On October 26, 2019 at 18:06, djy said...
1). Though much remains unknown, it's believed that at least four of the five known mass extinction events were as a result of planetary cooling. [1] That an animal, which evolved during a cold phase, died out as the planet naturally rewarmed is hardly surprising. It lends no weight to your contention that warming is more dangerous than cooling – particularly the intense cold of a glacial period.
first of all let me try and make it clear again. I think any big change is detrimental. To put it simply if you take a dolphin and put it in the desert it will die because it needs to be surrounded by water, if you take a camel and drop it in the middle of the ocean it will die because there is too much water and it will drown. If you take a tropical bird and leave it in Antarctica it won;’t survive but neither will a penguin in a tropical rain forest.
as for your link, I find it funny we both can read the same thing and get something completely different out of it
according to the link the two first ones where due to cooling (with a bit of a question mark on the second one), the third one and I quote “This mass extinction, is considered the worst in all history because around 96% of species were lost” and it was caused by “carbon dioxide” that caused global warming the last two (that destroyed dinosaurs) happened due to asteroids.
2). Not now no, but it was a concern in the late 60s and 70s, as I've previously pointed out and provided evidence for.
OK, so can we stop talking about cooling the same we we are not talking about the effect of our flying cars and weekend trips to Mars might be having? even though in the 60’s and 670’s thought some predicrted those as the reality of today back then?
To claim the examples I’ve provided are tainted by the industrial revolution is to suggest that all weather related events since are such. I somehow doubt, however, that atmospheric soot in Manchester [2] has ever had much in the way of influence over typhoons in the South China Sea.
I did not say they are tainted. I went out of my way to say “it can have natural causes” the problem is after the industrial revolution happened it became harder to tell what percent is of human origin.
I've told you how much I pay per unit of electricity.
I've provided a link to how much they pay in Germany (who have invested far more in renewables).
I've provided information on the lucrative subsides enjoyed by renewables.
I've provided information on the climate change levies received by government in their financial reports.
I've provided information on the CCC's future plans.
I've provided information on the technological constraints of these plans.
I've provided information on UK fuel poverty.
Perhaps one would care to clarify what one considers evidence?
This was simply a speculative comment based on the investment required to build the plants and the income which could be derived from the relatively small population base. You claim my comment is incorrect, which may very well be the case, but offer no evidence in support of your claim. You do, however, provide a link to a report indicating your already "dirt cheap" electricity should really be cheaper. Forgive me if exhibit a distinct lack of empathy.
I can’t help you find evidence to make your point because if I knew of any such evidence I would not hold the view I have. But the issue is you start with a wrong conclusion (like 6 cents is too cheap for electricity so it must be subsidised ) and then look for facts you think support your conclusion (expenses and market size ) that in the end are irrelevant.
What you are missing is the obvious, water wind and sun are like buying a house, you need a big down payment and then you mortgage the rest (i.e. for a home it might be a 100k check and a 2k monthly mortgage payment) on the other hand oil, gas, coal... will have that aspect as well to a lesser degree but for this argument is a lot like renting a place, (i.e. pay rent the first year of 1.8k) the issue is that over time the landlord will raise the rent and eventually it will be more than 2k on the other hand at some point that home will be paid off and that 2k will go down to 0
what you are missing when looking at Quebec is that the massive hydro projects started 50 years ago some of the bonds to pay for those projects have matured and paid off (like the last mortgage payment on a home) so the real cost for that portion is 0$ because you don’t need to pay water to flow.
now as for your idea of subsidy, at first I was going to link to Hydro Quebec's site and show you what I pay vs farmers (a bit less) industry (a bit less) and an article talking about the various export prices (even less) and ask you who is subsidizing who in this case. But 1) I see it more a s a whole sale discount than a subsidy and so I would not have been honest with myself, 2) it would have been more work, 3) IMHO it would not have proved that all of the prices were not subsidized. That link was easier and said it all. Now maybe you need a bit more context, so here it is. HQ is a company 100% owned by the government of Quebec once a year it pays (the government) a dividend base on last years numbers (for 2018 was 2.394B) and projects the total costs for the new years and then asks the government to OK the new consumer price based on those projected costs. the issue is both parties (gouvernemnet HQ) have a vested interest to over charge customers and there is a law to limit that gouging
And in regard to the linked news report, did one note the comments of Seethal Pathak?
'Seethal Pathak works at Project Genesis, an anti-poverty non-profit in Cote-des-Neiges. She said some people can only afford to heat part of their apartment.
"[They] go to the mall to avoid their cold apartments or who even make the choice between eating or heating," she said.'
Fuel poverty at 6 cents a unit!? Do you still believe it easier to adapt to cold?
1) yes the price is cheap per kwh, but don’t forget that in total cash this person is paying for electricity to heat their place roughly what you see in your table for electricity. The weather here gets much colder and for much longer.
2) this is an anti poverty advocate so yeah things might be a bit more “bleak” I get the first part of the statement (even though I would choose the library over a mall) but the second part is made to pull on heart strings, the simple truth is in 98 there was a major storm and we lost electricity for several days, the first day was not easy but the second day I had to move out. not because I was cold, but when the house reaches near 0 you need to shut down all the water (or risk frozen pipes and huge costs) and so until the electricity came back I was sleeping on my grand parents floor. Heating isn’t really a choice in this neck of the woods like it can be in some others.
3) Let me answer your question with my own what is worst: a) going to the mall; b) choosing between food and heating your apartment; c) dying in a heat wave? Every few years here the news talks about someone senile person getting locked out and freezing to death or a homeless person ding from the cold but every year there are several people that dye from the heat
Indeed, it rather seems one would prefer the fanciful scribblings of The Carbon Brief and a puff-piece from The Independent
I did not go out searching those sources, if their numbers are wrong point out the real and accurate numberrs. I was looking for info and those stuff and they were the first things to pop up. If the numbers are right then who cares who publisehes them?
You appear incapable of understanding that dispatchable baseload generation is the mainstay of any grid. Wind and solar are not baseload and their inefficiency and intermittency add cost by the need for grid balancing. It will never make sense to heat electrically with such an energy mix, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
first I never said you should heat electrically. Let’s take a fictional place where all electricity comes from coal and heating comes from coal would it make sense in any way shape or form to to change heat sources? no using coal to make electricity to heat a house is way more inefficient then using coal to heat a home.
yes there are batteries, and small scale ( using solar cells on a home with battery banks) they can work but not really in large scale. For the most part electricity can’t be stored and so that means no matter the source(s) grid balancing is necessary since supply must equal demand and demand is never static. On a hot spring day when I am at work and the temp outside = inside there is almost no electricity used at home. On the other hand on New years day when I am watching a film in my HT while the furnace is working full blast (because it is –27) and a turkey is cooking in the oven I am using a lot of electricity.
The issue is grid balancing has no added cost in and of itself. The issue arises when you need to supplement a cheap source of electricity with an expensive source of electricity. But you don't like the cheap sources
