in the 10-19% range, since Germany is at 20% now, according to citations already posted. So, I hardly think this "remains fixed," like you claim. You just don't like citing stats from a single country because it makes you wrong. If it suits your claims, you would be the first one to point to a single country's statistics.

yes, of course, TimG moves the goalposts... even though linked citations include reference to all facets within the renewable mix, TimG will bluster that he's only talking about a select grouping within that overall mix. This bluster allows him a distraction from the pointed statements that he makes wild claims without providing support/citations... and, of course, it allows him to divert discussion away from recognizing the effect increased renewables have on reduced emission levels.

[dre]

yes, of course, TimG moves the goalposts... even though linked citations include reference to all facets within the renewable mix, TimG will bluster that he's only talking about a select grouping within that overall mix. This bluster allows him a distraction from the pointed statements that he makes wild claims without providing support/citations... and, of course, it allows him to divert discussion away from recognizing the effect increased renewables have on reduced emission levels.

This is a fairly common tactic, and yes... its always based on a few different strawmen arguments, double standards, etc.

[cybercoma]

You love blame your inability to understand the context and read the source material on others. In this case, I never claimed that Germany has 20% wind/solar power. I only made points about wind/solar. You *assumed* the 20% was for wind/solar. You were wrong. And now you try blame me for 'moving the goalposts' to cover up your screw up. Quite pathetic.

I didn't miscomprehend anything. You're trying to obfuscate your argument by focusing on details. What you're trying to say is that renewables are not an effective way of reducing GHG emissions, while it is obvious that they are. My comment about the 20% was making fun of you for this wholly obvious attempt to distract people from the fact that your argument looks a hell of a lot more like swiss cheese than concrete.

[waldo]

I'll offer a bow to MLW GostHacked's narrow focus on toxic pollution... albeit a focused concern that denies the influence of CO2 on GW/CC... a position where GostHacked has suggested that 'taking care of toxic pollution' will inherently 'take care of CO2'. In a most round-about manner this has actually been realized to a degree in regards to this weeks U.S. EPA announcement covering new standards rules for mercury and other toxic emissions from U.S. coal and oil-fired power plants.

Until now there have been no federal standards that require power plants to limit their emissions of toxic air pollutants like mercury, arsenic and metals - despite the availability of proven control technologies, and the more than 20 years since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments passed.

these new EPA rules will also have a profound impact in terms of forcing a great number of existing coal plants to invest in pricey pollution-control technologies; in particular, this would target dozens of plants that don't even meet standards within the initial 1970 Clean Air Act, let alone the additional 1990 amendments... and, of course, they don't even meet the 1970 standards because they were given a 'grandfathered exemption' under the industry premise that they were so old anyways, that they would 'soon' be retired. But... go figure... the industry never retired these ancient behemoths... these worst of the worst! The expectation is that these new EPA rules will kick-start a significant retiring of many old design coal-plants in favour of new greater efficiency designed plants - those that emit a significantly reduced level of CO2.

[TimG]

What you're trying to say is that renewables are not an effective way of reducing GHG emissions, while it is obvious that they are.

No they are not but different renewables have different issues. Hydropower is limited (i.e. almost all of the capacity has been exploited) and biomass does not reduce emission at all because tonnes of carbon is expended getting the biomass to the incinerators to market (i.e. do you realize that wood pellets are a huge export from BC and that they are only viable because they are waste from other industrial processes that are not included in the lifecycle anaylses). Wind and solar are the only renewables which could, in theory, be installed at a large enough scale to meet the demand - they trouble is they are intermittent and require base-load backup.

The fact is CO2 reductions are a fantasy. They will not happen at a global level. The only thing that might happen is some juristitions might report some phoney gains while CO2 production is being outsourced to other countries. It is a huge scam.

Edited December 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The fact is CO2 reductions are a fantasy. They will not happen at a global level. The only thing that might happen is some juristitions might report some phoney gains while CO2 production is being outsourced to other countries. It is a huge scam.

the (strawman) fantasy is yours... like I asked earlier, do you get a bit queasy whenever a new wind-turbine raises to the sky?

in working to help reduce CO2 emissions, should one surmise that, as you say, based on politics, economics, values and technology,

Germany is showing that it is technically possible to reduce it's carbon emissions

?

by the by, are you any closer to providing your studies showing that, as you stated, "for every green job, 2 "real jobs" are killed"... any closer, hey?

[GostHacked]

I'll offer a bow to MLW GostHacked's narrow focus on toxic pollution... albeit a focused concern that denies the influence of CO2 on GW/CC... a position where GostHacked has suggested that 'taking care of toxic pollution' will inherently 'take care of CO2'. In a most round-about manner this has actually been realized to a degree in regards to this weeks U.S. EPA announcement covering new standards rules for mercury and other toxic emissions from U.S. coal and oil-fired power plants.

these new EPA rules will also have a profound impact in terms of forcing a great number of existing coal plants to invest in pricey pollution-control technologies; in particular, this would target dozens of plants that don't even meet standards within the initial 1970 Clean Air Act, let alone the additional 1990 amendments... and, of course, they don't even meet the 1970 standards because they were given a 'grandfathered exemption' under the industry premise that they were so old anyways, that they would 'soon' be retired. But... go figure... the industry never retired these ancient behemoths... these worst of the worst! The expectation is that these new EPA rules will kick-start a significant retiring of many old design coal-plants in favour of new greater efficiency designed plants - those that emit a significantly reduced level of CO2.

Well, that is appreciated. After pages of being ridculed by you on this specific point, in the language you love to select, this is a nice surprise. Are you starting to turn? I suspect the next you are going to agree with me on CO2 is plant food.

[waldo]

Well, that is appreciated. After pages of being ridculed by you on this specific point, in the language you love to select, this is a nice surprise. Are you starting to turn? I suspect the next you are going to agree with me on CO2 is plant food.

ridiculed? I've questioned your logic in selectively trusting scientists working in physics based atmospheric sciences relative to toxic pollution... yet... you denigrate scientists working in physics based atmospheric sciences relative to CO2 pollution... you deny the physics based atmospheric sciences relative to AGW/CC.

so... I throw you a bone here and you take such liberties. Let's be clear, very clear: you and I agree on little. This scenario where grandfathered 1970s era belching coal plants will... probably... need to finally be mothballed given the new EPA regs... this scenario has nothing to do with a planned CO2 emissions reduction strategy. It's "happenstance" that coincides with the new mercury (and other toxic) emission standards just passed.

only an idiot speaks of CO2 as "plant food"!