# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 7
**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, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/121 "2012-06-30T18:36:42Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > 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. And there is no issue with that, the problem is to ignore what is being added to that, climate scientists already take the past into account, and the cycles, as mentioned before nature is still there moving stuff around, the problem is the stuff building up in the background, the cycles are still there and increasing in temperature and it is the CO2 and other man made global warming gases that are acting like the steroids of the atmosphere. > **[The Escalator](https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47)** > > 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:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/122 "2012-06-30T19:08:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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/) Well, which is worse for the greenhouse effect, coal power or NG power? ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/123 "2012-06-30T19:17:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, which is worse for the greenhouse effect, coal power or NG power? AFAIK both are bad, but NG is less so as there is less waste to deal with. but that is not the main point for me, we needed to add a price to reflect the real cost of using fossil fuels since yesterday. That we are still opposing this, and mostly at the high levels of government, is a problem. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/124 "2012-06-30T19:24:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And there is no issue with that, the problem is to ignore what is being added to that, climate scientists already take the past into account, and the cycles, as mentioned before nature is still there moving stuff around, the problem is the stuff building up in the background, the cycles are still there and increasing in temperature and it is the CO2 and other man made global warming gases that are acting like the steroids of the atmosphere. > > [The Escalator](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47) That’s why I said **some of it is cyclical**. The fires probably would’ve happened anyway. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/125 "2012-06-30T19:28:52Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > That’s why I said **some of it is cyclical**. The fires probably would’ve happened anyway. Yes, but once again, not at the current level, intensity or frequency. ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/126 "2012-06-30T21:28:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. But that was a critical part of my assessment. I’m saying I already addressed the emissions and the gas price issue. 😕 ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/127 "2012-06-30T21:37:36Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > -I don’t understand the abbreviation FO. Forced outages - a/k/a unplanned maintenance which takes the plant down. > [@](#): > > 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. Almost - you need something to provide the power during night or when there are clouds, thus the CCGT (which used to be for peak use, but more and more are baseload use plants). Solar actually can do quite well for summer peaks as the same long, hot sun which drives A/C costs also pumps energy into the solar troughs or PV arrays. > [@](#): > > 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. You are correct, > [@](#): > > 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? Oh I think solar will make it, and I’m looking forward to it. A decade might do it, but I think it will be about 2 before solar can truly replace coal in every way at the same price. Now of course the true “cost” of CO2 isn’t figured into it yet in the US - apply an allowance cost of, say, $20/tonne of CO2, and then solar truly matches coal in a decade. A decade isn’t all that long… 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? I’m not an expert on that, but I don’t think anyone believes that’s honestly, realistically, feasible. > [@](#): > > 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. My preference would be for the following balance: - Solar and wind to supply most generation, as much as possible - hopefully about 33% of our net generation. - Nuclear baseload for about 50% of our net generation (and to cover nighttime, weather outages, clouds, etc.) - CCGT for the remaining 16% for fast peaking ability and to assist with baseload when needed. Further down the road, develop solar more, move to the thorium cycle, and someday, maybe, fusion. ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/128 "2012-06-30T23:22:30Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I’m not an expert on that, but I don’t think anyone believes that’s honestly, realistically, feasible. Welp you’d better fire off a memo to[the guys who are building such a system](http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/End_Use_Electric_Transportation/Forget-vehicle-to-grid-and-think-vehicle-to-home-instead-4872.html) real quick. But you probably doubt the feasibility of vehicle-to-grid smart grid technology, whereas my link is about vehicle-to-_home_. Pretty much the same effect though. I’ll have to chew on the rest to see if I come up with any complaint with it. Nice hearing from ya as always 🙂 ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/129 "2012-06-30T23:38:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > AFAIK both are bad, but NG is less so as there is less waste to deal with. but that is not the main point for me, we needed to add a price to reflect the real cost of using fossil fuels since yesterday. That we are still opposing this, and mostly at the high levels of government, is a problem. By “price,” do you mean “tax”? That would be the problem. You’re talking about a tax with the specific intent of behavior-modification rather than revenue-generation, which is perfectly legitimate, but it’s always hard for conservatives and even moderates to admit that. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/130 "2012-06-30T23:41:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > By “price,” do you mean “tax”? That would be the problem. You’re talking about a tax with the specific intent of behavior-modification rather than revenue-generation, which is perfectly legitimate, but it’s always hard for conservatives and even moderates to admit that. No, he means through the commerce clause. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2012, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/131 "2012-07-01T00:30:43Z")
You know who deserves a bigger Pitting? Arsonists, irresponsible building/planners, and irresponsible forest management. While it costs billions to deforest or de-brush in dense areas, it’s better than letting wildfires like this wage out of control. The High Park fire has already cost over a billion dollars in management. While global warming contributes to the fact that some of the best places in Colorado are on fire, it doesn’t really diminish the fact that humans are fucking assholes. Smokey the Bear says only citizens can prevent forest forest fires. Bah-loney. (I just spent four hours driving up and down I-25 and HWY 34. I’m grumpy.) ---
**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:** [July 1, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/132 "2012-07-01T01:15:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > By “price,” do you mean “tax”? That would be the problem. You’re talking about a tax with the specific intent of behavior-modification rather than revenue-generation, which is perfectly legitimate, but it’s always hard for conservatives and even moderates to admit that. Uh, I’m referring also to revenue-generation, all that money for the increase in the cost of firefighting, coastal city upgrades, increased costs of dealing with extreme weather, better water management in cities, research and deployment of alternatives (an item that Lomborg finally agrees the money from a tax should go), etc, has to come from somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462/133 "2012-07-02T01:51:38Z")
BTW, [a group of climate scientists have recently determined that the rise of the sea levels can be slowed but not stopped.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-climate-sealevel-idUSBRE8600EG20120701) (At least it’ll put out the fires.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-agw-deniers-we-were-getting-tired-of-all-those-trees/626462.md?page=6)