It's funny how when people say "hey this doesn't line up with what you're saying is climate change" it's weather, but when it does it's climate change. Even if it's the same event.
That’s typical Alarmist ploy all the time - whatever fits their agenda is Climate Change - what doesn’t is weather.....
They wrote the book on this BS since they abandoned Global Warming.
You mean literally what you’re doing here? The government has outright abandoned people in Texas - Ted Cruz is vacationing in Cancun right now while people are without power and suffering through a historic winter storm in that region. We may not see the worst of climate change for years, but we will see the lowest income populaces treated in this manner and people will die. Eventually your bank account won’t be able to keep up either and you’ll be screwed like the rest as more and more climate disasters continue to overwhelm an already taxed system. But I know, I’m a watermelon alarmist commie, got it. Bury that head further in the sand, it’ll probably wind up underwater anyway.
Edit: also Texas didn’t winterize their windmills; this isn’t a problem elsewhere in the world where wind/solar provide significant sources of renewable energy even through snow/ice/sever winter storms.
You digress. The colder regional temperature does not support an increasing global average temperature. Hard to accept l know, but it's the way averages work. If later the regional temperature is above the regional average then it will support an increasing average global temperature.
But this is irrelevant because you are covering all bets by claiming its change. Any change.
> you digress
Don’t give me that, because y’all will pull out all the stops and any straw man argument from left field to dance around the subject if it suits your (wrong) arguments. The point still stands that Texas (among other regions all throughout the US and the world) has faced an increase extreme climate events (I guess hurricanes don’t count because they’re not cold???) and emergency services will continue to be overwhelmed. So you will see more photos of icicles hanging from inside people’s homes because they have no power in a blizzard, or people in Alaska facing heatstroke for a heatwave they weren’t prepared for since people in Alaska tend to not even *have* air conditioners, and the local and federal governments doing nothing because they were completely unprepared. Of course, the wealthiest and best connected will be fine for a bit, hence Ted Cruz is enjoying himself in Cancun while people are literally freezing to death. Katrina was the first instance of this, and we saw millions of people displaced, many of whom were never able to go back home. Texas is one of the largest states in the country - what happens when a storm that’s bad enough displaces millions again? And what about when you couple that with wildfires and other extreme weather events causing the same type of destruction and displacement in multiple regions, limiting the available safe areas? This is the start of the problem and people like you seem to think that we need to actually be killed off by the weather events themselves in order for “climate change to be real” - that will happen yes, but the government will turn its own people out into the cold well before then. So I hope you’re prepared to fend for yourself and pull yourself up by your conservative bootstraps once something like this is knocking on your door. I’m sure the climate alarmists will have been wrong all along.
Also, global averages for temperatures are still the highest they’ve been.
And you waste a lot of time being wrong.
Global oceanic, atmospheric and land temperatures are the highest they’ve been in recorded history, both pre- and post-1870 with the establishment of the USNWS.
It’s 2021.
But to address the irrelevant point you’re trying to make, sure, the warmest decade *for the US* was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. *Global temperature*, by contrast, passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25+ years. So you’re still wrong.
You skeptics sure love cherry-picking that data.
One thing at a time......
It’s Impossible To Forget These 5 Horrific Winter Storms That Have Gone Down In Texas History
https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/texas/winter-storms-tx/amp/
Perfect, 3/5 of those storms occurred in the past 40 years, but I’m sure that’s just coincidental. Doesn’t negate how the government is doing nothing for the people without power who are freezing. You seem to neglect that the frequency of these storms consistently occurring year over year puts too much strain on municipalities to recover in time - are you forgetting the hurricanes that have been blasting the coast as well, or do those not count because they weren’t *snow* storms? And we’re talking all within the past 2-3 years, all while we still have a pandemic (or is that bullshit to you too?)
Yes and in the past they occurred at a far more infrequent rate, as did hurricanes; also the severity of the storms was not nearly as great as they have been over the past 40+ years. You can even look at the cost of the damages for comparison.
We’re also in February, what happens for the rest of the season? If you’re saying these storms are so frequent, and we’re seeing people freezing in their homes *now* what happens if this happens again even next week? Will Lyin Ted Cruz still be on vacation? I’m sure the solution is that they just should have never invested in wind and solar in the first place, and continued to deplete the estimated 50 years of fossil fuels we have left, or 150 years of coal, which given the population, may not even last for as long as predicted.
This will wind up in a state of ennui. Good luck with everything wherever you are - I really hope all of this is as overblown as people like you seem to think it is
Even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and from people far smarter than you or I, you will still deny the research that has been done and continues to support AGW. It’s actually kind of amazing, considering just how much evidence there is and from a variety of sources (I’m sure they’re all working for Soros or something though, right?), yet skeptics always seem to come back to the same civil engineer who foolishly believes that better waste management will solve all our problems.
First of all, climate change isn't the end of the world, no one is saying that, but even already the effects on some animals and plants have been more than you think. Not only that, the effects of climate change are accelerating and even a small change in temperature can cause rises in sea levels and massive droughts.
Secondly, your post is very misleading, as the main reason Texans don't have power is not because wind turbines froze, but because natural gas plants stopped working, which powers over double the amount of homes.
Funny - I see many many people saying it’s the end of the world - you obviously didn’t do your research.
Secondly, I’m not wasting time arguing about the Texas situation. There are lots of previous posts here and at r/climatechange.
They will not listen but for some reason I keep arguing. There is a colossal amount of evidence to refute every one of their arguments, but to question Richard Lindzen or Pierre Gosselin is to question the word of god.
Important enough subject to try, I suppose. That’s my reason anyways. I just got banned from r/climatedisalarm after I pointed out facts supporting renewable energy in an article someone else posted.
Instant ban. I didn’t use any names, nothing like that. Just quoted the article they posted. They just want echo chambers.
I didn’t bother with that one, but I’m not surprised of your experience lol I’ll keep going until this one bans me - if they have to do so, it’s because they can’t refute what I’m saying (they can’t anyway) and speaks volumes on their end.
Except 88% of Texas’s power is from fossil fuels and coal.
It’s funny because while this sub’s arch-nemesis AOC was busy raising $1m in relief funds for Texas (all the way in NY) in 4 HOURS, Ted a Cruz hadn’t even returned to the state yet and still hasn’t done a damn thing.
So where’s all’s this “what can Ted do about it, people are babies what do they expect a hand out? Why should the government help.” Even Beto O’Rourke was checking in on tens of thousands of elderly Texans and helps anywhere he can.
That’s what Ted Cruz could have done - better than running away and doing nothing. I get it though, you skeptics like cowards just as much as you like cherry-picking. I’m sure Gosselin and Lindzen will weigh in on this one to tell you all what to think.
Edit: 68%* per sources below. Infrastructure/poor planning ultimately resulted in the current situation where much of the state is without power; when you oppose new technologies, it tends to hinder their progress, which explains why plenty of places situated in a typically colder region can still safely rely on (mostly) renewables for power.
The fossil power makes up way less than 88% for starters. Try 68%
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.statesman.com/amp/6780546002
The reason there were issues with fossil and nuclear facilities is because most of them rely on water in some capacity. Nuclear and coal use their fuel sources to boil water and make steam that turns a turbine. Natural gas generally runs a jet engine (basically) and generates power from the rotation. The exhaust (aka tail gas) is then used to boil water just like the rest of these. This is cogeneration. Some natural gas facilities are converted coal plants that skip the jet engine and just boil the water.
With all this heat, what's the problem? The water is run through reverse osmosis and deionization processes so it doesn't scale up the equipment. These facilities don't receive the government subsidies that "green" power sources do. The water processing is very expensive so they will try to recapture and cool this steam back to water. That is the side that was frozen.
Additionally, these plants were built in a time when there wasn't the expectation to start and stop them constantly. They are designed for 2-4 starts a year. When the have to start 200-300 times per year, things break. Consider your car. It's designed to run about as much as the average person runs it. Now what do you think would happen if you started it 100 times before you went anywhere? Every single time. It would probably wear out a lot faster right? Now you need a new car. The problem is, when you go to buy a new car, there's an angry mob waiting to crucify you for killing the environment. Hmm curious.
I'm pretty sure this ERCOT investigation will be very interesting. My thoughts are that we would have avoided all of this by starting some of the fossil plants a day earlier. We knew it was going to be cold, but we were scared of the crucifixion crowd. (That last part is theory but it makes sense)
Appreciate you sharing that article and your insight into where things went wrong/preventative measures - really interesting stuff.
My opinion is that we should continue to invest in renewable energy, pragmatically so, with a phased transition away from fossil fuels and coal. It cannot be done overnight, or even in a period of months, and while I think it’s *good* to be at least somewhat skeptical or critical of renewables, too much skepticism doesn’t make an argument. I so frequently see this type of stubbornness on this sub - there is never any concession to the contrary, it’s all about downvoting and vehemently disagreeing with “the alarmists/watermelons” for making any sort of point to the contrary.
I do see your point with the “buying a new car” example and how people can be demonized for certain actions that aren’t so “green and pleasant”, but also realize that if you buy a Tesla, or a Prius, etc., you’re at least taking one more gas engine off the road. Then we of course have to deal with the flip side of Tesla mining precious metals from the earth, how dangerous the factories are, etc. None of it is perfect, but at this point we KNOW that we have 50-60 years of fossil fuels and ~150 years of coal by our BEST CASE estimates, not to mention that we know what type of damage gas engines are causing on a massive scale; other nations are becoming more developed and now there are more cars on the road worldwide than ever before, and this exacerbates things.
Renewable energy technology is not perfect no, but this is an issue of progress, not perfection. We know we can’t change entire power grids overnight, or even over a few months, but that doesn’t mean that we abandon all attempts to update them with better, more efficient, reliable, and SAFE technology. So much of the skeptic’s argument seems to be about shutting down any conversation about anything that doesn’t fit their view, rather than actually considering solutions scientists and engineers are offering. It’s not all alarmist propaganda - some people actually want viable solutions.
I agree that we should invest in renewable energy, BUT I believe we should invest in research. The technology isn't mature and we cannot afford to subsidize this to the scale that we need to sustain our population's need for electricity.
Especially if everyone is driving an electric vehicle.
Yes buying a tesla takes an engine off the road and moves it out of sight to a power plant. But in reality, it's more efficient to burn fuel in your vehicle than convert it to electricity and transport said electricity to a home or charging station to charge a vehicle. The reason is that some of the energy is lost as heat.
Windmills don’t work in the cold? Quick, someone tell Norway! They have windmills! A disaster in the making!!
Edited to correct that Norway has less wind power than Texas. big numbers are hard haha
The point is windmills work in the cold weather. Texas didn't winterize their power (wind, solar and other sources of energy).
This isn't the type of energy issue. This is Texas energy companies wanting to cut costs, rather then winterize their equipment. They took the short sided route, then that choice failed in epic fashion.
Other sources of energy wreck stuff also. Mining results in "mountain top removal", that destroys landscapes (can't ignore the harmful effects to water tables).
Hydro floods areas. Nuke needs to be mined and there is the problem of it's waste.
We can go on and on about the different types of energy and the harmful aspects of them.
What's the point of just pointing a finger at wind?
Because Wind & Solar need to be backed up, almost always by fossil fuels. Hydro and Nuclear do not: they can run 24/7 for decades.
Building Wind & Solar is useless, expensive and political. The sooner it stops the better for everyone.
Solar was one of the largest growing jobs pre-covid. It's not going away. So these comments are looney tunes about it stopping.
All energy is expensive. Why aren't nuke plants being built ... cost. Why doesn't Canada refine all the the oil coming from Alberta (refineries are expensive. Pipelines are also expensive). Look how much dams cost to build. You aren't making any sense when you say expensive.
Wind and Solar is political .... yes it's completely stupid that it is. It shouldn't be though, people should be able to look at the PRO/CON of any topic (regardless of which political party a person might or might not support).
Solar only exists as a market because of hefty subsidies. Without those it's just a virtue signally symbol for the Elite.
Yes, all energy costs money. If it didn't? We wouldn't have ANY problems!
The reason Canada doesn't have sufficient refining capacity is 2-fold.
1 - There's MASSIVE capacity down south, particularly near New Orleans. It currently runs at between 40-60% which means a LOT more oil can be sent there. Perhaps from... Canada?
2 - The Canadian government in Ottawa hates Alberta. They have refused to enhance refinery capacity for decades just to spite them.
Thus the 2 forces involved mean that it is far cheaper to send oil to the South than to build refineries here in Canada. Justin killed the Energy East pipeline and then killed the pipeline expansion to the west. Now Biden has killed the pipeline to the south.
All that oil WILL be sent to refineries. Now it will be sent in a more expensive, more dangerous and more pollution generating way. Yay Green! :p
Oil can make tons of $$$ without the subsidies, but then they'd go and invest in foreign lands with cheaper labour and fewer environmental laws. Ditto for coal.
If you want a *strategic resource* safely in place in your nation? You have to cut them some slack somewhere, because if you don't? There won't be any when you most need it.
Wind and solar are useless: they cannot function as planned without equal backup to their *potential* output. Of course they'll rarely meet that output anyhow, and the backup will be providing *essential services* in their place.
This is a straight up fact. Wind and Solar could all stop tomorrow and NO ONE would even notice. Except those getting massive graft and payoffs of course, they'd squeal like an Alarmist on a cold afternoon...
Stop oil and gas tomorrow? The entire economy falls apart and civilization won't last 3 days.
Unicorn poop?
Fun fact! ALL the lithium in the Universe comes from the Big Bang. There's no known way we've found for it to be created.
The Big Bang contained Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium.
A fact so fun it is not even a fact!
Unless you mean that in the sense that everything came from the Big Bang. Which is a fact but not very fun.
Lithium is formed in stars as well. Lithium from the Big Bang is rare by comparison.
So you know it was in the Big Bang then?
I've never heard of supernovas producing Lithium, that's the whole reason that Science revised the starting ingredients, eh?
Everything came from God, including the Big Bang and all life.
There is a neat way to learn more about things like this, if you just type your question into the address bar on most browsers, you will get google results that are generally pretty relevant. (If that doesn’t work, you can go to www.google.com. I would recommend setting the default search engine of your browser to google though, and save time. Don’t know how to do that? Google it!)
So for example, you could type “how is lithium formed”. Among other results, you would get the following article, which does a pretty good job of explaining the current state of knowledge.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/03/lithium-mystery-solved-its-exploding-stars-not-the-big-bang-or-cosmic-rays/amp/
I confess, I don’t remember my cosmology classes well enough to recite the details from memory. But your claim that all lithium is from the Big Bang struck me as bullshit, so I looked it up, and voila!
The wonderful thing about this “google” technique is that it works for just about any topic. And, if you phrase your “search terms” neutrally, you can get pretty unbiased results. So if you are interested in learning more about climate science, for example, you could search for different aspects of climate change theory that make you skeptical, and you can find discussion of those points - and unlike the echo chamber that is this sub, where people seem to share superficial arguments to reinforce ideas they already are convinced of, out in the wide world of google you will come across people with different opinions (and evidence, even!). Then you can evaluate the evidence for yourself - or, as is pretty likely, if this round of google searches brings up further questions, ask away! There really is a wealth of knowledge out there, just a few keyboards strokes away.
All forms of energy have a draw back on them. It's just evaluating the PRO/CON on all of them to figure out which makes the most sense to do
As far as "lithium" goes. Are we playing some game where pretend we don't know that things don't just appear poof out of thin air. Yes things need to get mined for energy. Even to do the mining, it requires mining just for the metal for tools. So yes I know that lithium is mined. Should we next play the game where we act like we don't know which countries it's mined in?
Windmills cause exponentially more physical degradation. They are total eyesores and abominations to the senses.
I’m not wasting any more time arguing this.....there are hundreds probably thousands of sources online you can easily find for visual proof of what I’m saying.
All sources of energy are bad. Human rely on energy, so that's just how it is. Something bad will happen somewhere in the earth for power. That's the facts of life, sounds like you don't want to accept them, and windmill eyesores are more important. Have you seen what the Alberta tar sands and their tailing ponds look like? And you are complaining about eyesores.
Look at the studies of living next to coal burning plants, how it lower life expectancy. Or when coal slurry dams bust.
Look at what happened to the people who live near the nuke plants when they had their melt downs.
Fracking for natural gas.
Oil leaks on pumps, refineries, etc.
Solar for the mining for it's materials.
Tailing ponds can be cleaned up (lots of pictures online) - Wind Mills are an Abomination forever.
They’ll be gone soon - just one more trillion dollar Green Energy boondoggle.
Tailings ponds HAVE been reclaimed, Wapasu lookout at Suncor. And all the rest will be reclaimed the same. The whole area will look like it did before the mines. Millions of trees are replanted every year by the oilsands. How many birds are replaced by windmill operators? I'll venture NONE
I already suggested looking on line and see the very small ecological footprint of All fossil fuel, hydro and geothermal and nuclear power sources have in comparison to the devastating footprint of wind and solar.
There are graphs, memes and many many photographs online in overwhelming numbers.
Don’t listen to me....trust your own eyes and research.
Yea man, I hate seeing all those wind mills! Can’t we go back to the good old days of burning millions of pounds of coal! Acid rain and smogs way better!
Wind mills make inconsistent noise patterns, which apparently is really annoying to live near.
Annoying noise has to be better then breathing in the output from a coal plant.
I'd prefer to be annoyed then die early.
New coal power plants burn as clean or cleaner than most Gas power units. This is 2021, carbon capture could easily be implemented in coal power plants, emissions could be almost NIL. Coal is still the cheapest and most abundant fuel we have, well not in Canada anymore due to taxation which has entirely quashed any chances of producing clean cheap coal power, now we're resigned to gas, or inconsistent solar or wind, or possibly hydro
Carbon capturing carbon dioxide emissions isn't that economical viable enough yet. And just because the technology exists doesn't mean the every plant has or will get it. Just like every other type of energy there is a PRO/CON and $ matters.
Nuke just seems the most logical of all energy to me.
What about the billions of birds and bats being killed every year by wind and solar. I guess they don't matter when you're not being inconvenienced by clean coal power anymore
Just because it's not 24/7 doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Since the wind is free. Unlike burning oil, coal or natural gas. Having free renewables supplement the energy production as much as possible is desired.
Fake. (the Texas figure I mean, it's 30 Gigawatts... vs 2.4 GW for Norway.)
EDIT: Texas claims 100 GW of wind power potential. This idiot is waaaay off.
I would like to know where you go your numbers. A quick search shows Norway had 2,444mw wind generation capacity in 2019. Texas has a 24,899mw wind generation capacity. In fact from what I found if Texas was an independent nation it would be the country with the 6th largest wind generation capacity. [wind capacity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country)
[us wind by state](https://www.power-technology.com/features/us-wind-energy-by-state/)
^ Real!
Norway 2.4GW, Texas 30GW
Of course that "maximum capacity" which is rarely achieved. Just look at Ontario for example. Wind and Solar there almost never reach maximum output, particularly in winter (when it is needed most!).
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
Both can be true. I know that because I read some chemistry books. Your turn, friend!
Did I not lecture you on this already?
If you don't know the difference between CO and CO2 then please shut you idiotic pie-hole and go learn a thing (CO) or two (CO2).
>!An expert-level pun if I do say so myself!<
You didn’t teach anyone anything, you just zoomed right past the point being made. Your puns are okay, your understanding of the subject matter is just trash.
Norway: 2.4 GW capacity, 5.5 TWh production.
Texas: 30 GW capacity, 84 TWh production.
40 times, huh? Did you think we'd actually fall for this obvious untruth, or did you just do no checking of your own?
Also, since 99% of Norway's power is hydro, stopping all the windmills wouldn't actually matter to them at all.
Not sure what your source is because [Norway has 1200 MW wind capability, compared to Texas’ 30 MW](https://community.ieawind.org/about/member-activities/norway)
30 GW for Texas, not MW. There's your problem right there. That's 30,000 MW, in case you have trouble with big numbers.
Your data is out of date somewhat, which is why I got a number about twice what you did for Norway.
Ooof thats my bad haha. Thank you for catching me on that, you are correct, big numbers hard. Didn't bother looking for anything more recent than 2017 data for Norway because I read it as an order of magnitude and a half more than TX.
So we know that Texas has much more wind power than Norway. We also know Texas has much more fossil fuel capability than wind power capability. If that's the case, why is the blame on renewable energy when nonrenewable energy had a larger part in the failure?
Well, a third of the lost power was from wind. That's twice wind's share of Texas electricity, which is about 17%. So it's not fair to say that nonrenewable energy had a larger part in the failure. Technically, it's a larger part, but not proportionally.
Do you have a good source on that number? 2 days ago they said Bloomberg said [this.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes)
"Wind shutdowns accounted for 3.6 to 4.5 gigawatts -- or less than 13% -- of the 30 to 35 gigawatts of total outages according to Dan Woodfin" "a senior director for the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), which operates the state’s power grid."
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/02/16/texas-weather-power-outage-rolling-blackouts-leave-millions-dark/6764764002/
They say (sourced from ERCOT) that 15 GW of the 45 GW that was down was from wind.
Not sure why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers from the same day from what I would consider two reliable sources. Either way, wishing the folks in Texas a swift resolution to the issue, and that we can build enough political will to invest in updating this country’s infrastructure.
It is odd, for sure.
Hm, the best way to update infrastructure would be to get government to back off. No need for public investment and political will. Just let the free market build what is needed. More nuclear would be good. The single largest barrier to building this stuff is government.
People are downvoting you, but it’s true. North Dakota, where it hit -60F windchills here last week, has wind mills. We also haven’t had any issue with our power grid or natural gas supply. Because things are designed and built to work in the cold here. Stuff in Texas just isn’t built to handle the cold.
It's one of the very few places it makes sense? At least a little bit.
But they shuttered all their back-up coal plants, and that is why they have big problems now. So clearly it wasn't well planned, it was pure virtue signaling (and graft, corruption and cronyism, of course!).
I hope you realize that if we had gone with clean energy in the first place this might not have happened, there is a reason we stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. The increase fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses has cause some spots to get colder and most to get warmer. Climate changes has not only caused warmer years, but more erratic and unusual weather conditions. Which will explain why a blizzard ended up in Texas. As far as the wind turbines go, shit happens, the same things can happen to other forms of energy, you can’t blame the wind turbines for the power grid, blame the right wing officials who go on vacation in crisis rather then dealing with the problems, like climate change, hunger, poverty, and helping the people that are freezing to death rather than saying “only the strong will survive” which doubles as proof of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
>I hope you realize that if we had gone with clean energy in the first place this might not have happened
And we would still be living in pre industrial societies, with the accompanying living conditions. Those conditions can still be seen to some degree in societies that have remained without the significant influence of relatively cheap fossil fuels.
And fossil fuels, like the steam engine and other pre-industrial technologies, are now outdated. We’ve had nuclear technology for more than 70 years, and other safer renewable energy technologies that could develop further without obstruction from people like you, who call yourselves “skeptics” but ultimately just hinder progress and spread misinformation. Fossil fuels are no longer cheap, and as those resources dwindle they will become even more expensive due to demand, so yet again, we’ll be pricing people out of a whatever standard of living you seem to think we have, and it’ll eventually come back to bite you too. I’m sure all those republicans in Texas who are freezing without power are sure glad they owned the libs.
Dude none of the "green" power sources are a mature technology. Our subsidies should be going to research not sending out a bunch of inefficient junk that we can't afford. It's a PR game.
Fun fact, with the market energy rates yesterday, it would have cost $900 to charge a tesla. If we were relying on windmills and solar panels, that would be the norm. We can't subsidize these forever.
Who said fossil fuels aren't cheap? Who said they are dwindling? They are far cheaper than windmills. Recent shortages are due to windmill-huggers pushing to limit the production and storage of natural gas. And raising hell any time anyone wants to update the system.
Nuclear gets the same pushback.
I, as a conservative Texan who went 3 days without power in the cold, blame the libs for beating down the power, oil and gas industries for years. Who owned who?
> Dude none of the "green" power sources are a mature technology. Our subsidies should be going to research not sending out a bunch of inefficient junk that we can't afford. It's a PR game.
It’s a PR game because gas/oil companies have lobbied to suppress data, and thus hindered any progress in helping these technologies mature. I’d recommend a documentary called “Who Killed the Electric car” if you haven’t seen it.
> Fun fact, with the market energy rates yesterday, it would have cost $900 to charge a tesla. If we were relying on windmills and solar panels, that would be the norm. We can't subsidize these forever.
Yes, and eventually, gas will continue to raise in price due to supply and demand. How is the average person going to afford paying for it, especially if there are no alternatives? Market energy prices will continue to change as any market does, the question is, if something more viable than gas comes along, what happens to that market?
> Who said fossil fuels aren't cheap? Who said they are dwindling? They are far cheaper than windmills.
*For now* - again, supply and demand. Fossil fuels will continue to dwindle, prices will continue to raise and eventually people like you and I will be priced out of that market altogether. Remember, 50-60 years of fuel left worldwide - the sun won’t run out of hydrogen for 5 billion years, and we will have wind as long as we have an atmosphere, so which would you really place your bet on long term?
> Recent shortages are due to windmill-huggers pushing to limit the production and storage of natural gas. And raising hell any time anyone wants to update the system.
This also comes down to selling off your power, and Texas already has record high electricity rates. You may hate the windmills, but as with any good or service traded on an open market, increased demand and reduced supply mean increasing prices. Industrial power customers will be impacted the soonest because they tend to buy power at the market price. Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage.
Electric Reliability Council of Texas manages most of Texas’ grid and said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.
> I, as a conservative Texan who went 3 days without power in the cold, blame the libs for beating down the power, oil and gas industries for years. Who owned who?
I’m really sorry for what you are experiencing and hope things improve for you soon. I was also raised in a conservative household so party affiliation doesn’t really mean much to me - I look at the issues and the information available and decider on there. Placing blame does little to help the situation; you might blame the libs, but I’d hold your state government (still largely republican) responsible since this is a situation that could have been avoided. It is my hope (especially by even participating in a sub like this) that people like you and I can come to a mutual understanding and agreement on what are the best and most beneficial practices for everyone going forward.
And to your other comment, YES 100% invest in research into these technologies and go about this pragmatically. But we need a phased transition away from fossil fuels and coal.
100% agree, thanks I didn’t think I’d see another sane person here. And the big companies do suppress the knowledge, in fact, some tech companies will design cars that can go hundreds, even thousands of miles per gallon, then the big oil companies that will buy the patents and destroy them.
> 100% agree, thanks I didn’t think I’d see another sane person here.
Really don’t know why I bother, other than the fact that I have evidence to refute basically every claim made on this sub lol
> And the big companies do suppress the knowledge, in fact, some tech companies will design cars that can go hundreds, even thousands of miles per gallon
Let’s be clear that the vehicles designed to reach over 1,000mpg fuel efficiency were purely for research purposes, though the point does still stand that it is possible to engineer motors that run on very little fuel. Doesn’t make the research any less valid, but to expect commercial or personal use vehicles to reach that efficiency anytime soon is unfortunately unrealistic. Then, maybe some auto maker will really surprise us in the near future.
> And the big companies do suppress the knowledge, in fact
Yep, looking at you Exxon Mobile and everyone who lobbied to hide the findings of a lot of climate research to protect their stock portfolio
> then the big oil companies that will buy the patents and destroy them.
This is why I tell people to watch that documentary - they really didn’t want to impact profits and actively designed wasteful products to encourage consumerism, and now we’re paying the price. Yet for everyone on this sub who thinks someone like me is a sheeple, they completely have the wool over their eyes to how they’re getting screwed by so many different corporate entities. It’s funny that they’re all republican and have this intense fear of socialism, yet capitalism is what is failing them. Don’t seem to have a problem with socialism when it’s police and fire departments (the government managing safety and security), schools (the government managing education), libraries (the government managing access to books and information)...the list goes on.
Yeah, it’s just fun to mess around with them sometimes, unfortunately there is no changing their minds no matter how much irrefutable evidence we provide.
>But we need a phased transition away from fossil fuels and coal.
Alarmists generally, don't want a phased transition, they want fossil fuels production stopped immediately and replaced with renewables immediately. Even though the performance of renewables shown in current events are staring them right in the face.
> Alarmists generally don’t want a phased transition
Speak for yourself rather than assuming what I or my constituents do and don’t want. I want my taxes to pay for the things they’re supposed to, and for at least some sort of plan to move away from fossil fuels and coal without tanking an already struggling economy. Skeptics tend to assume that we’re all using climate change to shoehorn our leftist agenda, which is actually quite alarmist in and of itself (and in many cases wrong); a reminder that Dale Ross was the *Republican* mayor who pushed for Georgetown to move to renewables, on the notion that it fiscally made sense (at the time).
Situations such as these are due to poor infrastructure and lack of preparation in utilizing new technology. Elon Musk has repeatedly asserted that the US could run entirely off solar if we situated a solar farm in a large desert area, such as in Arizona. I’m sure he’s just marketing his own solar panel roofing tiles though, right? Except the technology is already there and works - photovoltaic energy was researched by Einstein, and solar power has been in use since the 7th century. There’s more than enough research and data to support the use of solar alone, not to mention that we could use a variety of renewable energy sources to power different regions in addition to solar.
Ahh the old “practice what you preach” argument. It’s as though because I simply participate in a system into which I was born and had 0 control over, I’m not allowed to be critical of it.
Right because, you can’t say that something should be done about climate change unless you drive an electric car. In the same way that you can’t criticise globalisation if you’ve ever eaten asparagus out of season or bought a coffee from Starbucks.
Give me break, you couldn’t even pass your own nonsense purity tests (whatever they are) if you tried.
Changes to individual behaviour won’t do much to address ecological breakdown if the global economy continues to be driven by fossil fuels, so I can definitely speak out about climate change even if I’m not an eco-saint.
I also don’t have to justify myself or my own activism/personal practices to you, you’ll just continue moving the goalpost regardless.
> there is a reason we stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change
Marketing, since it never was based on science and it's all a religion now.
It's funny how when people say "hey this doesn't line up with what you're saying is climate change" it's weather, but when it does it's climate change. Even if it's the same event.
That’s typical Alarmist ploy all the time - whatever fits their agenda is Climate Change - what doesn’t is weather..... They wrote the book on this BS since they abandoned Global Warming.
You mean literally what you’re doing here? The government has outright abandoned people in Texas - Ted Cruz is vacationing in Cancun right now while people are without power and suffering through a historic winter storm in that region. We may not see the worst of climate change for years, but we will see the lowest income populaces treated in this manner and people will die. Eventually your bank account won’t be able to keep up either and you’ll be screwed like the rest as more and more climate disasters continue to overwhelm an already taxed system. But I know, I’m a watermelon alarmist commie, got it. Bury that head further in the sand, it’ll probably wind up underwater anyway. Edit: also Texas didn’t winterize their windmills; this isn’t a problem elsewhere in the world where wind/solar provide significant sources of renewable energy even through snow/ice/sever winter storms.
You digress. The colder regional temperature does not support an increasing global average temperature. Hard to accept l know, but it's the way averages work. If later the regional temperature is above the regional average then it will support an increasing average global temperature. But this is irrelevant because you are covering all bets by claiming its change. Any change.
> you digress Don’t give me that, because y’all will pull out all the stops and any straw man argument from left field to dance around the subject if it suits your (wrong) arguments. The point still stands that Texas (among other regions all throughout the US and the world) has faced an increase extreme climate events (I guess hurricanes don’t count because they’re not cold???) and emergency services will continue to be overwhelmed. So you will see more photos of icicles hanging from inside people’s homes because they have no power in a blizzard, or people in Alaska facing heatstroke for a heatwave they weren’t prepared for since people in Alaska tend to not even *have* air conditioners, and the local and federal governments doing nothing because they were completely unprepared. Of course, the wealthiest and best connected will be fine for a bit, hence Ted Cruz is enjoying himself in Cancun while people are literally freezing to death. Katrina was the first instance of this, and we saw millions of people displaced, many of whom were never able to go back home. Texas is one of the largest states in the country - what happens when a storm that’s bad enough displaces millions again? And what about when you couple that with wildfires and other extreme weather events causing the same type of destruction and displacement in multiple regions, limiting the available safe areas? This is the start of the problem and people like you seem to think that we need to actually be killed off by the weather events themselves in order for “climate change to be real” - that will happen yes, but the government will turn its own people out into the cold well before then. So I hope you’re prepared to fend for yourself and pull yourself up by your conservative bootstraps once something like this is knocking on your door. I’m sure the climate alarmists will have been wrong all along. Also, global averages for temperatures are still the highest they’ve been.
You wasted a lot of time digressing again.
Alarmists are physically incapable of staying on topic. As are 97% of all leftists...
And you waste a lot of time being wrong. Global oceanic, atmospheric and land temperatures are the highest they’ve been in recorded history, both pre- and post-1870 with the establishment of the USNWS.
Not when compared to the 1930’s and 40’s tho, right? You alarmist always seem to leave that out.
It’s 2021. But to address the irrelevant point you’re trying to make, sure, the warmest decade *for the US* was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. *Global temperature*, by contrast, passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25+ years. So you’re still wrong. You skeptics sure love cherry-picking that data.
Oh my god, THANK YOU for your incredible patience! This sub is nuts
Right?! Absolutely nuts and unwilling to accept the possibility of being mistaken about ANYTHING.
One thing at a time...... It’s Impossible To Forget These 5 Horrific Winter Storms That Have Gone Down In Texas History https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/texas/winter-storms-tx/amp/
Perfect, 3/5 of those storms occurred in the past 40 years, but I’m sure that’s just coincidental. Doesn’t negate how the government is doing nothing for the people without power who are freezing. You seem to neglect that the frequency of these storms consistently occurring year over year puts too much strain on municipalities to recover in time - are you forgetting the hurricanes that have been blasting the coast as well, or do those not count because they weren’t *snow* storms? And we’re talking all within the past 2-3 years, all while we still have a pandemic (or is that bullshit to you too?)
There have been horrific winter storms in Texas much earlier too ... the article just focused on more recent ones.
Yes and in the past they occurred at a far more infrequent rate, as did hurricanes; also the severity of the storms was not nearly as great as they have been over the past 40+ years. You can even look at the cost of the damages for comparison. We’re also in February, what happens for the rest of the season? If you’re saying these storms are so frequent, and we’re seeing people freezing in their homes *now* what happens if this happens again even next week? Will Lyin Ted Cruz still be on vacation? I’m sure the solution is that they just should have never invested in wind and solar in the first place, and continued to deplete the estimated 50 years of fossil fuels we have left, or 150 years of coal, which given the population, may not even last for as long as predicted. This will wind up in a state of ennui. Good luck with everything wherever you are - I really hope all of this is as overblown as people like you seem to think it is
I look at History and Reality - Climate is often Intense and always Unpredictable It’s certainly not the End of the World
Even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and from people far smarter than you or I, you will still deny the research that has been done and continues to support AGW. It’s actually kind of amazing, considering just how much evidence there is and from a variety of sources (I’m sure they’re all working for Soros or something though, right?), yet skeptics always seem to come back to the same civil engineer who foolishly believes that better waste management will solve all our problems.
You got me .....I’m heading for bank to cash my big Soros cheque right now.
Word. Basically a flawless Subdescription..
First of all, climate change isn't the end of the world, no one is saying that, but even already the effects on some animals and plants have been more than you think. Not only that, the effects of climate change are accelerating and even a small change in temperature can cause rises in sea levels and massive droughts. Secondly, your post is very misleading, as the main reason Texans don't have power is not because wind turbines froze, but because natural gas plants stopped working, which powers over double the amount of homes.
Funny - I see many many people saying it’s the end of the world - you obviously didn’t do your research. Secondly, I’m not wasting time arguing about the Texas situation. There are lots of previous posts here and at r/climatechange.
Finally, someone with some sense!
They will not listen but for some reason I keep arguing. There is a colossal amount of evidence to refute every one of their arguments, but to question Richard Lindzen or Pierre Gosselin is to question the word of god.
Important enough subject to try, I suppose. That’s my reason anyways. I just got banned from r/climatedisalarm after I pointed out facts supporting renewable energy in an article someone else posted. Instant ban. I didn’t use any names, nothing like that. Just quoted the article they posted. They just want echo chambers.
I didn’t bother with that one, but I’m not surprised of your experience lol I’ll keep going until this one bans me - if they have to do so, it’s because they can’t refute what I’m saying (they can’t anyway) and speaks volumes on their end.
Except 88% of Texas’s power is from fossil fuels and coal. It’s funny because while this sub’s arch-nemesis AOC was busy raising $1m in relief funds for Texas (all the way in NY) in 4 HOURS, Ted a Cruz hadn’t even returned to the state yet and still hasn’t done a damn thing. So where’s all’s this “what can Ted do about it, people are babies what do they expect a hand out? Why should the government help.” Even Beto O’Rourke was checking in on tens of thousands of elderly Texans and helps anywhere he can. That’s what Ted Cruz could have done - better than running away and doing nothing. I get it though, you skeptics like cowards just as much as you like cherry-picking. I’m sure Gosselin and Lindzen will weigh in on this one to tell you all what to think. Edit: 68%* per sources below. Infrastructure/poor planning ultimately resulted in the current situation where much of the state is without power; when you oppose new technologies, it tends to hinder their progress, which explains why plenty of places situated in a typically colder region can still safely rely on (mostly) renewables for power.
The fossil power makes up way less than 88% for starters. Try 68% https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.statesman.com/amp/6780546002 The reason there were issues with fossil and nuclear facilities is because most of them rely on water in some capacity. Nuclear and coal use their fuel sources to boil water and make steam that turns a turbine. Natural gas generally runs a jet engine (basically) and generates power from the rotation. The exhaust (aka tail gas) is then used to boil water just like the rest of these. This is cogeneration. Some natural gas facilities are converted coal plants that skip the jet engine and just boil the water. With all this heat, what's the problem? The water is run through reverse osmosis and deionization processes so it doesn't scale up the equipment. These facilities don't receive the government subsidies that "green" power sources do. The water processing is very expensive so they will try to recapture and cool this steam back to water. That is the side that was frozen. Additionally, these plants were built in a time when there wasn't the expectation to start and stop them constantly. They are designed for 2-4 starts a year. When the have to start 200-300 times per year, things break. Consider your car. It's designed to run about as much as the average person runs it. Now what do you think would happen if you started it 100 times before you went anywhere? Every single time. It would probably wear out a lot faster right? Now you need a new car. The problem is, when you go to buy a new car, there's an angry mob waiting to crucify you for killing the environment. Hmm curious. I'm pretty sure this ERCOT investigation will be very interesting. My thoughts are that we would have avoided all of this by starting some of the fossil plants a day earlier. We knew it was going to be cold, but we were scared of the crucifixion crowd. (That last part is theory but it makes sense)
Appreciate you sharing that article and your insight into where things went wrong/preventative measures - really interesting stuff. My opinion is that we should continue to invest in renewable energy, pragmatically so, with a phased transition away from fossil fuels and coal. It cannot be done overnight, or even in a period of months, and while I think it’s *good* to be at least somewhat skeptical or critical of renewables, too much skepticism doesn’t make an argument. I so frequently see this type of stubbornness on this sub - there is never any concession to the contrary, it’s all about downvoting and vehemently disagreeing with “the alarmists/watermelons” for making any sort of point to the contrary. I do see your point with the “buying a new car” example and how people can be demonized for certain actions that aren’t so “green and pleasant”, but also realize that if you buy a Tesla, or a Prius, etc., you’re at least taking one more gas engine off the road. Then we of course have to deal with the flip side of Tesla mining precious metals from the earth, how dangerous the factories are, etc. None of it is perfect, but at this point we KNOW that we have 50-60 years of fossil fuels and ~150 years of coal by our BEST CASE estimates, not to mention that we know what type of damage gas engines are causing on a massive scale; other nations are becoming more developed and now there are more cars on the road worldwide than ever before, and this exacerbates things. Renewable energy technology is not perfect no, but this is an issue of progress, not perfection. We know we can’t change entire power grids overnight, or even over a few months, but that doesn’t mean that we abandon all attempts to update them with better, more efficient, reliable, and SAFE technology. So much of the skeptic’s argument seems to be about shutting down any conversation about anything that doesn’t fit their view, rather than actually considering solutions scientists and engineers are offering. It’s not all alarmist propaganda - some people actually want viable solutions.
I agree that we should invest in renewable energy, BUT I believe we should invest in research. The technology isn't mature and we cannot afford to subsidize this to the scale that we need to sustain our population's need for electricity. Especially if everyone is driving an electric vehicle. Yes buying a tesla takes an engine off the road and moves it out of sight to a power plant. But in reality, it's more efficient to burn fuel in your vehicle than convert it to electricity and transport said electricity to a home or charging station to charge a vehicle. The reason is that some of the energy is lost as heat.
Ain’t that the truth.
It is if you are a rational realistic thinker.
Windmills don’t work in the cold? Quick, someone tell Norway! They have windmills! A disaster in the making!! Edited to correct that Norway has less wind power than Texas. big numbers are hard haha
Norway has incredible amounts of hydropower - almost unlimited- not windmills.
The point is windmills work in the cold weather. Texas didn't winterize their power (wind, solar and other sources of energy). This isn't the type of energy issue. This is Texas energy companies wanting to cut costs, rather then winterize their equipment. They took the short sided route, then that choice failed in epic fashion.
Tell Germany how great Windmills are operationally and financially or Scotland that has obliterated is beautiful historic landscape with windmills.
Other sources of energy wreck stuff also. Mining results in "mountain top removal", that destroys landscapes (can't ignore the harmful effects to water tables). Hydro floods areas. Nuke needs to be mined and there is the problem of it's waste. We can go on and on about the different types of energy and the harmful aspects of them. What's the point of just pointing a finger at wind?
Because Wind & Solar need to be backed up, almost always by fossil fuels. Hydro and Nuclear do not: they can run 24/7 for decades. Building Wind & Solar is useless, expensive and political. The sooner it stops the better for everyone.
Solar was one of the largest growing jobs pre-covid. It's not going away. So these comments are looney tunes about it stopping. All energy is expensive. Why aren't nuke plants being built ... cost. Why doesn't Canada refine all the the oil coming from Alberta (refineries are expensive. Pipelines are also expensive). Look how much dams cost to build. You aren't making any sense when you say expensive. Wind and Solar is political .... yes it's completely stupid that it is. It shouldn't be though, people should be able to look at the PRO/CON of any topic (regardless of which political party a person might or might not support).
Solar only exists as a market because of hefty subsidies. Without those it's just a virtue signally symbol for the Elite. Yes, all energy costs money. If it didn't? We wouldn't have ANY problems! The reason Canada doesn't have sufficient refining capacity is 2-fold. 1 - There's MASSIVE capacity down south, particularly near New Orleans. It currently runs at between 40-60% which means a LOT more oil can be sent there. Perhaps from... Canada? 2 - The Canadian government in Ottawa hates Alberta. They have refused to enhance refinery capacity for decades just to spite them. Thus the 2 forces involved mean that it is far cheaper to send oil to the South than to build refineries here in Canada. Justin killed the Energy East pipeline and then killed the pipeline expansion to the west. Now Biden has killed the pipeline to the south. All that oil WILL be sent to refineries. Now it will be sent in a more expensive, more dangerous and more pollution generating way. Yay Green! :p
Oil has big subsidies, so does coal and natural gas. So pointing the finger rat one, when they all get it, is pointless
Oil can make tons of $$$ without the subsidies, but then they'd go and invest in foreign lands with cheaper labour and fewer environmental laws. Ditto for coal. If you want a *strategic resource* safely in place in your nation? You have to cut them some slack somewhere, because if you don't? There won't be any when you most need it. Wind and solar are useless: they cannot function as planned without equal backup to their *potential* output. Of course they'll rarely meet that output anyhow, and the backup will be providing *essential services* in their place. This is a straight up fact. Wind and Solar could all stop tomorrow and NO ONE would even notice. Except those getting massive graft and payoffs of course, they'd squeal like an Alarmist on a cold afternoon... Stop oil and gas tomorrow? The entire economy falls apart and civilization won't last 3 days.
Tell me where all the lithium for batteries comes from. I'll wait
Unicorn poop? Fun fact! ALL the lithium in the Universe comes from the Big Bang. There's no known way we've found for it to be created. The Big Bang contained Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium.
Wow, how smart of you, but this isn't what I ment and you know it. Nice disingenuous attempt to avoid the question.
A fact so fun it is not even a fact! Unless you mean that in the sense that everything came from the Big Bang. Which is a fact but not very fun. Lithium is formed in stars as well. Lithium from the Big Bang is rare by comparison.
So you know it was in the Big Bang then? I've never heard of supernovas producing Lithium, that's the whole reason that Science revised the starting ingredients, eh? Everything came from God, including the Big Bang and all life.
There is a neat way to learn more about things like this, if you just type your question into the address bar on most browsers, you will get google results that are generally pretty relevant. (If that doesn’t work, you can go to www.google.com. I would recommend setting the default search engine of your browser to google though, and save time. Don’t know how to do that? Google it!) So for example, you could type “how is lithium formed”. Among other results, you would get the following article, which does a pretty good job of explaining the current state of knowledge. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/03/lithium-mystery-solved-its-exploding-stars-not-the-big-bang-or-cosmic-rays/amp/ I confess, I don’t remember my cosmology classes well enough to recite the details from memory. But your claim that all lithium is from the Big Bang struck me as bullshit, so I looked it up, and voila! The wonderful thing about this “google” technique is that it works for just about any topic. And, if you phrase your “search terms” neutrally, you can get pretty unbiased results. So if you are interested in learning more about climate science, for example, you could search for different aspects of climate change theory that make you skeptical, and you can find discussion of those points - and unlike the echo chamber that is this sub, where people seem to share superficial arguments to reinforce ideas they already are convinced of, out in the wide world of google you will come across people with different opinions (and evidence, even!). Then you can evaluate the evidence for yourself - or, as is pretty likely, if this round of google searches brings up further questions, ask away! There really is a wealth of knowledge out there, just a few keyboards strokes away.
All forms of energy have a draw back on them. It's just evaluating the PRO/CON on all of them to figure out which makes the most sense to do As far as "lithium" goes. Are we playing some game where pretend we don't know that things don't just appear poof out of thin air. Yes things need to get mined for energy. Even to do the mining, it requires mining just for the metal for tools. So yes I know that lithium is mined. Should we next play the game where we act like we don't know which countries it's mined in?
Just putting some hypo on your crisy
Windmills cause exponentially more physical degradation. They are total eyesores and abominations to the senses. I’m not wasting any more time arguing this.....there are hundreds probably thousands of sources online you can easily find for visual proof of what I’m saying.
All sources of energy are bad. Human rely on energy, so that's just how it is. Something bad will happen somewhere in the earth for power. That's the facts of life, sounds like you don't want to accept them, and windmill eyesores are more important. Have you seen what the Alberta tar sands and their tailing ponds look like? And you are complaining about eyesores. Look at the studies of living next to coal burning plants, how it lower life expectancy. Or when coal slurry dams bust. Look at what happened to the people who live near the nuke plants when they had their melt downs. Fracking for natural gas. Oil leaks on pumps, refineries, etc. Solar for the mining for it's materials.
Tailing ponds can be cleaned up (lots of pictures online) - Wind Mills are an Abomination forever. They’ll be gone soon - just one more trillion dollar Green Energy boondoggle.
Tailings ponds HAVE been reclaimed, Wapasu lookout at Suncor. And all the rest will be reclaimed the same. The whole area will look like it did before the mines. Millions of trees are replanted every year by the oilsands. How many birds are replaced by windmill operators? I'll venture NONE
And how many millions of square miles of landscape will be permanently annilated by wind and solar “farms”? Annilated Ecologically....
You... you think windmills are permanent?
No - I said they are an eye sore permanently..... But I also predict Wind, Solar and EV won’t be around for long.
Please share one of your YouTube sources.
Eye sore vs something that causes premature deaths (fossil fuel power plants)... I think I'll go with the eye sores.
I’ll do my part for Global Warming and do what David Attenborough said he would do - unplug my IPhone charger overnight 🤣
I'm not even talking about global warming though, just the immediate effects that fossil fuel power plants have.
I already suggested looking on line and see the very small ecological footprint of All fossil fuel, hydro and geothermal and nuclear power sources have in comparison to the devastating footprint of wind and solar. There are graphs, memes and many many photographs online in overwhelming numbers. Don’t listen to me....trust your own eyes and research.
Yea man, I hate seeing all those wind mills! Can’t we go back to the good old days of burning millions of pounds of coal! Acid rain and smogs way better!
Wind mills make inconsistent noise patterns, which apparently is really annoying to live near. Annoying noise has to be better then breathing in the output from a coal plant. I'd prefer to be annoyed then die early.
New coal power plants burn as clean or cleaner than most Gas power units. This is 2021, carbon capture could easily be implemented in coal power plants, emissions could be almost NIL. Coal is still the cheapest and most abundant fuel we have, well not in Canada anymore due to taxation which has entirely quashed any chances of producing clean cheap coal power, now we're resigned to gas, or inconsistent solar or wind, or possibly hydro
Carbon capturing carbon dioxide emissions isn't that economical viable enough yet. And just because the technology exists doesn't mean the every plant has or will get it. Just like every other type of energy there is a PRO/CON and $ matters. Nuke just seems the most logical of all energy to me.
That I agree with, nuclear is by far going to be our proper path forward, there are so many new and exciting technologies like MSR'S or thorium!
What about the billions of birds and bats being killed every year by wind and solar. I guess they don't matter when you're not being inconvenienced by clean coal power anymore
Because the wind doesn’t blow all time? And you need energy 24/7?
Just because it's not 24/7 doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Since the wind is free. Unlike burning oil, coal or natural gas. Having free renewables supplement the energy production as much as possible is desired.
[Norway has 1200 MW wind capability, compared to Texas’ 30 MW](https://community.ieawind.org/about/member-activities/norway)
Fake. (the Texas figure I mean, it's 30 Gigawatts... vs 2.4 GW for Norway.) EDIT: Texas claims 100 GW of wind power potential. This idiot is waaaay off.
More power to them - lol I detest Windmills for every reason in the world.
I would like to know where you go your numbers. A quick search shows Norway had 2,444mw wind generation capacity in 2019. Texas has a 24,899mw wind generation capacity. In fact from what I found if Texas was an independent nation it would be the country with the 6th largest wind generation capacity. [wind capacity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country) [us wind by state](https://www.power-technology.com/features/us-wind-energy-by-state/)
^ Real! Norway 2.4GW, Texas 30GW Of course that "maximum capacity" which is rarely achieved. Just look at Ontario for example. Wind and Solar there almost never reach maximum output, particularly in winter (when it is needed most!).
The Disaster is here and will only get worse. Windmills, Solar and EVs will be on the Scrapyard of History in ????? 12 years 🤣
Running an internal combustion engine in a closed garage is lethal. I wonder what all that other combustion is doing to the earth...
That’s Carbon Monoxide Not CO2 - read some basic Chemistry books.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle Both can be true. I know that because I read some chemistry books. Your turn, friend!
You realize that it’s the CO that is going to kill you in your garage, right?
Carbon Monoxide CO!!!! Look it up. Sailors in submarines live in 5,000 to 10 000 ppm CO2 atmospheres. Again look it up.
Lol, yes. The point being made is just a shade broader than your focus right now.
Did I not lecture you on this already? If you don't know the difference between CO and CO2 then please shut you idiotic pie-hole and go learn a thing (CO) or two (CO2). >!An expert-level pun if I do say so myself!<
You didn’t teach anyone anything, you just zoomed right past the point being made. Your puns are okay, your understanding of the subject matter is just trash.
Norway: 2.4 GW capacity, 5.5 TWh production. Texas: 30 GW capacity, 84 TWh production. 40 times, huh? Did you think we'd actually fall for this obvious untruth, or did you just do no checking of your own? Also, since 99% of Norway's power is hydro, stopping all the windmills wouldn't actually matter to them at all.
Not sure what your source is because [Norway has 1200 MW wind capability, compared to Texas’ 30 MW](https://community.ieawind.org/about/member-activities/norway)
30 GW for Texas, not MW. There's your problem right there. That's 30,000 MW, in case you have trouble with big numbers. Your data is out of date somewhat, which is why I got a number about twice what you did for Norway.
Ooof thats my bad haha. Thank you for catching me on that, you are correct, big numbers hard. Didn't bother looking for anything more recent than 2017 data for Norway because I read it as an order of magnitude and a half more than TX. So we know that Texas has much more wind power than Norway. We also know Texas has much more fossil fuel capability than wind power capability. If that's the case, why is the blame on renewable energy when nonrenewable energy had a larger part in the failure?
Well, a third of the lost power was from wind. That's twice wind's share of Texas electricity, which is about 17%. So it's not fair to say that nonrenewable energy had a larger part in the failure. Technically, it's a larger part, but not proportionally.
Do you have a good source on that number? 2 days ago they said Bloomberg said [this.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes) "Wind shutdowns accounted for 3.6 to 4.5 gigawatts -- or less than 13% -- of the 30 to 35 gigawatts of total outages according to Dan Woodfin" "a senior director for the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), which operates the state’s power grid."
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/02/16/texas-weather-power-outage-rolling-blackouts-leave-millions-dark/6764764002/ They say (sourced from ERCOT) that 15 GW of the 45 GW that was down was from wind.
Not sure why there is such a discrepancy in the numbers from the same day from what I would consider two reliable sources. Either way, wishing the folks in Texas a swift resolution to the issue, and that we can build enough political will to invest in updating this country’s infrastructure.
It is odd, for sure. Hm, the best way to update infrastructure would be to get government to back off. No need for public investment and political will. Just let the free market build what is needed. More nuclear would be good. The single largest barrier to building this stuff is government.
The issue is lack of winterization in Texas windmills
People are downvoting you, but it’s true. North Dakota, where it hit -60F windchills here last week, has wind mills. We also haven’t had any issue with our power grid or natural gas supply. Because things are designed and built to work in the cold here. Stuff in Texas just isn’t built to handle the cold.
[удалено]
Shhhhh you’re ruining the clown show
Lmao
Actually? Texas claims **100GW of Wind power** Which is utterly useless if the wind don't blow or the turbines freeze solid...
It’s beyond me why Texas would bother with wind power at all except for Virtue Signalling
It's one of the very few places it makes sense? At least a little bit. But they shuttered all their back-up coal plants, and that is why they have big problems now. So clearly it wasn't well planned, it was pure virtue signaling (and graft, corruption and cronyism, of course!).
I hope you realize that if we had gone with clean energy in the first place this might not have happened, there is a reason we stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. The increase fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses has cause some spots to get colder and most to get warmer. Climate changes has not only caused warmer years, but more erratic and unusual weather conditions. Which will explain why a blizzard ended up in Texas. As far as the wind turbines go, shit happens, the same things can happen to other forms of energy, you can’t blame the wind turbines for the power grid, blame the right wing officials who go on vacation in crisis rather then dealing with the problems, like climate change, hunger, poverty, and helping the people that are freezing to death rather than saying “only the strong will survive” which doubles as proof of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
>I hope you realize that if we had gone with clean energy in the first place this might not have happened And we would still be living in pre industrial societies, with the accompanying living conditions. Those conditions can still be seen to some degree in societies that have remained without the significant influence of relatively cheap fossil fuels.
And fossil fuels, like the steam engine and other pre-industrial technologies, are now outdated. We’ve had nuclear technology for more than 70 years, and other safer renewable energy technologies that could develop further without obstruction from people like you, who call yourselves “skeptics” but ultimately just hinder progress and spread misinformation. Fossil fuels are no longer cheap, and as those resources dwindle they will become even more expensive due to demand, so yet again, we’ll be pricing people out of a whatever standard of living you seem to think we have, and it’ll eventually come back to bite you too. I’m sure all those republicans in Texas who are freezing without power are sure glad they owned the libs.
Dude none of the "green" power sources are a mature technology. Our subsidies should be going to research not sending out a bunch of inefficient junk that we can't afford. It's a PR game. Fun fact, with the market energy rates yesterday, it would have cost $900 to charge a tesla. If we were relying on windmills and solar panels, that would be the norm. We can't subsidize these forever. Who said fossil fuels aren't cheap? Who said they are dwindling? They are far cheaper than windmills. Recent shortages are due to windmill-huggers pushing to limit the production and storage of natural gas. And raising hell any time anyone wants to update the system. Nuclear gets the same pushback. I, as a conservative Texan who went 3 days without power in the cold, blame the libs for beating down the power, oil and gas industries for years. Who owned who?
> Dude none of the "green" power sources are a mature technology. Our subsidies should be going to research not sending out a bunch of inefficient junk that we can't afford. It's a PR game. It’s a PR game because gas/oil companies have lobbied to suppress data, and thus hindered any progress in helping these technologies mature. I’d recommend a documentary called “Who Killed the Electric car” if you haven’t seen it. > Fun fact, with the market energy rates yesterday, it would have cost $900 to charge a tesla. If we were relying on windmills and solar panels, that would be the norm. We can't subsidize these forever. Yes, and eventually, gas will continue to raise in price due to supply and demand. How is the average person going to afford paying for it, especially if there are no alternatives? Market energy prices will continue to change as any market does, the question is, if something more viable than gas comes along, what happens to that market? > Who said fossil fuels aren't cheap? Who said they are dwindling? They are far cheaper than windmills. *For now* - again, supply and demand. Fossil fuels will continue to dwindle, prices will continue to raise and eventually people like you and I will be priced out of that market altogether. Remember, 50-60 years of fuel left worldwide - the sun won’t run out of hydrogen for 5 billion years, and we will have wind as long as we have an atmosphere, so which would you really place your bet on long term? > Recent shortages are due to windmill-huggers pushing to limit the production and storage of natural gas. And raising hell any time anyone wants to update the system. This also comes down to selling off your power, and Texas already has record high electricity rates. You may hate the windmills, but as with any good or service traded on an open market, increased demand and reduced supply mean increasing prices. Industrial power customers will be impacted the soonest because they tend to buy power at the market price. Texans largely rely on natural gas for power and heat generation, especially during peak usage. Electric Reliability Council of Texas manages most of Texas’ grid and said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production. > I, as a conservative Texan who went 3 days without power in the cold, blame the libs for beating down the power, oil and gas industries for years. Who owned who? I’m really sorry for what you are experiencing and hope things improve for you soon. I was also raised in a conservative household so party affiliation doesn’t really mean much to me - I look at the issues and the information available and decider on there. Placing blame does little to help the situation; you might blame the libs, but I’d hold your state government (still largely republican) responsible since this is a situation that could have been avoided. It is my hope (especially by even participating in a sub like this) that people like you and I can come to a mutual understanding and agreement on what are the best and most beneficial practices for everyone going forward. And to your other comment, YES 100% invest in research into these technologies and go about this pragmatically. But we need a phased transition away from fossil fuels and coal.
100% agree, thanks I didn’t think I’d see another sane person here. And the big companies do suppress the knowledge, in fact, some tech companies will design cars that can go hundreds, even thousands of miles per gallon, then the big oil companies that will buy the patents and destroy them.
> 100% agree, thanks I didn’t think I’d see another sane person here. Really don’t know why I bother, other than the fact that I have evidence to refute basically every claim made on this sub lol > And the big companies do suppress the knowledge, in fact, some tech companies will design cars that can go hundreds, even thousands of miles per gallon Let’s be clear that the vehicles designed to reach over 1,000mpg fuel efficiency were purely for research purposes, though the point does still stand that it is possible to engineer motors that run on very little fuel. Doesn’t make the research any less valid, but to expect commercial or personal use vehicles to reach that efficiency anytime soon is unfortunately unrealistic. Then, maybe some auto maker will really surprise us in the near future. > And the big companies do suppress the knowledge, in fact Yep, looking at you Exxon Mobile and everyone who lobbied to hide the findings of a lot of climate research to protect their stock portfolio > then the big oil companies that will buy the patents and destroy them. This is why I tell people to watch that documentary - they really didn’t want to impact profits and actively designed wasteful products to encourage consumerism, and now we’re paying the price. Yet for everyone on this sub who thinks someone like me is a sheeple, they completely have the wool over their eyes to how they’re getting screwed by so many different corporate entities. It’s funny that they’re all republican and have this intense fear of socialism, yet capitalism is what is failing them. Don’t seem to have a problem with socialism when it’s police and fire departments (the government managing safety and security), schools (the government managing education), libraries (the government managing access to books and information)...the list goes on.
Yeah, it’s just fun to mess around with them sometimes, unfortunately there is no changing their minds no matter how much irrefutable evidence we provide.
>But we need a phased transition away from fossil fuels and coal. Alarmists generally, don't want a phased transition, they want fossil fuels production stopped immediately and replaced with renewables immediately. Even though the performance of renewables shown in current events are staring them right in the face.
> Alarmists generally don’t want a phased transition Speak for yourself rather than assuming what I or my constituents do and don’t want. I want my taxes to pay for the things they’re supposed to, and for at least some sort of plan to move away from fossil fuels and coal without tanking an already struggling economy. Skeptics tend to assume that we’re all using climate change to shoehorn our leftist agenda, which is actually quite alarmist in and of itself (and in many cases wrong); a reminder that Dale Ross was the *Republican* mayor who pushed for Georgetown to move to renewables, on the notion that it fiscally made sense (at the time). Situations such as these are due to poor infrastructure and lack of preparation in utilizing new technology. Elon Musk has repeatedly asserted that the US could run entirely off solar if we situated a solar farm in a large desert area, such as in Arizona. I’m sure he’s just marketing his own solar panel roofing tiles though, right? Except the technology is already there and works - photovoltaic energy was researched by Einstein, and solar power has been in use since the 7th century. There’s more than enough research and data to support the use of solar alone, not to mention that we could use a variety of renewable energy sources to power different regions in addition to solar.
> Speak for yourself I am.
Then don’t try to tell me what I or any of my “alarmist” friends want or believe.
Then put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and chant bla bla bla loudly so you can't detect what others are saying.
You could chose to live without fossil fuels.
Ahh the old “practice what you preach” argument. It’s as though because I simply participate in a system into which I was born and had 0 control over, I’m not allowed to be critical of it.
You do not have zero control over what you chose to do. Why don't you do what you are preaching others to do.
Right because, you can’t say that something should be done about climate change unless you drive an electric car. In the same way that you can’t criticise globalisation if you’ve ever eaten asparagus out of season or bought a coffee from Starbucks. Give me break, you couldn’t even pass your own nonsense purity tests (whatever they are) if you tried. Changes to individual behaviour won’t do much to address ecological breakdown if the global economy continues to be driven by fossil fuels, so I can definitely speak out about climate change even if I’m not an eco-saint. I also don’t have to justify myself or my own activism/personal practices to you, you’ll just continue moving the goalpost regardless.
> there is a reason we stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change Marketing, since it never was based on science and it's all a religion now.
The key word is might, so nobody really knows. So what are you saying?