Representative Mat Gaetz (Republican, Florida) introduced HR 861, "To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency" which is said to defund and remove from existence the Environmental Protection Agency.
Details are unclear, but the idea is to have states and local communities regulate their environmental pollution.
The EPA centralizes research programs, policy guidance, and regulatory procedures. To ask each community to do this amounts to a huge tax increase, because the same effort would have to be repeated many times across the country.
The reason we have a national EPA is because pollution does not respect boundaries. People who live in states run by anti-environmental lawmakers will not pay for pollution mitigation, and the pollution they create will flow down stream or blow down wind to states where people act responsibly about the environment. This is unacceptable.
Ask your house member how they stand on the bill. Ask them to explain their position and report how they intend to vote.
Encourage your house member to vote against the bill.
Encourage your house member to act responsibly with respect to the environment.
- Log in to post comments
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."
(Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1892–1984)
At a certain point, an action passes the barrier between merely irresponsible and unethical and immoral, and enters the realm of evil.
This is such an action.
USA, in case you haven't notice you are in deep, deep trouble. You need to do everything now that you possibly can to stop this madness, before it kills your country and takes the rest of the planet with it.
If you haven't spent at least an hour a day actively participating in speaking out, then you are probably a part of the problem and not the solution.
If they get rid of the EPA, that means that, because of the trump order that, for every regulation they do to businesses, they have to take two off, and the EPA has got to be, like, THOUSANDS of regulations, maybe we can therefore get a thousand in off the back of this. And do it now, because its not like they're going to have to change their mind, right?
So while this rule is getting through, start drafting a thousand laws and for its compliance with trump's ridiculous order, point to this law and say that this is paid for pre-emptively by that one.
So, first of all, the bank crash was caused by big bank failures, so regulate the bank to be no bigger than some regional bank average. No multinational sizes.
Then demand that for government and life critical drugs, they must be sold at cost to manufacture. Their goal is to save lives, right? And that might mean a few more regulations from the ACA, which will buy you a few more regulations elsewhere.
(remember, trump never put down a "value", just a count).
Businesses must detail in their shareholder documents all payments and disbursements as "good will" and what good will was purchased with it.
Businesses must also detail exactly what agreement for the disbursement of cash was offered for.We don't want businesses funneling money to someone who gives it to someone who gives it to someone who gives it to a terrorist, right?
Get these regulations in, along with their pre-payment by the removal of the EPA being a bulk removal of regulations.
While you're at it, remove those regulations about being forbidden to use a trade mark or patent or any other form of intellectual property. Look at how much Apple has had to pay out for patents! That's a terrible burden on their profits, if they can't just use patents as needed to create jobs and opportunities, right?
And that'slike four regulations, right? Patent, trademark, copyright and contracts. Remove those regulations and buy two more.
Remove the regulations that give the ownership of poles carrying cables for internet or TV. Stop telling businesses they have to wait!
Pick another regulation and remove that and you can afford to bring up a new one!
E,g, no executive of a corporation with less than 70% of their business presence in the USA can speak to any government official. Should cut out the swamp effect of bribing politicians, right?
And if the laws you want in don't get in, then you have reasons to refuse the ones you don't want repealed, since they are "capital" uninvested.
No, it wasn't a joke... And yes, it's happening.
The problem is that the EPA has a self perpetuating structure that steadily increases it's negative impact on citizens. Look at the massive failure of the Appliance demanufactuing act. Large shredder operators pay an annual maximum penalty. Small feeder operators have been mostly cut out of the market and the material ends up being a cost to dispose for the consumer instead of a pay to dispose and the pollution still happens at the same facility as b4 the law was passed. Accept now instead of Johnny Bob taking his 1953 Ammonia refrigerator to the local scrap yard and receiving a $5 cash reward. He avoids paying $15 at the local landfill and throws it in a creek. Now the landfIL supervisor has to use resources to clean these illegal dump sites up. And when he does he sells the material to the same processor the local scrap dealer would have. The material flow has more steps with increased environmental impact and cost not only as increased cost to tax payer funded agencies but also as lost revenue directly to the citizens. The only winner in this senario is the epa. I closed my business because I could not afford to play the compliance game, even with my local inspector and landfill supervisor singing my praises. I wanted to make a difference and I was. I never polluted and I lost my business and my home, and spent 6 years being so defeated and depressed. That's what's wrong with agencies like the EPA. When you fight for a cause, sometimes you become more about the fight than the cause. Start over. At the State level. With a positive attitude towards individuals and small business. Imagine that a future with fresh air and fat wallets.
Henry, sorry the regulatory burden did not accommodate your business plan. Regulations need constant monitoring and the agencies need to be more adaptable. But for every story of a business plan that went afoul of the regulations, there are ten thousand stories of kids who did not grow up poisoned by industrial pollution.
@ # BernardJ # 3
Thanks for the link - a sobering read
sadly not really a surprise to me - I studied Nazism/Facism at university many years ago
the use of the "lie" as a weapon (and by extension normalising it) was always a striking comparison
The chief reason that regulatory agencies like the EPA become so bureaucratic is because businesses and individuals cannot be trusted to self-regulate. They will act in their own self interest generally, and might not even understand the implications of their actions (think of an individual disposing of a NiCad battery in the trash for example).
This will lead to thousands of rules and regulations and laws, which can become quirky and even counterproductive unintentionally, but what would our world look like if we depended on people doing the right thing on their own?
You know in your heart that that will not work. People are selfish and oblivious to collective dangerous actions.
So now they want to turn it back to the states to regulate?
How is that going to lead to less bureaucracy? Now you would have a byzantine set of incompatible cross border contradicting laws, leading to legal actions pitting one state against another, and spikes in pollution in states who are more
Laissez-faire in their approach.
This is a major throwing out of the baby along with the bath water.
By the way, I suspect that this is more specifically a gift to the coal industry more than anything else.
I don't think this bill will pass.
Most conservatives are for clean air and water, and reasonable regulation.
Calling CO2 an air pollutant is not reasonable.
Calling Oxygen an air pollutant would not be reasonable either.
Ditto for Nitrogen.
Here is the list of air pollutants:
People will differ about what is reasonable (of course).
But I am not worried about this bill.
I recommend not losing any sleep over this.
"Calling CO2 an air pollutant is not reasonable."
No, it's entirely reasonable. Moreover, it was only required to mandate its status as such because republican morons such as yourself refused to let it be dealt with any other way.
"Calling Oxygen an air pollutant would not be reasonable either."
Yes it is. O3 is a killer. Ask any surviving LA pedestrian from the 70s.
Creating these incredibly uninformed opinions rational is asinine.
Yes it is. CO2 is a waste product from an industrial process which has deleterious effects on the environment. The very definition of a pollutant.
Stop the braindead denialist rubbish, please.
RickA - the Supreme Court obviously disagreed with you.
Are you sure you're a lawyer?
It's perfectly reasonable to call Co2 a pollutant when it reaches the level of harm. It is also a poison when it reaches the lethal dose level in a close area.
Deleterious effects on the environment is not the definition of a pollutant.
Pollution is measured by its harmful effects on human health.
CO2, in the quantities being added to the atmosphere, are not harmful to human health.
A big mac or big gulp are far more harmful to human health than CO2.
Yes, the Supreme Court did say CO2 could fall under CAA's definition.
I disagree with their decision.
I think the Supreme Court made a terrible decision and I hope and expect it to be overturned someday.
The Ld50 level of Co2 is 10% for humans, so the dose makes the poison, and the dose makes the pollutant as well.
Let's look at the reverse case. Ozone in not needed by humans to live in a direct case (inhalation), but you take it away from the stratosphere, and then it affects human health.
VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG.
Par for the course from RickA.
For health reasons you are forbidden to work more than 8 hours in a CO2 level of 1000ppm. Indoors you get a significant increase in CO2 levels even if it's well ventilated. 600ppm is not uncommon in busy workshops, even ventilated.
And that's 8 hours at a stretch. Not 24/7/365
CO2 is toxic. It's a pollutant.
People have gotten used to cleaner air and water, at least relative to what we saw in the 1950's and 1960's. I remember when rivers were opaque with waste, when lichens on trees and rocks were dieing, when lung cancer rates in industrial areas were way above average, when the air hurt your lungs to breath. It is unlikely that people will easily slide back to such things once they have a decent environment. And then there is all the unemployment that will be caused by dismantling the EPA, and in all the various subsidiary industries that provide pollution control goods and services. How, pray tell, does the presidink expect all those
people to occupy themselves when he puts them out of work? Will they start manufacturing bronze busts of ill Donald?
This is just another stupid feel good response to help boost support from his stupid base.
Well, if the powers that be want a polluted, devastated, ugly, stupid, toxic environment, they will get it. And here is a growth industry to invest in... cancer clinics.
Trump is devaluing our entire planet. He devalues women, minorities, intellectuals, government employees, science, engineering, other nations, other ways of thinking. He is a destructive, devitalizing force, who is helping our great nation double down on its own stupidity.
I think you will find, those of you who live into the future, that the sound "trump" will be a universal epithet used to describe stupid actions..
So what ppm does that correspond to?
Isn't that about 250 times the current level of 400 ppm?
CO2 is not a health issue to humans from a toxicity point of view.
Yes - if you live on the coast and stand near the water for 100 years, the water might rise 12 inches.
But that is not harmful, in the way that word is used in the EPA.
1000ppm, Dick. If you don't know the number, you admit to having zero competence to exhort on this and admit to lying here.
You also have zero clue about SLR. You're patently ignorant on this entire subject.
Dick, how can you measure pressure when it's measured in PSI in a tyre?
Sorry wow - but 1000 ppm is not toxic for CO2.
You might want to do a little more reading on this topic.
Lets see what skeptictmac57 says.
RickA, because CO2 meets the legal definition of air pollutant the court would have to do some serious juggling (Gore v. Bush - this is not a precedent style reasoning) to come up with a different result. I.e., ABC of climateball -Anything (that meets the definition of air pollutant is an air pollutant) But Co2
Now, if you're simply saying you don't like it and hope a stacked court will vote based on politics instead of sound legal rationale .... well, I guess that's what you are saying :0
Color me surprised.
"Sorry wow – but 1000 ppm is not toxic for CO2."
Like YOU know. Pfeh. YOU came out with 100,000ppm, you retard. You haven't a goddamned clue.
Yes, it is. You cannot work in an area for more than 8 hours with that level of CO2. Long term effects of that are going to kill you a lot sooner than you should have lived.
CO2 is toxic. Get over it.
Cite me your source for 1000 ppm of CO2 being toxic.
Here is my math.
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere presently.
If 10% is lethal (as skeptictmac57 says) - than 10 / 0.04 is 250.
250 * 400 = 100,000 ppm.
What does your source say?
RickA is really into Alternative Facts.
He has a very large collection of them.
Yeah, well, that's not new, is it. Like "per doubling" requires a doubling, but, for some odd reason "per inch" doesn't require a square inch.
No, dick, you're incorrect again. You're even arguing against the opinion of your legal betters. You know, ACTUAL lawyers, as opposed to claimants of law in the internets.
"If 10% is lethal (as skeptictmac57 says)"
And if it's 1000ppm as I say, it;s still lethal at 100,000ppm. It doesn't stop getting lethal like some sort of bad-homeopathy, where the efficacy goes up as you dilute, you moron.
And please tell me why you did that math. Srsly, dude, just because you're a moron doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to do a dumbass thing.
CO2 toxicity is generally not going to be due to any atmospheric exposure. For humans 5000ppm (0.5%) is considered a permissible level. at 10,000ppm (1%) it is used as an insecticide in greenhouses - afterall, it is a greenhouse gas.
Human effects are observed at concentrations of 2-3% and increase in severity until 10% which will likely result in coma and death.
I would support the bill, because the EPA under Democratic and Republican Presidents is writing regulations that have the force of law that were never voted on by Congress. The Clean Power Plan would never pass Congress, yet with Obama it would have had the force of law. If the EPA and other bureaucracies cannot be brought under control, better to get rid of them. I don't think the government should be run as left wingers in EPA come up with ideas and they become law unless Congress overrides them and the President agrees.
Essentially this means the President can write laws. Is that a principle you want with Trump as President?
RickA, full of shit as usual.
A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
It is not defined solely by its adverse (toxic) effect on humans.
RickA, I was also confused why you did the math. How about ppm stands for parts per million, and thus 10% of million is 100000 ppm. Wow do you have a source for 1000 ppm is toxic?
Oh do stop trolling MikeN. CO2 ppm is irrelevant. RickA was wrong (or lying) as usual.
And you are pitching in to cover for him.
MikeN - I agree that executive power has grown too large, but the dysfunction is the fault of the GOP going back to Gingrich when they first embarked on their scorched earth policy.
Oh, and Congress *DID* pass a law - the Clean Air Act.. Courts interpret the law. The EPA was *ordered* by the courts to follow and enforce the law.
Wiki is your friend: "The CAA defines "air pollutant" as "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air". The majority opinion commented that "greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA’s capacious definition of air pollutant."
Finally, the Court remanded the case to the EPA, requiring the agency to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation."
Apparently you *don't* believe in the rule of law since you're so willing to disobey the Supreme Court. You and RickA should start a law firm together.
MikeN @34: Would you rather scientists without partisan positions come up with regulations for the health and safety of the country, or a representative who's last brush with science was a high school class 20 years ago who is far more worried about re-election than what the coal waste will do to the water in the creek next to the power plant?
And for goodness sake, the EPA was not allowed to regulate asbestos. Asbestos, for crying out loud! So, no, I am not worried about the power of the EPA when they have such powerful opponents.
Section 101(a)(2) of the clean air act:
"(2) that the growth in the amount and complexity of air
pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development,
and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in
mounting dangers to the public health and welfare, including
injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the
deterioration of property, and hazards to air and ground transportation;"
Check out the Massachusetts v. EPA decision which also quotes "public health and welfare".
The purpose of the CAA is to regulate things which make people sick - "public health" (or animals or crops).
It is not about GAIA or the environment generally.
Your way is much easier.
I was just showing Wow how I arrived at 100,000 and that it was the correct number.
Note as soon as "Dick" disappears, "Mike" appears. Sounds legit.
"Check out the Massachusetts v. EPA decision which also quotes “public health and welfare”."
AGW will affect public health and welfare.
You just hate those lefties being right.
"I was just showing Wow how I arrived at 100,000 and that it was the correct number."
1) Just accepting someone else's word. Why not just accept mine?
2) By some weird maths totally unnecessary to do.but you DO have problems with "per something" values. I'm surprised you didn't ask were there a million molecules in the atmosphere, or it can't be calculated...
And remember, you are saying that it's toxic.
Which is rather the point you wanted to attempt with CO2: it "has to be" toxic, in your mind, for it to be a pollutant. So you're saying with "the correct number" that it is a pollutant, therefore EPA can handle it.
Keep googling and let me know if you found if carbon dioxide has been added to the list of air pollutants. As far as I can tell, it has not been added.
Oxygen and Nitrogen are not on the list either.
So as far as I can tell, officially the EPA doesn't consider CO2 an air pollutant.
It is not that Congress couldn't pass a law to regulate CO2 - it is just that the clean air act doesn't cover CO2 (as far as I can tell).
That is why the courts will probably rule in favor of the states suing over the clean power plan - the EPA just doesn't have jurisdiction over CO2 without a change of law.
But that is just my opinion.
RickA -- "It is not about GAIA or the environment generally."
Mmmmmm... it's pretty much *ALL* about the environment. I.e., we pollute the environment. It's also why that great liberal Richard Nixon established the ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency and why it was almost immediately given enforcement authority.
They did not give authority to HEW.
"Oxygen and Nitrogen are not on the list either."
Oxygen IS on the list. As Ozone. And what is supposed to be proven by them not being on the list? They're not CO2.
And "as far as [you] could tell", climate sensitivity was only per doubling of CO2. Even after you'd heard it, you still didn't know you'd heard it.
What you know is unreliable at best.
Sure, the EPA could regulate CO2 when it get up around 20,000 ppm (2%) - because then it would have health effects on humans.
No doubt they could make a case and go lower than that.
But they cannot regulate CO2 at 400 ppm under the clean air act (in my opinion).
Will see what the EPA says under the Trump administration.
I bet it is different than under Obama.
By the way Wow - you better be careful not to breath in your exhaled breath.
CO2 is 4-5% (40,000 - 50,000 ppm) of your exhaled breath.
It is toxic.
Why the EPA could regulate exhaled air!
They could just ban exhaling, least we pollute.
I wonder how many people would vote for that law or regulation?
"Sure, the EPA could regulate CO2 when it get up around 20,000 ppm"
No, they can regulate it now.
And they have been.
Sorry for your butthurt. Nah, lying.
"CO2 is 4-5% (40,000 – 50,000 ppm) of your exhaled breath.It is toxic."
Yup, so is cyanide. It's used by your body in apoptosis. It's why your bogies are green: cyanide compounds.
Citation needed too, btw.
And yup, EPA can regulate it. It's a pollutant. This, like so much in life, seems entirely beyond your grasp...
Do you mean the clean power plan, which the Supreme Court stayed.
How is the EPA regulating CO2 again?
RickA - "CO2 is 4-5% (40,000 – 50,000 ppm) of your exhaled breath.... It is toxic."
Ummm, yeah, that's why your body is "exhaling" it. It's the waste product of the respiratory system. It needs to get rid of it. If you didn't exhale it you would surely die. Was there a point to your statement other than stating the obvious?
Uh, if it had to be stayed, then it was doing something. If it was doing something, then your query is self-answering.
But the point, again, is outside your reach.
(and Kevin, Dick here is too dumb to realise his mistake there. Not that he realised that he'd already said that it was toxic, therefore could be a pollutant *even by his fake standard*)
Rick - didn't you bother to read my #38 or the Mass. v. EPA decision? I believe the EPA has called all 5 of the major GHGs pollutants, but because of the court's ruling it's irrelevant.
The EPA was NOT regulating CO2 at the time and the court basically forced them to (refused to recognize their rationale for NOT regulating it). So the EPA or congress can call CO2 a can o'beans, but unless they change the definition in the CAA it will always be an air pollutant legally.
If the EPA were to reverse its endangerment finding as to CO2 - than poof, they are not required to regulate vehicle emissions anymore. That would be completely consistent with the Supreme Court decision - which merely ordered them to decide whether CO2 emitted by vehicles was dangerous or not.
By law they are supposed to rely only on their own science - not adopt the IPCC summary.
That is what we should keep our eye on - will the EPA reverse the endangerment finding, which moots the need for any regulation.
How exactly does CO2 endanger public health or welfare?
I don't think it does.
Potential harm 100 or 1000 years from now does not give rise to public health or welfare issues, as that phrase is used in the CAA, in my opinion.
I think the EPA will and should reverse its endangerment finding, based on its own science.
Than it will be up to Congress to pass a new law, if it wants. If the Congress wants CO2 emissions from vehicles to be regulated, or CO2 from stationary power plants, or CO2 from office buildings, or CO2 exhaled by humans for that matter, they should pass a new law and give the EPA jurisdiction to issue rules under that new law.
Ditto for methane or carbon black or any other element or compound.
GHG's just don't fit into the CAA, in my opinion.
We will see whether the EPA agrees with me (or not).
RickA, still being wrong:
Your false claim was that:
I said fuck-all about 'Gaia' - just that pollution is defined as that which is deleterious to the environment - which is the correct definition.
The environment generally - if polluted - makes people, crops and animals sick. Just think about it.
Only a few days ago we went through this exact same thing - you being wrong and refusing to be told. It's happening again.
"If the EPA were to reverse its endangerment finding as to CO2"
Why would they?
That's because you are a denier. Nobody cares what deniers claim because they are wrong about everything.
Specifically, since CO2 is a highly persistent pollutant that takes millennia to be sequestered by biogeochemichal sinks, it is utterly dishonest to claim that future harm from current CO2 emissions is of no relevance.
Stop the boneheaded denialist nonsense, please.
My position is that CO2 at 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and even 1000 ppm does not and will not make people, crops and animals sick.
That is why I do not classify it as pollution.
Will it make it slightly warmer?
At night and during the winter.
Will some animals migrate North (or South) - probably.
Will some plants grow better to the North (or South) - probably.
Will some animal keel over when it goes from 405 to 406 ppm, or 699 to 700 ppm (if we can even possibly get that high)?
So I don't think CO2 emissions are pollution - not until the levels get high enough to make people, crops and animals sick - which we are far far from reaching.
"My position is that..."
Nobody cares what your "position" is.
"That is why I do not classify it as pollution."
" (if we can even possibly get that high)?"
How will it stop if we never do something about removing our use of fossil fuels??? You know, the think you think should not be done.
"So I don’t think CO2 emissions are pollutio"
Nobody cares. You don't think. You have no basis.
And as usual, you are wrong. Increasing CO2 will lead to increasing environmental damage with rising human health impacts. Not the least of which will be starvation as agriculture and livestock farming begins to fail as temperatures rise, rainfall patterns shift, heatwaves and droughts become more prevalent etc.
No, the reason you refuse to accept that CO2 is a (dangerous) pollutant is that it would be inconvenient for you to do so and you are a dishonest little shit.
RickA, in Mass v EPA, the Supreme Court already ruled that EPA could regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The current lawsuit is based on different reasoning. It would have already gone into effect, expect the last time the Obama Administration lost, they gloated about how the damage was already done. So based on that, this time the Supreme Court gave an injunction.
Kevin ONeill, you are begging the question. The wiki definition defines POLLUTANT as 'air pollution...'
You are assuming CO2 is air pollution to use this definition.
I have yet to see any convincing evidence that agriculture and livestock farming will fail as temperatures rise.
We will see I guess.
So far, warming has been good for crops.
We should get more rainfall total, although it might fall in different locations.
Again - we will see if these sky is falling projections turn out to be correct.
As of today - CO2 has not make people, crops and animals sick.
As of tommorrow - CO2 will not have made people, crops and animals sick.
I very much doubt that CO2 will have made people, crops and animals sick by 2100.
Maybe by 3100?
Too speculative for me to even guess.
My guess is that a carbon tax will cause more people to starve than any additional warming absent a carbon tax.
So which is really worse?
That is why we need a very good cost benefit analysis - which is lacking in my opinion.
RickA @60: You say "Will some animals migrate North (or South) – probably."
Animals will also migrate vertically, up in elevation. This means that towns and cities that were previously outside the habitat of disease-carrying mosquitoes are now poised to become prime mosquito habitat, with all the diseases that entails.
The re-introduction of Aedes egypties into most of the continental US will be a public health nightmare. Not as bad as in a lot of places, mostly because most homes and buildings in the US have window screens and air conditioning, but it will still be bad. Unless you think that malaria, Zika, dengue and yellow fever are no big deal.
Not sure I agree with your analysis.
My reading is that the EPA didn't think they had jurisdiction to regulate CO2 and the Supreme Court said yes you do, if you make an endagerment finding (not that we are ordering you to do one - but if you do) and if you decide that CO2 emissions from vehicles are dangerous, than the CAA requires you to regulate.
So the EPA made an endangerment finding. Not sure they did it correctly - but they can undo that finding, if they want.
As far as I know, the EPA never regulated CO2 emissions from vehicles (but I have not googled this - so could be wrong).
Instead, Obama decided to regulate stationary power, which is where most of the CO2 emissions are generated anyway.
The states sued and the Supreme Court stayed the plan because of the severe doubt that the clean power plan falls under any EPA jurisdiction.
Now that Trump won - I wonder if the clean power plan will be scrapped anyway - mooting the lawsuit.
Is anybody aware of any final rules related to vehicle CO2 emissions? I am not. I know there are mileage standards which were raised - but that may or may not have anything to do with CO2 emissions.
Rick, I don't know what you disagree with. I agree with you except that the Supreme Court did order them to make an endangerment finding one way or the other.
Auto mileage standards were increased to over 50. This is why we have these aluminum alloys that are being advertised as great features.
The stay would not have happened without the other loss and the Obama Admin's gloating.
"The wiki definition defines POLLUTANT as ‘air pollution…’"
1) The EPA don't use WP
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Into the air.
3) Water pollution not pollution???
"I have yet to see any convincing evidence that agriculture and livestock farming will fail as temperatures rise."
"My guess is that a carbon tax will cause more people to starve than any additional warming absent a carbon tax."
No. No guessing. Work it out.
"My reading "
like yours of the definition of climate sensitivity...
Maybe - maybe not.
We have already gone up 1C since pre-industrial.
So what is the per capita change in malaria, Zika, dengue and yellow fever from then to now?
Or did non-climate things impact those numbers more than climate change?
What will the non-climate impact be on these diseases over the next 1C warming be?
I have no idea - but I bet that improved medicine and genetic modification technology will have a greater impact (for the better) than the 1 C of warming and the moving of habitable zones.
The Court said:
"We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA's actions in the event that it makes
such a finding. . . . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."
"So what is the per capita change in malaria, Zika, dengue and yellow fever from then to now?"
In the USA: infinite % for zika.
RickA @73: You are right, malaria and yellow fever have gone down in the USA since industrialization. Because the wetlands were drained and the mosquitoes were killed with any number of methods not allowed today, like pouring used motor oil on swamps (as recommended by public service cartoons during WWII). The CDC was founded to get rid of mosquito-borne diseases. Do you think this anti-regulation administration would be willing to undertake such an investment again?
What climate change will do is create new environments for mosquitoes, in places that never had them before. And so you know, there are not vaccines against malaria or dengue or Zika (yet), and multi-drug resistant malaria is becoming more common.
And of course this does not take into account all of the people in the rest of the world who can't move away from the mosquitoes.
Medicine is barely keeping up as it is, and your faith in genetic modification doesn't seem to account for the huge resistance to any kind of GMO, so, no, I don't think they're going to be able to negate the impact of Europe suddenly being malarial again. (Did you know malaria used to be endemic in England through Tudor times?)
RickA, I think the Supremes ordered the EPA to make a finding, but used 'endangerment finding' vs 'nonendangerment finding'.
Here is a chart I found for malaria from 2000 to 2015:
I would really like to see a chart for the last 100 years or more, but didn't find one with some quick googling.
I guess my point is that if malaria has gone down worldwide while temperatures have gone up - that might continue in the future.
Ditto for other diseases.
But I am pretty optimistic.
RickA @78: Malaria has gone down because of huge efforts on the part of millions of people to kill mosquitoes and keep them from biting people using every tool at humanity's disposal, including the invention of new drugs and pesticides. But both the parasite and the mosquito are becoming resistant to chemical treatments.
Basically all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. The cities and towns in the hill country of both Africa and South America are just now starting to be affected. Basically, if Nairobi becomes warm enough to be habitable to mosquitoes before an effective vaccine is developed there will be a terrible epidemic of malaria.
Basically we're on a cusp, but since you're an American with screens and fences and probably don't work outside it won't impact you directly.
"Here is a chart I found for malaria from 2000 to 2015:..."
Think this has something to do with it?
Why is temperature making it go down??? Oh, I get it you "think" (non sequitur for you) so.
Perhaps the Congressman was just getting his inspiration from Occupy Oakland.
"But I am pretty optimistic."
Optimistic has to be the most bizarre spelling of "habitually dishonest and dismissive of reality" I've ever seen. What a scumbag.
>using every tool at humanity’s disposal,
It seems you have not looked very far.
is just one of many similar papers dealing with corn, rice, soybeans and other crops in warm climates. Wheat yields have also been affected by climate change.
RickA, arguing from ignorance and incredulity, as ever.
The thing is, pretending that an abrupt and massive (>2C) increase in GAT *won't* cause environmental devastation will not stop environmental devastation from happening.
In fact it is guaranteed. Because for all the horseshit about 'animals migrating', for the most part they cannot do it fast enough and their habitats don't move at all on the timescale of human-forced warming. So you get an expanding wave of extinction which triggers secondary extinctions in heat-tolerant species whose food webs collapse because of the primary extinctions.
People who *understand* this *know* that it threatens the unthinkable.
And then there's ocean acidification and warming, both at never-before-seen rates. So marine ecosystems will be going tits-up at the same time as terrestrial ones.
And yes, malaria and other tropical diseases will of course spread polewards while all this is going on.
But in his ignorance and denial, RickA thinks none of this will be a problem.
From the WHO antimicrobial resistance fact sheet 2016:
This has been in the pipeline for years and it will only get worse. So as warming increases the *range* of the vector mosquitoes, drug resistance decreases the ability to treat malaria itself.
But hey, no problem. Just a bit of warming, right?
Richard Simons #84:
Worldwide, crop production is up, not down.
If you look at the regional level, I am sure you can find a region with crop production down over some period - but you can also find a region with crop production up.
What matters is worldwide, crop production is up and will probably continue to rise - despite the increase in temperature.
Why? Adaptation and technology.
We are already 1/2 way to 2C and we have not seen any major issues.
Why do you think the next degree will be any different?
People always project doom and disaster into the future, yet it never seems to materialise.
You know why?
Because people don't just stand still - they keep adjusting, modifying, inventing, and so on.
I am very optimistic about the future, because we will soon have another billion minds to invent solutions to our problems.
Someone breaks into RickA's house, attacks him, and puts a knife to his throat. In the ending struggle, the knife cuts half-easy to RickA's jugular.
At this point, most humans would very concerned (to say the least).
But not RickA, who confidently states, "The knife edge is already 1/2 way to my jugular and we have not seen any major issues. Why do you think the next will be any different?"
And so it goes... More Alternative Reality from The RickA Show.
"Worldwide, crop production is up, not down."
Trillion dollar agribusiness. See also link I gave above re California.
"If you look at the regional level, I am sure you can find a region with crop production down over some period"
Thereby disproving your claim made with only increased production. Do the maths, find out.
"worldwide, crop production is up and will probably continue to rise – despite the increase in temperature."
"Why? Adaptation and technology."
One method of adaption is stop fucking the climate up, despite your whining ass. Since production goes down when temperatures rise from climatological norms, if it were not warming then the same work would produce a HIGHER level of gain.
"We are already 1/2 way to 2C and we have not seen any major issues."
Apart from the deaths, crop failures and catastrophic flooding... But I guess until it fucks you up, you don't see it as major.
"People always project doom and disaster into the future,"
Why do you complain about that then project doom and gloom into the future if we do anything to stop AGW?
"Because people don’t just stand still – they keep adjusting, modifying, inventing"
Why did you stop with those? You're here adjusting your arguments as each cloud-cuckooland proclamation is knocked down, modifying whatever is said to affirm your denial and inventing excuses. These are not good things.
You also knock off the options you seem to be following. Denial, intansigence, scaremongering, refusal, infantalisation, idiocy, ecocide, and continuing to do the fucking up that we'd have to do all that adapting, modifying and inventing to avoid it crushing us.
Because ecosystems and agriculture can just about tolerate ~1C but shove the dial up another 1C and everything will start to come apart at the seams. Of course rapid warming is unlikely to stop at 2C, so there will be even worse impacts still to come.
Global yields have been unsustainable for at least a decade if not longer. Even if warming was not happening soil degradation from overuse of fertilisers and groundwater depletion will halt and reverse the global gains very soon now.
You are optimistic because you don't know anything about current problems let alone what's roaring down the road towards us. You are optimistic because it's easier than acknowledging the truth. And because it lets you carry on as if nothing has to change.
"We are already 1/2 way to 2C and we have not seen any major issues."
RickA, consider this: the current temperatures are likely already enough to assure the West-Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) *will* melt. Not *whether*, but *how fast* is now the question.
Considered it? Now consider I'm only talking about the WAIS and imagine what else may already be set in motion with 'just one degree'.
Done that? Now add another degree...
A lot of the denialist argument against doing anything about global warming seems to revolve around their belief that environmentally oriented people are trying to scare them with information that they don't or won't accept. From what I've read about the conservative mindset, it seems to have a lot of sensitivity to fears like fear of a vengeful god and fear of terrorists , and fear of socialists, so I suspect that they think that environmentally oriented people are trying to create a niche in their fear/authority hierarchy and, understandably, they are not having it.
However, automatically equating the declaration of a neutral scientific observation ( like, say, the declaration that carbon dioxide interacts with infrared radiation ) with an attempt to control society and institute global socialism is just plain outrageous and wrong. And the over-reaction of the right to people trying to express ( in many different ways ) the basic observation that the atmosphere is warming , is leading into the counter accusation that the left is falsifying their data for political reasons.
Unfortunately, presidink pootygrabber .... sorry, President Trump , is doing tremendous damage to our scientific establishment by denigrating things like environmental engineering and vaccination, things that ultimately make life a whole lot better. The current administrations scientific insolence is making the problems of climate change seem pretty insignificant, because those of us who love and respect science are being pressured for having scientific understandings that are not palatable to emperor palpitane, sorry, President Trump.
I am really concerned that the right wing is trying to drag us into a culture that devalues truthfulness ( Conway and Spicer come to mind ) , and that this will ultimately lead us into scientific Lysenkoist norm where political appointees end up destroying priceless riches of knowledge, leading the US into Russian style backwardness. R for Reverse. .
"Because ecosystems and agriculture can just about tolerate ~1C but shove the dial up another 1C and everything will start to come apart at the seams."
What is this assertion based on?
I say wait and see.
Lets at least wait 0.25C and see if things start to fall apart at the seams.
Maybe they will or maybe not.
How much of that melting is from the surprisingly high geothermal heat they are finding?
In other words - we can do nothing about that melting, because it is not related to global warming.
How much of the additional melting is offset by the increased snow pileup on the EAIS (increased mass measured by GRACE)?
Even if WAIS is melting - how much is it adding to the SLR and how long will it take to matter?
I am clearly less worried than you.
However, I am willing to vote for federal funding of alternative energy production - particularly non-carbon producing baseload power generation which is cheaper than fossil fuels.
We can do that, even though I am less worried.
I am willing to authorize the building of lots of nuclear, preferably with passive cooling, even more preferably thorium or small scale systems. Even though currently more expensive than fossil fuel, I would still support that - just in case.
I am not in favor of making everything more expensive to discourage energy use generally, since that will hurt poor people more than SLR.
What are you in favor of?
SteveP #92 asks "Your thoughts?"
Steve - I find that I am not worried about any of that.
I meant Steve P #93.
"What is this assertion based on?"
"I say wait and see."
1) Based on what?
2) Then it's too late.
3) Should the paramedics do the same when it comes to your heart attack? You're not dead yet, so lets wait and see.
You,dick, are just simply an unpleasant and selfish being.
Study the history of the Sahara region RickA. But of course that would involve you knowing where the Sahara is.
"How much of that melting is from the surprisingly high geothermal heat they are finding?"
"In other words – we can do nothing about that melting, because it is not related to global warming."
Lionel A #98:
The Sahara might have been caused by tectonic activity:
"But this effect could not be explained by changes in vegetation, Earth’s tilt or greenhouse gas concentrations—leaving tectonic action."
So maybe the Sahara wasn't caused by an increase in temperatures?
"The Sahara might have been caused by tectonic activity:"
Read that again.
"So maybe the Sahara wasn’t caused by an increase in temperatures?"
So you're claiming the Sahara was always this hot and never increased?
No, that's not true. Your claim is bullshit.
Well, I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink.
No, RickA, the melting is not due to geothermal activity. That's been there for innumerous millenia, but it didn't melt the WAIS. That's what global warming helped with (the geothermal heat fluxes are relevant to understand how and where the WAIS will be destabilized, and thus get a better grip on how fast). The whole WAIS is 4 meters, and yes, *under current conditions* this will take several millenia. Unfortunately, we can expect that we do not remain at current conditions. Still, I see you cannot even grasp the concept that 1 degree of warming has been sufficient to doom the WAIS.
Oh, and that increase in EAIS *at the moment* only partially offsets the losses of the WAIS.
Again, we're just talking about Antarctica here.
What I am in favor of is that you, RickA, stop misinterpreting scientific information. You can hold all the beliefs you want, but you do not have the right to make up your own facts.
"You can lead a man to data, but you can't make him think."
There are "Can Nots", "Have Nots", and "Will Nots".
RickA is a confirmed "Will Not". He will not think rationally, instead only using self-motivated "reasoning".
He knows what the truth is, but he self-centeredly chooses lies, distortions, untruths, and falsehoods to feed his greed.
It's amusing (and long since become annoying) to watch him flail and struggle desperately to get anyone to validate his deceptions and approve of his self-serving anti-science.
Fuck off, RickA. The truth IS good enough. (And no human being needs your deceitful 'opinions' either).
The fact that *everything* is adapted to Holocene norms and +2C is outside Holocene norms. That, and the other fact that anthro climate change is *fast*. Much, much too fast for species adaptation.
As I said, your relentless optimism is based on ignorance. If you knew anything much at all about any of this, you would be appropriately terrified.
SteveP, when people talk about global warming, and the solutions are the same ones they were proposing before global warming, it makes me suspicious. It's why I am more likely to listen to James Hansen because he advocates for nuclear power. If you are saying that we are facing the end of civilization as we know it, and then you say "Nuclear power is a no-go, it is too unsafe.", then I won't take you seriously.
Two IPCC officials:
"when people talk about global warming, and the solutions are the same ones they were proposing before global warming"
"If you are saying that we are facing the end of civilization as we know it, and then you say “Nuclear power is a no-go, it is too unsafe.”, then I won’t take you seriously."
"Two IPCC officials:"
So you disagree with them or agree with them? Or don't you know. Which is seriously suspicious.
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto ..."
Was not said. They were not speaking English. Go to
for something other than conspiritard idiocy.
The prelude to Mikey's second quote (courtesy Eli - thanks, Wow!):
[W]e have 11,000 gigatons of carbon stored in the coal reserves under our feet and we can at most shove 400 gigatons into the atmosphere if we want to hold to the 2 degree limit. 11,000 to 400 there is no way to avoid it, the major fraction of the fossil reserves must stay in the ground."
Mikey is lying by omission.
Mikey is trash.
So, we have a presidential adviser, steve bannon, who believes that American history is ruled by eighty year apocalyptic cycles somewhat akin to astrology, and with just as much truth behind it.. He is a crackpot. We have ill donald himself, who shows clear signs of narcissism, a personality disorder that all politicians seem to flirt with, but most not on the disqualifying level that this one exists at.. We have administration spokes-people who can't seem to tell the truth, who feel that it is a right or duty or something to lie to the American people.. Try doing science in that sort of . environment!
So this nut job and his bevy of nuts wants to shut down everybody's villain, the EPA. Because ..... Lead, mercury, and radionuclides from coal ash can't hurt you or your children? WTF??? Groundwater contamination? Who cares! Air pollution? Aw. ......And now your grandaughter has asthma. I'll bet you doesn't pray enough, that's why she has asthma, the lord is trying to talk to her. . And she probably had VACCINATIONS too.
We are rushing headlong towards disaster, only this is not the climate change one or the ocean acidification one. This one is the global insanity of letting a megalomaniac narcissist try to be king in America in the 21st century. All of us who let this sicko come to power will probably regret it severely for the rest of our lives.
That's "Il Douche" to you...
That's "Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder".
Added to "Psychopathic Personality Disorder".
A most toxic combination. Reason to eliminate the EPA?
(Electorate Protection Agency, perhaps?)
While Mao Ze Don is busily trying to Make Russia Great Again, he's also trying to turn the U.S. into the former Mainland China, as his ego can't handle it if his country isn't number 1 in devastating pollution crises. This is his way of closing the "pollution gap".
“Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder”.
Added to “Psychopathic Personality Disorder”.
I really really think that someone needs to gift our current leadership team with some nice, elegant, bullet proof, kevlar, , buckle in the back Mao jackets.. To keep them safe. For their own good. And for their convenience. The buckles in back allow their attendants to suit them up without the inconvenience of having lesser human beings in front of them. Maybe we can start one of them thar go-fund-me thingees for them. A loving gift from the Merkan peeps. What do you think?
Just make sure those jackets are straight...
Most of the swamp denizens that are part of the Trump regime also present psychopathic symptomology.
# 106 MikeN
First, I hope that will be the last time you repeat the lie about what Edenhofer actually said. Learn a lesson.
Second, this rubbish about nuclear. Like Hansen - who you misrepresent by implication - I agree that nuclear can play an important component role in decarbonisation alongside renewables.
Why 'component role'? Because there is not one single plausible analysis of nuclear potential which places its share of global electricity generation above 30% by mid-century. Most are lower, including the industry's own assessment, which centres on about 20%.
So nuclear cannot solve the problem alone. Very substantial growth in renewables - mainly solar and wind - will be required to have any hope of staying under 3C.
Frankly, for those who want nukes to be ramped up at all, you have to blame yourself or deniers for delaying doing anything about this. 30 years ago we could have de-fossilised slowly enough to build out and operate nukes safely.
But, no, deniers HAD to go and tell everyone it was a hoax, that there was no data for it, that it would be too expensive, that getting off coal would mean just China would use cheap coal and beat everyone at economics.
See how well THAT denier prediction went....
Now we've dialed in far too much change, change that we cannot be sure will leave the planet pretty much the same shape as it is even if we completely stopped now using fossil fuels, and therefore had to do without most of our energy.
We can't see what melting we've set in for the next 50 years, and if that melting floods the places where we would be putting nuke plants, we can't put them there. And since the melting hasn't finished yet, we can't place them somewhere safer, since we either put a large margin of error in the prediction and go further back than that, meaning we can't operate the power station, or we risk making the plant inoperable at some point before the EOL.
We just don't have time or the skill to roll out nukes.
Because deniers around the world, most of then in the USA, have forced inaction for the last 30 years.
I particularly like the juxtaposition of "when people talk about global warming, and the solutions are the same ones they were proposing before global warming, it makes me suspicious" with "If you are saying that we are facing the end of civilization as we know it, and then you say 'Nuclear power is a no-go, it is too unsafe.', then I won’t take you seriously".
Nuclear power is a solution that's been proposed since long before anyone was concerned about global warming. Me, I've got nothing against it in principle, but I have some serious questions about how quickly we can build it out, how much it's going to cost, and where the money is going to come from. But yeah, I'm kinda suspicious of all the people whose acceptance of global warming seems to be contingent on it's utility for promoting their pet technology...
When the mis-managed Three Mile Island plant had their little incident back in 79, NObody wanted any new nuke plants in their back yard. Ronny Raygun and his squad of Iran-savvy oil men snuck into office in 80, took the solar panels off the White House, and ran the country at the behest and on behalf the western oil industry. Oil plants, and coal plants with scrubbers became glorious alternatives to nukes, and I believe that a lot of new coal plants were built. And expertise in nukes went away. Then of course, there was Chernobyl, and finally, Fukushima.
I like nukes but..... but nukes make hot poo and there is just not enough time and places to hide hot poo before somebody notices and starts complaining about it. Casks burst, everything eventually corrodes, things get messy. But such things can be managed more easily than upside down ecosystems, drought, famine, or underwater cities.
However, these points don't matter much, because the current trend of silencing scientists and dissenters in Mareka may end up leading to any one of a number of human depopulation events.... events that the next generation of fossil hunters can puzzle over.
So Don't worry! Be happy! The oily rich people have EVERYTHING under control! Honest! They do! And aren't they all wonderful? Have a nice day.
And hiding the hot poo, preventing or fixing casks bursting or corrosion damage and managing nuke power stations is much harder when we have to deal with upside down ecosystems, drought, famine, or underwater cities.
It's just too damn late to insist on building new nukes. We can't site them without knowing much more about what the climate will do than we currently do (or err to the side of caution, pretty much eliminating the possibility altogether). And we can't afford the time, either.
And we have renewables that can provide all we need to replace 99% of fossil fuel use, and roll it out quickly.
If a plain used for wind power floods, we just have a new offshore wind farm.
If a plain used for nuke power floods, we have to shut the power plant down. Though that would also be true of a coal fired power station too, but in the latter case we don't have to be QUITE as careful in cleanup before restarting.
"Wind power accounted for 12.14% of the electricity generated in Texas in the 12 months ending July 2016." Not bad for one of the most conservatives states in the country.
My understand is that one problem that Texas faced was that they had pretty much run out of potential cooling water sources for new nukes. That is just another reason why nukes finding a suitable location for a nuke plant is getting harder and harder.
Let's see, we can build on the Gulf of Mexico, but how do we design for several inches of sea level rise over the life of the plant?
And what is the chance that some of the WAIS calves off in that time?
Would a calving of ice from off the Western part of Greenland cause a tidal wave that would hit the area the power plant is in and cause it to break open? Flood?
And what about algal blooms clogging up the water filters? How about jellyfish swarms clogging up the intakes?
Aye, one "adaption". But it's too late if you're already flooded, and it takes a lot of money and especially time to build, so we'd have to have those demanding "adaption" pony up the cash to rebuild the big cities of the world as floating cities.
I suggest a HUUUGE wall.
(Paid for by "them." ¿Cómo no?)
Yuuuuge wall. Yes. That would work.
BBD, you'll have to explain this lie about Odenhofer to me. The extra text that I left out, adds nothing in my opinion, but I'm open to the idea that I'm misinterpreting it.
I don't know what nasty implication you think I am making about Hansen. I said that he supports increasing nuclear power. I don't suggest that he wants to exclusively do so or is against renewables.
However, that nukes cannot go above 30% by midcentury, I dispute. What is France's percentage? Over what period of time did they accomplish this? The US is already around 20%. Now, most of the growth in energy will be coming from places that are at about 0% nuclear, so it would be difficult, but if the costs are lower for nuclear energy(something I doubt) than they will be interested in adopting it.
"What is France’s percentage"
But they hvae to net import energy because they have over-supplied "base load". Moreover, they've been in deep shit several times during a hot summer because there's not enough cooling water to use and they have to stop supplying. The government subsidises EdF else they would have folded years ago. And even EdF want to get out of it, because the profits are mostly gone, people are noticing the huge cash injection, and a lot of those plants are near EOL and the responsibility for clearing them out is with EdF and about due.
So 75% is the level at which your economy fails.
Unless you're willing to subsidise massively more and cause your economy to tank, I would suggest BELOW 75%.
Denmark is regularly running over 40% renewables. And there's no technical problem with running 100%.
"Now, most of the growth in energy will be coming from places that are at about 0% nuclear,"
Uh, renewables are growing fastest of all power sources.
And the prices falling fast whilst fossils and nuke are either depressed by over-production in a world needing less (wasn't it supposed to be that China would be using all the cheap coal, making decarbonising the economy a moot point? Never happened. Another denier prediction failed), or rising.
The ROI and EROEI are much MUCH higher with renewables. The only problem is NMIBY and crony capitalism.
Then you are in dispute with just about everybody.
So renewables. Lots of problems there, I agree, but it has to be done, all the same. Nukes won't bail us out. So making nukes a red line and dogwhistling world socialism plotz is throwing caltrops.
Mikey @ 128:
Thanks for asking.
"The extra text that I left out, adds nothing in my opinion, but I’m open to the idea that I’m misinterpreting it."
Acting stupid is failing you as a defense mechanism. Your attempt at 106 to portray AGW as a global socialist scam falls apart when the true concern is revealed - "the major fraction of the fossil reserves must stay in the ground.”
You are trash.
(Should be: "Your half-hearted attempt at 106..."
Seriously, why tack such obvious SHIT onto a [misleading-as-always] comment about nuclear power?)
BBD, your link is more predictive, and doesn't go to midcentury. I agree that nuclear power will not be a majority share of energy, and likely cannot happen by 2030 or 2035 as the report states. I don't see anything in the report as to why it cannot be a larger percentage though. At one point in a previous report a higher increase was given, then after Fukushima, the percentage increase was lowered. Is this because some large share of nuclear power plants became impossible as revealed by Fukushima, or were they merely more unpopular?
Corey, yes he says they must stay in the ground, that permits are given on per capita basis around the world, transferring wealth to Africa, etc. I don't see how that changes the quote, or makes it irrelevant to what SteveP was asking.
Denmark has an electric grid strongly linked to Norway and Sweden, who have large amounts of hydropower to balance the grid. It's a very misleading example.
Show me an example of a country with minimal interconnections getting 40% of all their electricity from intermittent renewables if you want to make that point.
I'd be quite interested to see references for France being a net electricity importer as well. It's normally one of the world's top exporters.
And no, there isn't going to be a tsunami from Greenland.
For the record, I'd describe myself as pro nuclear on the grounds of their being no feasible alternative, and very worried at how promoters of renewable energy will resort to tactics ranging from deception to outright lying to promote them. What I seen happening in reality is renewables being rolled out until grid stability issues become obvious, at which point we have a technological dead end. By which time we'll be even more firmly committed to 2 degrees of warming than we are now, and well on track to 3.
Uh, all of europe have that, all over europe. Including france.
it's a perfectly fine example.
Garmany:16% Intermittent renewables (30% including biomass and hydro)
France: 4.5% Non-hydro renewabels, 15% including hydro.
UK: 25% total of which half is intermittent renewables.
These are the big countries. They do not get 40% of their electricity from renewables at all, never mind intermittent renewables; biomass and big hrdropower play a large role in those figures. Neither of which is going to see huge expansion in the future.
2040. How much plant can you build in 10 years? Don't be a twat. All data - industry numbers - confirm that you are just wrong and in denial, as per.
Immensely depressing, as is the vicious shit you get when you point it out.
To cut another EnergyBall caper short:
Nukes ~30% by mid-century is optimistic.
Fast-enough decarbonisation with renewables alone is probably not possible.
We are in for >3C and everything that goes with it.
What's this "intermittent" shit?
Nuclear is intermittent. Sizewell went out for over a year. Coal too, with Didcott going O/L for over half a year.
Dinworig was built to cover nuke outages, and the UK HVDC link to France was built because of the intermittency and uncontrollable nuke power. And for Hinckley Point C the HVDC is being doubled to France, another added to Denmark, and an expansion to storage to cover unplanned outages.
Intermittent is all power generation.
Solar/wind are predictable.
"these are the big countries. They do not get 40% of their electricity from renewables at all"
They don't get that from nukes either.
So nukes undoable too?
NH winter. Solar down to 10%. Wind down to 10% for a month (eg December 2016).
Winter: no sun, lots of wind.
USA drops their nuke stations for summer. 0% use.
Scotland Dounreay halted due to a Jellyfish swarm in summer blocking cooling water intakes.
France: summer heat drops river levels and raises water temp, meaning they cannot take cooling water from the rivers and shut down.
Didcott: that's intermittent.
Fukishima: that's intermittent.
Funny, they all seem to be intermittent.
No, that is completely wrong.
Dinorwig was built as storage for nuclear over-production. But the nuclear build-out never happened, so Dinorwig *now* provides backup to the NG.
Not necessarily. I did just mention December. No wind in the UK for the entire month.
UK target used to be 33GW wind averaging 10GW output. Optimistically calculating for a max 5 day lull in UK windspeeds:
10GW x (5 x 24h) = 1200GWh
1200GWh is about 130 Dinorwigs.
This is just the UK.
This is the kind of issue that needs to be addressed honestly and openly, not lied about or denied.
Pretending it is a non-issue is exactly the same as pretending that fossil fuels are a non-issue.
Storage required to back up a 5 day lull
"" Winter: no sun, lots of wind."
Not necessarily. "
Irrelevant. Because this:
happens. Yet isn't proof that nuclear is impossible to use.
"" Dinworig was built to cover nuke outages"
No, that is completely wrong."
That's a complete lie, retard.
How many kWhs were lost when this happened?
No, it isn't and you don't even have to look further or harder than Wikipedia to check:
I don't need to lie about this stuff. Only you do.
What I find irksome about this type of exchange is that I am having to debunk nonsense about nuclear AND renewables simultaneously and yet both sides treat me as a partisan for the other. Which I obviously am not.
"" That’s a complete lie, retard."
No, it isn’t "
Yes it is. I was there. I'm Welsh. I KNOW.
"and yet both sides treat me as a partisan for the other."
Oh stop whining you fucking pissant. NO I AM NOT. Don't you fucking tell me what I'm thinking of you, I KNOW WHAT I AM THINKING. NOT you.
Fucking persecution complex whiners piss me off.
Not good enough. You need a linked reference. Not an ALL CAPS MELTDOWN.
"Not good enough."
Nothing every is for you on this subject. Even when a link is supplied, or ACTUAL CALCULATIONS handed to you that you can do yourself and confirm or refute, you just go "But thats wrong because $AUTHORITY has a different figure, and why would they produce that figure if it wasn't supported by reality?".
One would have thought that deniers would have abused you of that, but not, it appears, on your favourite topic to bloviate on behalf of "authority" on.
"ALL CAPS MELTDOWN."
Tone argument bollocks. Again.
Might help Wow clear up the intermittent/dispatchable misunderstanding.
Fundamentally, when you power the grid with dispatchable sources, you would do so with a gold standard 20% overcapacity. I.e. you build 80GW of capacity for a 60GW grid, which means that you can achieve 99.99% uptime allowing for both scheduled and unscheduled outages.
With sources like wind and solar this doesn't work, you would have to build fantastic amounts to get the same reliability; there will be significant amounts of time when you have no sun or wind. It is not equivalent. Even if you built 800GW of both you'd have blackouts.
BBD - yes.. I don't want to come over as massively partisan.. I could see how a WWII-style effort with nuclear power could get carbon dioxide emissions way down fairly quickly (although nuclear power isn't something you want to rush) but I don't see it happening.
Like the one you just ignored:
10GW x (5 x 24h) = 1200GWh
1200GWh is about 130 Dinorwigs.
From The Engineer which addresses factual engineering issues, not ideological posturing:
You don't :-)
the first quote is telling me that whining is pissing me off.
The second is why going "ALL CAPS" is not even an argument.
Do you contend that the former was supposed to be an argument why your hypothesis that Dinworig was not built to back up the nuke power for when it turns off unexpectedly?
It was a claim about your whining "both sides see me as a puppet for the other" pisses me off, especially since you have to proclaim what I'm thinking TO ME.
"Like the one you just ignored:"
Just like the one you ignored.
How many kWhs were lost when this happened?
"Might help Wow clear up the intermittent/dispatchable misunderstanding. "
Nukes and coal aren't dispatchable. And dispatchable isn't intermittent.
Quite where you thought there was a confusion about "dispatchable" when it was only brought up in your post is a mystery.
"With sources like wind and solar this doesn’t work, you would have to build fantastic amounts to get the same reliability"
No you don't.
France lost, what, over a third of their power, all nuke. Well unreliable....
This is not even an argument:
* * *
Putin's energy blackmail is irrelevant to the *fact* that renewable intermittency requires very large scale storage.
No, completely wrong, again. Standard definition:
Nuclear plant is usually classified as a slow dispachable.
You got all this utterly wrong at Eli's too.
"This is not even an argument:"
" Yes it is. I was there. I’m Welsh. I KNOW.""
From long experience on this with you I know that it won't matter what evidence is presented, so I don't CARE if it's not an argument, no argument will work with you.
You know, like yours with DickA about TCS.
"You got all this utterly wrong at Eli’s too."
Renewables are only not possible to dispatch if they're not producing.
But that's 100% identical to the problems of all other forms of power generation.
This is you:
Dispatchable as a term of art is not "able to dispatch" but "can be modified to follow demand".
So hydro is dispatchable.
Coal *can* be, but it's massively inefficient, either by being tiny and therefore very much less efficient in power transformation, or by being spinning reserve, and therefore wasting power.
Gas can be dispatched quicker but that is still slower than nuke power goes down, hence Dinworig. It dumps power at a maximum rate to replace the lost nuke power until enough idle gas can be brought online.
This has been gone over at massive length at Eli's.
"Your mistake [BBD] is right at the core of yourself: your blind bigoted ideological stance for nuclear power uber alles."
Not a lie like you claim.
You can calim it's wrong, but not a lie.
But to claim it is wrong, you have to answer the question that arose long before it:
Why the hell do you take Mackay's work as absolute truth in the face of the many MANY errors, even ones that you can calculate for yourself, in the work, and refuse to find out yourself why others get a different answer, and instead just pass on to the false and asserted authority of Mackay's work or current position.
You don't answer that and I draw a conclusion.
But I don't partake that you're beating me up and mischaracterising me BECAUSE you're a blindly bigoted nuke shill.
I call you a blindly bigoted nuke shill BECAUSE YOU ACT LIKE IT.
Don't like it? Don't do it.
Hardly the words of a 'nuclear shill'.
You are insane, as I believe I have had to point out before once or twice.
"I was remembering what you said to me."
And I remembered it too. Remember when you were asked why myself and bernard got very different numbers and you just turned to Mackay's references used in his book and said "There's why you're wrong" and how you didn't know why it was different, but you accepted Mackay's answer, not one you could work out for yourself?
But I still have no frigging clue what the fuck you're arguing here. Other than you haz butthurtz.
There are plenty of 100% renewable plans.
There are no options for 100% nuke plans.
"Hardly the words of a ‘nuclear shill’."
SCREECHING about how renewables were not doable in the UK and then insisting that Mackay was right when Mackay IS A nuke shill (it's how he got his position: or at least why he got it over other equally qualified candidates, despite his lies and bullshit, covered up with "I'm not partisan here!", yet suddenly insists on invalid equivalences and pulling out of his ass claims of "reasonable" use of land in the UK).
Even if someone like "mike" here is denying AGW because he wants his stock portfolio to do better, that doesn't make him a "denier", despite the fact he's only aping their claims for a different reason, and he knows he's wrong.
And more lies...
You utter lunatic.
But very little likelihood that a full transition is possible fast enough to avoid dangerous warming.
But no matter how many times I write this:
In your mad little world, I'm a 'nuclear shill'.
What is? The claim you quoted is 100% real and factual.
Again, I have NO IDEA what the hell you're complaining about.
100% renewables has several plans to enact.
And it's too late to build out nukes. At the moment, all we can do on that front is spend some money to see if we can progress the art to something that actually is safe enough to leave to the short term "free market" to deal with and allow, for example, Somalia to use.
Else we'd have to make them use renewables anyway. And if they can make it 100% of their power use, so can we. Making keeping nukes pointless.
"But no matter how many times I write this:"
But you only recently let that be said. For example, that's the only place I've seen you say that, so "how many times" is One.
Moreover, that merely increases what the fuck you're whinging about here.
It can't be 100% nukes.
But it CAN be 100% renewables.
You, like dick, when cornered or demanded to give what you think disclaim any opinion or the lack of the conclusion of your posting.
If you insist on keeping "I don't"s, then there's no point reading your posts, is there, since you're only going to say what you don't mean, not own up to what you do.
It can be 100% renewables. Several countries going zero carbon. There isn't time or expertise or even the places to build nuke stations. Not even to replace. And spending money on building more just removes the ability to spend that money on the better ROI of renewables.
More lies. This is me on one of *several* occasions when I have told you exactly where I stand:
Stop lying about me.
This is what got you banned at Eli's.
Nobody's going zero carbon any time soon except in their PR.
"More lies. This is me on one of *several* occasions when I have told you exactly where I stand:"
Where you said something VERY different from
"So nuclear cannot solve the problem alone. Very substantial growth in renewables – mainly solar and wind – will be required to have any hope of staying under 3C."
Case against the nutbar rests.
"Nobody’s going zero carbon any time soon except in their PR."
Time traveller are we? Or just channeling the spirit of Mystic Meg?
Nutbar goes more nutbar.
Still lying Wow.
Not very different at all.
Stop lying. You should know better by now.
Nutbar still going nutbar.
France exports electricity.
France generates 75% of its electricity from nuclear, although is intending to drop to 50% by 2025.
Not sure why.
We could double, triple or even quadruple the power we generate from nuclear in the USA from 20% to 40, 60 or even 80% - if we wanted.
I vote go nuclear!
Germany exports energy, dick.
Guess that means you're wrong.
Or "X exports energy" is a bullshit red herring.
"Not sure why."
Go look, moron.
Their power generation is killing their economy.
So now BBD is a nuclear shill?
Pretty soon Wow will be projecting and accusing you of being another of my sockpuppets. Or is it the other way around?
>This is what got you banned at Eli’s.
So he DOES have sockpuppets.
BBD, most of the discussion was around 2030 targets, then they slowly moved to 2040 in later reports. One report had a larger prediction for nuclear, then lowered it. It is predictive, not a description of what could happen.
And yes I think the extra 10 years matters. We are 2017, so a 2030 target is a little over a decade, while midcentury is 3 times as long. Even 2040 is 23 vs 33 years. Considering the startup time to deploy nuclear plants, the extra decade matters.
I am not advocating for nuclear to be deployed in a huge percentage. I just think it is possible to be a higher percentage by midcentury if people wanted to do it.
So you're calling BBD a nuke shill????
Fair enough, but he'll yell "LIE!" at you.
" I just think it is possible to be a higher percentage by midcentury if people wanted to do it."
Well we don't.
3x higher approval for renewables than for nuclear among polls for the average citizen.
Even in the USA about 60% of people want the government to do more to tackle AGW.
If you wanted nukes, you shouldn't have pissed about arguing about reality, but argued about how to deal with it.
But short-sighted morons just didn't want to, because the "wrong political party" was accepting it.
Indeed they did, as you might expect in more recent reports.
And we still end up with ~30% nuclear by mid-century looking optimistic.
Industry figures and all that. Not just me.
But likely to be much lower. Maybe only a few %, and most of those to test tech, not serious power production.
Plus some for the nuclear powers.
Because nobody wants to pay for nuclear power any more, not even if they get to ask twice the strike price and a guaranteed sale, even if it's unwanted.
And it's just too damn late.
Renewables can do it. And it's probably better to work toward that. Those in higher climes will want more insulation, but it's pretty much doable. Just needs rolling out.
China doesn't have to bother with pleasing corporations to pay for their adverts to get votes, so they can give a big F-U and do it anyway.
See, something we in the west Just Don't Get is that the culture is very different. Much like the Middle East. At least in theory, we in the west don't like liars much. I did say "in theory". In the Middle East, lying your arse off (cf Chemical Ali) is as socially natural and expected as shaking hands or saying "Hello" is over here. And in China, the thousands of years of civilisation and barbarity from the ruling classes along with the spiritual rather than theistic religions, they revere "the acceptable position" much more than individual position. So the vast majority of the Chinese WANT that Great Firewall of China. They really do believe that if the government don't want them to see it, it must be something they should not be looking at.
A bit like we are, again in theory, with child porn. If it's blocked as kiddie porn, we DON'T want to see it.
So there is much more a symbiosis there in China, despite autocracy and a lack of genuine democracy (which they culturally don't see as warranted). Because there's still that idea that we used to call "noblesse oblige". They tell the people what they need to know, and they will protect the people against the unnecessary and unwanted deaths.
And that's why they're pushing for renewables so massively. People are dying,and not because the government have decided they must, but because the rush to fossil fuel energy is killing the environment, just like it did in London and later in LA.
Andrew, why is it relevant that Denmark imports energy from Norway and Sweden? You talk about pointing to a single country that does it without imports, but if a country can do so with imports, that is good enough. If you made a giant country combining Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, then they would achieve the target wouldn't they? What does it matter that there are some national boundaries thru which energy passes?
At #136, Andrew wrote:
Trans-border interconnection per se is not the problem at all. First off, Andrew's point is that Denmark can only get away with 40% renewables on its grid because it has continuous access to as much nuclear from Sweden and hydro from Norway as it needs, whenever it needs it. So renewables intermittency in Denmark is fully offset by imports and there is always enough import capacity available on demand because Norway and Sweden have a permanent export surplus. This is extremely unusual and makes Denmark a unique case and a misleading example of national-scale renewables potential without building national-scale storage capacity. Which is why it gets bandied around all the time.
The problems start when the share of renewables rises in all European countries and attempts are made to counter intermittency by large-scale grid interconnection. First, this is technically challenging and hellishly expensive, so the 'cheap renewables' meme comes unstuck when you look at total system cost. Then there's assumption - never challenged - that there will always be enough export capacity on the supergrid to meet all regional shortfalls in real time. In fact this is unlikely.
Northern hemisphere winter means that solar is marginal for 6 months of the year and so wind must meet pan-European demand 24/7.No country has even hinted at plans to build so much wind over-capacity that it can entirely meet domestic demand (projected to rise significantly by mid-century) *and* have a healthy export surplus at all times as well. Most European countries don't have a large enough natural wind potential to achieve this even if they wanted to. But the permanent availability of export surplus is an absolute requirement for pan-European energy security (or N American, or Australian etc). What looks more likely is that on average, most countries will struggle to get enough energy out of their (vast) renewables installations to meet domestic demand, even with very large national-scale storage. The latter is another huge cost that gives the lie to the 'cheap renewbles' meme. Total system cost will *not* be cheap. So it will be expensive and there will be no guaranteed availability of sufficient export surplus on the supergrid to meet regional shortfalls.
And we are only talking about electricity. A true renewables transition means displacing fossil fuels from total primary energy production. This dwarfs the problem of meeting electricity demand alone with renewables. This is why I maintain that pushing nuclear off the table now is not just premature, but actively dangerous.
And when there's a EU wide grid, there will be no intermittency until the atmosphere of Earth is blown away and the sun dies to a white dwarf.
"A true renewables transition means displacing fossil fuels from total primary energy production. This dwarfs the problem of meeting electricity demand alone with renewables. This is why I maintain that pushing nuclear off the table now is not just premature, but actively dangerous."
We don't allow nuclear reactors in cars or busses or trains. Only military ships (and not all of them, and DEFINITELY not all countries with any) have them.
So your comment re: primary production is irrelevant wrt support of nuclear power.
But we *are* going to electrify transport...
So you are mistaken.
Since there seems to be some confusion...
A part of decarbonising TPE is moving from things that involve FFs to electricity. The electrification of heating, cooking and transport are obvious examples. This is why the demand for electricity is projected to rise significantly during the process of renewables transition, moving the goalposts as each decade passes. Issues of renewables energy density and total footprint become increasingly pressing when you calculate the land area required for full renewables TPE production.
A case to watch is Hawaii, which has a law mandating 100% local renewables for electricity production by 2045.
Offshore wind and solar might cut it for Hawaii - annual average insolation in Honolulu is 248W/m^2 which is towards the top of the global league table.
In the USA, the nuclear debate is over. It's like Stoat dreaming of a carbon tax. Whether or not the idea makes sense, is economically efficient, or ideologically compatible or incompatible with one's beliefs is irrelevant. It ain't happenin' here.
Unless someone can come up with a plan to change minds - massively - then championing a carbon tax or championing nuclear power is like championing pigs flying. Practical politics says find another solution.
Thus we find ourselves in the situation we're in. Any tax is a bad tax thanks to the (far) right and nuclear equals evil thanks to the (far) left. We have let the extremes define the policy tools available to us.
Fortunately the communists aren't limited to that extent. China is on a nuclear binge, maybe they can convince India to go the same route. If not, everyone's policy options are going to be very limited 25 years from now.
I won't be around to watch the carnage.
The same could be said of energy transition in general, despite the puff and PR. I sincerely doubt we are going to avoid >3C. We needed a clarity and focus that was never there, and we needed to have begun thirty years ago (as Wow said upthread).
BBD - Yes, I think 3°C is optimistic. I''d put the over under at 4°C and not sure I'd bet the under. And I'm just talking 2100. Beyond that I haven't a clue. We could wake from our mass psychosis.
My biggest problem with the Obama Administration is that it didn't think big. I recognize the cries that they had an obstinate GOP to work with, but putting out really big proposals might have moved the Overton window enough to give some of the possible initiatives a seat at the table or at least precluded the worst initiatives from gaining a seat.
Whether it was nationalization of the banks or a stimulus package that actually filled the hole in the economy or single-payer healthcare or a wartime footing against fossil fuels, in every instance he chose to go a route he thought would be more likely to gain GOP support - completely failing to recognize they're total lack of interest in good policy.
"A case to watch is Hawaii, which has a law mandating 100% local renewables for electricity production by 2045."
Sweden has a mandate to decarbonise 100% by 2060, with a full plan. Due to the way they do things, each premier has to go through legislation ike this and tell everyone who voted for them how well they kept to target. And that's been held to by every party there for a good long time, so it's not just a paper claim.
I would suggest that, in terms of cases to look at for movement toward renewable energy that Hawaii is a better test case than Sweden. Sweden is connected to a multinational grid that allows for the importing and exporting electricity the balance load and supply when needed. Hawaii, on the other hand, has to "go it alone", it is not connected to a larger grid, so usage and generation need to be balance all locally.
And unlike Iceland, another island committed to 100% local renewable power, Hawaii has little potential for hydroelectric generation. There is some potential for geothermal on the big island, but none on Oahu where most of the people live, and there is currently no inter-island grid; each island has its own grid, although there is talk of connecting the islands with underwater cables, so like Iceland it is possible that geothermal could become significant.but Hawaii is planning on doing it with largely solar and wind.
"I would suggest that, in terms of cases to look at for movement toward renewable energy that Hawaii is a better test case than Sweden."
Depends what you want. Me? Renewables rolled out. Any anti-renewable can just claim that Hawaii has geothermal and plentiful sunshine and large coastal wind resources, hence is not acceptable.
FFS, they complain that the USA can't do Solar because it's too far north. Germany's existence doesn't seem to phase them.
Ignoring reality and making shit up is bread-and-butter to them.
Scotland has a plan to decarbonise too, and with their plentify wind resources, will likely make a pretty penny selling to the UK and Scandanavia (and, via the UK, France, via France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and via them...)
"I would suggest that, in terms of cases to look at for movement toward renewable energy that Hawaii is a better test case than Sweden."
Depends what you want. Me? Renewables rolled out. Any anti-renewable can just claim that Hawaii has geothermal and plentiful sunshine and large coastal wind resources, hence is not acceptable.
FFS, they complain that the USA can't do Solar because it's too far north. Germany's existence doesn't seem to phase them.
Ignoring reality and making shit up is bread-and-butter to them.
Scotland has a plan to decarbonise too, and with their plentiful wind resources, will likely make a pretty penny selling to the UK and Scandanavia (and, via the UK, France, via France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and via them...)
It matters because if you you are trying to claim that a country can handle a large percentage of intermittent renewables, it is shorthand for 'A power grid can handle a large percentage of intermittent renewables'. The Scandinavian grid does not.
Given Denmark helps France out with power, why pick out renewables to be "intermittent"???
The grid handles a large percentage of intermittent power sources and variable power demands.
Picking out renewables for this criticism is lying by omission.
No it doesn't. 2015 figures (last year full data are available) show that Denmark was a net importer of electricity to the tune of 9.1TWh. Denmark did not export *any* electricity to France - that is a false claim.
Denmark imported 5.7TWh from Germany (and exported 5.1TWh; net import 0.6TWh). It imported 6.4TWh from Sweden (and exported 2.9TWh; net import 3.5TWh). It imported 6.6TWh from Norway (and exported 1.6TWh; net import 5.0 TWh).
Because they are.
It's a matter of fact. Just as it is a matter of fact that coal and gas and nuclear are all dispatchable and wind and solar are not. Energy is a technical topic and words have specific, unalterable technical definitions. If you accepted them and used them it would make life much easier for everybody.
European electricity import / exportdata here.
I checked in when I saw the original topic but here we are reprising the same silly arguments about energy.
There is no "we" to "should" "build nuclear, wind, yadda yadda". When are you people going to get that through your thick skulls?
The US has 50 States with different resource availability and different agendas. In my part of the country, there will be no new nuclear plants built. Barring some unconstitutional intervention by the Feds, there will be offshore wind, slowly to be sure, but we have the first demonstration project in the country on line.
Other locales will follow a different course.
What exactly is either side suggesting? Send in the troops to force us to build nuclear plants, or others to put up wind farms? And the EU doesn't have any troops to speak of even if it holds together.
The reality is simple: If we build offshore wind and it turns out to be "too intermittent" (which isn't likely), then the market will adjust, as long as it is not controlled by a monopoly but actually a market.
The first and only meaningful steps are to put a cost on CO2 and simultaneously convert the grid itself to common carrier status. That can be done if we had a rational Federal government. Yeah, I know...
"What exactly is either side suggesting? Send in the troops to force us to build nuclear plants, or others to put up wind farms?"
Uh, you're complaining about both sides then making up something to complain about them doing, when they're not doing it.
Before complaining about something, find out whether there is that something being done.
You could 100% have dropped that paragraph. Did it add anything other than something to complain about you doing??? No.
"There is no “we” to “should” “build nuclear, wind, yadda yadda”. When are you people going to get that through your thick skulls?"
And this too. There is we. It's the inclusive group term.
We are here. We are alive. If there's no we, then who is typing on this thread????
"Rewewables are intermittent" is a lie by omission.
We don't have enough time to build up nukes. Too late. And the changes are dialed in that make the current placements risky. And the likely top end of the problems make them worthless.
"" why pick out renewables to be “intermittent”???"
Because they are."
Why pick them out for it, though, buddy?
Nukes are intermittent too.
Why concentrate on wind?
Your pointing it out is pointless.
You can only be doing it for idiotic reasons forced out of you by your ideological bigotries.
Export data not in value.
You know, like half the answer.
Yes they are. Liar.
You really haven't understood anything have you?
Why do you comment on energy? It is way beyond your competence ceiling.
"Yes they are. Liar."
No they aren't. I used your link and it was only in energy, not currency. Moron.
#220 nonsequitur and avoidance. Incompetent moron.
Some choice excerpts:
What was that bout how winter is a bad time for renewables?
Because the price is low, there's no market to build more renewable plants. Not that there's no reliability in those plants.
No it doesn't. Denmark is a net energy importer.
You are so, so full of shit sometimes.
More biased misrepresentation from you:
But this article you quote is not about German *renewables*. So it doesn't support your claim at all:
It's about Germany's dispatchable generating capacity which by definition *excludes* wind and solar.
And it is instantly clear from the chart below this quote that Germany added gas plant to compensate for the loss of nuclear capacity post-2010. There's a slight ramp-up in biomass too, which also happens to be dispatchable, unlike W&S.
Nothing I wrote at #196 is in any way contradicted by the article you think contradicts it. Presumably because for all the bluster, you don't actually understand any of this stuff at all.
"" What was that bout how winter is a bad time for renewables?"
But this article you quote is not about German *renewables*."
But since that article WAS about France's nuclear, it seems like your "complaint" applies to nuclear at least as much.
And since it's also about Germany's drop of conventional and nuclear power, it shows your complaint applies less to renewables than you claimed.
Then again, you're a fucking retard on this subject and are as incapable as RickA or MikeN to listen, see, or comprehend anything that doesn't support your bigotries.
Yet more evidence that nukes are worse than renewables in the winter time:
And damn that unreliable and intermittent nuclear...
And when the politics demand power, the safety and agreed operation parameters of nuke powers gets shat on:
In 2003, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to three plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C.
Sure, "safe", under normal operating procedures, but when the money is to be made or businesses complaining loudly, stuff the normal operating procedures.
How "safe" is nuclear when it's run unsafely?
...and we're back to Wow having an argument with an imaginary person who he thinks is proposing a 'nuclear vs renewables' position.
Here, IRL, I'm not, and I keep on saying that I'm not, so I'm not going to respond to this latest bunch of strawmen.
Actually, this is you, not me:
Electricity import/export 2015 between France and Germany:
France to Germany: 12.1 TWh
Germany to France: 1.4 TWh.
Goshdarnit, if only renewables were as unreliable as nukes!
"Actually, this is you, not me:"
No, dumbass, it was you. Sheesh, kids get off that "I'm rubber, you're glue" nearly as soon as they no longer find "He who smelt it, dealt it".
I don't argue for an either/or with nuclear and renewables. I argue for *both* because (explained 100 times already).
You have an imaginary interlocutor in your head.
Only you can deal with that.
As for the antinuclear propaganda you so love, how does it explain the fact that France exported nearly ten times as much electricity to Germany in 2015 that it imported?
How does that work?
Wow - you sent us to this link to support your sarcastic What was that bout how winter is a bad time for renewables?
Yet as BBD points out, the article didn't say anything like you thought it did. The question is, were you just quote-mining or did you seriously not understand what the article was saying regarding dispatchable energy?
Oooh, those renewables just can't manage to be as unreliable as nukes:
Some stand-out quotes:
And it doesn't look like EdF think that Hinkley C will be much use in staving off problems either:
"I don’t argue for an either/or with nuclear and renewables. "
I don't know why you're teling me that, since I've never said that you argued for that.
I argue that it's too damn late and any sites for nukes are too risky from SLR and dought making them unusable in the climate change already dialed in, not forgetting it cannot be a global solution since the politics demands that some people will be invaded by the USA for even trying.
I also argue that picking on renewables for a problem that is there for EVERY power source is dishonest, and deliberately so, and will not molly coddle your fragile ego when you're lying your ass off for a reason you flatly refuse to acknowledge as supported by your actions.
Actions speak louder than words, but you want me to ignore your actions, yet won't change them when their fallacy is pointed out?
Dream on, retardo.
And I disagree. I don't see any evidence that it is impossible to build new nuclear plant, where geopolitically-appropriate, that is neither at risk from inundation nor overheating. Yes, new plant *must* be constructed in carefully-chosen locations because the points you raise are valid. No, this is not impossible. That's just rhetoric.
How can it be dishonest to point out that there are technical challenges for large-scale wind and solar? The dishonest thing to do would be to pretend that none existed and it was all just politics etc.
So where is your model for what will be underwater in the next 100 years (50 years build out and 50 year operational life)?
Similarly for the weather 100 years time, insofar as it affects river temperatures and flow.
But you did just point out why it can't be used. This is a global problem. Risking invasion is not a valid choice.
Argument from ignorance.
But there aren't any, unless you have that model predictions I asked above...
And you've just limited them to virtual pointlessness. We can build solar or wind (or tide...) there. They either don't care, need a little prep in design, or require flooding.
No, it's just fact. You have to demonstrate these problems don't exist. Remember the government cessation of contract for nuke stations because it was too awkward or expensive to adhere to?
Do yo uknow what rose tinted specs are?
What is it when you're sitting there blissfully ignoring the problems because you think there may be an answer before you've even checked?
HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES??????
Are you ACTUALLY this frigging retarded, or are you playing one to hide your real motives???
it's not like it's the first frigging time Ive told you what the bloody thing was, is it?
Ridiculous moronic bullshitting again while whining "Oh, but I'm NOT partisan, totally not, but I just don't happen to see my errors so I can continue with them!".
Current thinking is ~2m so siting new plant 20m above sea level should be a robust safety margin. Play it safe, make it 40m. This is not an insurmountable engineering challenge.
"Current thinking is ~2m "
You do this a lot. Cherry pick an argument from "someone else" then when questioned go "But THEY said it! Argue with THEM!"
No, buddy, YOU show me the model.
I need to see if includes the ice mechanics holding the WAIS on the land by its connection to the rest of the antarctic rather than giving up and flowing into the sea, then there's a massive error in your "best guess" since it's excluding the likely amount of WAIS or Greenland to fall off over the next hundred years.
So, no, I don't want this pissant "they", I want YOUR model.
Because AIT showed that Florida could be flooded. That's deeper than 2m increase.
And what of the storm surges, hmm? It wasn't SLR that took out Fukishima.
I bet your "current thinking" was thinking much than that, right?
Hence the need for the model, not "thinking".
"Play it safe, make it 40m. This is not an insurmountable engineering challenge."
FFS, this is the PBH argument. "Just make it so".
What about cooling? How will that happen when your site must be 40m ASL???
How much usable land for such big buildings is above 40m ASL?
Come on, NOT "Oh, it should be easy to build above 40m ASL!", stop being a PBH and start being a frigging engineer.
These ARE the steps you need to take, ones of actually thinking about it.
But this is like saying you're going to a scientific expedition of the South Pole for 6 months and to prepare you've checked your sock drawer.
There's a shitload more than that to going to the SP.
I recommend just ignoring Wow.
The threads will be the better for it.
There are lots of models. If you think AR5 was conservative then I agree with you, based on views like this.
Which is why I suggested a large safety margin of 20 - 40m above local MSL.
Pipe and pump. Plenty of electricity available at a nuclear power station to run the pumps.
Oh, buddy, what the hell do you think "SPECIFICS!" means?
Wooly willy whanging???
Then why the fuck did you say 2m?
Because it made your "Oh, how about 40m?" look FAKE "overcompensating for the opposition"? Yeah, that'd be right. Same way if you multiply what you want 100-fold, even if you get only a tenth of what you demanded, you get to pretend you were gypped and "the most willing to compromise".
You REALLY don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you, moron. "Oh, that'll be easy for engineers!".
Now, you've checked that the South Pole is in the south.
You're still nowhere near your conclusion.
Keep going, but can the bollocks, and fix the bullshit so far.
Now you've put a sock in your pocket, you think you've made an expedition to the South Pole.
And it looks like that's as far as you care to go.
So, your belief that we can use nukes is based off you don't know what is involved. Or even looked.
It's not that you have to answer quickly, but that you need to work out the answers before opining again. This is a HUGE hanging question about nuclear power. And it's got nothing to do with NIMBY, but just engineering and risk management, and how much we will let risk and profit maximisation (remember: the canard is that corporations are "legally obliged" to maximise the profit. Ignore that it's a lie, because it doesn't matter that it is a lie, all that matters is that most will accept that as truth) run the business.
"Oh, that's simple!" is only true when it comes to SAYING "Build them higher up".
You'll see how NOT simple this stuff is when you have to actually work out how to actually do it, rather than as an intellectual exercise.
RickA writes: "I recommend just ignoring Wow."
It's not often I agree with RickA, but I'm starting to come around to his position.
So free speech is OK, the counter to bad words is better ones, but if that won't work, then stick your fingers in your ears and hum REAL loud.
Go ahead, kevin. Ignoring me doesn't change a damn thing about reality. If I'm wrong, I'll still be wrong, but you won't be able to do anything about it.
If you are wrong, you'll not know.
Isn't that the point of free speech?
You'll fight to the death for someone's right to speak, but only as long as you're not affected by it.
This "bill" actually gets floated around quite a bit........so don't get your panties in a wad. The intent of the bill is to give each state full authority over environmental compliance.......which is pretty much how it is anyway. Most state agencies push back against EPA for laying down heavy-handed rules WITHOUT the proposition of any sort of implementation plan. Basically, the EPA says "here's the rule, now you figure out how to achieve it."
The state agencies would not let everything go to shit, but the added autonomy would be refreshing. The goal of environmental regulation is not to HALT economic progress; it is to create a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. I think that concept has been lost on many people over the past decade.
Yeah, this is my professional area (decades in the compliance industry). There are all sorts of bills that get passed around every year, including bills like this, and they get squashed in most years. This year is different, thus the panties are in a knot.
As for state vs federal regulations, the dissolution of the EPA would weaken regs all across the country because something close to half the states, to some degree, and a third of the states 100%, have adequate regs only because the feds would simply step in if they didn't. A few states have, in some areas (it is quite complex), more constraining regs than the EPA requires.
And, the reaction to that is the litmus test. Is someone a mean spirited dishonest hippie puncher (yeah, those libtard states have even MORE regulations!), or are they a principled Republican (Yes, indeed, certain states have greater needs than anticipated by EPA regs, so they do more. This means the EPA regs are properly positioned at a point lower in demand than the most demanding state, and this is why the federal system works!)?
(Answer: you'll only find the first choice these days, as there are no longer "reasonable republicans"
Trouble is, he won't go away. Nor will he be told: look at this thread - wrong about absolutely everything up to and including projected SLR by end of century. But will he *ever* admit error? No way. All you get is a face-full of abusive bullshit for daring to point out his mistakes.
Eventually it got so bad at Eli's that Wow was shown the door. With a bit of luck the same will happen here now that GTL has the measure of him.
There are limits, even in the blogosphere.
"wrong about absolutely everything"
Yeah, right, just like you're wrong (as is everyone else) about TCR being unavailable until we pass 560ppm, according to "Rick".
But still this little fact does not penetrate that epistemic bubble around your rectum, blinding you from seeing what's written in front of you.
" up to and including projected SLR by end of century"
OK, retardo, where did I make a wrong statement about the projected SLR by the end of the century???
ESPECIALLY when you say about what I claimed re:2m SLR:
Oh, you also claimed 40m regarding a safe place for nukes against SLR. You're wrong about that because SLR is modeled to be 2m, but studies you agree with say that's too low, so EVEN YOUR assertion that it's 2m is wrong by your assertion.
Meanwhile you find it easy to SAY "Build more nukes", but absolutely will NOT actually say how you know other than an ass-pull and ignorance.
Yes, ex-MoD analyst (the "real" kind, not James Bond) and with many friends who work in AWE Aldermaston. And they work FUCKING HARD, but YOU come along with "Oh, it's easy!".
YOU try it, moron.
Talk is cheap. And you don't even talk beyond "Well, it's easy to say do it".
PS "Trouble is, he won’t go away", same for you, retardo. As is "Dick" and "Mike". Passive aggressive bullshit is passive aggressive bullshit.
Well, for a start: a lie. A thread was made for me, but only because you wouldn't let the thing lie and instead kept lying and lying and lying.Bernard J was disagreeing with you, but you wore him out with your continual spamming of the same arrogant BS and lies.
Moreover, Nick Stokes was banned from a blog. I guess you'll be hoping he gets banned from Hotwhopper too, hmm?
I note too that you are so gleeful at me getting banned here, even so much that I can't recall you wanting "mike" or even "dick" banned "now GTL has the measure of him". The difference being that they only lie and you can catch them out. I've got facts you'd rather never hear on mine, and you're not willing to just not accept the conclusion on the balance of evidence of both sides, but insist on silencing those with facts you'd rather not face.
So, because you can't fight facts with facts, you have to fight facts with crying for the banhammer. If I had lies, you'd be able to deal with it by presenting facts instead of crying out for censorship.
The differences between how you treat "rick" and "mike" and how you treat me is extremely revealing of how deep your delusion on this subject goes.
If you want a sign that states can be perfectly terrible at protecting environment and people, look at Michigan. The Flint water problem is example number 1 -- workers from the DEQ were told to toss out water samples with high lead levels to bring down average readings, then were told to over sample in areas that were not troublesome and lump those in with others in order to bring down readings, all while state officials in Flint were told not to drink city water and were supplied bottled water while the official line was "There is no problem with the city water."
Or consider the Nestle company's request to increase the amount of ground water they pump from a well near Evart - close proximity to two tributaries of the Muskegon River. They want to increase pumping capacity for water they use in their Ice Mountain bottled water brand. The DEQ in Michigan ran its "Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool" on the data Nestle supplied, the model returned a "failing grade" -- which meant the request should be denied, according to the DEQ.
In fact, it returned that failing grade multiple times, because each time the model was run the DEQ officials overruled the result, tweaked inputs, and ran the assessment program again. Each time the model indicated adverse impacts on the area.
In the end MDEQ officials said they were ignoring the results because the program was being "overly conservative" and the officials "did not believe there would be any problems" from granting Nestle's request.
Currently the issue is on hold due to large protests and thousands of letters to the DEQ, but authorities still say they see no serious issues and expect it to go on.
This isn't to say that Nestles gets the water free - they do have to pay an annual $200 fee.
Dean, I had no idea Nestle had all these brands. The article I saw makes one mistake in saying they are basically the same. While Ice Mountain coming from Michigan is a cheaper brand, I can definitely tell it apart from Maine's Poland Spring, which I don't like.
The article said that Nestle accounts for about 1% of water intake, after their planned increase. I would assess a fee, but I can see why they would not want to do it. You are talking about maybe a million dollars a year. Setting a fee might make it too easy for others in the future to swoop in and take even more water.
I was checking on the status of HR 861 (no change - just sent to 4 committees) and noticed HR 637 "Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2017". This bill had 120 co-sponsers, rather than just the 3 for 861.
I don't know what the bill is supposed to do, other than stopping the EPA from overreaching - but thought you might be interested.
Give a sufficiently legal definition, not what amounts to, "whatever I say it to mean that makes me personally indignant".
The "overreach" is anti-global warming regulation, and allegedly "job-killing" regulations.
The main point of the bill is to remove from the EPA any jurisdiction over global warming: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in any of the following Acts or any other law authorizes or requires the regulation of climate change or global warming".
In addition to that general statement, it would specifically remove CO2, and several other gasses, from the definition of "air pollutant", and specifically invalidates a couple of existing EPA rules.
It also forbids the EPA from making any rule that " has a negative impact on employment in the United States".
But the EPA are supposed to restrict the polluting of the atmosphere by businesses, because of the harm to the common good and the society as a whole's health.
So, unless these republicans have some proof that AGW is false or that fossil fuels, when burned, does not give off CO2, they really have nothing to claim "overreach" on.
By regulating CO2 emissions, the EPA is protecting the health of US citizens.
Ergo, this bill is over-reaching.
RickR is correct.
I did find a link to the text of HR 637:
Uh, what's correct?
As far as I can see, if the argument is that the bill is valid, then he's wrong. The claim regarding overreach is a fallacy of begging the question.
The assumption is that there is no such thing as AGW, despite no proof of it in the face of the overwhelming evidence that AGW is real.
RickR correctly summarized HR 637.
I put a link in to the text so you can verify for yourself.
What I wrote is about what the bill is attempting to do: restrict the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Restricting the scope of the EPA in this matter is within the power of congress. The court's understanding of the current laws is a matter of statutory interpretation, so if congress disagrees, congress can change the law. That's how the system works.
Whether or not this change would be wise is a whole 'nother question.
"RickR correctly summarized HR 637."
As what? If he summarised it as not overreach or a bill against overreach by the EPA *when regulating CO2*, then he's wrong. Because the EPA regulating CO2 is NOT overreach. It's just a bunch of retards who are bought and paid for claiming it is because they
a) can't show AGW is false
b) don't want to limit big business, because they won't give the politicans big money otherwise
c) can't go and admit that it's just their benefactors
so lie about it being overreach. As brianstorms says, the bill itself is overreach. EPA regulating CO2 is within their remit because it IS a danger to the health of the US citizens.
If he summarised it as a massive overreach of republican politicians ignoring reality so they can get paid, then he's right.
But I don't think he meant that
"The court’s understanding of the current laws is a matter of statutory interpretation, so if congress disagrees, congress can change the law."
And since the interpretation of the law is in the hands of the courts, congress can draft up a bill and it is shot down.
A bill that also lies about its purpose can be annulled by pointing to the inconsistencies and holding the bill to the claimed purpose, not the one enacted.
Indeed this is part of why the Not-A-Muslim ban is banned: the law claims it's not a muslim ban, but that it is banning people from places with a risk to the USA. Yet the biggest risk country in the area is Saudi Arabia, and is not banned, therefore the bill is invalid unless it puts Saudi Arabia (and many other muslim-majority states on there too, unless they want to make it the "top 7 risks", in which some of the current 7 will have to be dropped from the list).
If the law doesn't do what it says it does, the law is incorrectly drafted and nullified until fixed.
And since the EPA is tasked with pollution, including air pollution, that endangers the health of the citizens, then until that role is removed, this bill is not legal due to being fatally in error.
They can remove the EPA or change its remit. Or even defund it.
But they can't run a bill to forbid it from following its charter. Any such bill is superseded by the statute that enables the EPA to act.
"Restricting the scope of the EPA in this matter is within the power of congress."
No. Congress can pass a bill, the president can sign it into law, and then have an agency operate within its purview.
In the case of the EPA (and other agencies), once Congress and the President create a law that grants the EPA authority, it is the agency that makes the decisions, not Congress. Congress cannot arbitrarily reign in an agency without passing a new bill and getting a presidential signature.
And if they find that easy in this case because the shit-gibbon is occupying the Oval Office, that's just another cause for their future regrets of ever voting for him (or not voting at all).
Brainstorms, I'm surprised you posted that. RickA just described a new bill that is being proposed to do X, and you complain that Congress cannot do X without passing a new bill.
"Mike", I'm totally not surprised you didn't read all of Brainstorm's post then complained about its content.
The point you missed was that it is not sufficient for Congress to merely pass a bill.
If it falls to get a president's signature, it does not become law.