LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote

The Coal Bailout Nobody is Talking About The latest results suggest that, across the four coal-heavy energy markets, coal-fired power plants incurred $4.6 billion in market losses over the past 3 years or $1.5 billion dollars in market losses each year. Most of these “losses” were incurred by power plants owned by monopoly utilities and are not absorbed by the investors or owners. Rather, those costs were likely covered by customers. Consequently, I estimate this practice places a least a $1 billion burden on utility ratepayers each year."

That's correct, unfortunately "renewables" consume dollars of tax payers even faster. "Renewables" already collects 93% of federal energy subsidies which were whooping $7.047 billion in fiscal year 2016, i.e. more than ten times more than fossil fuels subsidizes and one hundred times more than let say for education! And these subsidies don’t include state or local subsidies, mandates or incentives.

Energy subsidies from the federal government (in billions of 2018 U.S. dollars).

Quote from Zephir_AWT

That's correct, unfortunately "renewables" consume dollars of tax payers even faster. "Renewables" already collects 93% of federal energy subsidies which were whooping $7.047 billion in fiscal year 2016, i.e. more than ten times more than fossil fuels subsidizes and one hundred times more than let say for education!

completely wrong, and here is the real data copied from EIA.

As proven below, renewables recieve only say 10% or crude oil subsidies.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Because the natural emissions are many times greater than our emissions. Therefore the bulk of the increase in CO2 accumulation must be due to natural emissions. If our contribution to total CO2 input is only 4% then our contribution to any increase in CO2 can only be 4%.

Zephir_AWT You miss basic knowledge/understanding: The ocean sink of carbon has been reduced two fold:

- acidification

- extinction of phytoplankton due to missing trace elements.

Further: The permafrost zone of Siberia > 10m thickness stores multiple time the Carbon of the Brazilian rain forest. This zone now gives off the largest part of carbon Dioxide. (Not even talking about the Methane Hydrid blow outs) We are already deep inside the self-acceleration zone and there most likely is no simple way out. You can only choose between 2 m increase in sea level by 2100 or by 8 meter. The global temperature will raise at least 4 degrees by 2100 if we go on as usual and will stop at + 10 degrees, when all carbon is up again.

Switzerland will be a tropical country again as it was 10-30 Million years ago. No need to travel to Hawaii...

One more thing: Last years increase of sea level was 0.9cm measured in Florida. Its speeding up now!

Quote from oystla

completely wrong, and here is the real data copied from EIA.

As proven below, renewables recieve only say 10% or crude oil subsidies.

I'll assume Zephir's numbers are correct. Your table is being misread. The first row is in dollar units. All the rest are in British Thermal Units of energy. The table is summing all the dollar subsidies across all energy sectors for three different years; it distinguishing the different sectors only by energy produced, not by dollar subsidies.

Isn't it fascinating that we've had massive glaciations in our past with CO2 much higher than currently.

Isn't it interesting that corals and other life thrived in oceans during times when CO2 was much higher than currently.

Zephir, it should be clear that man is responsible for the increase of our CO2. Unlike the natural CO2 cycle, our CO2 from mined fossil fuels is added on top of this in a year by year accumulative fashion. Not to worry though. We may have saved our planet and plants from CO2 starvation. In perhaps a few tens of thousands of years from now when we hardly use fossil fuels and our atmospheric CO2 is getting too low again, we may have to use our LENR and other technologies to free up CO2 to the atmosphere from the massive carbonate deposits laid down by shelled creatures over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

The reason CO2 continues to climb even when our emissions allegedly slow down is probably because of the huge amounts of CO2 dissolved in our (slightly warming) oceans, which are more than happy to give their CO2 up to the atmosphere in a short period of lull.

Quote

The table is summing all the dollar subsidies across all energy sectors for three different years; it distinguishing the different sectors only by energy produced, not by dollar subsidies.

This table is actually quite useful, as it demonstrates clearly, one gets way less energy per billion of subsidizes for "renewable" technologies, which thus must be subsidized with fossil + nuclear production in this way.

Quote from Mark U

I'll assume Zephir's numbers are correct. Your table is being misread. The first row is in dollar units. All the rest are in British Thermal Units of energy. The table is summing all the dollar subsidies across all energy sectors for three different years; it distinguishing the different sectors only by energy produced, not by dollar subsidies.

You are right. Not all numbers where USD, only top range. So, I will give the full table from the same report showing the dollar amount.

As we see the renewables where only 45% of total subsidies in 2016.

So again, Zephir is completely wrong.

More interesting is that the amount has been reduced by more than 8 Billion USD from 2013 to 2016. This indicates a maturing energy source which require less subsidies.

We may also question why the mature sources require any subsidies at all.

Quote from Mark U

Isn't it fascinating that we've had massive glaciations in our past with CO2 much higher than currently.

No, it isn't fascinating. It is nonsense. See, for example:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Quote from oystla

As we see the renewables where only 45% of total subsidies in 2016.

So again, Zephir is completely wrong.

He is also wrong because these are only direct, tax-dollar subsidies. As I pointed out, coal gets far more subsidies because we pay for it with people lives and health. Wind turbines do not kill 20,000 people a year, and they do not destroy the health, welfare and happiness of hundreds of thousands of others. Coal does. This would never be allowed if coal plants killed wealthy people or middle class people, but it kills rural poor people including minority group is disproportion, so nothing is done about it.

Zephir is saying that tax money expenditures alone count in this debate, and people's lives and health mean nothing and are worth nothing. This is outrageous. Also, he gets the tax money expenditures wrong, but even if they were right, he is saying the government should spend no money to prevent tens of thousands of deaths and ill health. In that case, what is the government for?

That does not even begin to take into account the cost of global warming.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it isn't fascinating. It is nonsense. See, for example:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Actually there has ben geological period with very high carbon dioxide content in the air. But at those times the solar output was less.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This table is actually quite useful, as it demonstrates clearly, one gets way less energy per billion of subsidizes for "renewable" technologies, which thus must be subsidized with fossil + nuclear production in this way.

How many times do you want to repaeat this nonsense ?? 20 Billion damage/year already in a small country like Switzerland caused by fossil fuels!! The world wide damage caused by fossil fuel is far more exceeding its value!

In fact with fossil fuel you just burn your live!

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it isn't fascinating. It is nonsense. See, for example:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Well I hoped it was obvious I wasn't talking about the Quaternary Ice Age, started about 2.5 million years ago and which we are currently in. There have been other ice ages previously, tens and hundreds of millions of years ago. Over geological timescales the CO2 has been on a decreasing trend, and at the end of our last glaciation CO2 levels were dangerously low.

Quote from stefan

But at those times the solar output was less.

According to solar models. We've had both hot times and cool times with high CO2.

Quote from Mark U

According to solar models. We've had both hot times and cool times with high CO2.

this has been debunked as far as I know. But can you care to cite a scientific sources and i will ask skeptical science about it.

Quote from Mark U

According to solar models. We've had both hot times and cool times with high CO2.

Also this is not just models. Astronomical observations that link age and type of star is used.

Quote from stefan

this has been debunked as far as I know. But can you care to cite a scientific sources and i will ask skeptical science about it.

There's nothing to debunk. Just look up ice ages, then look up CO2 levels over geological time, and you'll see that the first four ice ages occurred with much higher CO2. Between those ice ages things could get pretty warm as well.

Quote from Mark U

There's nothing to debunk. Just look up ice ages, then look up CO2 levels over geological time, and you'll see that the first four ice ages occurred with much higher CO2. Between those ice ages things could get pretty warm as well.

Not that the carbon content was high, and also over a glacial. That is not controversial. The fluctuating solar modals that you refer to are though.

see Skeptical Science

"

The German program that’s spurred the nation’s switch to green power is buckling under the weight of surging costs and needs an urgent fix.

https://www.thegwpf.com/german…is-becoming-unaffordable/

Hans Fell spoke paasionately in Japan,2019

clean peace without nuclear....

Hans-Josef seems to be influential..

"helped to ensure an increase in funding for research into photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, geothermal energy, bioenergy, batteries for electric cars, bionics, nanotechnology and others"

Does HJ know anything of nuclear LENR? Ich probiere es mal...

https://hans-josef-fell.de/mein-zuhause/

Quote from RobertBryant

The German program that’s spurred the nation’s switch to green power is buckling under the weight of surging costs and needs an urgent fix.

One example: The German Energy mafia (includes Siemens) forced the country to give the DC current access line of 3 wind parks to Siemens albeit Siemens had no technology ready. Thus 3 finished wind parks were offline for more than 2 years and the consumers had to pay the full current production without getting any current.

German politics is completely dominated by the classic mafia (F,R,J). Main actors i.e. Diesel (car) mafia, construction mafia (BER), energy mafia, like in the US. These folks pay - bribe, indirectly - the deputies and the government.