The claim that wind and solar energy are less expensive than electricity from dispatchable sources like fossil fuels is false. It's a product of either economic illiteracy or deliberate deception by the renewable energy marketers, because it confuses price with total cost.
You've probably heard the old saying that there's nothing more expensive than a free puppy, except a free boat. Wind and solar energy are like that: it's not their price which makes them costly.
The reason average wind and solar electricity prices are low is they tend to produce power when it is not needed. Power produced when it isn't needed fetches low prices.
But it's the converse which is the big problem with wind and solar: they very often do not produce power when it is needed.
That unreliability causes enormous spikes in electricity prices.
During those price spikes most of the electricity being produced is generated by fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Wind and solar apologists pretend that means electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear plants is expensive. But the real reason for the high prices is replacement of reliable fossil fuel and nuclear plants with unreliable wind and solar.
Exorbitant electricity prices are an inevitable cost of reliance on wind and solar for electricity.
Fossil fuel and nuclear powered electricity generation is said to be "dispatchable," because their electricity production can be ramped up ("dispatched") to meet demand. Wind & solar output cannot be ramped up to meet demand, so increased reliance on wind and solar means increasingly unreliable electricity production. When demand increases and/or the wind dies, reliance on wind and solar causes enormous spikes in the price of electricity — or, in extreme cases, even brownouts and blackouts.
The inevitable consequences of increasing reliance on wind and solar "renewables" are rising electricity prices and worsening grid reliability — and absolutely no environmental benefit.
That's right: the punch line is that it's all for naught. The rationale for the immensely destructive transition to wind and solar is to "fight climate change." But that's a fool's errand, because the "climate crisis" is a marketing ploy. It's not real, it's just "FUD."
The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial, rather than harmful.
Does that surprise you? If so, it means you're not getting balanced information. But I'm here to help:
That webpage has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● info about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides
@Stephen57908892 Stephen Maloney @Stephen57908892, did you read the article? Did you see WHY Duke Energy is raising our rates?
"closing the final chapters on our reliance on coal-fired generation"
"$3.5 billion investment in clean energy and grid resiliency"
"to achieve our carbon goals"
@Stephen57908892 2/3. Lazard's figures for new nuclear plants are almost entirely speculative. (They're based on only one data point, Vogtle Unit 3!) eia.gov/todayinenergy/…
@Stephen57908892 3/3. Lazard's figures for renewables are wildly wrong, because they ignore the extremely high costs incurred due to renewables' intermittency.
@Kenneth72712993 @ScienceBlog3 @RichardLWeiss @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @ammocrypta @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics 2/8. Note that Wong & Minnett didn't measure IR from CO2, they just mentioned it in passing. For their work they used IR from clouds, instead.
What's more, elsewhere in the paper they cited the IPCC's (too high) 3.7 W/m² (at TOA) per doubling figure. sealevel.info/Wong_and_Minne…
@Kenneth72712993 @ScienceBlog3 @RichardLWeiss @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @ammocrypta @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics 3/8. 2.4 W/m² at the surface per doubling of CO2 and 3.8 W/m² at the surface per tripling of CO2 are consistent with van Wijngaarden & Happer's calculation of 3.0 W/m² radiative forcing at the mesopause per doubling of CO2.
@pbsnews @NewsHour @LisaDNews @mattloff @GeoffRBennett @tkconch 2/15》At 1:08 they reported, "He doubled down on climate denial, when asked about devastating wildfires & heatwaves that scientists agree are exacerbated by human activity."
That's false. MANY scientists DON'T "agree" that climate change exacerbates fires co2coalition.org
@pbsnews @NewsHour @LisaDNews @mattloff @GeoffRBennett @tkconch 3/15》Scientific organizations like the CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition, and many top scientists, dispute the climate industry propaganda blaming fires on manmade climate change. What a shame that @PBSNews / PBS @NewsHour spread such misinformation.
@Whariwharangi @Data79504085 @RichardLWeiss @BenKoby1911 @JezRoff @emilio97493490 @balls95652097 @ScienceBlog3 @Kenneth72712993 @InspirallPE @Nockit1 @ammocrypta @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Michael_D_Crow @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @Anvndarnamn5 @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @DaviesswPhD @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity Also, at 49 minutes Valentina Zharkova claimed LW IR wavelenths are so long, "10,000 meters, something, I don't remember exactly" that "the energy produced by this radiation is negligible." The wavelength is actually about 15 µm, and the energy is far from negligible.
@DaleGribble_666 @priscian @ammocrypta @Michael_D_Crow @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @ScienceBlog3 @Kenneth72712993 @Nockit1 @Mark_A_Lunn @RichardLWeiss @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @3GHtweets @Anvndarnamn5 @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics …He also taught in ornithology & botany, and served as the Principal Investigator for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Monitoring of Riparian Habitats on the Tahoe National Forest project sponsored by the US Forest Service from 1991 to 2007.
@BenKoby1911 @DenisDaly @Zane1968 @Hji45519156 @SpiruSensei @AndreGrossza @Data79504085 @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Climatehope2 @AristotleMrs @Anvndarnamn5 @InspirallPE @ChrisBBacon3 @C_R_O_M________ @S_Metzeler @priscian @ScienceBlog3 @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @Veritatem2021 @AuroriaEn @Michael_D_Crow @JusticeTrudeau @Mark_A_Lunn @judgementalbe1 @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @WernerReinhard5 @S_D_Mannix @JimBlack48 @Jaisans @CarrudoDon @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @Joeyd87745119 @Devonian1342 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @NASA Re: "The last interglacial period saw temperatures higher then we are now."
You're referring to the Eemian Interglacial Optimum. I have info on it here
Its peak is believed to have been substantially warmer than even the warmest part of current Holocene. https://t.co/JyRG6GyFxjsealevel.info/glossary.html#…
@BenKoby1911 @DenisDaly @Zane1968 @Hji45519156 @SpiruSensei @AndreGrossza @Data79504085 @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Climatehope2 @AristotleMrs @Anvndarnamn5 @InspirallPE @ChrisBBacon3 @C_R_O_M________ @S_Metzeler @priscian @ScienceBlog3 @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @Veritatem2021 @AuroriaEn @Michael_D_Crow @JusticeTrudeau @Mark_A_Lunn @judgementalbe1 @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @WernerReinhard5 @S_D_Mannix @JimBlack48 @Jaisans @CarrudoDon @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @Joeyd87745119 @Devonian1342 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @NASA Re: "The fastest warming period in the last 15k years was the younger dryas."
True! The Younger Dryas termination saw warming about an order of magnitude faster than our recent warming.
@LaurenWitzkeDE 2/5》Garnet Harper was ineligible for transplant consideration for 2 reasons:
1. Poor health. He had severe heart & lung problems, and he'd nearly died from a staph infection.
2. His refusal to take essential steps to protect his own health, like masking and Covid vaccination.
@LaurenWitzkeDE 3/5》Because transplant recipients must be on immunosuppressants for life, it is critically important for them to take every reasonable precaution to protect against infections — and Mr. Harper had already almost died from an infection.