Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither are solar or wind farms.
What's wrong with wind farms? They literally take no land, you can graze cattle / farm right under them.
They decimate bird populations.
Primary energy vs final energy: why replacing fossil fuels may not be so hard
111–113 of 113 posts
Re: Primary energy vs final energy: why replacing fossil fuels may not be so hard
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
South Australia already has days when solar alone is providing most of it's power [1] [2]. It's not that hard. You scale up renewables, and build curtailing (throwing away excess clean energy) into your cost model (until storage gets cheaper, which it will; Tesla is shipping almost 800 MW of utility scale battery storage per quarter). Australia's entirely grid will be clean by 2030 at their current rate of renewables…
Hey, not to be too harsh but you do realize that was only for 1 hour in the middle of the day when usage is near its lowest? It’s impossible for solar to provide 100% of the power used in a day because the sun doesn’t shine for 24 hours. It also doesn’t reduce the amount provided by baseline power sources because they can’t scale down quickly (they take days to start up and slow down) so they ended up generating a wi…
Following up, as the Australian state of Tasmania just declared that they're able to run 100% on renewables as of November 27th 2020 [1], with the local government targeting 200% renewable capacity by 2040.
[1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/tasmania-declares-itself-100-per...
[2] https://reneweconomy.com.au/tasmania-liberal-government-tabl...
Re: Primary energy vs final energy: why replacing fossil fuels may not be so hard
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'm not a climate change denier but let me just deny all the science that CO2 is meaningfully contributing to climate change" What exactly do you think the definition of a "climate change denier" is? The important part isn't recognizing that climate change exists. The important part is recognizing why and what needs to be done about it. You're misinformed about the science on this one...
What exactly do you think the definition of a "climate change denier" is? - It's someone that doesn't think Earth's climate is changing. It's NOT someone that doesn't think CO2/cows/etc actually has a role in it. Climate is indeed changing. What he's trying to argue is the role of CO2 in all of it. 100% right about this:"The important part is recognizing why". So far no raw data has been made fully available to see s…
That is a literal interpretation of the words "climate change denier."
It's meaning in the cultural zeitgeist, however, has evolved to include people who don't deny that the climate does change over time, or even is currently changing; but, who deny the science supporting anthropogenic climate change, specifically the clear impacts to atmospheric CO2 starting during the industrial revolution and driven primarily by fossil fuel emissions.
Essentially, I think most people would agree at this point that the common usage also includes people who deny we can/should do anything about climate change, or that the current situation vis-a-vis greatly accelerated climate change is our "fault."
The records re: CO2 are not hard to find, they come from ice cores and date back ~800,000 years.
You can start here, but there are plenty of independent resources online: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...