Tesla is overhyped. All the western car makers try to stall with luxus segment EVs and trying to block chinese competition with tarifs – but in the end they will get their Detroit when companys like BYD produce cheap reliable EVs because they invested in R&D.
Tesla’s days inventory outstanding for fiscal years ending December 2019 to 2023 averaged 55 days. Tesla’s operated at median days inventory outstanding of 56 days from fiscal years ending December 2019 to 2023. Looking back at the last 5 years, Tesla’s days inventory outstanding peaked in March 2024 at 71 days, similar to the US industry average, but about 30% higher than the Tesla goal
If TRUMP! wins, and with him a conservative Republican majority in both houses of congress, those MY26 mandates SHOULD all just disappear in a puff of liberal screaming.
My Hyundai is 12 years old and I don’t have 70,000 miles on it yet. Granted, I began working from home over 4 years ago and I no longer have a commute.
When? We’ve been hearing this refrain for at least the last 15 years when Tesla first brought out its earliest models. Since then, we’ve been hearing the same refrain: EVs will soon replace ICEVs so that oil will become yesterday’s power source. Except EV sales have been slumping steadily; e.g. in the US, only 2 of the top 25 selling vehicles last year were EVs, while the top 3 were all light trucks with either gas or diesel engines. In addition, global oil production continues to remain at record high levels. And when Tesla did appear on the market in 2008, the top North American auto analysts predicted that it would take until at least the mid-2030s before we’d see any sizeable number of EVs on the roads. Except the way things are going now, it seems it’ll be closer to 2050, or maybe they’ll just be relegated to a niche market.
EV mass adoption would create massive pressure on electric grids and need a lot more fast reaction units, which means: fossil.
(Until we get very cheap nuclear. Yes, nuclear can provide lots of MW per hour, but at what thermal stress cost? Only the latest gen, EPR, has variable water flow.)
With the greatest growth being gas, substituting for coal. Wind has seen a notable increase, but it remains to be seen how many turbines can be tolerated before people will begin to complain about loss of bird life and forests. Wind power will be self limiting as the best sites are used first.
Offshoring the production of major components for wind turbines to China and India certainly helps the climate. And I laughed and I laughed and I laughed.
Until TRUMP! gets in and the ONLY scientific studies funded by the US are with regards to the efficacy and bird killing of wind and solar, the killing of whales for offshore wind, the cost of mitigation compared to the cost of “prevention” etc.
4 years of such studies, all being rejected by global warming controlled “scientific” journals, than US federal government regulations requiring that ONLY journals that are open to ALL viewpoints can receive funds from any “institution of higher learning” that receives ANY federal funding.
This would be a crushing blow to leftist control of “scientific” research.
They also hate pumped storage. There is one in western Wokeachusetts- where water (from the nearby CT River) is pumped up to a hill top during the day, thanks to a nearby nuclear reactor, which has recently been shut down. The pumped storage site is due for getting its next permit (it can still work of course without the nuclear) – the greens are fighting it- saying that it’s damaging the river. There is some minor damage to fish populations- but that can be fixed, but fixing it isn’t their goal- it’s to shut it down.
Both wind and solar have a significant liability for expansion. They compete with agriculture for land that isn’t shaded by mountains, have to be near urban consumption centers and thereby compete with recreational opportunities in forests, and produce noise that many find intolerable. Solar, in particular, requires large areas that don’t provide scenic opportunities and is not amenable to modern farm machinery if one were to try to continue to produce food from the land. My guess is that we will see an initial rapid growth of solar and wind that will plateau as the best sites are converted. Then what?
Experience keeps a dear school but fools will learn in no other. — Benjamin Franklin
15 years hence when most of the trillions in wasted spending has been well and truly proven to be impractical as well as environmentally ruinous, nobody will have an appetite for replacing the crap.
Well, that is if it’s not all gone up sooner in a thermonuclear flash from World War Brandon.
For the prior 15 years we were told that we merely hadn’t gone big enough. Well, a few trillion dollars down the drain with nothing but crippling debt to show for it MAY be enough to get the message across. On the other hand, public education. People these days really are stupid enough to believe the bullshit.
In New England, many solar “farms” are built in forests. So, the greens want solar but they don’t want forests destroyed- since they want forests locked up (from the evil timber industry) to do nothing but sequester carbon. They now claim we don’t need solar “farms”- we’ll just cover every building in the region with solar- and all the parking lots- and that’ll produce ALL the energy we need- in their fantasies.
Fastest growing from a very small start. Plus, some Governments make it very hard to increase Fossil Fuel capacity. Plus renewables don’t work squat in heavy industry or transportation. Electricity generation isn’t all of the energy sector.
Wow, an article by one anti energy company siting an anti energy think tank.
All lies, no doubt.
The fastest growth in electrical generation was HYDRO at the very beginning of electrification, you know from a little generation in NY city to Tesla’s plant at Niagara Falls, you know 0% to a large portion of available electricity.
Your leftists ignore history. The infancy of electrical generation had massive increases in coal, hydro, oil, etc. generation capacity. All paid for by private funds. Never the need for subsidies that wind and solar STILL receive today. The producers paid to tie their capacity to the grid, unlike wind and solar, that shift that cost with the help of the government to the ratepayers.
Of course the funny thing about you MU is that you come here but cannot learn from the massive amount of factual information provided. You only read your leftists propaganda and sink ever deeper into a level of stupidity that is a wonder to behold. You are not ignorant, you have read truth, but as is often said, you can’t fix stupid, which you obviously are.
Did you actually read that nonsensical article or did you just like the pretty graph?
I also noticed that the article didn’t mention the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. The article did mention that there was less wind and sun in 2023, which reduced the amount of energy provided by “renewables” and increased the use of both coal and fossil fuels.
I’d say the ships are designed, but the end result is the same. Birds die from our attempts to create energy…. Now….Do you get tired of petty childish name calling? I’m guessing not.
But electricity is only approx 20% of energy usage. What will happen when in the not too distant future every gas boiler to provide heating are not there and millions of cars and vans come home and need to be recharged overnight? How much electricity will be needed? and how will it be (a) generated, and (b) transmitted from the generators to the users?
the 2nd link: “In many cases, clean energy technologies are already more cost competitive over their lifespans than those reliant on conventional fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.”
It certainly is not true.High shares of intermittent energy like wind and solar lead to instability and potential collapse of electricity grids.
To mitigate this requires significant investment in back up capacity, firming of the grid and storage solutions. These are all extremely costly and are never taken into account by those who push unreliables.
As the Royal Society report said of the UK, the storage required would be “far more than could be provided cost effectively by batteries”
What number constitutes ‘many’? In some contexts it might be construed as 5 or 6, even perhaps 4. Consider five mass murders, six terror attacks…four nuclear bomb explosions.
Now if out of 500,000 cases there are 5 where ruinables are more cost effective then Lusername can make its meaningless claim.
And surely if there is an isolated site with persistent winds, it might be cost effective to cut the cost of transporting in diesel fuel by using wind power when it’s available. I’m thinking that there are ‘many’ research stations in Antarctica that may meet those criteria.
If one ignores construction, supply chain, and infrastructure costs and fails to include maintenance, repair, salvage, deconstruction costs, and disposal of hazardous materials, then it is true. Wind and solar are cheaper, given those deductibles..
Governments worldwide collectively spent around $620 billion in 2023 subsidising the use of fossil fuels
There’s no derivation of this number, and its not credible. Are they counting depletion and depreciation allowances as subsidies? Is this number net of taxes paid both on profits and on use?
In the UK, as a for instance, 64% of the retail price of gasoline is tax. Fuel duty levy and then VAT on the subtotal.
Then its claimed that subsidies to renewables are only $70 billion. Maybe {though I doubt that number covers all the backup costs and the great variety of green levies) but the argument is faulty. It only seems to work because renewables are such a small part of the total energy mix.
I eat meat once a week and vegetarian the rest. I then claim that meat is cheaper since I spend less on it in total dollars compared to the total dollars spent on vegetarian foods. Right. And the price per pound? Per meal? Per 1,000 kcals?
Whatever, the UK is about to embark on the long awaited pilot project to decisively show one way or the other whether its possible to run an advanced economy’s grid on wind and solar, and what it will cost to do it. Because that is what the Labour Party, who will be in power in the UK six weeks from now, are intending to do by 2030.
My own prediction is that if persisted in à l’outrance it will produce a combination of blackouts, fuel poverty and national bankruptcy. But we will find out together pretty quick. That is only 6 years away.
And by the way, the UK is also going to find out whether your electric dreams can be realized in transport. Because they intend a total ban on sales of new ICE cars from 2030. My prediction on that is similar, the private buying public will refuse to buy, the bottom will fall out of the car market, but the increased proportion of EVs due to fleet sales will raise demand over what the grid can supply.
Blackouts, fuel poverty and national bankruptcy.
Or they may blink. Sometime in about 2026 when its undeniable just how bad its going to be. This is perhaps the most likely alternative. Assuming some modicum of rationality. We shall see.
How long have you been running your household and business/es on Wind and/or Solar technologies alone and how is it going?
strativarius
June 9, 2024 2:46 am
Follow the New Zealanders?
In response to their generational ban on nicotine (smoking, vaping etc), the Tories – with full Labour support – drew up an Act to do the same. However the bill bit the dust when the election was called. Funnily enough, prior to that, New Zealand itself had abandoned the idea.
Now: “New Zealand to revoke oil drilling ban amid fears of blackouts” – the Telegraph
Will we follow that [sensible] lead?
“Former BP boss calls for end to new North Sea drilling licences” John Browne appears to back Labour energy policy as he underlines need for green transition
He urged the next government to “call a halt” to new North Sea oil and gas projects to “reinforce our intention to get to net zero and show timely leadership”.
Starmer argues that these cheap renewables will be funded by…. “a further toughening of the windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas operators.” Such a toughening has already had results…
I strongly suspect Reform of giving refuge to a lot of wackos. But the Tories and Labour are clearly insane. If I don’t just spoil my ballot I may have to choose the lesser of three bands of crackpots.
It takes a crackpot leadership to aid and abet illegal migrants from all over which lack any skill set for starters and have not a clue regarding behaving in civil society
The governor of Wokeachusetts loves them. Loves to spend over a billion dollars/year to take care of them – in this tiny state. Now she’s whining that there is a housing shortage but she never associates vast number of illegals as contributing to the housing problem. Many are set up in nice hotels- hotels that I can’t afford to stay at.
In my constituency I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Labour candidate will be returned – whether I vote or not. It’s strictly islamo-sectarian around here…
I’m thinking for the first time ever I’m not going to vote in this election.
Quondam
June 9, 2024 3:21 am
The notion that dissipation in thermodynamics is a quantitative parameter measured in watts per unit area and not a qualitative descriptor is rarely, if ever, to be found in climate science literature. Several weeks ago, I commented here on the correlation of thermal sensitivity (watts per unit area per degree) and linear dissipation. One may derive a value for the former in terms of boundary temperatures and an energy flux with only minor corrections required for model internals. I’ve since explored super- and sub-linear profiles which may be of further interest.
On an Earth with 70% of its surface being water, and so much of its energy transport being related to isothermal phase change, I’m not sure how useful a calculation of “watts per unit area per degree” is.
Earth can only get rid of heat, in the end, by radiating it to outer space. At its current observable average temperature (from outer space) of 288C, that’s 5.4 watts/M^2 per degree. Sure lots of constant temp water evaporation, albedo, SW and LW atmospheric absorption along the way….
Funny. I was understanding that dissipation was in joules (aka energy) and watts was a measure of power. I always understood heat was a flow of thermal energy from higher temperature to lower temperature.
About 300 families have successfully relocated off the island of Gardi Sugdub due to concerns over rising sea levels, Panama’s ministry of housing announced Friday.
The small island off of the country’s Caribbean coast has been the home to the Indigenous Guna people for generations. Now, the majority of its population has decided to evacuate after the impacts of climate change have worsened.
I’m going to put this up again because I’d like to get a real explanation of my flaws and miscalculation, something beyond handwaving and sneering dismissal.
Thank you.
Mass of Earth’s Atmosphere 5.15e18 kg
Density of atmosphere 1.225 kg/m^3. (1/800th of water)
Sunlight makes plants grow, has done since before the Earth’s population of humans increased.
That green matter contains sugars, starches, cellulose etc. All carbon molecules and all typically can be used for the storage of energy.
That same amount of energy storage has been happening for a long time, long before humans, etc, etc.
Now. That green matter does one of two things, it is consumed by other processes or is stored as coal, etc. Since we are no longer in the carboniferous period, you can assume that most of the carbon is consumed, as before, it always has been doing this, long before humans.
So the humans are consuming more green matter to heat themselves, this basically means that something else is getting less of the sunlight value. Maybe bacteria are starving or there are less of them rotting down the compost, (from wheat that we are eating). Every biological process that involves eating or decay produces energy for its own use. That energy ultimately is returned to heat.
In summary, one way or another all the energy of the sunlight that forms the plants we eat is consumed whether it by humans or others. It all goes back to heat. (Unless stored as coal, etc).
Eng_Ian,
Maybe another interesting calculation can examine this:
CO2 is taken up by more than biological mass growth. Soil and rock participate. Large masses of CO2 were fixed as coal, which can now be seen as rock rather than biomass. Apart from that, as at present time, there are certain rock types that slowly take op and fix CO2. This is hard to measure because it is slow. What is the annual sink mass of CO2? Good references are hard to find (maybe I’m looking in the wrong places). Geoff S
Interesting piece in the UK Telegraph reporting on an open split between one of the largest UK unions and the Labour Party on the Party’s 2030 net zero electricity generation plans.
Labour’s net zero plans are pure “zealotry” and “nothing else”, union sources have claimed. Sir Keir Starmer’s party has been accused of taking a “ridiculous” stance by GMB union insiders by risking power cuts over plans to convert Britain to “clean power” by 2030. The union, which represents more than half a million workers including many in the oil and gas sector, will on Monday debate a motion urging Sir Keir to revisit his 2030 commitment and to put before the electorate a viable plan for a net zero electricity generation. A similar motion was carried last year and the move comes after Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, told The Telegraph that Labour’s pledge to convert the country to clean power five years before the Conservatives would risk leading to blackouts and public unrest. […..] “The Tory policy is 2035, that’s reasonable, and Labour is 2030,” the source said. “That’s not necessary. Risking power cuts is ridiculous. “It is zealotry, nothing else. Basically people in the union are wondering why we are doing this, we don’t need to be doing this. “People are a bit stunned that this is happening. I hope they drop it.” The motion to be debated at the GMB’s congress adds that the union, which is a major Labour donor, had previously called on the party to drop the commitment but it had not done so. “The Labour Party has not walked away from this unviable commitment,” it states. “This is a critical issue. The reputation of the Labour Party for competent government will be destroyed if there are avoidable power cuts and blackouts because the leadership didn’t heed the advice of the Congress of a major affiliated energy union and a founder member of the Labour Party.”
Of course 2035 is just as absurd and impossible as 2030, but that’s another story. What is interesting in this one is that reality is starting to make itself felt. Yes, indeed, reputations are going to be destroyed, that’s for sure. But that should be the least of the UK’s worries.
When your most reasonable voices say that it’s reasonable to reach net zero electricity emissions by 2035, and every other political voice is shouting them down, you know that there is no hope for common sense to prevail.
Well, a nuclear war could wipe out all the demand for electricity by 2030 I suppose.
Euro elections seem to be causing a flutter.
Driving today listening to the BBC, all the gaining parties are “far” right and “hard” right.
No indication of learning that its energy and immigration policy shaping this same as is coming in the USA and Canada.
For the most part, EU citizens seem to be waking up to the fact that the net zero push is doing enormous damage to their economies and pocketbooks.
France was really hard hit. Denmark, strangely, was not. In fact, the Green party actually added a seat. Though that unexpected late push was likely caused by the Prime Minister being “attacked” right before the election.
Not really, though. Turns out it was a bump from a drunk. And probably orchestrated, as her alleged injuries seem impossible given the nature of the “attack”.
The Euroblob is playing hardball. Hopefully, the citizens are noticing.
Fossil fuels generated less than a quarter of the EU’s electricity in April
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/05/10/fossil-fuels-are-on-the-way-out-in-the-eu-as-they-dropped-to-record-low-in-april
Rapid rollout of clean technologies makes energy cheaper, not more costly
https://www.iea.org/news/rapid-rollout-of-clean-technologies-makes-energy-cheaper-not-more-costly
Renewables, renewables as far as the eye can see 😀
That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the 6th form society.
You’re giving MyUsername more credit than he deserves, mate
Do you think it is still in Primary school, Redge? I guess I was being a bit generous…
My question is, what mental illness is responsible to always present his wet dreams…
I’m not sure he/she has made it to primary
As far as the myopic tunnel vision can seem you mean.
Reality is rather different. Fossil fuels supply over 70% of Germanies energy needs.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?stackMode=relative&country=~DEU
Enjoy it while it lasts. EVs will make a big dent in oil consumption
The Sunday funny – at your expense…
“So Many Unsold Teslas Are Piling Up That You Can See Them From Space
Tesla has a glut of nearly 50,000 cars just sitting around in lots so packed, they can be seen from orbit.”
https://jalopnik.com/so-many-unsold-teslas-are-piling-up-that-you-can-see-th-1851526312
“You can see the unsold Teslas piling up in parking lots — from space”
https://qz.com/teslas-unsold-parking-lots-space-orbit-view-1851526942
That’s just one manufacturer….
Tesla is overhyped. All the western car makers try to stall with luxus segment EVs and trying to block chinese competition with tarifs – but in the end they will get their Detroit when companys like BYD produce cheap reliable EVs because they invested in R&D.
I did say that was just one manufacturer. That clearly didn’t register…
“European ports turned into ‘car parks’ as vehicle imports pile upChinese EV makers without sales networks or onward transportation among leading causes of congestion, say executives”
https://www.ft.com/content/496f3bfa-9f0c-4145-9024-188572a280fd
There may come a really weird and perverse regime where they simply just give them away.
Actual data:
Tesla’s days inventory outstanding for fiscal years ending December 2019 to 2023 averaged 55 days. Tesla’s operated at median days inventory outstanding of 56 days from fiscal years ending December 2019 to 2023. Looking back at the last 5 years, Tesla’s days inventory outstanding peaked in March 2024 at 71 days, similar to the US industry average, but about 30% higher than the Tesla goal
And?
Strat, I pointed out the glut of Chinese EVs held in European ports a month or so back to him. He obviously just lives in his own little world.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ev+not+sold+car+parks&client=ms-android-vf-de-revc&sca_esv=bd5de69f547e2ef3&udm=2&biw=360&bih=695&ei=eZZlZrKNLt2V9u8PpaiZoAk&oq=ev+not+sold+car+parks&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhVldiBub3Qgc29sZCBjYXIgcGFya3NIgD5QpBxYuDpwAXgAkAEAmAG8BKAB-QmqAQkyLjAuMi41LTG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgGgArsCwgIEEB4YCpgDAIgGAZIHAzMtMaAHyAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
Toyota, VW, Mercedes invest in new ICE.
Any idea why ? 😀 😀
They work.
And getting better all the time.
Uh, wait for the US Model Year 26 mandates. We are going to buy a new ICE from MY24 or MY25.
If TRUMP! wins, and with him a conservative Republican majority in both houses of congress, those MY26 mandates SHOULD all just disappear in a puff of liberal screaming.
Because they are managed by rational folk,
Cheap and reliable? Without subsidies? If so, fine, so be it. Don’t plan on it. As long as we’re not force to buy EVs.
And who, in their right mind would buy a second hand BYD EV !!
The junk storage yards are going to the overflowing in a couple of years. !!
“Tesla is overhyped.”
All EVs are over hyped. !!!
Tesla stop production in huge German factory for 5 days. (need to translate)
Produktionsstopp bei Tesla: Absatzprobleme erzwingen Produktionspause im Werk Grünheide (blackout-news.de)
Was that after the attack by leftists, or something new??
companys like BYD produce cheap reliable EVs because they invested in
R&Dslave labor.There, fixed it for you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66497800
No only EV’s!
EV’s only increase electricity demand, they do not change fossil fuel demand.
good, drive the price down for those of us who have ICE cars
Manufacturing a BEV has a 70% larger
upfront “carbon footprint” than manufacturing an ICE vehicle.
It could take 70,000 miles of BEV driving to offset that upfront difference.
Source: Volvo study
My Hyundai is 12 years old and I don’t have 70,000 miles on it yet. Granted, I began working from home over 4 years ago and I no longer have a commute.
Not really.
Thankfully the tires on them last forever.
Did you forget your /sarc tag?
OOPs!
LOL, shown to be totally wrong on energy… so switch to daydreaming on EVs….
… where you are shown to be totally wrong.
Everybody enjoys fossil fuel energy, little child.. even you.
When? We’ve been hearing this refrain for at least the last 15 years when Tesla first brought out its earliest models. Since then, we’ve been hearing the same refrain: EVs will soon replace ICEVs so that oil will become yesterday’s power source. Except EV sales have been slumping steadily; e.g. in the US, only 2 of the top 25 selling vehicles last year were EVs, while the top 3 were all light trucks with either gas or diesel engines. In addition, global oil production continues to remain at record high levels. And when Tesla did appear on the market in 2008, the top North American auto analysts predicted that it would take until at least the mid-2030s before we’d see any sizeable number of EVs on the roads. Except the way things are going now, it seems it’ll be closer to 2050, or maybe they’ll just be relegated to a niche market.
By 2050.. most EV won’t be on the roads.
In fact, even by 2030, most current EVs will be on the junk pile.
No idea where they are going to put all this WASTE material. !
I think they should piled high in the middle of high leftist voting jurisdictions. Just check the % of dems registered, then start piling them up.
With all that lithium, it would just be a matter of time before the big bonfire of their vanity pollutes their homes. Just rewards.
EV mass adoption would create massive pressure on electric grids and need a lot more fast reaction units, which means: fossil.
(Until we get very cheap nuclear. Yes, nuclear can provide lots of MW per hour, but at what thermal stress cost? Only the latest gen, EPR, has variable water flow.)
The only reason anyone talks of varied output from nuclear is to allow for unreliable unnecessary generation methods.
Gas and hydro can vary output while coal and nuclear provide baseload.
Simple, you know, the electric grid before crony capitalism for wind and solar took over.
Crony capitalism with out the white racist label? Outrageous!
With the greatest growth being gas, substituting for coal. Wind has seen a notable increase, but it remains to be seen how many turbines can be tolerated before people will begin to complain about loss of bird life and forests. Wind power will be self limiting as the best sites are used first.
Unfortunately Germany isn’t France:
https://stopthesethings.com/2024/03/23/licence-cancelled-top-french-court-strikes-down-unlawful-wind-farm-planning-rules/
https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/new-rules-could-make-it-harder-to-install-wind-turbines-in-france/442714
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1851391/court-orders-dismantling-french-wind-farm-bird-deaths
Offshoring the production of major components for wind turbines to China and India certainly helps the climate. And I laughed and I laughed and I laughed.
Until TRUMP! gets in and the ONLY scientific studies funded by the US are with regards to the efficacy and bird killing of wind and solar, the killing of whales for offshore wind, the cost of mitigation compared to the cost of “prevention” etc.
4 years of such studies, all being rejected by global warming controlled “scientific” journals, than US federal government regulations requiring that ONLY journals that are open to ALL viewpoints can receive funds from any “institution of higher learning” that receives ANY federal funding.
This would be a crushing blow to leftist control of “scientific” research.
How does it “feeeeeel” to know that your whole pitiful existence is…
… totally reliant on fossil fuels and all the benefits they bring ??
And in the real world:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-fastest-growing-electricity-sources-in-history/
As one can see in your graph too.
Growth from a very low point is very easy to achieve, especially when mandated
And especially when you add multiple renewable sources together, but don’t do the same for fossil fuels.
It’s cloudy and there’s no wind. And there isn’t any forecast change for days.
Fossil fuels work – whatever the weather
Sure it’s scaling up fast- with oceans of money thrown at it- along with laws forcing it, no pun intended.
Global electricity.
Wind and solar are just a bit player.
And as far as global Energy is concerned.. find a magnifying glass to see wind and solar.
And he added hydro which, though it’s renewable, isn’t what we’re all fighting about- it’s wind and solar.
The Greenies and AGW-cultists actually fight against Hydro. !
No new dams… unless for the waste of energy that is pumped hydro
They also hate pumped storage. There is one in western Wokeachusetts- where water (from the nearby CT River) is pumped up to a hill top during the day, thanks to a nearby nuclear reactor, which has recently been shut down. The pumped storage site is due for getting its next permit (it can still work of course without the nuclear) – the greens are fighting it- saying that it’s damaging the river. There is some minor damage to fish populations- but that can be fixed, but fixing it isn’t their goal- it’s to shut it down.
Both wind and solar have a significant liability for expansion. They compete with agriculture for land that isn’t shaded by mountains, have to be near urban consumption centers and thereby compete with recreational opportunities in forests, and produce noise that many find intolerable. Solar, in particular, requires large areas that don’t provide scenic opportunities and is not amenable to modern farm machinery if one were to try to continue to produce food from the land. My guess is that we will see an initial rapid growth of solar and wind that will plateau as the best sites are converted. Then what?
Up the subsidies.
Obvious, innit?
Why do you think they’re banging on about 15 minute cities? Because they want us off the land.
15 years hence when most of the trillions in wasted spending has been well and truly proven to be impractical as well as environmentally ruinous, nobody will have an appetite for replacing the crap.
Well, that is if it’s not all gone up sooner in a thermonuclear flash from World War Brandon.
Too bad the prior 15 years did not get people to learn from their ruinous environmental mistakes.
For the prior 15 years we were told that we merely hadn’t gone big enough. Well, a few trillion dollars down the drain with nothing but crippling debt to show for it MAY be enough to get the message across. On the other hand, public education. People these days really are stupid enough to believe the bullshit.
In New England, many solar “farms” are built in forests. So, the greens want solar but they don’t want forests destroyed- since they want forests locked up (from the evil timber industry) to do nothing but sequester carbon. They now claim we don’t need solar “farms”- we’ll just cover every building in the region with solar- and all the parking lots- and that’ll produce ALL the energy we need- in their fantasies.
Mandated and highly subsidized.
Your link says: “Renewables met a record 30% of global electricity demand in 2023”
Redge’s graph- add up the renewables and you won’t get 30%. Only by including hydro- which has been around for generations.
Isn’t nuclear a “renewable” now?
Fastest growing from a very small start. Plus, some Governments make it very hard to increase Fossil Fuel capacity. Plus renewables don’t work squat in heavy industry or transportation. Electricity generation isn’t all of the energy sector.
Wow, an article by one anti energy company siting an anti energy think tank.
All lies, no doubt.
The fastest growth in electrical generation was HYDRO at the very beginning of electrification, you know from a little generation in NY city to Tesla’s plant at Niagara Falls, you know 0% to a large portion of available electricity.
Your leftists ignore history. The infancy of electrical generation had massive increases in coal, hydro, oil, etc. generation capacity. All paid for by private funds. Never the need for subsidies that wind and solar STILL receive today. The producers paid to tie their capacity to the grid, unlike wind and solar, that shift that cost with the help of the government to the ratepayers.
Of course the funny thing about you MU is that you come here but cannot learn from the massive amount of factual information provided. You only read your leftists propaganda and sink ever deeper into a level of stupidity that is a wonder to behold. You are not ignorant, you have read truth, but as is often said, you can’t fix stupid, which you obviously are.
Did you actually read that nonsensical article or did you just like the pretty graph?
I also noticed that the article didn’t mention the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. The article did mention that there was less wind and sun in 2023, which reduced the amount of energy provided by “renewables” and increased the use of both coal and fossil fuels.
Without trillions in subsidies and laws forcing the use of ruinables, there would be almost zero on that chart.
Why do you hate birds?
Are you an anti-environmentalist?
He is a self hater 😀
but.. but.. we have to destroy the environment to save the planet!
Calling Dr. Strangelove…line 3 please…
It is so lovely that you want to snuggle up with the birds of the planet and protect them.
https://www.birdspot.co.uk/helping-birds/the-effects-of-oil-spills-on-birds
A tiny number compared to the INTENDED avian destruction by wind and solar.
Pretty UGLY and DESPICABLE that “Birdspot” doesn’t care about avian deaths by wind turbine… isn’t it !
A FAKE and HYPOCRITICAL propaganda case of ultra-leftists, without a doubt.
He’s a marxist, so he lies — a lot.
A product from an accident as opposed to a product from design.
Don’t you get tired of being stupid?
He’s so dumb he still thinks DJT colluuuuded with the evil Russians to get elected in 2016.
Yawn….
I’d say the ships are designed, but the end result is the same. Birds die from our attempts to create energy…. Now….Do you get tired of petty childish name calling? I’m guessing not.
You really are a low-level gormless twit, aren’t you, simpleton
Wind turbine installer KNOW that their wind turbines are going to kill avian wildlife….. but they install them anyway.
Oil companies do everything possible to avoid spillages.
Do
you
com-
pre-
hend. !
Oh look, a stinking troll.
Now, there’s a new angle: Green hygiene
Congratulations, you’ve worked out that renewable energy is seasonal, hence the need for utterly impossible levels of storage to make them work.
Cheaper?
How to Fight “Skyrocketing Electric Bills” Conceals Hugely Failed California Government Electricity Market Debacles
Then why do you keep using fossil fuels? Get some solar panels on the roof and stop being a hypocrite.
But electricity is only approx 20% of energy usage. What will happen when in the not too distant future every gas boiler to provide heating are not there and millions of cars and vans come home and need to be recharged overnight? How much electricity will be needed? and how will it be (a) generated, and (b) transmitted from the generators to the users?
That is an engineering problem. Engineers love problems.
The real problem is policy dictating engineering, like the king who declare PI = 3.0.
“Renewables, renewables as far as the eye can see”
ugly, ugly, as far as the eye can see
the 2nd link: “In many cases, clean energy technologies are already more cost competitive over their lifespans than those reliant on conventional fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.”
Saying that doesn’t make it true.
It certainly is not true.High shares of intermittent energy like wind and solar lead to instability and potential collapse of electricity grids.
To mitigate this requires significant investment in back up capacity, firming of the grid and storage solutions. These are all extremely costly and are never taken into account by those who push unreliables.
As the Royal Society report said of the UK, the storage required would be “far more than could be provided cost effectively by batteries”
But those battery farms burn so nicely!
What number constitutes ‘many’? In some contexts it might be construed as 5 or 6, even perhaps 4. Consider five mass murders, six terror attacks…four nuclear bomb explosions.
Now if out of 500,000 cases there are 5 where ruinables are more cost effective then Lusername can make its meaningless claim.
And surely if there is an isolated site with persistent winds, it might be cost effective to cut the cost of transporting in diesel fuel by using wind power when it’s available. I’m thinking that there are ‘many’ research stations in Antarctica that may meet those criteria.
If one ignores construction, supply chain, and infrastructure costs and fails to include maintenance, repair, salvage, deconstruction costs, and disposal of hazardous materials, then it is true. Wind and solar are cheaper, given those deductibles..
2022 data:
Electricity production (aka secondary energy) was only 23% of total primary energy consumption in the EU
Oil and petroleum products accounted for the largest share of total primary energy consumption at 36.8 %.
The global average of electricity as a percentage of global primary energy consumption is about 20%
https://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-germany-miss-2030-climate-093242717.html
From your second link:
Governments worldwide collectively spent around $620 billion in 2023 subsidising the use of fossil fuels
There’s no derivation of this number, and its not credible. Are they counting depletion and depreciation allowances as subsidies? Is this number net of taxes paid both on profits and on use?
In the UK, as a for instance, 64% of the retail price of gasoline is tax. Fuel duty levy and then VAT on the subtotal.
Then its claimed that subsidies to renewables are only $70 billion. Maybe {though I doubt that number covers all the backup costs and the great variety of green levies) but the argument is faulty. It only seems to work because renewables are such a small part of the total energy mix.
I eat meat once a week and vegetarian the rest. I then claim that meat is cheaper since I spend less on it in total dollars compared to the total dollars spent on vegetarian foods. Right. And the price per pound? Per meal? Per 1,000 kcals?
Whatever, the UK is about to embark on the long awaited pilot project to decisively show one way or the other whether its possible to run an advanced economy’s grid on wind and solar, and what it will cost to do it. Because that is what the Labour Party, who will be in power in the UK six weeks from now, are intending to do by 2030.
My own prediction is that if persisted in à l’outrance it will produce a combination of blackouts, fuel poverty and national bankruptcy. But we will find out together pretty quick. That is only 6 years away.
And by the way, the UK is also going to find out whether your electric dreams can be realized in transport. Because they intend a total ban on sales of new ICE cars from 2030. My prediction on that is similar, the private buying public will refuse to buy, the bottom will fall out of the car market, but the increased proportion of EVs due to fleet sales will raise demand over what the grid can supply.
Blackouts, fuel poverty and national bankruptcy.
Or they may blink. Sometime in about 2026 when its undeniable just how bad its going to be. This is perhaps the most likely alternative. Assuming some modicum of rationality. We shall see.
They also try to count perfectly ordinary tax rebates for fuels not used “on-road” as a subsidy.
It is LIES from the ground up.
Fossil fuels provide many BILLIONS of dollars to government coffers.
All wind and solar do is TAKE… A massive expense, with zero or very negative return.
Can you compare French and German average electric energy production cost?
(Not consumer price on an interconnected market)
Electricity only.
You trust the IEA?
How to verify given no data?
Belief, not science.
How long have you been running your household and business/es on Wind and/or Solar technologies alone and how is it going?
Follow the New Zealanders?
In response to their generational ban on nicotine (smoking, vaping etc), the Tories – with full Labour support – drew up an Act to do the same. However the bill bit the dust when the election was called. Funnily enough, prior to that, New Zealand itself had abandoned the idea.
Now: “New Zealand to revoke oil drilling ban amid fears of blackouts” – the Telegraph
Will we follow that [sensible] lead?
“Former BP boss calls for end to new North Sea drilling licences”
John Browne appears to back Labour energy policy as he underlines need for green transition
He urged the next government to “call a halt” to new North Sea oil and gas projects to “reinforce our intention to get to net zero and show timely leadership”.
His comments in the [pinko] Financial Times are likely to be viewed as an implicit endorsement of the Labour party which has promised to end new oil and gas exploration, while the Conservative party has backed annual licensing rounds to “max out” the UK’s ageing oil basin. “
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/07/bp-north-sea-drilling-licences-john-browne-labour-energy
And Labour….
“Party leader Sir Keir Starmer pledged to turn Britain into an “energy superpower … by scaling up renewables”. That would “close the door on Putin”, he said, “so Britain won’t be reliant on Russia or other foreign suppliers”.
…
Central to the party’s plan are “cheap renewables”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/09/starmer-risks-losing-support-for-fighting-climate-change/
Starmer argues that these cheap renewables will be funded by…. “a further toughening of the windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas operators.” Such a toughening has already had results…
“Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab said it is set to launch the sale of its remaining UK North Sea oil and gas assets, in a move that would mark the U.S. energy giant’s exit from the ageing basin after more than 55 years.”
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chevron-prepares-north-sea-exit-after-more-than-55-years-2024-05-16/
Hello darkness my old friend….
PS We don’t need Putin, we have a lot of shale….
I strongly suspect Reform of giving refuge to a lot of wackos. But the Tories and Labour are clearly insane. If I don’t just spoil my ballot I may have to choose the lesser of three bands of crackpots.
It takes a crackpot leadership to aid and abet illegal migrants from all over which lack any skill set for starters and have not a clue regarding behaving in civil society
The governor of Wokeachusetts loves them. Loves to spend over a billion dollars/year to take care of them – in this tiny state. Now she’s whining that there is a housing shortage but she never associates vast number of illegals as contributing to the housing problem. Many are set up in nice hotels- hotels that I can’t afford to stay at.
In my constituency I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Labour candidate will be returned – whether I vote or not. It’s strictly islamo-sectarian around here…
I’m thinking for the first time ever I’m not going to vote in this election.
The notion that dissipation in thermodynamics is a quantitative parameter measured in watts per unit area and not a qualitative descriptor is rarely, if ever, to be found in climate science literature. Several weeks ago, I commented here on the correlation of thermal sensitivity (watts per unit area per degree) and linear dissipation. One may derive a value for the former in terms of boundary temperatures and an energy flux with only minor corrections required for model internals. I’ve since explored super- and sub-linear profiles which may be of further interest.
https://pdquondam.net/Linear_Dissipation_Models.pdf
Gases dissipates heat. Distance from source dissipates heat. Heat always get dissipated.
On an Earth with 70% of its surface being water, and so much of its energy transport being related to isothermal phase change, I’m not sure how useful a calculation of “watts per unit area per degree” is.
Earth can only get rid of heat, in the end, by radiating it to outer space. At its current observable average temperature (from outer space) of 288C, that’s 5.4 watts/M^2 per degree. Sure lots of constant temp water evaporation, albedo, SW and LW atmospheric absorption along the way….
K not C…
W/m^2 is field strength. J/m^2 is radiated energy in your context. 1 J = 1 W-sec.
Funny. I was understanding that dissipation was in joules (aka energy) and watts was a measure of power. I always understood heat was a flow of thermal energy from higher temperature to lower temperature.
Did Congress pass some new laws?
The absurdity of this.
https://www.aol.com/news/hundreds-indigenous-families-complete-relocation-181248874.html
Hundreds of Indigenous families complete relocation off Gardi Sugdub due to rising sea levelshttps://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/DGFelvANy15zRDOuaClK9A–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTMwNDtoPTgw/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-11/2113dc10-2b80-11eb-beee-f5846c4f24e2
JOE KOTTKE
June 8, 2024 at 11:12 AM
About 300 families have successfully relocated off the island of Gardi Sugdub due to concerns over rising sea levels, Panama’s ministry of housing announced Friday.
The small island off of the country’s Caribbean coast has been the home to the Indigenous Guna people for generations. Now, the majority of its population has decided to evacuate after the impacts of climate change have worsened.
First projections show loss of around 8.5% down to 12% for the Greens in German election for the European Parliament ! 😀
Too bad the EUSSR Parliament is just a rubber stamp for the Politburo, er…European Commission.
I’m going to put this up again because I’d like to get a real explanation of my flaws and miscalculation, something beyond handwaving and sneering dismissal.
Thank you.
Mass of Earth’s Atmosphere
5.15e18 kg
Density of atmosphere
1.225 kg/m^3. (1/800th of water)
Volume of Earth’s Atmosphere
Mass/density = volume
5.15e18kg / 1.225kg/m^3 = 4.2e18 m^3
Joules given off by human in 24 hrs
1.05e7 = 121.7 J/s
Energy required to heat up 1m³ of air by 1C from 10C to 11C
Formula:
specific heat capacity of substance x mass of substance x temperature difference
energy needed = 1.006 x 1.2466 kg x 1 = 1.247 KJ
Pop of earth
8.1B
J generated per second by all humans
121.5 x 8,100,000,000 = 9.84e11
Energy needed to raise Earth atmosphere 1C
1.247e3 J /m^3 x 4.2e18 m^3 =
5.24e21 J/s
J/s to heat atmosphere 1C / avail J /s
5.3 e9 = 5.3 B seconds = 168 years
Now add in all the heat generated by power plants, factories, transportation, etc.
The density varies with altitude, a lot. Is this some kind of average?
Yes. Pretty much has to be.
I’ll put it another way for you.
Sunlight makes plants grow, has done since before the Earth’s population of humans increased.
That green matter contains sugars, starches, cellulose etc. All carbon molecules and all typically can be used for the storage of energy.
That same amount of energy storage has been happening for a long time, long before humans, etc, etc.
Now. That green matter does one of two things, it is consumed by other processes or is stored as coal, etc. Since we are no longer in the carboniferous period, you can assume that most of the carbon is consumed, as before, it always has been doing this, long before humans.
So the humans are consuming more green matter to heat themselves, this basically means that something else is getting less of the sunlight value. Maybe bacteria are starving or there are less of them rotting down the compost, (from wheat that we are eating). Every biological process that involves eating or decay produces energy for its own use. That energy ultimately is returned to heat.
In summary, one way or another all the energy of the sunlight that forms the plants we eat is consumed whether it by humans or others. It all goes back to heat. (Unless stored as coal, etc).
So…. no nett change.
Eng_Ian,
Maybe another interesting calculation can examine this:
CO2 is taken up by more than biological mass growth. Soil and rock participate. Large masses of CO2 were fixed as coal, which can now be seen as rock rather than biomass. Apart from that, as at present time, there are certain rock types that slowly take op and fix CO2. This is hard to measure because it is slow. What is the annual sink mass of CO2? Good references are hard to find (maybe I’m looking in the wrong places). Geoff S
Story Tip
Interesting piece in the UK Telegraph reporting on an open split between one of the largest UK unions and the Labour Party on the Party’s 2030 net zero electricity generation plans.
Labour’s net zero plans are pure “zealotry” and “nothing else”, union sources have claimed.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party has been accused of taking a “ridiculous” stance by GMB union insiders by risking power cuts over plans to convert Britain to “clean power” by 2030.
The union, which represents more than half a million workers including many in the oil and gas sector, will on Monday debate a motion urging Sir Keir to revisit his 2030 commitment and to put before the electorate a viable plan for a net zero electricity generation.
A similar motion was carried last year and the move comes after Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, told The Telegraph that Labour’s pledge to convert the country to clean power five years before the Conservatives would risk leading to blackouts and public unrest.
[…..]
“The Tory policy is 2035, that’s reasonable, and Labour is 2030,” the source said. “That’s not necessary. Risking power cuts is ridiculous.
“It is zealotry, nothing else. Basically people in the union are wondering why we are doing this, we don’t need to be doing this.
“People are a bit stunned that this is happening. I hope they drop it.”
The motion to be debated at the GMB’s congress adds that the union, which is a major Labour donor, had previously called on the party to drop the commitment but it had not done so.
“The Labour Party has not walked away from this unviable commitment,” it states.
“This is a critical issue. The reputation of the Labour Party for competent government will be destroyed if there are avoidable power cuts and blackouts because the leadership didn’t heed the advice of the Congress of a major affiliated energy union and a founder member of the Labour Party.”
Of course 2035 is just as absurd and impossible as 2030, but that’s another story. What is interesting in this one is that reality is starting to make itself felt. Yes, indeed, reputations are going to be destroyed, that’s for sure. But that should be the least of the UK’s worries.
When your most reasonable voices say that it’s reasonable to reach net zero electricity emissions by 2035, and every other political voice is shouting them down, you know that there is no hope for common sense to prevail.
Well, a nuclear war could wipe out all the demand for electricity by 2030 I suppose.
Euro elections seem to be causing a flutter.
Driving today listening to the BBC, all the gaining parties are “far” right and “hard” right.
No indication of learning that its energy and immigration policy shaping this same as is coming in the USA and Canada.
For the most part, EU citizens seem to be waking up to the fact that the net zero push is doing enormous damage to their economies and pocketbooks.
France was really hard hit. Denmark, strangely, was not. In fact, the Green party actually added a seat. Though that unexpected late push was likely caused by the Prime Minister being “attacked” right before the election.
Not really, though. Turns out it was a bump from a drunk. And probably orchestrated, as her alleged injuries seem impossible given the nature of the “attack”.
The Euroblob is playing hardball. Hopefully, the citizens are noticing.
This is a graph showing immigration into the UK. I firmly believe it was compiled by Michael Mann!! /s