# Thanks AGW deniers! We were getting tired of all those trees! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462 "2012-06-27T14:22:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/101 "2012-06-30T01:48:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 There’s still a scientific mystery as to how **clouds** work?! Was I lied to in junior high school?! The mystery refers to how clouds work in regards to them being a positive or a negative feedback in the Global Warming puzzle, How they work regarding precipitation and other common phenomena related to them is not a mystery. One of the few skeptic scientists, Lindzen, has had many theories on how the clouds will become a negative feedback, meaning that then global warming will not be so bad; unfortunately, almost all of his ideas have failed to pan out in real life or are discredited. > **[Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-take-on-Richard-Lindzen.html)** > > This is a re-post from Carbon Brief of a critique of the presentation discussed in Lindzen's London Illusions covering some of the same points as in our posts, and some others as well. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/102 "2012-06-30T02:46:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes::dubious: Do you really want to be one of our **NDD/brazil84** -style Dopetards who pretends to miss a point no matter how often and clearly it’s posted in direct response to his own posts?! Don’t [PRATT,](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT) please. How about knowing what the fuck you’re taking about for a change. I do not deny global warming. I just think that GIGO treats it like a religion, which he does.. Anytime there’s even a tangential mention that he can tie to global warming we get preached and evangelized to. Hell, you’d have a better chance of getting Elmer Gantry renounce God that you would trying to get the Father Gigo to admit that man might not know all he thinks he knows about AGW. So, do yourself a shut the fuck up. For a change. And by the way, do you have any idea how weak your “our Dopetards” is? No, of course you don’t. :roll eyes: You may now go back to fellating the Al Gore’s acolyte.. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/103 "2012-06-30T02:47:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are a moron indeed, the point here is that what you are doing is only shooting the messenger, I already referred you the experts that have weighted on the levels of respect that Lovelock has with other climate scientists, as usual my credential are not important in this case, so use logic for once. > > Your beef is with the climate scientists and many others, you are only insisting on putting down a poster on a message board, and the reason is clear, you are only willing to skip the science, as Lovelock is doing too now has he is not an expert in climate science and he has not published anything in scientific journals in ages. So, no credentials off any import. Noted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/104 "2012-06-30T03:05:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, no credentials off any import. > > Noted. And so do you, what matters is what the science says and it is duly noted that you are only ignoring it and you are still demonstrating to all that you are a klutz on identifying good sources from the bad ones. > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/105 "2012-06-30T03:05:27Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Huh. Seriously? Want to show your work on this a little… maybe how much the temperature has changed, how deep the change will have conducted into the Earth’s crust over a few decades, maybe a quick look at the thermal expansion coefficient of deep rock layers? No, I don’t want to show my work. Saying “I wouldn’t be surprised” is not “I have this great peer reviewed and mathematically sound theory”. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/106 "2012-06-30T03:07:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 There’s still a scientific mystery as to how **clouds** work?! Was I lied to in junior high school?! Probably works on a principle similar to rainbows. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/107 "2012-06-30T03:14:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How about knowing what the fuck you’re taking about for a change. I do not deny global warming. I just think that GIGO treats it like a religion, which he does.. Yeah right, what we have here is that there is overwhelming evidence for this, what sucks really is that currently most of the Republican party and conservatives are indeed pushing retarded ideas on this subject, and for some reason you think that putting me down will make a difference… Nah, most of the Republicans, specially the Tea partiers are indeed that dumb and \*\*do \*\*deny global warming, I only can observe here that it must suck to be you when you encounter day in and day out that the ones you are involved with or the media you rely on just spew denialism. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/108 "2012-06-30T05:11:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yeah right, what we have here is that there is overwhelming evidence for this, what sucks really is that currently most of the Republican party and conservatives are indeed pushing retarded ideas on this subject, and for some reason you think that putting me down will make a difference… > > Nah, most of the Republicans, specially the Tea partiers are indeed that dumb and \*\*do \*\*deny global warming, I only can observe here that it must suck to be you when you encounter day in and day out that the ones you are involved with or the media you rely on just spew denialism. Ha. Not a Republican. Not a denier of AGW. Sorry. But you’re 0 for 2. You cannot even understand the point being made. You’re too wrapped up in The Cause. And when you get a scintilla of a notion that someone is not cheering alongside you with pom-poms, you default to, “E-n-e-m-y…M-u-s-t a-t-t-a-c-k.” Can I get an “Amen”? Or an “Algore”? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/109 "2012-06-30T05:19:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Ha. Not a Republican. Not a denier of AGW. Sorry. But you’re 0 for 2. You cannot even understand the point being made. You’re too wrapped up in The Cause. And when you get a scintilla of a notion that someone is not cheering alongside you with pom-poms, you default to, “E-n-e-m-y…M-u-s-t a-t-t-a-c-k.” > > Can I get an “Amen”? Or an “Algore”? Sure, like if it is not clear where your usual sources are, as mentioned before one only needs to do a search on who pushes Lovelock and a flurry of denial sites comes up, point being that I have seen your kind before, a right wing guy that is only a concern troll and a fake environmentalist to boot. And once again, this was not invented by Al Gore. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/sdALFnlwV_o/maxresdefault.jpg "Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdALFnlwV_o) Of course, that last bit about Al Gore also shows where are you coming from, so you are not fooling any one. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/110 "2012-06-30T12:22:39Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > **Gigo** ’s article suggests solar is currently cost-competitive with coal generation… Cost competitive doesn’t mean it’s actually even close to competitive on a utility scale, in terms of capacity factor, availability, stability through the day (and night), etc. I have tried and tried to get this message out on this on this message board for more than 10 years. I’m currently working on a greenfield coal power plant project\* where we are spending more than $5M studying to see if biomass, solar, or wind could be in any way competitive with this new MACT coal plant, because yes this “evil utility” really does want to use renewable energy if they can. And the answer has repeatedly turned out to be in practical terms they’re not even close, as in, 3-5x more expensive when you consider the all-in cost of covering availability (wind actually isn’t an option due to poor resources, so really the only viable renewable competition is biomass and solar). Availability requirements are 90% or higher, because the area is currently experiencing “voluntary reductions” and there have been some brownouts due to several old plants having FO. What they would have to do is build about 3x the nameplate capacity in solar, and supplement with 1x capacity in CCGTs for the evening through morning hours, as well as any day it’s cloudy. Even with $2.80/MBtu gas, that’s not a winner. And of course the PUC won’t let them recoup their cost via rate increases via solar, and thus no renewable power. This is the real world of engineering and science where I work every single day, not the pie-in-the-sky estimates of teenaged bloggers and academics far removed from the actual sweat and blood of permitting and building a power plant. There may be other areas where this can work, but this situation appears fairly typical IME for 2011-2012 projects I’ve been hired onto. Note that I would love to see the plant be solar. Although I am “the coal goddess,” about 2/3 of my work is in renewable energy and environmental controls, and growing each year. People don’t pay me to say “no”, they want me to say “yes.” But when we run the numbers, it’s just simply not going to happen, not by a mile. - Permitting was advanced enough prior to Obama’s ban on new coal power plants without CCS. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/111 "2012-06-30T14:10:35Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by ralph124c View Post Its more a case of periodic drought in the American Southwest-we may be entering a phase similar to that of AD 1300-1400 (when the cliff dwellings, Chaco Canyon, etc. were abandoned). Why would you think that? Seriously, why? Well, for one thing , scientists have studied the climatic data encoded in ancient tree growth rings. This data has been analyzed over the past 70 years-and it shows periodic cycles of drought in the Southwest. The period I referred to was preceded by a period of abundant rainfall in the SW-so much so that desert areas were inhabited by thousands of people-who were able to grow corn, beans, squash, etc., in these now-uninhabited area. Look it up…its all there…have I answered the question?:smack: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/112 "2012-06-30T14:18:15Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by ralph124c View Post > Its more a case of periodic drought in the American Southwest-we may be entering a phase similar to that of AD 1300-1400 (when the cliff dwellings, Chaco Canyon, etc. were abandoned). > Why would you think that? > > Seriously, why? > Well, for one thing , scientists have studied the climatic data encoded in ancient tree growth rings. This data has been analyzed over the past 70 years-and it shows periodic cycles of drought in the Southwest. The period I referred to was preceded by a period of abundant rainfall in the SW-so much so that desert areas were inhabited by thousands of people-who were able to grow corn, beans, squash, etc., in these now-uninhabited area. > Look it up..its all there..have I answered the question?:smack: Sure, but it is a misleading answering the end because it always implies that then the area will naturally change back to a similar level in the future, unfortunately human factors are overwhelming the natural ones. > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. > > A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn’t happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes. > > There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet’s energy balance, they force climate to change. > > It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate. > > Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth’s history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we’ve experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/113 "2012-06-30T14:42:53Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > - Permitting was advanced enough prior to Obama’s ban on new coal power plants without CCS. I have seen reports now that one of the things that is killing coal now is that natural gas is cheaper nowadays. And what you say overall is true and the reason why I did not say that alternatives can be as effective in economical terms now; however, what is happening is indeed a complete lack of responsibility from the part of many fossil fuel companies for any of the extra costs of adaptation that all will have to pay for the changes the use of their product causes (and we are beginning to pay now as the evidence is showing), once the real price to pay is added then we will see that alternatives are more beneficial in economical terms: > **[Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General](https://skepticalscience.com/Michaels-Misrepresents-Nordhaus.html)** > > The Wall Street Journal’s 27 January 2012 climate change op-ed came under harsh and swift criticism for being signed by only two climate scientists and fourteen other non-climate scientists, criticism most notably demonstrated by a group of 38... > [@](#): > > Michaels starts his opinion piece by first contradicting another op-ed that appeared in the New York Times, written by Andrew Revkin. In his piece, Revkin cites an email exchange that he had with Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, Dr. William Nordhaus. For some quick background info, the Wall Street Journal op-ed stated: > > ``` > A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. > > ``` > > Nordhaus said in his exchange with Revkin, > > ``` > The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillions of dollars of present value. […] I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. > > ``` > > Now one would think that a researcher would be aware of what his own research says. Michaels does not think so though, and goes on to explain how the WSJ op-ed authors know more about Nordhaus’ work than the man himself does, as is allegedly demonstrated in Nordhaus’ book, A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. In his book, Nordhaus details the 2007 results of the DICE (Dynamic Integrated model of the Climate and Economy) model, which is an economic model that compares the costs of climate damages and mitigation policies, from the perspective of economic growth theory. He summarizes this in his first chapter: > > ``` > In this approach, economies make investments in capital, education, and technologies, thereby abstaining from consumption today, in order to increase consumption in the future. The DICE model extends this approach by including the “natural capital” of the climate system as an additional kind of capital stock. By devoting output to investments in natural capital through emissions reductions, reducing consumption today, economies prevent economically harmful climate change and thereby increase consumption possibilities in the future. (p. 7) > > ``` Michaels, like Lindzen is also a researcher that often gets is wrong, although in this case the evidence shows that he is misrepresenting what the economist said, it has to be pointed out here that Michaels gets a lot of his funding from fossil fuel supported think tanks. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/114 "2012-06-30T16:34:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sure, like if it is not clear where your usual sources are, as mentioned before one only needs to do a search on who pushes Lovelock and a flurry of denial sites comes up, point being that I have seen your kind before, a right wing guy that is only a concern troll and a fake environmentalist to boot. > > And once again, this was not invented by Al Gore. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdALFnlwV\_o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdALFnlwV_o) > > Of course, that last bit about Al Gore also shows where are you coming from, so you are not fooling any one. Ahem. The Lovelock interview was found on The Guardian. All together now, “ALGORE”! ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/115 "2012-06-30T17:00:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have seen reports now that one of the things that is killing coal now is that natural gas is cheaper nowadays. I recently posted a detailed summary of what is actually killing coal in GD. I have some experience in this area… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/116 "2012-06-30T17:49:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Ahem. The Lovelock interview was found on The Guardian. > > All together now, “ALGORE”! Nope, the point was that whoever told you that interview was the beesnees was an idiot, generally what happens is that a retarded denial or right wing site told all that that interview showed how climate change scientists are discredited, when in reality it is Lovelock who is. BTW this double down of yours only demonstrates that I was correct, you are indeed incapable of identifying good from bad sources and in this case it Lovelock who I’m talking about, not the Guardian as they do get to interview the other side that is in the super-majority: > **[Environmentalism is not a religion | James Murray](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/26/climate-change-skeptic-religion)** > > James Murray: Of all the nonsense climate change deniers throw at the green movement, there one criticism that does real damage > [@](#): > > I’m sure Hoggart is being truthful when he says he does not know who is right about climate change, but if he wanted to apply the same standards of knowledge to other areas he would have to admit he is not sure who is right about the link between smoking and cancer – the medical establishment, or the discredited hacks who spent years providing dodgy research to the tobacco companies. He can argue that wind turbines look ugly, but to argue that they have “no apparent effect” is to dismiss reams of independent evidence to the contrary, not least the energy meters attached to any wind turbine recording the power being fed into the grid. > > People who suggest climate change might not be happening are not heretics, but they are guilty of a quite staggering lack of intellectual rigour and those who suggest green is a religion, including the estimable James Lovelock, are guilty of a remarkable category error. > > You can call environmentalism an ideology, a political movement, even a lifestyle; but it sure as hell isn’t a religion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/117 "2012-06-30T17:54:26Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I recently posted a detailed summary of what is actually killing coal in GD. I have some experience in this area… And I have no problem with your assessment, I only point out that one new factor is also the issue of natural gas suddenly being cheaper. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation-drops-19-percent-in-one-year-leaving-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation-drops-19-percent-in-one-year-leaving-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/) > [@](#): > > As EIA explains, natural gas generation will climb steadily this year, while coal will see a double-digit drop by the end of 2012: > > > [@](#): > > > > Natural‐gas‐fired generation continues to expand its share of total generation at the expense of coal‐fired generation. During the first quarter of 2012, natural gas accounted for 28.7 percent of total generation compared with 20.7 percent during the same quarter last year. In contrast, coal’s share of total generation declined from 44.6 percent to 36.0 percent over the same period. > > > > ``` > > Prices for natural gas delivered to the electric power industry fell by 7.5 percent in 2011, which contributed to a significant increase in the share of natural‐gas‐fired generation. EIA expects this trend to continue in 2012, with electric power sector coal consumption falling by 14 percent. Natural gas in the electric power sector grows by almost 21 percent in 2012, primarily driven by the increasing relative cost advantages of natural gas over coal for power generation in some regions. > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/118 "2012-06-30T18:00:02Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Cost competitive doesn’t mean it’s actually even close to competitive on a utility scale, in terms of capacity factor, availability, stability through the day (and night), etc. I have tried and tried to get this message out on this on this message board for more than 10 years. I hoped someone would comment on that bit, and who better than **Una Persson** … > [@](#): > > I’m currently working on a greenfield coal power plant project\* where we are spending more than $5M studying to see if biomass, solar, or wind could be in any way competitive with this new MACT coal plant, because yes this “evil utility” really does want to use renewable energy if they can. And the answer has repeatedly turned out to be in practical terms they’re not even close, as in, 3-5x more expensive when you consider the all-in cost of covering availability (wind actually isn’t an option due to poor resources, so really the only viable renewable competition is biomass and solar). Availability requirements are 90% or higher, because the area is currently experiencing “voluntary reductions” and there have been some brownouts due to several old plants having FO. What they would have to do is build about 3x the nameplate capacity in solar, and supplement with 1x capacity in CCGTs for the evening through morning hours, as well as any day it’s cloudy. Even with $2.80/MBtu gas, that’s not a winner. First of all I don’t tend to think of utilities (or you either for that matter) as evil. Yes, coal pollution kills thousands every year, but what were we supposed to have done for power over the last 100 years? -I don’t understand the abbreviation FO. Tell me if I have the gist correct: You are saying that the price per watt of solar falling below the price per watt of coal-generated power is not the whole story since 1) Solar requires installing 3x the required capacity because of its variability, 2) this variability also requires something like a peaker plant to pick up the slack and therefore 3) here in 2012 the numbers point to going forward with coal for the clear cost advantage. If all that is the case, well ok, but see below. > [@](#): > > And of course the PUC won’t let them recoup their cost via rate increases via solar, and thus no renewable power. This is the real world of engineering and science where I work every single day, not the pie-in-the-sky estimates of teenaged bloggers and academics far removed from the actual sweat and blood of permitting and building a power plant. There may be other areas where this can work, but this situation appears fairly typical IME for 2011-2012 projects I’ve been hired onto. I hope you aren’t calling me a teenaged blogger :mad: Issues with the local PUC really vary with region, no? Some populations are willing to pay extra to speed up the switch to renewable power while others are very sensitive to price increases. I don’t know where your project is located but it sounds like the latter is the case there. I can dig it. > [@](#): > > Note that I would love to see the plant be solar. Although I am “the coal goddess,” about 2/3 of my work is in renewable energy and environmental controls, and growing each year. People don’t pay me to say “no”, they want me to say “yes.” But when we run the numbers, it’s just simply not going to happen, not by a mile. Not by a mile perhaps, but how about by a decade? I don’t have the expertise to make a prediction of when, if ever, large-scale solar will be truly competitive with its rivals. But consider how suggestive some of the specifics can be, starting with[this chart of solar prices.](http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/06/solar-pv-cost-trend.png) As economies of scale and other factors kick in over time, the price per watt of solar has dropped in a dramatic Moore’s Law kind of way. To date it has not dropped low enough to be competitive, but at what point does that change? Isn’t fossil fuel generation projected to increase in price over time? Also consider projections from ostensibly respectable sources like [this one](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop), who suggest your above claims won’t be true for long: > [@](#): > > To compare the relative cost of solar – usually described in terms of the dollar price of each watt of peak capacity – and other energy sources, analysts consider factors such as upfront expenditure, fuel prices, maintenance and discount rates to calculate the “levelised” cost of each unit of energy. The report predicts that, with continued support in the short term, the levellised cost of large-scale solar will be no higher than retail energy prices by 2016-19. This suggests that within 10 years companies with large electricity demands will find it cheaper to install unsubsidised solar than to buy energy via the grid in the traditional way. Yes, they are talking about something a little different that a centralized power plant, in a different country no less, but overall do you think these kinds of projections are misleading wrt the potential of solar power? Finally, concerning cloudy days and the need for a backup plant- what about smart grids endowed with lots of auto batteries storing excess electricity and giving it back during periods of low sunshine? What about utility-scale batteries? Solar’s modular nature? I really have no idea of the costs of large-scale batteries but can’t they at least mitigate the use of a backup generator and pay for themselves over time? And as electric cars become more popular, won’t the cost of municipal batteries be effectively picked up by consumers who will each be providing a small amount of battery backup to a future smart grid, mostly if not altogether eliminating the need for a backup/peaker plant? That’s a lot to toss in your lap at once. In a nutshell I’m asking if the case for solar can be de-bunked looking 10, 20, 50 years into the future, even if it isn’t utility-practical right now. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/119 "2012-06-30T18:02:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Or an “Algore”? [Don’t.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=593910) ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/120 "2012-06-30T18:13:33Z")
I’m a Coloradoan and the fires are making me miserable, but Colorado goes through wet and dry spells. We’re in a dry one. There are lots of studies that come out of CU about climate change and Colorado weather, but some of it is cyclical. Long dry spells are not uncommon. I can’t really recount all of my Colorado history prof’s lectures, but I doubt human destruction had anything to do with a dry spell, of, say 1884 or 1483. Our indigenous history pretty much shows that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462.md?page=7)