Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Our nation is NOT more secure for having the Texas power disaster, which could have been avoided.

Plus, it is also a fact that their fossil fuel generation failed due to ignoring engineering reviews of their system that identified the failure points that did, in fact, fail.

During the disaster, wind power in Texas decreased to the minimum output that was advertised, as I understand it.

 

So, cite how that is a problem for Iowa.

I don't see them complaining about having wind energy.

Iowa is a real case, and if you have a point it should be seen in an analysis of Iowa energy.

 

The isolation of the Texas grid is a cyber and electronic warfare security measure.
Wind power decreased far below levels that had been sustained the five previous years.

 

The calculated cost per kwh of wind power does not include the cost of fossil fuel baseload back-up, so the wind power is deceptively advertised.

 

Texas cut itself off as a way to avoid federal regulation. As a security measure, it clearly failed, as it made Texas MORE vulnerable.

We do need the security you mention, but Republicans have been highly interested in NOT improving our infrastructure - which probably has to improve capacity, cyber vulnerability and Carrington event vulnerability.

 

Then find a cite for that.

Fossil fuel is still included in the Iowa electric generation mix. So, it's all right there.

For the first step, is Iowa paying more for fossil fuel than the price in surrounding states that have no or little wind production? If not, you lose. If so, then the next step is to find out why.

 

A concept either unknown or foolishly ignored by AGW fanatics. They whisper their little catechisms of "battery or fossil fuel generators" and smile smugly, but rarely grasp that the back-up has to deliver nearly the same power as their "renewables". He replied that Biden's IRA bill provided sufficient funding to do all that; he was crestfallen when I told him Biden's funding wasn't even a good down payment on the multi-trillion dollar price tag just to get a system capable of providing a modest fraction of the overall requirement to go "carbon free"

 

Yes. My understanding is that wind generation went down to about the minimum promised by that energy source. That was certainly lower than sustained averages.

It was available information for Texas to plan what it needed to do in a cold weather disaster.

And, that was known.

 

You put more effort into being cute than to being informative.

Iowa has wind and fossil fuel. In fact, it has more wind power than any fossil fuel source.

So cite an analysis of the cost of that "back up" issue of yours. If it exists, it's right there TODAY.

I suspect the problem you are having is that you think the clean energy issue is one of replacing all generation with clean energy.

And, that is simply NOT the case.

 

So what?

How about YOU explain your arguments. All you've done here is just a big "huh-uh" without support.

Just because I'm such a nice guy here's a quick look at ONE study.

 

I cited a working system - Iowa. You can't scoff at that.

Then, you and Hays made claims without cites.

And, your uncited bs about "trillions" is nonsense, because it is NOT AN OBJECTIVE to make the USA purely clean energy. (Caps, because I've stated that several times in this thread.)

 

Iowa need not pay more. The point is whether the cost of fossil fuel baseload back-up is included in calculating the cost of wind-generated electricity.

 

Iowa has wind power and they have fossil fuel power. In fact, they have more wind power than any fossil fuel

That's all you need to determine whether your concern is valid.

 

Iowa? A hybrid system 60% fossil fuel? Be still my heart?

Pointing to Iowa is nonsense - still a dependency on fossil fuel. A small rural state. Population around 3 million. Whoop-de-do.

Who says that's the goal? I don't hear Biden or any other politician says that. What you're overlooking is that the renewables portion is going to have to have FF backup. Time you did a little citing yourself.

 

My point is about PR on cost.

 

You could become wealthy if you could develop a Lunar Panel to supplement, and produce like Sonar Panels.

 

Tell me the cost of the "backup" in Iowa. That is a very real case. If your concern is real, you would be able to make your argument there.

If the US moved toward being like Iowa, that would be a gigantic step in air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

NOBODY thinks the US is going to fund the total elimination of fossil fuel.

And, making ridiculous claims that are dependent on that being the objective is pure political nonsense.

 

A very real case of a small rural state. Point is the cost comprises having backup generation available for whatever capacity your renewables are producing.

Probably not.

Biden does.

We live in a world of politics, Will. "The CLIMATE" IS POLITICS. The prime players are all political organizations.

 

If that's what you think, then MEASURE IT.

The size of Iowa is irrelevant. They face the same issues as everyone else.

No, Biden does not believe we're going to have 100% clean energy.

It's not the climate that is politics. It is the reaction of people that is. Do they care about the future? Are they interested in the results of those who are expert in the field of climatology? Do they care about the environment? Etc.i

 

Really?

FACT SHEET: President Biden Signs Executive Order ...
https://www.whitehouse.gov › 2021/12/08 › fact-sheet-...

Dec 8, 2021 — FACT SHEET: President Biden Signs Executive Order Catalyzing America's Clean Energy Economy Through Federal Sustainability · 100 percent CFE by ...

The President’s executive order directs the federal government to use its scale and procurement power to achieve five ambitious goals:

• 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity (CFE) by 2030, at least half of which will be locally supplied clean energy to meet 24/7 demand;
• 100 percent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) acquisitions by 2035, including 100 percent zero-emission light-duty vehicle acquisitions by 2027;
• Net-zero emissions from federal procurement no later than 2050, including a Buy Clean policy to promote use of construction materials with lower embodied emissions;
• A net-zero emissions building portfolio by 2045, including a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2032; and
• Net-zero emissions from overall federal operations by 2050, including a 65 percent emissions reduction by 2030.

 

It's been measured enough.

Size is irrelevant? In what fantasy world? You don't have much of a background in design and engineering, do you?

Didn't he say he was going end the US oil industry?

Politics funds those experts and the experts deliver what the politicians want. Many climatologists disagree with the the "climate disaster" mantra. And, pleased don't trot out hat "vast majority" nonsense. You've been shown several times that the models your heroes depend vastly over estimate temperature rises.

 

So a tiny, rural state has a system that's PARTIALLY renewable based.

I don't see your posts full of cites.

You can say anything you want - as you continually do - most of it demonstrating a pure grasp on the reality of the issue.
So why did Biden admit his goal was to destroy oil industry

 

From your document:
"Achieve 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity use by 2030, including 50 percent on a 24/7 basis."

You're just clearly misinterpreting what is being stated.

If you want to argue that it was stated in a confusing manner, fine.

But, it's crystal clear that he is not suggesting that fossil fuel power will be ended.

 

Then tell me the results of those measurements.

You can not just claim they were measured!!! Where did you get a dodge THAT lame?

And, no. The vast majority of climatologists DO identify humans as the primary cause of the warming that is very obviously happening.

 

I've cited what Iowa has done on many occasions. Hays knows that.

And, it was you and/or Hays who made this charge that wind energy is being over valued, because of something that fossil fuel has had to do.

That's what I'm asking to be supported.

If it's real, then it has to be happening in Iowa. So, I just propose that you go looking in Iowa.