A commentary slams the "false optimism" around plans to holdclimate change to 2 degrees Celsius or less

On 5/15/15 8:56 AM, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 15 May 2015 13:07:59 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:

If you had bothered to read the report you would have noticed that it
presents the unsubsidised levelised cost of energy.
...
The energy you don't need to use is the cheapest on your own pocket and that of your only planet.


Heh. If you had bothered to read the report you would have noticed that
it discusses conservation energy costs also (and does note it's the
cheapest.)

On Fri, 15 May 2015 08:33:19 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote this crap:

On 5/14/15 10:01 PM, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:14:10 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote this crap:

On 5/14/15 10:08 AM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Here is a cost analysis of various energy production methods by the investment bank Lazard:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/ergy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf

That's a good review of the situation; I wonder if any of your newsgroup
opposition will bother to read it.
I suspect they would find facts undesirable - facts disturb the flow of
the rants in which they specialize.

You must realize, of course, that the actual cost is skewed by gubmint
subsidies.

Come on, Horvath. You didn't have to make my point about not reading the
article for fear of facts so succinctly. The article makes a point of
documenting the effect of various subsidies. That's one reason it's such
a comprehensive review.

I don't click on spam. Just post the parts you want me to see. If
I'm interested I'll check it out myself.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Friday, 15 May 2015 18:47:03 UTC+2, lal_truckee wrote:

Heh. If you had bothered to read the report you would have noticed that
it discusses conservation energy costs also (and does note it's the
cheapest.)

Important points lose nothing from emphasis by simple repetition.
A point which [perhaps] flew right over your head?

Let's try this again in simple terms even you and Snellfish can understand:

Energy production which is *NEVER* needed has *ZERO* cost of production:

It also has zero target value to the coming tidal wave of domestic terrorism.
Zero risk of theft of the valuable cables.
Zero risk of public unrest.
Zero chance of rolling brownouts.
Zero need to be protected by obscenely costly security services.
Zero need for vast fleets of government security vehicles.
Zero need for obscenely costly security training and air travel.
Zero demand for endlessly inflating quarterly profit demands by the sociopathic markets.
Zero chance of being shut down by a predatory slush fund or competitor.
Zero need for "vital protection" of "overseas assets."
Zero need for armaments races by the corrupt "fences" which give away their nation's priceless natural wealth.
Just to build tasteless palaces, sports car collections and to train torturers of their inevitable, domestic critics.
Zero risk of "accidents" through cost cutting and management corruption.
Zero need for corrupt international deals.
Zero risk to vulnerable personnel.
Zero risk of radiation spills.
Zero risk of miners being trapped.
Zero risk of wind turbine noise.
Zero need to demolish homes.
Zero risk to wildlife.
Zero need for grass cutting on untrodden but expensively watered lawns.
Zero need for tomorrow's industrial wastelands.
Zero "need" for damaging pollution.
Zero global warming from "wasted" CO2.
Zero control of your waking life by big government keeping you on the endless payments treadmill.
Zero risk of a military coup cutting off your desperately needed supplies.
Zero risk of queues at the pumps.
Zero risk of war.

Add all these together and most power stations become superfluous.
India [Modi] is building hundreds of new, coal-fired power stations and crushing all dissent.
He made empty promises to a desperate electorate that he would provide wealth for all.
The wealth already exists in its people. It just isn't [ever] shared with them.
The Indian people [like the Chinese] pay with their health and grinding poverty.
They will have to pay several times over for every power station project:
Capital cost from taxpayer funding and loans.
Plus [say] 30-50% corruption bribes going both up and down the power structures.

Long term ill health and early deaths from exposure to coal fired pollution.
And then, the final [evil] touch:
Completely unaffordable energy bills for life for a billion victims.

Why not just build the people local solar?
Because there is not so much room for corruption and macro-control of people's lives.
Economies of scale in building a home-grown solar industry would completely dwarf the *REAL* costs of building so many power stations and their after-effects.
Who will build the hospitals to treat the hundreds of millions with their inevitable respitory/pulmonary diseases?
Who will be able to afford to pay their medical bills?
Who can afford to police the rolling vehicle bans in the mega-cities as a final, desperate bid to curb coal-powered pollution?

Anybody who has ever used the term "warmingista" as a derogatory term had better have the world's warmest sweater and best home insulation.
Otherwise they are seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.
The absence of personal responsibility strongly suggests that they are actually besotted by big government.
They must love working their balls off for 50-60 years just to pay obscenely inflated energy bills.
They must really love how taxpayers' own money is used corruptly as slush funds to pay off their election backers.
All this, just to produce yet more completely unnecessary energy and propaganda.

When the paid denialists of AGW can face themselves in the mirror, in their warmest sweaters, in a cosy warm, low energy cost home, only then will the "AGW problem" will already be on the back foot.

This monologue was inspired by the AGW denialist hypocrites everywhere.

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 1:32:59 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Energy production which is *NEVER* needed has *ZERO* cost of production:

Zero risk of public unrest.

Add all these together and most power stations become superfluous.
India [Modi] is building hundreds of new, coal-fired power stations and crushing all dissent.
He made empty promises to a desperate electorate that he would provide wealth for all.
The wealth already exists in its people. It just isn't [ever] shared with them.

Why not just build the people local solar?
Because there is not so much room for corruption and macro-control of people's lives.

Conservation that doesn't affect what one can do, simply avoiding the waste of
energy, is indeed a good thing.

But where do you get the idea that conservation, plus reliance on local solar power, are going to be anywhere near enough to both create wealth and reduce emissions enough to avoid climate change?

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

2) While wearing a sweater indoors is not expensive, people take baths and
showers. Reducing indoor temperature makes life more complicated, and increases
the risk of colds. Thus, some ideas about how "conservation" is without cost
are mistaken.

3) Local solar power helps people cook their food, and so on. It doesn't answer
the needs of heavy industry.

John Savard

On Saturday, 16 May 2015 13:52:08 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

Conservation that doesn't affect what one can do, simply avoiding the waste of
energy, is indeed a good thing.

But where do you get the idea that conservation, plus reliance on local solar power, are going to be anywhere near enough to both create wealth and reduce emissions enough to avoid climate change?

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

2) While wearing a sweater indoors is not expensive, people take baths and
showers. Reducing indoor temperature makes life more complicated, and increases
the risk of colds. Thus, some ideas about how "conservation" is without cost
are mistaken.

3) Local solar power helps people cook their food, and so on. It doesn't answer
the needs of heavy industry.

John Savard

Even a lengthy post cannot cover all the domino effects of global conservation. I am not suggesting that all temperate homes be kept cold in winter or that a sweater will save the world. Home insulation can moderate temperature swings in cold-temperate climates to perfectly acceptable comfort levels provide the occupants dress appropriately for peak lows and highs.

Simple window shading or even correct orientation can massively reduce the need for domestic heating/cooling in all climates. Yet home insulation and window shading are still fringe commodities and very expensive home improvements if professional installers are employed. The pay-back period greatly exceeds any savings despite compound energy cost inflation.

Even today in countries with delusions of caring about the changing climate most houses are erected without a single thought to fenestration, orientation, solar exposure or shading. New build offices and shops almost never are.

Yet anybody can get a bank loan and have it repaid in under 5 years for putting up highly profitable, subsidised solar-electric panels on their roof. This might be a good thing if it meant rapid national conversion to a solar powered grid instead of coal. But the system doesn't demand that the benefiting occupants raise their own homes to modern levels of insulation using the savings on their bills.

The total CO2 footprint of manufacturing, transporting and installing these solar panels to Northern Europe, from China, cannot be remotely as small as having them made locally. The Chinese insist on European sales manufacturing taking place in Chinese factories using coal powered stations for energy. Why is the converse not equally appropriate for Chinese owned solar panels to be sold here? Why no demands for Chinese solar panel factories in Scandinavia, Europe and America using Chinese management and local, low-skilled labour or automation?

"Chris.B" wrote:
On Saturday, 16 May 2015 13:52:08 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

Conservation that doesn't affect what one can do, simply avoiding the waste of
energy, is indeed a good thing.

But where do you get the idea that conservation, plus reliance on local
solar power, are going to be anywhere near enough to both create wealth
and reduce emissions enough to avoid climate change?

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

2) While wearing a sweater indoors is not expensive, people take baths and
showers. Reducing indoor temperature makes life more complicated, and increases
the risk of colds. Thus, some ideas about how "conservation" is without cost
are mistaken.

3) Local solar power helps people cook their food, and so on. It doesn't answer
the needs of heavy industry.

John Savard

Even a lengthy post cannot cover all the domino effects of global
conservation. I am not suggesting that all temperate homes be kept cold
in winter or that a sweater will save the world. Home insulation can
moderate temperature swings in cold-temperate climates to perfectly
acceptable comfort levels provide the occupants dress appropriately for
peak lows and highs.

Simple window shading or even correct orientation can massively reduce
the need for domestic heating/cooling in all climates. Yet home
insulation and window shading are still fringe commodities and very
expensive home improvements if professional installers are employed. The
pay-back period greatly exceeds any savings despite compound energy cost inflation.

Even today in countries with delusions of caring about the changing
climate most houses are erected without a single thought to fenestration,
orientation, solar exposure or shading. New build offices and shops almost never are.

Yet anybody can get a bank loan and have it repaid in under 5 years for
putting up highly profitable, subsidised solar-electric panels on their
roof. This might be a good thing if it meant rapid national conversion to
a solar powered grid instead of coal. But the system doesn't demand that
the benefiting occupants raise their own homes to modern levels of
insulation using the savings on their bills.


It does in Britain. The full grant for solar power depends on adequate
insulation.

The total CO2 footprint of manufacturing, transporting and installing
these solar panels to Northern Europe, from China, cannot be remotely as
small as having them made locally. The Chinese insist on European sales
manufacturing taking place in Chinese factories using coal powered
stations for energy. Why is the converse not equally appropriate for
Chinese owned solar panels to be sold here? Why no demands for Chinese
solar panel factories in Scandinavia, Europe and America using Chinese
management and local, low-skilled labour or automation?

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 3:32:59 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

Anybody who has ever used the term "warmingista" as a derogatory term had better have the world's warmest sweater and best home insulation.

Utterly incorrect! It's the --warmingistas-- who had better have the warmest sweater, best insulation, no heat, no AC, no pools, no car, no bike, no plane trips, etc.

Otherwise they are seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

Warmingistas rarely, if ever, meet the standards that they wish to set for others. They are therefore seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

On Sat, 16 May 2015 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Warmingistas rarely, if ever, meet the standards that they wish to set for others. They are therefore seen for the corrupt hypocrites they really are.

So what? They advocate for legal enforcement of standards that apply
the same to them as to everyone else.

On Sat, 16 May 2015 04:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 1:32:59 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Energy production which is *NEVER* needed has *ZERO* cost of production:

Zero risk of public unrest.

Add all these together and most power stations become superfluous.
India [Modi] is building hundreds of new, coal-fired power stations and crushing all dissent.
He made empty promises to a desperate electorate that he would provide wealth for all.
The wealth already exists in its people. It just isn't [ever] shared with them.

Why not just build the people local solar?
Because there is not so much room for corruption and macro-control of people's lives.

Conservation that doesn't affect what one can do, simply avoiding the waste of
energy, is indeed a good thing.

But where do you get the idea that conservation, plus reliance on
local solar power, are going to be anywhere near enough to both
create wealth and reduce emissions enough to avoid climate change?

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?


Vote for Carson
Repeal the nightmares

On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:54:37 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?

We are an energy-based economy. There are few ways to create wealth
without consuming lots of energy. But a problem is that some people
confuse creating wealth with creating money. There are many examples
of the latter which consume energy but do not result in a net increase
in societal wealth, and are reasonably restricted.