4 ms·

> Even though renewable energy capacity is 60% renewables, energy consumption is only 10% renewables. This is every country. Because renewable energy comes in b

> Even though renewable energy capacity is 60% renewables, energy consumption is only 10% renewables. This is every country. Because renewable energy comes in bursts. Any engineer could have told you that switching to renewables requires grid expansion and ideally energy storage with renewable overcapacity generation. The more grid expansion, the less storage you'll probably need and vice versa. Germany is just another case of politicians not listening to experts.

lettergram 4y ago
> Germany is just another case of politicians not listening to experts. The politicians pay the “expert”. So unfortunately, I think you’re mistaken. This was my primary point, you get what you pay for. I totally agree any engineer or frankly anyone with baseline competency and a minor amount of research would come away with the same conclusions. The challenge is these “experts” have every incentive to push the political agenda. Further, they’ll ban anyone who disagrees. How many “global warming deniers” (99% of whom just believe humans aren’t the primary cause) are banned from discussion? All of them. They are all ridiculed, banned, and many can’t get grants or publish. Th challenge is even with storage capacity (even a hell of a lot of it), you’re still going to get issues on the edges. For instance, if a volcano erupts and blacks out a region relying on solar… you’re out of luck.
- naasking 4y ago
  > How many “global warming deniers” (99% of whom just believe humans aren’t the primary cause) are banned from discussion? All of them. You only have so much time for nonsense. There's no question that humans are driving climate change at this point. Might as well ask why we don't accept papers arguing for flat Earth. > For instance, if a volcano erupts and blacks out a region relying on solar… you’re out of luck. What happens if your primary natural gas supplier starts a war and you have to sanction them? As you can see this is not a problem with renewables so much as with single points of failure. Volcanic eruptions don't stop wind power, or tidal power, or geothermal power, or nuclear power.
- tzs 4y ago
  > How many “global warming deniers” (99% of whom just believe humans aren’t the primary cause) are banned from discussion? First of all, it doesn't matter if humans are the primary cause. Any negative consequences of climate change affect us exactly the same way regardless of the cause. We are in fact much worse off if humans aren't the primary cause, because it would mean simply reducing human emissions would not be enough. We would need to do things to actively reduce greenhouse gas levels from non-human sources too. Second, humans are in fact the primary cause. We know this because (1) we know what role greenhouse gases play in warming, and (2) we know that the rapid increase in greenhouse gases over industrial times is due to human activity. We know the role of greenhouse gases because we can measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the surface, at various levels of the atmosphere, and in space. We can measure temperatures at those places too. We can literally see incoming radiation heating the surface, being reemitted as infrared, and getting blocked from leaving by gases in the atmosphere. We can measure the spectrum of the radiation at various levels to find out how much is getting absorbed where, and we can look at the absorption spectrum of the various gases there to see which ones are responsible. We know humans are responsible because we can look at the gases involved and check the isotope ratios of the carbon in those gases. Carbon from living or recently living sources has a different isotope ratio than does carbon that has never been involved with life or has not been involved with life for a very long time. This is because cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere convert nitrogen into C14 which gets distributed throughout the atmosphere, and gets included in living things, and gets put back into the atmosphere when living things that breath exhale or when they die and decay unless the die someplace where they won't be eaten or used as fertilizer by some other living thing. Carbon that is not involved with living things has its C14 decay (half life 5730 years). By looking at the fraction of the atmospheric carbon that is C14 we can determine how much of the carbon came from ancient sources. There are geological sources that put ancient carbon into circulation, mainly outgassing from mid-ocean ridges and volcanoes, which do put a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. But their activity has not changed much in industrial times. There is a human source that puts ancient carbon into the atmosphere: burning fossil fuels. That has changed massively over industrial times and correlates nearly perfectly with the increases in ancient carbon in the atmosphere. Hence we can include that the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change in fact come from human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels.

lettergram 4y ago

> Germany is just another case of politicians not listening to experts. The politicians pay the “expert”. So unfortunately, I think you’re mistaken. This was my primary point, you get what you pay for. I totally agree any engineer or frankly anyone with baseline competency and a minor amount of research would come away with the same conclusions. The challenge is these “experts” have every incentive to push the political agenda. Further, they’ll ban anyone who disagrees. How many “global warming deniers” (99% of whom just believe humans aren’t the primary cause) are banned from discussion? All of them. They are all ridiculed, banned, and many can’t get grants or publish. Th challenge is even with storage capacity (even a hell of a lot of it), you’re still going to get issues on the edges. For instance, if a volcano erupts and blacks out a region relying on solar… you’re out of luck.

naasking 4y ago
> How many “global warming deniers” (99% of whom just believe humans aren’t the primary cause) are banned from discussion? All of them. You only have so much time for nonsense. There's no question that humans are driving climate change at this point. Might as well ask why we don't accept papers arguing for flat Earth. > For instance, if a volcano erupts and blacks out a region relying on solar… you’re out of luck. What happens if your primary natural gas supplier starts a war and you have to sanction them? As you can see this is not a problem with renewables so much as with single points of failure. Volcanic eruptions don't stop wind power, or tidal power, or geothermal power, or nuclear power.
tzs 4y ago
> How many “global warming deniers” (99% of whom just believe humans aren’t the primary cause) are banned from discussion? First of all, it doesn't matter if humans are the primary cause. Any negative consequences of climate change affect us exactly the same way regardless of the cause. We are in fact much worse off if humans aren't the primary cause, because it would mean simply reducing human emissions would not be enough. We would need to do things to actively reduce greenhouse gas levels from non-human sources too. Second, humans are in fact the primary cause. We know this because (1) we know what role greenhouse gases play in warming, and (2) we know that the rapid increase in greenhouse gases over industrial times is due to human activity. We know the role of greenhouse gases because we can measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the surface, at various levels of the atmosphere, and in space. We can measure temperatures at those places too. We can literally see incoming radiation heating the surface, being reemitted as infrared, and getting blocked from leaving by gases in the atmosphere. We can measure the spectrum of the radiation at various levels to find out how much is getting absorbed where, and we can look at the absorption spectrum of the various gases there to see which ones are responsible. We know humans are responsible because we can look at the gases involved and check the isotope ratios of the carbon in those gases. Carbon from living or recently living sources has a different isotope ratio than does carbon that has never been involved with life or has not been involved with life for a very long time. This is because cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere convert nitrogen into C14 which gets distributed throughout the atmosphere, and gets included in living things, and gets put back into the atmosphere when living things that breath exhale or when they die and decay unless the die someplace where they won't be eaten or used as fertilizer by some other living thing. Carbon that is not involved with living things has its C14 decay (half life 5730 years). By looking at the fraction of the atmospheric carbon that is C14 we can determine how much of the carbon came from ancient sources. There are geological sources that put ancient carbon into circulation, mainly outgassing from mid-ocean ridges and volcanoes, which do put a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. But their activity has not changed much in industrial times. There is a human source that puts ancient carbon into the atmosphere: burning fossil fuels. That has changed massively over industrial times and correlates nearly perfectly with the increases in ancient carbon in the atmosphere. Hence we can include that the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change in fact come from human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels.