You lie like a diabetic pees. You rarely admit your lies, and when you do, it’s usually in the context of claiming that the truth actually proves the point you tried to prove with a lie. So when you come into a thread, the reasonable conclusion is that you’re lying–or at least posting without knowing or caring whether it’s accurate, which is almost worse.
Take this example. You claim that they’re removing a power source without replacing it–and when called on it, you cite half your case, and then demand others cite the other half.
It’s safer to assume that you’re talking out your ass, just like you always do, and pissing all over the thread, just like you always do.
Learn to post with close adherence to facts, and it won’t be such a safe assumption that you’re lying.
So your very first clause in that section–“When Diablo Canyon is shut down in 2024”–is in question. As you would have known if you didn’t just type confident nonsense based on half-remembered information all the fucking time.
Yes, I should have said “Starting in 2024”. The fact that it’s taking two years to fully shut down is completely fucking irrelevant, unless you can show me the replacement power that’s coming on in 2025. Then I’ll admit that they only have half the problem until then.
The real argument from ignorance is calling someone a liar until you know that they are actually lying. Which is what you did, because I wasn’t. And now you’re trying to change the argument again.
It’s very simple. I said they are closing Diablo without new baseload generation to replace it. You called me a liar. But if PG&E is going to just import more energy, I was correct, and the shutdown of Diablo is a problem for the nation, which will have fewer CO2 free energy sources. Or did you think PG&E was going to import the energy from Mars?
Anyway, here’s your answer: “Procurement” means simply ordering that X Megawatta of clean energy be available. Anyone can bid to provide the energy or the state will simply import it. That’s their ‘plan’. Just demand that someone come up with new clean energy by a certain date.
Once again, they talk about solar, wind, geothermal and battery power as potential replacement sources. Wind/Solar/Battery would indeed be able to replace nuclear if they had enough of it, but they don’t. Batteries in particular.
The plan includes an energy shortfall of 11,500 MW by 2026, and a need for more procurement.
To be fair to you, procurement can include ordering more wind/solar/geothermal in California, but not nearly enough. So they are allowed to ‘procure’ 10% from fossil fuels and the rest from imports.
But there is no power generation being built that can do what Diablo Canyon does, which is provide baseload power. They are currently proposing a 4GWh battery system, but California uses roughly 782 GWh per day, so that’s about 7 minutes of stordage. And it would be by far the largest battery system in the world. Clearly the batteries are used for peaking power, not to provide baseload. So where’s it coming from?
That is great news, and I’m glad Newsom did that. But it makes my point that the plan to shut down Diablo Canyon would have left the state short of energy, and just ‘mandating procurement’ does not make it magically appear.
But good for California to recognize reality and change their plans. But they are going to be in the same situation in 2030, because there’s still no non-fossil, non-nuclear replacement for baseload power. Hydro resources are pretty much tapped out, and Batteries will never do it. Pumped Hydro would help, but to make enough for California would require massive engineering, if they even have enough suitable locations.
This is the reality. A lot of people are hoping that wind/solar will continue to decline in price, and that we’ll solve the energy storage problem. But putting your eggs in that basket without a hard plan, as California did, means you are risking the ability to mitigate global warming if the resources don’t show up as hoped, as they didn’t for California this year.
Did you see the post by Moriarty? They planned to shut down Diablo, hoping that by simply ordering more power someone would provide it. They didn’t. Now Diablo isn’t shutting down because they had no plan to replace it. They just demanded that someone provide it for them, and had a fallback plan to import more if the generation didn’t show up. It was a bad plan, and it failed.
I get called a ‘liar’ here a lot, usually because someone just disagrees with what I said. But I correct people’s mistakes on this board a lot, and I’ve never pitted someone as a liar. Because people can be wrong, and calling someone a liar is a harsh thing to do. And also, we’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, and it doesn’t work very well when you call a simple mistake a lie. That tends to get people’s backs up.
And if I correct a mistake and the same person makes it again a year later, that’s not evidence of perfidy - it just means it’s really hard to change someone’s opinion, ane although your incredibly clever riposte seems like a slam dunk to you, it may be just one of dozens of ‘explanations’ your target has to deal with, and your explanation is just one of them.
Also, after you call someone a liar they are likely to file you in the ‘asshole’ category and not bother listening to your arguments any more.
Yes, primarily due to assholes and shitty people spreading bullshit and lies, and the idiot muppets that follow them. We would have had real workable solutions 15 years ago without these shitheads gumming up the political spheres.
As Moriarty showed, reality has a habit of showing how off you were on your original declaration. And here too. You were not even wrong.
What I was aware of is that you were not right at all about the timeline, I only used a bit of logic and some awareness about the usual delays or change of plans that usually happens to realize how full of it you were.
One more thing, you are now bullshitting about lying, I did not call you a liar, only that your arguments are shit for depending on ignorance.
Liars –
Liars engage in a conscious act of deception.
Liars know the truth, but attempt to hide it.
Liars spread untruths, but they still accept the distinction between the truth and false.
Bsers
Bsers don’t consciously deceive.
Bsers just don’t know or care about the truth.
Bsers ignore or reject the distinction between truth and falsity altogether.
Changes in CO2 emissions since 1990, by selected countries.
It’s not the greatest chart, but it shows emissions reductions for UK, German, France, Russia (!), Japan and the US. Through 2021. And enormous increases for India and China as they transitioned from low income to middle income countries.
We need massive R&D in the West, then massive technological transfer to middle income emitters. Biden’s program was our first real step in the US.
Nukes are expensive and won’t save us. The cost declines in solar and wind are something to celebrate.
Noah Smith: Solar is happening. Nuclear is (mostly) not. Worldwide: cost overruns are endemic to the nuclear power industry. I’m more pro-nuke than I was 5 or 10 years ago. But they aren’t at the center of any reasonable climate plan: see chart above.
What I do think is what Senator Kelly from Arizona said, in essence: Nuclear should be used to support the transition needed to implement solar, wind and other renewables. I’m glad that Newsom and many others do agree.
Unfortunately, just today we found that the Republicans in the house still embrace denial.
John Kerry Testifies Before House Subcommittee on Climate Agenda
Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry defended the Biden administration’s climate agenda during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability. Throughout the hearing, Mr. Kerry engaged in several tense exchanges with Republican lawmakers who challenged the administration’s mission and policies, and the validity of climate change science.
The world will burn, but we should to be clear-eyed about this. Europe has dragged its feet as well, and they have no analogue to US right-wing science deniers and obfuscaters.
Wait. What’s going on here? In fact, the United States has reduced per-capita carbon emissions slightly more than Europe, and neither one has managed much reduction at all except when they’re forced to.¹ Nearly all of the reduction since 2000 came during the five-year period when oil prices spiked and the Great Recession killed off economic activity.
In other words, it doesn’t seem as if either the Republican Party or America’s dysfunctional politics is really the problem. So what is? It must be something common to both Europe and the US, and the obvious answer is that we all live in democracies. Roughly speaking, our governments do what the public wants, and the public doesn’t have much interest in reducing carbon emissions. Oh, we say we do, and we’ll support minor things like ETS or CAFE that have a barely noticeable effect on us. We’ll support solar power—if it produces electricity nearly as cheaply as coal. We’ll all buy electric cars—but only when the price comes down and the batteries get better. We’ll check out the energy star rating the next time we buy a new refrigerator. And that’s about it.
Europe is reluctant to close coal mines, because everyone likes coal miners. Canada keeps pumping oil sands. The good and the great of the US advocate all manner of happy policies - affordable housing, union jobs, thick insulation, DEI… preferably all at once which means that we can’t build anything fast and under budget. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberalism.html
The good news is the GOP opposition has lost its taste for policy. So the Dems successfully passed huge and successful programs with razor thin margins while the Repubs examined Hunter Biden’s laptop. It’s all fun and games until someone loses a democracy.
ETA: Good to see you around Gigo. Your article in the next post conflates a lot of far-right Euro stuff. The section of Boris Johnson was interesting, but then again you can see from my chart that the UK has done the most CO2 reduction (I’m guessing due to Brexit). The point being is that center-right European parties typically accept the science, unlike the GOP. And yet it seems to have made only modest difference percentage wise, relative to the challenge we face.
While I am not against building nuclear plants as fast as we can, have you checked the price per GWhr of solar and wind with battery backup these days Sam? They are the cheapest sources available. Technology has continued to evolve since we had these discussions in the early 2000’s (or late 90’s, I can’t remember) and the only thing stopping us from making the transition to clean energy sources is political will. Or PACs and dark money. Which I guess is the same thing.
Oh Jesus, we have done this before. I think I have posted 2-3 polls on nuclear power over the last 25 years of this board and each time liberals were in favor if regulations were in place. Unfortunately it does not appear that the polls survived all the changes this board has gone through. Still, here is the last one for giggles:
Fine. The Democrats were wrong. They are wrong a lot. But when did you become “not a right wing conservative?” I have been on this board since 96’ (AOL!!!) and a member since 1/00 and you were always a right wing conservative. I have not really spent much time on the board since 2016; was it Trump that made you redefine where you were coming from?
Left-wing: “We need to fix climate change. Let’s do renewables and bio-fuels!”
Conservatives (or maybe just Crafter_Man): “We need to do nuclear power.”
Left-wing: “OK, but we also need to figure out nuclear waste storage. Also NIMBY.”
Crafter_man: “The left is responsible for failing to fix climate change.”
This reminds me of Sam’s arguments that the left is responsible for Trump.
How odd that your selection of option #4 coincides so perfectly with the right-wing lunatic option of “sit on your ass and do nothing”, garnished with a little swirl of “we need more information”.
“This small leak has prompted suggestions of various courses of action that I consider most alarmist and unbecoming. I suggest instead that we give the enginneers time to fully evaluate the situation after we dock in New York, including the possibility that the shudder felt throughout the hull of the ship was merely some overly enthusiastic Irish celebrants in the third-class saloon. May I suggest that the gentlemen all retire to the first-class lounge for a round of drinks.”
You are, as you are so often, half-right. You do get called a liar here a lot, but it’s because you lie here a lot. This is a great example:
You said that the Diablo plant will close in 2024.
I showed you that that’s very unlikely.
Rather than admit you’re wrong, you get all petulant about it and try to blame Moriarty and shift the subject.
You’re a liar. You don’t give a shit what the truth is. You confidently state things that are untrue, and when called on it, you try to claim you were right all along and that people are being mean to you.
It’ll be real easy for you to not be called a liar so much. All you have to do is to quit lying so much.
To be fair, I think we’ve shown in the past that he just does not bother to do research and just says stuff… Or alternatively does not read his cites past the headline.
So not actual lying per se. Just blatant disregard for facts and evidence.
That’s an excuse I’ll accept for the first few times. After that, he’s aware that he’s disregarding facts, and that his ass-based posts without any research are likelier than not to be incorrect. And he makes them anyway.
If I say, “Sam eats cat turds straight from the litter tray,” even after dozens of times where my statements without evidence are shown to be false, that’s lying. I can’t claim the excuse that I didn’t know any better.
