You’ve thus proved my point. Pollution can be reduced to acceptable levels by modern technology and regulation. I can’t visit a power station in Australia that has any consistently visible emissions. That’s why the eco-nuts here (and in Western nations worldwide) have to doctor the photos. I don’t believe you don’t agree with that.
But you still haven’t defined what you mean by “pollution”. Like most advocates you are happy for CO2 to be included in that term if not actually called pollution. The point I objected to in my comment above used the term “pollution heavy sources”. So I dealt with the two aspects eco-types infer with that term. Soot, ash, harmful gasses and separately the big evil (reasserted as such in your reply) CO2.
I never said China wasn’t polluted did I? China isn’t exactly an exemplar of good management. Attack China all you like and I’ll support you but we have influence only in our countries. You could re-elect Trump and he’ll fix China for us all. I want to fix mine and you yours. China laughs all the way to world domination at our stupidity in massacring our prosperity for a poofteenth of a part of a decimal of a degree temperature difference in a century.
I don’t want to reduce CO2 (and don’t conflate that statement to include the actual noxious gases). I want more of the stuff. It’s plant food, you know, feeding the poor you are so dismissive of. I’m happy to reduce harmful emissions just as I’m happy to reduce birds and bats getting sliced, diced and fried by lovely green eco-crucifixes and man-made solar frying pans.
There you go, we disagree. You’re happy for the poor and your own nation to suffer. I’m not.
Do you two sit together when you writing these? It is simply astounding that one can copy and paste literally word for word a quote, and then complain about something that wasn’t said. Pollution free power would be an admirable goal, however I said reduced (its right there in the text you quoted). It is that simple. And I never said only the rich can afford, I pointed out that costs are coming down, including examples where renewables are steadily trending cheaper for some consumers than some non-renewables. And I never dismissed the poor, I said I was in favor of both continued development bringing cost down, and the home energy assistance for low income families (which I might add has been around in the US for decades, far pre-dating “green energy”.)
I don’t get how we disagree. You quoted my stating that reducing pollution makes a difference, I pointed to LA (which is somewhat succeeding, and you agreed) and to China (which is failing, and you agreed). So let’s skip CO2 for a minute, since you’ve stance is firm on that. CO2 isn’t the only thing coming out of a fossil fuel power plant exhaust (or vehicle exhaust, or industrial manufacturing plant exhaust), even if it is visibly clear. It includes the other “noxious gasses”. None of that which is coming out of a fossil fuel power plant exhaust is coming out of a wind turbine or solar panel whilst generating. Ergo “cleaner”.
As for your suggesting reducing pollution to acceptable levels by modern technology and regulation, in this country at least one of those (regulation) would run afoul of the pro-oil/anti-green energy group. The other (technology) is similar. Some would call wind/solar developments technology. But I assume (correct me if I’m wrong) by technology you mean filtering tech, scrubbing tech, plant efficiency tech, etc. Thats all great, but what do you do with the scrubbed and filtered now concentrated byproduct. Take exhaust gas scrubbers on ships. In an open loop system that which is scrubbed from the exhaust is dumped into the ocean. In a closed loop its sent ashore. That’s why I said this “tech” relocates not eliminates.
However, limiting NOx emissions has a significant global warming effect due to the increased CO and CO2 emissions. This is one of my pet peeves; people get all excited when someone mentions reducing emissions, without really considering what and why. It’s clear enough why it would be in a city council’s interest to limit NOx emissions (LA is a good example), but how that got snuck into Annex V is something I’ve tried really hard an failed to understand.
I sense that I’m on the brink of an incoherent rant about the RCD and how little sense it makes for it to be illegal to repair old engines, so I’ll go have some coffee and repair an old engine, all criminal-like.
" The composition of Earth’s atmosphere is largely governed by the by-products of the life that it sustains. Dry air from Earth’s atmosphere contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen, helium, and other “noble” gases (by volume), but generally a variable amount of water vapor is also present, on average about 1% at sea level.["
We need to add more life, curb desertification and retain water in the soil to make a difference in the temperature. Trying to regulate trace gasses in the atmosphere is a fool’s errand. Curbing pollution is important, yes. But if you don’t lower the temperature of soils and you don’t stop spraying nasty chemicals to kill life in the soil, how is that going to make any difference? It’s the water cycle that helps regulate temperature the most, and it’s the life cycle that creates our breathable atmosphere.
You find it amazing that some people agree with me then you don’t get out much. Others probably agree with me on this site but don’t want to be bombarded by criticism from the mobs of true believers.
The costs you pointed out were levelised costs and I responded that such costs don’t capture the entirety of the costs of such renewables. Go back and check. I’d love to see an actual example of true costs paid by consumers reducing over time in an area where unreliable renewables have gradually increased penetration driving out coal for example. Australia as an island with no options for foreign power imports has consistently increased power costs at the same time politicians have promised lower costs. They’ve given up saying power will be cheaper because we don’t believe them so they say they will keep costs down.
As for assisting the poor with cash allowances, I can remember a time when it wasn’t needed at all when we had the cheapest power in the world. Somebody somewhere still pays for that and they wouldn’t have to if the power wasn’t so expensive.
Simple. If it’s CO2 reductions you think will make a difference, that’s where I disagree. If it’s the other lesser emissions then that can be better if it can be done cost effectively. As do most activists in this field you seem happy to have CO2 considered a pollutant or you didn’t define whether you thought it was. Which is it? Give me a straight answer whether CO2 is a pollutant or just an emission please.
Yes. And as for relocating things, we can deal with it. We are dealing with it now. We deal with such issues every day for a huge variety of waste from all parts of industry and, for the most part, I’ve never heard of it being a problem of global proportions as part of climate change as is CO2.
Many energy pundits continue to warn of a pending Armageddon of high electricity prices and unreliable grids if anyone dare venture too far down the path toward greater renewable power generation. There’s just a tiny problem with those claims: The data do not support them.
I didn’t see in that link where cost of power over the time decreased as renewables increased. That’s what I’m looking for and preferably on a grid unconnected to others.
Anyway, I suspect a puff piece like that might not be the full story. There was no mention of subsidies so did a quick search. It seems, as is the case everywhere, subsidies raise their ugly heads. Can I trust it?
Biden also says he can’t remember what he had for breakfast.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly supported the likes of Monsanto when it comes to patenting seeds and food. That’s hardly pro-environment. It’s a catastrophe.
Of course solar and wind will always need a backup because the sun doesn’t shine 24/7 and the wind doesn’t always blow. Batteries cannot supply all the backup but they can supply enough to get to give time for fossil fuel generating plants to spin up. Therefore you have fossil fuel plants running when needed only. It’s a win for the consumer and the planet as a whole, unless you sell fossil fuel for a living.
There are two things going for Texas, space and sunshine, not much of either in New England, except Northern Maine. And the last time I looked it was full of trees. If you started building windmills everywhere there would be an uproar.
Norway and New Zealand have both got extensive hydro assets and New Zealand has yet untapped geothermal energy. We generate 17% of New Zealand’s electricity using geothermal sources and use the waste heat for aquaculture (prawns) and timber drying among other uses. Both hydro and geothermal power stations are ideal partners for wind and solar as both can ramp up quickly and if you leave the potential energy where it is both systems function as giant batteries.
I didn’t write the above to appear smug and having two different systems each able to carry the total generation requirements makes no sense from an economic point of view.
From what I have seen there is no silver bullet. Each form of generation has an effect on the environment.
The biggest cause of pollution is people. When I was born there were 2.2 billion of us on this planet there are now 7.7 billion.
I know the climate changes, I want to know why as we have had periods of both cooling and warming in relatively short periods of time in the past, without the beautiful noise of a V8 being given the jandal or a power station cooling tower emitting steam (smoke in eyes of some).
Renewables have gradually increased penetration in the US nationwide, and greatly in the windy midwest plain states. Costs paid by consumers, adjusted for inflation, have decreased over time, as shown below, all data from US Bureau of Labor Statistics. When not adjusted for inflation, I’m personally still paying the same as the average of twenty years ago.
Month of August, US City average residential consumer price
1990: $0.087/kWh ($0.177) (Inflation Adjusted)
2000: $0.091/kWh (($0.138)
2010: $0.133/kWh ($0.158))
2020: $0.137/kWh ($0.137)
Month of August, Midwest City average residential consumer price
1990: 0.88 (0.179) (Inflation Adjusted)
2000: 0.90 (0.137)
2010: 0.128 (0.152)
2020: 0.137 (0.137)
In my city (which I won’t name and dox myself) the utility buys power contracts from renewable producers, up to 100%, mostly from wind. Our residential utility power rates are under $0.10/kWh, or close to 15% below the national average. So if you want an example of real people…me. My rates went down when we went with wind.
Overpopulation is a controversial topic, some environmental groups used to promote the idea of natural population reduction, but they seem to tend to avoid the topic now, probably because they get accused of being far-right Nazis etc.
The French president Emmanuel Macron recently mentioned something about the birth rate being too high in parts of Africa and people were calling him a Nazi.
There was no reliable figures when I happened on the planet and you are close but I was a little later. Mankind was busy killing each other at the time.
I want to fix mine and you yours. China laughs all the way to world domination at our stupidity in massacring our prosperity for a poofteenth of a part of a decimal of a degree temperature difference in a century.