Right. Complain about tone. Question agenda of data source. Nitpick specific inaccuracies of a broad picture model. Dig up specific items from a decade ago that turn out to be off with the full benefit of hindsight.
Well done.
Right. Complain about tone. Question agenda of data source. Nitpick specific inaccuracies of a broad picture model. Dig up specific items from a decade ago that turn out to be off with the full benefit of hindsight.
Well done.
Isn't that better than dismissing someone's researched opinion and suggesting they read up on it? You're upset I "nitpicked" the long term model you presented, yet you dismissed the one I presented altogether.
The EIA has been really far off on renewables every single year. That's not "nitpicking". How do you evaluate the validity of projections if not with hindsight? Do you have a better method?
I've put a fair bit of data on here supporting my belief. Would you like different info?
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 08-12-2019 at 11:06 PM.
I unfortunately don’t have time to oblige now, and appreciate you sharing your links.
The conversation starts with global energy demand, and contribution of renewables to mature economies is one thing, but the evolution of emerging economies and standards of living is something else. The focus when considering demand has to be based on big picture global supply and demand.
^^^ Combined with other renewables these SMRs could be the ultimate answer to communities around the globe. There is no silver bullet, but a combination of technologies will likely be the solution to our energy, pollution, and climate change challenges.
^^^ Combined with other renewables these SMRs could be the ultimate answer to communities around the globe. There is no silver bullet, but a combination of technologies will likely be the solution to our energy, pollution, and climate change challenges.
I think this always going to be the answer. Cost will continue to be somewhat prohibitive for nuclear, but there'll be cases where it makes sense. I don't think peaker plants go away entirely, but they'll largely disappear. Coal is already disappearing. Hydro has some really interesting storage abilities that others don't but also requires unique geography and comes with environmental concerns.
To go 100% carbon free may not be better for the environment of 95 or 98 or whatever provide cheap energy freedom from resource intensive energy production.
Nuclear will be hotly political for many reasons, and safety and proliferation resistance will be emphasized topics. SMRs look interesting, and I am personally more intrigued by the progress of some Gen IV technologies.
nuclear will be hotly political for many reasons, and safety and proliferation resistance will be emphasized topics because we all played simcity 2000 and had a portion of our cities wiped out by a meltdown at some point.
This.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Assuming a one-degree Celsius temperature rise, Moody’s calculates that our economy would be unaffected in 2048. A rise of 2.4 degrees would increase GDP by 0.1 per cent and four degrees would boost it by 0.3 per cent. Not much, but still positive, and certainly not the terrifying calamity we are warned to expect
Except maybe one or two billion people around the world might be displaced as coastal cities are flooded. Canada may benefit financially but at a horrible price.
This analysis reveals no acute effects of climate change that could cause recessions. The only source of acute effects would emanate from a heightened occurrence and severity of natural disasters, and those are not covered in the scope of this work.
Quote:
Until around 2030, the tangible effects of climate change will mostly be felt by the increased incidence and severity of natural disasters, which are not covered in this work.
Quote:
International immigration is not assumed in any of these four scenarios, but it is a major risk. Slower economic growth in the most affected countries could prompt residents of those countries to relocate. If the degree of emigration is large enough, it could put strain on certain countries that are receiving the immigrants. Already in the U.S., the issue of immigration has developed into one of significant political debate.
Quote:
...this analysis does not delve into subnational economics, but the effects become far more dire in certain locations than across entire countries, particularly for the sea-level rise channel. The Environmental Protection Agency has done work to quantify the economic effects of sea-level rise and storm surge at the metropolitan level, and it estimates that in the Tampa area alone the damage could reach $90 billion by 2100.
Quote:
It would be too simplistic to say that climate change does not hurt the U.S. The scope of our study was not comprehensive, and there are a number of factors that were not considered in this work.
Quote:
Climate change has disparate effects on the world’s economies. It creates winners and losers and varying incentives to act. Emerging economies, oil producers, and those in warmer climates are most vulnerable. Its most draconian effects occur during the second half of this century.
Everything comes down to economics it's only a matter of how far the numbers project. Maybe it will take 60 years for clean energy to become as profitable as carbon but when it does we'll have reduced pollution by 90%.
Everything comes down to economics it's only a matter of how far the numbers project. Maybe it will take 60 years for clean energy to become as profitable as carbon but when it does we'll have reduced pollution by 90%.
That's my point exactly. Every issue or idea has to be judged in economic terms to determine its merit (or lack thereof). It is a fundamental flaw in the way we operate as a society. It has filtered down through all levels of society so effectively that even people with no capital to speak of and zero economic advantages who are actually exploited victims of a runaway economic system are among its defenders.
In fact, there is even a backlash and stigmatization of critics of the system as "socialists" or just ignorant or crazy.
It really is disturbing and bizarre.
The Following User Says Thank You to blender For This Useful Post:
That's my point exactly. Every issue or idea has to be judged in economic terms to determine its merit (or lack thereof). It is a fundamental flaw in the way we operate as a society. It has filtered down through all levels of society so effectively that even people with no capital to speak of and zero economic advantages who are actually exploited victims of a runaway economic system are among its defenders.
In fact, there is even a backlash and stigmatization of critics of the system as "socialists" or just ignorant or crazy.
It really is disturbing and bizarre.
No it isn't capitalism is the best system out there, yes it's flawed. The proposals from self professed socialists are downright crazy and would never work in fact they'd bankrupt nations and the entire economy would collapse. Then the last thing you'd have on your mind is carbon emissions.
Climate change and pollution is an extraordinarily complex problem no one has anything close to a solution, anyone saying so is a liar. Do the most basic math energy per person and try to replace that with clean energy. You can't even come close. Never mind the millions of products produced using dirty sources.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Zamler, I'm not saying capitalism is the problem. I support capitalism, regulated free markets, etc. It IS the best system we have. I am saying there is a problem with the dogma that everything must be looked at through an economic lens.
As a society we worship profit even though the vast majority have no stake in it. We worship profit for its own sake, not because it benefits society. It is dogmatic and disturbing. Why are there so many scandals with companies cooking their books or falsifying their products? Because it is not permissible to not have constantly increasing profits. Companies like GE, VW would rather operate illegally than lose profits.
It is bizarre.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blender For This Useful Post:
We agree that capitalistic greed has infected most corporations and by extension global military intervention. Think of what the trillions spent on needless wars could have accomplished if it was funneled into research.
Interesting how the discussion is so often centered on the economics of climate change.
What will be the costs, in real dollars and to our economy, to get away from fossil fuels?
Oh, climate change won't actually hurt our economy? Well no problem then, all good.
Climate change isn't an economic issue, we just can't stop seeing it that way.
Healthcare is like this too.
"Oh we should incentivize people to stop smoking or use taxes to prevent them from smoking to save money"
Reality is smokers save us way more than they cost because they die before they go into an expensive old folks home. The economics don't make sense in reality.
We simply have to find different parameters to measure success in the future
Interesting how the discussion is so often centered on the economics of climate change.
What will be the costs, in real dollars and to our economy, to get away from fossil fuels?
Oh, climate change won't actually hurt our economy? Well no problem then, all good.
Climate change isn't an economic issue, we just can't stop seeing it that way.
It sure is an economic issue.. what runs our economy, what has lifted so many people out of poverty in the last 100 years is access to cheap energy the very thing that is contributing to climate change. There is a litany of examples currently and historically the should illustrate for you the true cost of bad economic policy and/or bad economic systems. Tackling climate change isn’t free.
How should we look at it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
I think people are projecting when they claim it isn't an economic issue. I've seen so many smart minds make such claims and I think it's more just frustration.
When major American celebrities and scientists say things like "It can't be a political issue if we're going to save this planet, time is up on that or we're just stupid". Okay, so let me guess what comes next....
1. Here in America we need to work on individuals moving to cleaner energy use/lowering carbon imprint (no mention of American Oil production)
2. Other countries need to stop producing and selling Oil
You can read these guys like a book, they can't help but support the American economy and call for other countries to hurt their economies. They know it's bull****, but they're just frustrated and want change, but know it's suicide to call to hurt the American economy.
