The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

S-curve. You still don't get it.....

What you don't get is s-curves rarely last very long, the ones that get pointed at the rare ones that do, while the ones that don't are forgotten.

Chinese (and must countries') solar build-out was a s-curve. It looked like this:

2013: 12.5 GW (new capacity added)
2014: 9 GW
2015: 17.3 GW
2016: 34.1 GW
2017: 53.1 GW
2018: 45.2 GW
2019: 30 GW

Its fast growth period only lasted 3 years and has already entered the top part of the s-curve when solar only accounts for 3-4% of total generation.

But it's not just renewables. Storage is coming online now too. If you're this in to energy, surely you've read about Lazard's LCOE and LCOS findings.

Yes I have seen Lazard's work, and I consider Lazard irrelevant given the real world, where ever "cheaper" wind and solar has led to ever more expensive electricity to the consumer. How cheap is wind and solar for Germany?



If wind and solar are so cheap and getting cheaper, why did Chinese new capacity peak in 2015 and 2017? Even though China has by far the biggest electricity system and builds more wind turbines and solar panels than anyone else, and probably the rest of the world combined.

You're about 3 years behind on your crocodile tears.... Grid storage (battery, flywheels, molten salt), demand-management, etc. makes those problems increasingly manageable going forward.

Let's see them handle multi-day low wind periods in the winter first (in Europe), periods in Germany known as dunkelflaute without keeping enough natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro to meet peak demand.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Their largest challenge is their grid. But they are starting to address that. They've just created an interconnected national power grid a few years ago. And are now investing in fixing that up.

But it's still small relative to population. Annual generation in India is about 1300-1400 TWh; similar population (but much richer and industrialized) China is over 7000 TWh. India has a long way to go.

I don't think you fully comprehend how much of a priority electrification is for countries that don't have oil. Trying to develop without oil resources is extremely difficult. And adds risks of balance of payments. Yes, they'll consume more oil as they grow.

Which ultimately is what matters to the oil exporters. As countries develop, they use more energy of all forms.

And unlike oil, they can get all kinds of industrialization and jobs out of electrification as companies set up plants there.

Companies setup engine plants, refineries, etc for local consumption all the time.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

What you don't get is s-curves rarely last very long,

Still don't get it. The S-curve only really starts at the point of a competitive product that is substitutable. This is what the very early tail of an S-curve looks like. Where you think it's hard to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.....

Originally Posted by accord1999

Yes I have seen Lazard's work, and I consider Lazard irrelevant given the real world,

An actual major consultancy. Or internet random. Whose word should I take?

Originally Posted by accord1999

where ever "cheaper" wind and solar has led to ever more expensive electricity to the consumer. How cheap is wind and solar for Germany?

Being early and not having storage is expensive..... That's not a problem these emerging markets will face.

Originally Posted by accord1999

Let's see them handle multi-day low wind periods in the winter first (in Europe), periods in Germany known as dunkelflaute without keeping enough natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro to meet peak demand.

Meh. All these complaints. Remind me of the 90s when AC really took off and people were worried about the grid collapsing because of brown outs in places like California. Guess what? Didn't happen. These are all problems that can and will be addressed over time.

I look forward to a few more years of cherry picked examples and whataboutism before the panicked realization really sets in. I still remember the,"Nobody will buy an $100 000 electric car." when Tesla announced the Model S. Look at where the industry is going now.....

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Still don't get it. The S-curve only really starts at the point of a competitive product that is substitutable. This is what the very early tail of an S-curve looks like. Where you think it's hard to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.....

But I though wind and solar are cheaper now. Yet China has peaked in adding new capacity, and they build most the world's wind and solar. While also clearly signaling a policy shift to prioritize coal, natural gas and oil.

An actual major consultancy. Or internet random. Whose word should I take?

I'll take the one whose suggestions have NOT led to 40c+/kWh electricity.

Meh. All these complaints. Remind me of the 90s when AC really took off and people were worried about the grid collapsing because of brown outs in places like California. Guess what? Didn't happen. These are all problems that can and will be addressed over time.

It did happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...tricity_crisis

Some of it was caused by market manipulation but California was especially vulnerable to that because it didn't have adequate excess generation.

In more recent time, Australia suffers from grid panic almost every hot workday because peak demand hits just as the sun is starting to set and wind dies. You just have to read this website that follows Australia:

http://www.wattclarity.com.au/

[Truenorth00]

I encourage everyone who thinks I'm wrong to put 100% of your investments into the Canadian oil sands. I'm on the other side of that trade. Nothing personal. I just like money. And I always put my money where my mouth is.

I may have to hold for half a decade but this looks so damn tempting and easy.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I encourage everyone who thinks I'm wrong to put 100% of your investments into the Canadian oil sands. I'm on the other side of that trade. Nothing personal. I just like money. And I always put my money where my mouth is.

I may have to hold for half a decade but this looks so damn tempting and easy.

If you think your right, why don't you short Suncor stock? Put 100% of your investment into a short sell. Then you can tell us how much money you make in the next 5 years??

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jawagord

If you think your right, why don't you short Suncor stock? Put 100% of your investment into a short sell. Then you can tell us how much money you make in the next 5 years??

Why short one when you can short them all with a leveraged inverse ETF?

I actually hope they catch a break in the short term. Helps me accumulate more.

[WarrenC12]

I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this, totally unrelated to human caused climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure there's a logical explanation for this, totally unrelated to human caused climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-crisis

We had a week of -30 here, can't possibly be true.

[Truenorth00]

According to estimates in the Financial Times’ Lex column, nearly $900 billion worth of reserves - or about one-third of the value of big oil and gas companies - is at risk of one day becoming worthless as market and policy forces continue to undercut hydrocarbon economics due to the threat of climate change.

In effect, these companies could see a third of their value evaporate if governments aggressively attempt to restrict the rise in temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the rest of this century and avert catastrophic climate change as per Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates.

Consequently, investors are likely to increasingly price in the risk of asset writedowns by the world’s leading oil and gas companies unless a solution to the ongoing climate change is found within the next decade.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oi...-Stranded.html

[TallerIsBetter]

Do you all realize that if you were to stop all emissions there would still be natural climate change driven by natural climate drivers, just as there has been for billions of years.

So, then what? You're all OK with destruction/event pattern changes caused by naturally-driven changes?

Lots of us scientist types actually understand that we DO NOT understand natural climate, and also DO NOT understand any potential anthropogenic contribution. But this has taken on a life of its own and now is both a business and a religion.

All we can really do is adapt, as we have done for millions of years as hominids, and drive technology to cleaner, more effecint platforms. The best way to do that is have as strong and prosperous economy as possible.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Do you all realize that if you were to stop all emissions there would still be natural climate change driven by natural climate drivers, just as there has been for billions of years.

So, then what? You're all OK with destruction/event pattern changes caused by naturally-driven changes?

Lots of us scientist types actually understand that we DO NOT understand natural climate, and also DO NOT understand any potential anthropogenic contribution. But this has taken on a life of its own and now is both a business and a religion.

All we can really do is adapt, as we have done for millions of years as hominids, and drive technology to cleaner, more effecint platforms. The best way to do that is have as strong and prosperous economy as possible.

If you are in fact a climate scientist, then I'm sure you understand that the rapid release of carbon into the earth's atmosphere over the last 100 or so years dwarfs any naturally evolving shift in the climate. This is unprecedented in scope and scale since we first emerged from caves.

Why not reduce the impact now, so our need to adapt later is lessened.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Lots of us scientist types actually understand that we DO NOT understand natural climate, and also DO NOT understand any potential anthropogenic contribution. But this has taken on a life of its own and now is both a business and a religion.

Scientist type. LOL. What BS did you get?

And in my experience the guys with an undergrad science degree are among the worst. At least the BA holders know to defer to scientists. Those undergrad science and engineering majors know just enough to be dangerous and think they have credibility to talk about any scientific issue with authority.

I have two graduate engineering degrees from an American service academy that graduated a good chunk of the American astronaut corps. One of those degrees in astro eng. I understand how remote sensing works. And I know enough to know I'm a moron on climate scientist and should listen to the PhD who does this for a living.

[Truenorth00]

I've been waiting for something like this:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6551534/o...cars-charging/

OPG and Hydro One building a fast charging network as a commercial venture with a repayable launch loan from NRCan.

The utilities jumping into the game, realizing that EV charging can be profitable to them as they capture a share of fuel spending away from the gasoline retailers is going to be game changing.

[WarrenC12]

The federal government needs to allow (even force) selling electricity per kWh, instead of per min like they have to now.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The federal government needs to allow (even force) selling electricity per kWh, instead of per min like they have to now.

Per min is fine as long as the rates are reasonable. And I would assume a good part of that is to discourage folks tying up the infrastructure/parking spot.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Per min is fine as long as the rates are reasonable. And I would assume a good part of that is to discourage folks tying up the infrastructure/parking spot.

It's the charge rates of vehicles and profiles of fast charging that make it unfair and confusing to calculate. Per kWh is something that everybody can understand. California recently enacted law around this and more states are following.

Idle fees are always possible to discourage lingering.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Scientist type. LOL. What BS did you get?

And in my experience the guys with an undergrad science degree are among the worst. At least the BA holders know to defer to scientists. Those undergrad science and engineering majors know just enough to be dangerous and think they have credibility to talk about any scientific issue with authority.

I have two graduate engineering degrees...And I know enough to know I'm a moron on climate scientist and should listen to the PhD who does this for a living.

Predictably, right to the pre-emptive ad hominin, and then a selective use of appeal to authority.

This isn't about me or you, it's about a level of uncertainty that exists in the science, that gets shouted down by the cardre of alarmist activists (some with pure motives, some with alterior - read wealth redistribution motives), opportunist politicians, and plain dumb media types. Despite this and the immersive indoctrination of the young'uns, the reality remains that the science has a lot of uncertainty and that should be known and understood by the public at large. As should be the actual lack of unanimity in the scientific community.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Predictably, right to the pre-emptive ad hominin, and then a selective use of appeal to authority.

This isn't about me or you, it's about a level of uncertainty that exists in the science...

Predictably you aren't willing to talk about science. Just want to cast doubt through vague nonsense.

I'm guessing my view on how BS holders BS their way through scientific discussions hit a little too close to home. If the shoe fits....

You say you're a "scientific type". You should at least be able to tell the audience what your level of familiarity with science is.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you are in fact a climate scientist, then I'm sure you understand that the rapid release of carbon into the earth's atmosphere over the last 100 or so years dwarfs any naturally evolving shift in the climate. This is unprecedented in scope and scale since we first emerged from caves.

Why not reduce the impact now, so our need to adapt later is lessened.

And there is still deep debate on where the actual ppm rise fits into influence on future climate and how it sits with other natural drivers.

For example, the ICPP is going to have to wrestle with this - from last week...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.04633.pdf