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.
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.
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.
But that was a critical part of my assessment. I’m saying I already addressed the emissions and the gas price issue. 
Forced outages - a/k/a unplanned maintenance which takes the plant down.
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.
You are correct,
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?
I’m not an expert on that, but I don’t think anyone believes that’s honestly, realistically, feasible.
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.
Welp you’d better fire off a memo tothe guys who are building such a system 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 
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.
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.)
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.
BTW, a group of climate scientists have recently determined that the rise of the sea levels can be slowed but not stopped. (At least it’ll put out the fires.)