Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5089 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostThu Aug 30, 2018 12:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
gb wrote:
What happened to all the years after 2000? Could you please add those to the graph?

I'm sure you can find it with your (implied) superior knowledge.

Well thank you for the compliment. But I would say superior research.

Quote:
It won't change the fact that natural variation during this interglacial already demonstrated huge variations all on it's own.

Yes, but this will explain those swings.

Long range temperature swings

How did you know I was going to answer your next question with mine one post above yours? Note the position of 2016 & 2017 which you omitted from your "graph".
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9696 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Aug 30, 2018 12:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
... and yet curiously, the area between what is now Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, and Mt. St. Helens remained continuously volcanically active for a period of approximately 4000 years between about 12000 and 16000 years BP, after which the receding of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet took place approximately 12500 - 13000 years BP. dizzy.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5089 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostThu Aug 30, 2018 12:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
... and yet curiously, the area between what is now Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, and Mt. St. Helens remained continuously volcanically active for a period of approximately 4000 years between about 12000 and 16000 years BP, after which the receding of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet took place approximately 12500 - 13000 years BP.

I wouldn't doubt that but would add that there would have been additional volcanism in SE BC (Mt. Ediza and Mt. Meager, and Garibaldi are examples) and extending to Mt. Lassen, but would have to look for records. There would also have been the Yellowstone and Mammoth calderas in the not that ancient record and could be (have been) dated. I would hazard a guess, though, that you would have to line up that period with solar activity. And as to the significance of the activity you would have to look not just at NW activity but also to global volcanism. The Eocene extinction and temperature peak (which I made a post of a paper) was shown by the authors to be caused by something related to CO2 and of earth origin (I would think because of the lack of an iridium layer - something the authors didn't fully explain).

Yellowstone: Wikipedia:
Quote:
Yellowstone has had at least three such eruptions: The three eruptions, 2.1 million years ago, 1.2 million years ago and 640,000 years ago, were about 6,000, 700 and 2,500 times larger than the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State.

Mammoth (Long Valley Caldera) from Wikipedia:
Quote:
The tectonic causes of the Long Valley volcanism are still largely unexplained and are therefore a matter of much ongoing research. Long Valley is not above a hotspot as is Yellowstone or Hawaii, nor is it the result of subduction such as that which produces the volcanism of the Cascades.


Layers of the Bishop tuff, in a rock quarry in Chalfant Valley, about 25 km southwest of the Long Valley Caldera, laid down in phases of a major eruption 760,000 years ago.
The known volcanic history of the Long Valley Caldera area started a few million years ago when magma began to collect several miles below the surface. Volcanic activity became concentrated in the vicinity of the present site of Long Valley Caldera 3.1 to 2.5 million years ago with eruptions of rhyodacite followed by high-silica rhyolite from 2.1 to 0.8 million years ago. After some time, a cluster of mostly rhyolitic volcanoes formed in the area. All told, about 1,500 square miles (3,900 km2) were covered by lava.

All but one of these volcanoes, 1–2 million year old Glass Mountain (made of obsidian),[10]:264 were destroyed by the major (volcanic explosivity index (VEI) 7) eruption of the area 760,000 years ago, which released 600 cubic kilometres (140 cu mi) of material from vents just inside the margin of the caldera. (The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption was a VEI-5 eruption releasing 1.2 cubic kilometres (0.29 cu mi).) About half of this material was ejected in a series of pyroclastic flows of a very hot (1,500 °F (820 °C)) mixture of noxious gas, pumice, and volcanic ash that covered the surrounding area hundreds of feet deep. One lobe of this material moved south into Owens Valley, past present-day Big Pine, California. Another lobe moved west over the crest of the Sierra Nevada and into the drainage of the San Joaquin River. The rest of the pyroclastic material, along with 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi) of other matter, was blown as far as 25 miles (40 km) into the air where winds distributed it as far away as eastern Nebraska and Kansas.

The eruption initially produced a caldera 2–3 km (1.2–1.9 mi) deep. However, much of the ejecta went straight up, fell down, and filled the initial caldera about two-thirds full.

The Miocene 20-40 approximately MYA saw the huge eruptions of the Columbia River basalts. Excerpt from article by Howard Lee in Skeptical Science regarding the Columbia River basalts:

Quote:
The CO2 that triggered the MMCO was emitted by the spectacular eruptions of the Columbia River Basalts across a large area of western America. These eruptions were of a scale that dwarfs any in recorded history, and any in the last 16 million years. In the most intense phase, more than 150,000 cubic kilometers (36,000 cubic miles) of lava gushed over a large part of western America in roughly 300,000 years (some have suggested as little as 10,000 years, a timescale that is in the ballpark of that suggested by Ann Holbourn). In many of the hundreds of individual eruptions, lava vomited from the bowels of the earth in mile-high (1.5km) fountains before deluging 500km (300 miles) of landscape in months, to a depth of 100 meters (300 feet), while ash and fumes mushroomed as high as the stratosphere.

Columbia River Basalts

The extent, timing and volume of the Columbia River Basalt eruptions compared to Hawai’i, Laki and the ongoing Bardarabunga eruption. Based partly on Self 1997 in Ernst 2014 “Large Igneous Provinces” (Cambridge University Press) and Self et al 2014.
Individual volcanic eruptions typically emit trivially small quantities of CO2 compared to the background level in the atmosphere. But the huge scale of the Columbia River Basalt eruptions emitted atmospherically-significant quantities of CO2 both directly and indirectly from magma-filled fissures (“dykes”) that baked CO2 out of the rocks around them.

Quantifying those CO2 emissions, however, has proved difficult. One recent paper considered a range of possibilities from 230 to 6,200 Gt of carbon (compared to about 500 Gt emitted by humans to date, projected to be 1,500 to over 2,000 Gt by the end of the century). Our modern emissions are small compared to the high-end of those estimates but – and this is crucial – packed into a far, far shorter time frame. Even the most intense phase of eruptions took 1,000 times longer than the entire industrial era.

But those CO2 estimates assumed a steady release of CO2 between the oldest and youngest eruptions, whereas geological evidence shows the eruptions occurred in a series of intense pulses. Modeling of this pulsed-emissions scenario is in its infancy, but it suggests there was a complicated interplay between CO2 emissions, sulfur aerosol emissions, and weathering rates that enhanced CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Successive pulses seem to have raised atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in a step-wise fashion so that over tens of thousands of years (with more CO2 added by feedbacks) CO2 had increased about 100ppm, and global temperatures had also risen creating the new-normal warm climate of the MMCO.

Other eruptions of this type (“Large Igneous Province”) have generated extreme climate change and have been far deadlier, like in the mid-Cambrian, end-Permian, end-Triassic and even the end-Cretaceous. The Columbia River Basalts are small in comparison to those other examples (about 12% of the area of the Permian Siberian Traps) and seem to have triggered a gentle-enough climate change for life to keep pace with it. There may have been a minor extinction of some reptiles, but generally life did well from the experience - including re-greening of some arid areas, and species diversification in marine mammals, mollusks, and rodents.

Eventually by 14 million years ago CO2 levels dropped back below 400ppm and the long, slow cooling that began in the Oligocene resumed, with expansion and stabilization of Antarctic ice sheets, and a resumption of the aridifying, forest-receding trend that that began before 16.9 million years ago.

Also worth looking at is the "Siberian Traps" which I recall reading about but don't remember details. Also interesting of note is the East African Rift Volcanic record . Skeptical Science would have stuff on all of these episodes and their climatic effects. Siberian Traps

Pretty interesting article (Long Range Temperature Swings), nonetheless, wouldn't you say? I can't vouch for the accuracy as it goes way beyond my knowledge. I did note a couple of statements that I might question.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9696 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Aug 30, 2018 6:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's difficult for me to try to wrap my head around events that occurred 500 million years ago.

My reason for digging into the subject revolves around the question of when was the North American continent populated by people (presumably) from east Asia.
The conventional theory is that a migration of nomadic hunter-gatherers wandered over here through "Beringia" at some point between about 16000 and 12000 years BP:

Wikipedia, in the entry for Beringia wrote:
It is believed that a small human population of at most a few thousand arrived in Beringia from eastern Siberia during the Last Glacial Maximum before expanding into the settlement of the Americas sometime after 16,500 years BP. This would have occurred as the American glaciers blocking the way southward melted, but before the bridge was covered by the sea about 11,000 years BP.

The earliest hard evidence we have locally of human activity is the mastodon kill site near Sequim which they've dated back to about 12500 years BP. [1]
This dating coincides roughly with the receding of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, as well as the earliest evidence of the "Clovis Point" tools.

It's all fine and well that most academics accept that idea, but there's a guy who's been digging in Texas who was down in a pit digging up evidence of human activity which he believes is much earlier - like 10000-20000 years earlier. (Sorry I can't recall place or name - he was included in a PBS "NOVA" episode on "Clovis".)

I don't buy the "Clovis first" theory. I think it's a crock. There's too much anecdotal stuff (particularly when you start digging into Native American myth and legend) to accept that this continent wasn't peopled much earlier than 12000-16000 years BP.
Unfortunately there's no way to back up that argument (except for "evidence" that guy in Texas has excavated) unless you start looking at stuff like the Popol Vuh, which most academics are (understandably) going to take with a huge grain of salt, if not outright skepticism and derision. I get that - I'm okay with that - but they don't know for sure either because there's a lack of tangible evidence.

Where this ties in to global warming/climate change is events such as I mentioned above: a period of continual volcanic activity that went on for four millennia in (admittedly, compared to your "Siberian Traps" mentioned above) a much smaller geographic area, but doubtless would have had a significant effect on any human population within hundreds (if not thousands) of miles. [2]

There were significant changes in "climate" since the receding of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet here in the Pacific Northwest - it became much cooler and wetter than it was 5000 years ago, when Western Red Cedar (Thuja Plicata) did not exist here. The cedar didn't come until about 4500 years ago, and the people who took up residence here built an entire culture and society around that tree. [3]

Bottom line being: climate changes, and it changes of its own accord, with or without our help or interference. Whether or not our "industrial revolution" has had any significant effect and whether or not anything can be done to "fix" that are subjects that are open to debate, certainly, but claiming that perceived changes in "climate" are solely the result of our doing is presumptuousness and arrogance at its worst - the planet will still be here, and humans will either adapt or they'll die off like the dinosaurs did long ago.

Somewhere on this site recently I stated that this is not the first age of man on this planet.
It is only our own conceit and arrogance that supports that belief. We are just visitors, going for a ride until our turn is over, at which time it will be somebody else's turn - just like riding the merry-go-round at the fair.

This guy states it far better and more succinctly than I ever could:


[1] pers. comm. Olympic National Park Cultural Resources
[2] pers. comm. B. Rose, Randle RD, GPNF
[3] pers. comm. Olympic National Park Cultural Resources, Mt. Adams RD, GPNF


--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10811 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Aug 30, 2018 9:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
spoiled 1st world hysteria as a result of the massive achievements of capitalism and classical liberalism in creating wealth.

mazlows pyramid.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5089 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostThu Aug 30, 2018 9:46 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
It's difficult for me to try to wrap my head around events that occurred 500 million years ago.

My reason for digging into the subject revolves around the question of when was the North American continent populated by people (presumably) from east Asia.
The conventional theory is that a migration of nomadic hunter-gatherers wandered over here through "Beringia" at some point between about 16000 and 12000 years BP:

Wikipedia, in the entry for Beringia wrote:
It is believed that a small human population of at most a few thousand arrived in Beringia from eastern Siberia during the Last Glacial Maximum before expanding into the settlement of the Americas sometime after 16,500 years BP. This would have occurred as the American glaciers blocking the way southward melted, but before the bridge was covered by the sea about 11,000 years BP.

The earliest hard evidence we have locally of human activity is the mastodon kill site near Sequim which they've dated back to about 12500 years BP. [1]
This dating coincides roughly with the receding of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, as well as the earliest evidence of the "Clovis Point" tools.

It's all fine and well that most academics accept that idea, but there's a guy who's been digging in Texas who was down in a pit digging up evidence of human activity which he believes is much earlier - like 10000-20000 years earlier. (Sorry I can't recall place or name - he was included in a PBS "NOVA" episode on "Clovis".)

I don't buy the "Clovis first" theory. I think it's a crock. There's too much anecdotal stuff (particularly when you start digging into Native American myth and legend) to accept that this continent wasn't peopled much earlier than 12000-16000 years BP.
Unfortunately there's no way to back up that argument (except for "evidence" that guy in Texas has excavated) unless you start looking at stuff like the Popol Vuh, which most academics are (understandably) going to take with a huge grain of salt, if not outright skepticism and derision. I get that - I'm okay with that - but they don't know for sure either because there's a lack of tangible evidence.

Where this ties in to global warming/climate change is events such as I mentioned above: a period of continual volcanic activity that went on for four millennia in (admittedly, compared to your "Siberian Traps" mentioned above) a much smaller geographic area, but doubtless would have had a significant effect on any human population within hundreds (if not thousands) of miles. [2]

There were significant changes in "climate" since the receding of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet here in the Pacific Northwest - it became much cooler and wetter than it was 5000 years ago, when Western Red Cedar (Thuja Plicata) did not exist here. The cedar didn't come until about 4500 years ago, and the people who took up residence here built an entire culture and society around that tree. [3]

Bottom line being: climate changes, and it changes of its own accord, with or without our help or interference. Whether or not our "industrial revolution" has had any significant effect and whether or not anything can be done to "fix" that are subjects that are open to debate, certainly, but claiming that perceived changes in "climate" are solely the result of our doing is presumptuousness and arrogance at its worst - the planet will still be here, and humans will either adapt or they'll die off like the dinosaurs did long ago.

Somewhere on this site recently I stated that this is not the first age of man on this planet.
It is only our own conceit and arrogance that supports that belief. We are just visitors, going for a ride until our turn is over, at which time it will be somebody else's turn - just like riding the merry-go-round at the fair.

This guy states it far better and more succinctly than I ever could:


[1] pers. comm. Olympic National Park Cultural Resources
[2] pers. comm. B. Rose, Randle RD, GPNF
[3] pers. comm. Olympic National Park Cultural Resources, Mt. Adams RD, GPNF

All in all a very good post; still it is hard to argue that 7 billion of us aren't having a big impact. My belief is we owe it to the future of not only mankind but other species to leave a good earth.

To further your thoughts on the habitation of North America, there are sites in the SE and in South America that suggest a much older date than Clovis. What little I know of this is from articles in the Archaeological Conservancy quarterly magazine, which is often fascinating. They had an article about the evidence perhaps a bit more than a year ago. You might be able to read that online. The article or issue also referred to this book which is on my buy list.

https://www.strandbooks.com/ancient/strangers-in-a-new-land-what-archaeology-reveals-about-the-first-americans

From Firefly Books:
Quote:
Strangers in a New Land is a profound and challenging account of an intensely controversial subject, the first human occupation of the New World, written by an acknowledged master.
-- Tom Dillehay, Vanderbilt University

Where did Native Americans come from and when did they first arrive? Several lines of evidence, most recently genetic, have firmly established that all Native American populations originated in eastern Siberia.

For many years, the accepted version of New World prehistory held that people arrived in the Western Hemisphere around 13,000 years ago. This consensus, called "Clovis First," has been increasingly challenged by discoveries at numerous archaeological sites throughout North and South America and is now widely considered to be outdated.

The latest findings have convinced most archaeologists that people came to the Western Hemisphere thousands of years prior to Clovis. There is credible evidence of a human presence in the Americas dating to 19,000 years ago and perhaps as early as 38,000 years ago. The prehistory of the very earliest arrivals into the New World is the subject of Strangers in a New Land.

This book documents 35 Clovis and Folsom sites, disputed pre-Clovis sites, legitimate pre-Clovis sites and controversial pre-Clovis sites. This covers an area that stretches from Bluefish Cave, Canada, 70 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle to Monte Verde, Chile, 14,000 kilometers south of Bering Straits. The discovery and history of each site is accompanied by photographs, maps and diagrams that illustrate the excavations and chronicle the evidence of human activity. Strangers in a New Land brings these findings together for the first time in language accessible to the general reader.

An excellent selection for physical and cultural anthropology, archaeology and prehistory collections.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10811 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 12:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Germany’s Federal Audit Office has accused the government of a catastrophic mis-management of the green energy transition (Energiewende). The wastage of resources is “unprecedented”.

Quote:
The expenditure for the ecological restructuring of the energy supply is in a “blatant disproportion to the hitherto poor yield”, said President of the Court of Audit Kay Scheller in Berlin: “The Federal Government is at risk to fail with its once in a generation project of the Energiewende”.

A little more than a year before Germany’s climate-policy “milestone 2020”, the auditing body has concluded a catastrophic assessment of the government’s energy policy. Germany would miss its targets for both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy consumption as well as for increasing energy productivity and the share of renewable energy in transport. At the same time, policy makers had burdened the nation with enormous costs.

Well, at least the costs are enormous.  rolleyes.gif

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 800 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 8:11 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Germany is the textbook case of incompetence in energy policy.   They instituted massive taxes to force investment in wind and solar, while abandoning their carbon free nuke plants.  Neither wind nor solar is ready yet.  Solar is especially idiotic since germany is a high latitude maritime climate... much like seattle... and is short on sun.

The result is electricity costs 3 times the US for a solar and wind total generation of a mere 25%.

Their failure is colossal.

Meanwhile their neighbor France has electricity prices half that of Germany, and much lower carbon output too, by sticking with their well designed nuclear plants.  The contrast is striking.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10811 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 8:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
but nukes, are a no no. amazing isn't it.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10811 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 8:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
While economic growth continues we’ll never kick our fossil fuels habit


Quote:
We’re getting there, aren’t we? We’re making the transition towards an all-electric future. We can now leave fossil fuels in the ground and thwart climate breakdown. Or so you might imagine, if you follow the technology news.

So how come oil production, for the first time in history, is about to hit 100m barrels a day? How come the oil industry expects demand to climb until the 2030s? How is it that in Germany, whose energy transition (Energiewende) was supposed to be a model for the world, protesters are being beaten up by police as they try to defend the 12,000-year-old Hambacher forest from an opencast mine extracting lignite – the dirtiest form of coal? Why have investments in Canadian tar sands – the dirtiest source of oil – doubled in a year?

The answer is, growth. There may be more electric vehicles on the world’s roads, but there are also more internal combustion engines. There be more bicycles, but there are also more planes. It doesn’t matter how many good things we do: preventing climate breakdown means ceasing to do bad things. Given that economic growth, in nations that are already rich enough to meet the needs of all, requires an increase in pointless consumption, it is hard to see how it can ever be decoupled from the assault on the living planet.

It's always pointless when you don't personally like it.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5089 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 3:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
The result is electricity costs 3 times the US for a solar and wind total generation of a mere 25%.

Of course, this post was pure BS and shows a lack of research.

Current costs of energy production per MW hour:

https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5

From Business Insider:
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 800 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 3:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
In isolated spots solar and wind can be competitive in low quantities, although this is a very recent development for solar.  But germany is not a good solar spot and jumped on the tech too early and in too great a quantity.

Also that chart is a bit too high for nat gas.  We can operate plants profitably at 30 dollars per mwh in many places in the US.

Notice the dramatic decrease in solar prices?  Why would you possibly have wasted money on solar a few years ago(like germany did) when it is getting so much cheaper?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 800 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 3:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Here are the raw numbers for germany(and all the eu states) .  This is not a projection by some silly journalist.  This is what actual electric generation cost.  This is what the idiots in germany(and denmark) actually installed and actually have to pay for.


Compared with the ~10 eurocents per kwh of the US, it is quite clear that germany simply sucks.


30 eurocents per kwh!  Not even california is that incompetent!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5089 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 4:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
In isolated spots solar and wind can be competitive in low quantities, although this is a very recent development for solar.  But germany is not a good solar spot and jumped on the tech too early and in too great a quantity.

Also that chart is a bit too high for nat gas.  We can operate plants profitably at 30 dollars per mwh in many places in the US.

Notice the dramatic decrease in solar prices?  Why would you possibly have wasted money on solar a few years ago(like germany did) when it is getting so much cheaper?

Because one needs to think long term.


As to your BS, I'll take the Business Insider Graph. Not your "expert" testimony. And who is "we"?

Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5089 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 01, 2018 4:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
This is not a projection by some silly journalist.  This is what actual electric generation cost.

It's clear you don't know the difference between the cost of energy production and the ultimate consumer price. Note the taxes and fees on use > in red < for those with trouble reading graphs.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Washington Coyote!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy