Notices

Electric future

Old 02-19-2021, 11:44 PM
  #301  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Retired Bizy Livin
Posts: 7,887
Received 1,373 Likes on 972 Posts
Default

A fundamental flaw in the freewheeling Texas electricity market left millions powerless and freezing in the dark this week during a historic cold snap.

The core problem: Power providers can reap rewards by supplying electricity to Texas customers, but they aren’t required to do it and face no penalties for failing to deliver during a lengthy emergency.

That led to the fiasco that left millions of people in the nation’s second-most-populous state without power for days. A severe storm paralyzed almost every energy source, from power plants to wind turbines, because their owners hadn’t made the investments needed to produce electricity in subfreezing temperatures.

While power providers collectively failed, the companies themselves didn’t break any rules. Texas officials don’t require plant owners to prepare for the worst by spending extra money to ensure they can continue operating through severe cold or heat. The high prices operators can reap from such periods of peak demand were supposed to be incentive enough for them to invest in safeguarding their equipment from severe weather.

Bill Magness, chief executive of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot, which operates the state’s power grid, explained during a Thursday news conference how the system was supposed to work: High peak prices provide the incentive for producers to keep operating in all weather. Generators that can’t produce power when it is most needed risk missing out on windfalls. “They’ll face financial consequences in the marketplace,” he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, facing a political uproar as the state of 29 million people virtually ground to a halt, tacitly acknowledged in a statewide address Thursday that these market incentives weren’t sufficient. He called upon legislators to mandate that power generators prepare for extreme winter storms. The state, he said, should also supply the funding to make it happen.

“What happened this week to our fellow Texans is absolutely unacceptable and can never be replicated again,” he said. His office didn’t respond to requests for comment.



The system broke down this week when 185 generating units, including gas and coal-fired power plants, tripped offline during the brunt of the storm. Wind turbines in West Texas froze as well, and a nuclear unit near the Gulf of Mexico went down for more than 48 hours. Another problem emerged: Some power plants lost their pipeline supply of gas and couldn’t generate electricity even if they wanted to capture the high prices.

Such mechanical problems might have been avoided if operators had chosen to equip their plants like those that operate in traditional cold-weather states.

It was a policy failure that state and federal officials are already scrutinizing as electricity, a public necessity as critical as water and heat, becomes even more important as more vital functions become electrified.

Nationwide, the grid is evolving to support more renewable energy and the emerging demand for power for electric vehicles. That makes balancing supply and demand more complex. Many climate scientists expect an increase in extreme weather events, which would further test the system’s vulnerabilities.

The U.S. is becoming more reliant than ever on electricity, but has no perfect model for running a power market in the 21st century. Before this week’s meltdown, the Texas market had been widely regarded as one of the best. Now, most everyone agrees that major changes—including more regulatory intervention—will be needed to keep it working.

The Ercot breakdown affected millions of Texans, many of whom resorted to desperate measures to stay warm. The outages shut down hundreds of stores and businesses, limiting supplies of food and water. Cities including Austin, Houston and San Antonio are under boil-water notices until Monday after a wave of burst water pipes caused shortages.

While Texas is now the most prominent U.S. power market failure, others have faced serious challenges in recent years. California’s grid operator last summer resorted to rolling blackouts when a severe heat wave swept the West, reducing the state’s ability to import power and pushing demand into the evening hours after solar production declined.

Energy markets have moved away from the monopoly-style power-delivery systems that once were common. The current system has roots in the 1990s and early 2000s, when fossil fuels supplied the majority of the nation’s electricity and extreme weather risks were more predictable.

“The premises of that paradigm have changed,” said Bernard McNamee, a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member who is now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods LLP. Renewable-energy sources cannot be turned on and off like a power plant, making it harder to ensure sufficient supply at any one time. “That’s why public policy makers and electricity officials need to address some of the shortcomings.”

William Hogan, an energy economist at Harvard University who helped design the Texas market, said this week’s blackouts weren’t indicative of a major design flaw, but rather inevitable imperfections stemming from extraordinary weather challenges.

“I don’t know of any market design that exists anywhere that would have anticipated and have been prepared for something of this scope and scale,” he said.



The Texas power grid is essentially an electrical island. That is by design. Because it doesn’t ship power across state lines, the grid doesn’t fall under federal oversight, a status state leaders have sought to preserve for decades.

Ercot runs the hourly market to set power prices and ensure sufficient generation. It is regulated by the Texas Public Utility Commission, a three-member body appointed by the governor and overseen by the state legislature. Ercot, the grid operator, is required to maintain a balance between electricity supply and demand, but has no regulatory authority.

Some critics of the state’s system say the alphabet soup of Texas energy oversight bodies, which includes other agencies regulating oil and natural gas, resulted in inaction.

“The real factor is not anticipating what needed to be done to the infrastructure,” said Texas Rep. Donna Howard, a Democrat from Austin. “That had to do with a failure of multiple agencies to address how things work together in a deregulated market.”

Texas has long prided itself on its wholesale power market. It was born from a legislative effort in the 1990s that broke up the state’s utility monopolies, introducing competition among a larger universe of power generators and retail electricity providers.

The result was a laissez-faire market design that rewards those who can sell power inexpensively and still recover their capital costs. That keeps prices low when demand is steady. When demand spikes, however, so do prices, which can climb as high as $9,000 per megawatt-hour to incentivize power plants of all kinds to fire up.

If an electricity producer agrees to supply power into the market and then fails to deliver, the producer has to pay for the cost of replacing it. But if a plant trips offline and stays out of the market for an extended period, as happened this week, there is no penalty besides lost revenue.

Electricity supply crunches tend to occur during extreme temperature swings, when customers crank up their heat or air conditioning. That makes it critical for power plants to be able to function in severe weather.

In Texas, the system has largely worked during the sweltering summer months, when air conditioners are blasting. But it hasn’t always worked in winter because the equipment remains vulnerable to less-common cold snaps.

In February 2011, a severe winter storm barreled through Texas and knocked out nearly 200 power plants, many of which ran on coal. Ercot called for rolling blackouts that affected millions of Texans for about eight hours. In 2014, another January cold snap forced power plants offline. The emergency—and rolling blackouts—lasted for about four hours.

Ercot devised a set of best practices for power-plant owners to prepare for the possibility of extreme cold. But the guidelines remain suggestions. The grid operator has no authority to mandate them, although it does do some spot checks. The state utility commission doesn’t even employ inspectors to visit the plants and check on whether they are winterized.

Mr. Magness, Ercot’s chief executive, said that regulatory authority falls in part to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a nonprofit overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that develops standards for utilities and power producers. The organization last year began drafting requirements for power-plant owners to prepare for polar vortexes, but hasn’t completed them.

Steve Wolens, a former Democratic state representative who helped lead the effort to deregulate the Texas power system, said lawmakers are responsible for stepping in to fix any problems emerging in the market they created.

“Their duty is to find out why it happened and keep it from happening again, and ensure that Texas is prepared for future growth, which means enormous demands for electricity,” he said.

Within the competitive Texas power market, there is a strong incentive for generators to keep costs down to recoup their investments. The rapid buildout of wind and solar power, which are now among the cheapest sources of electricity, have pushed prices even lower in recent years, making it more difficult for gas and coal plants to compete.

For plant owners, that presents a paradox: Should they add to their capital costs by preparing for severe cold snaps that occur only occasionally, or skip the preparation and risk tripping offline, missing out on high prices and exacerbating a potential supply shortage?

“With everything there is a trade-off,” said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. “More resilience is potentially more expensive, but electricity is an essential service. These are hard decisions.”

Texas deregulated its power market at a time when policy makers across the country were considering ways to reduce electricity costs by modernizing the utility model. For most of the 20th century, utilities were vertically integrated, controlling every aspect of electricity supply from generation to delivery.

That remains the model through much of the Southeast, where utilities remain responsible for grid reliability. State regulators oversee their investments in power plants and grid improvements and allow them to recoup costs through customers. That has sometimes resulted in cost overruns that drive up the price of electricity.

Other market designs have emerged elsewhere. PJM Interconnection, an electricity market serving 13 states from Virginia to Illinois, runs a “capacity market” meant to ensure enough power is available to meet peak demand three years in the future. It is an insurance policy against uncertainty and extremes. Power producers who promise to show up are paid for that commitment, and penalized if they fail to deliver.

Critics of that model say it is more expensive than others because it pays for power that might never be needed. And PJM has fewer wind and solar farms in its territory than some other markets, making it easier to contract for resources that can fire up on demand. Gas plants can start up on demand, but wind and solar production depends on weather, time of day and storage.

Texas has what is known as an “energy only” market. Producers are paid only for the power they generate. If they were paid to be on standby for all weather conditions, that would encourage investments to ensure they are ready to go, electricity-market veterans say.

Regardless of the model, all power markets face a common challenge: how to prepare for the possibility of extreme events that are statistically unlikely and difficult to predict.

This week’s Texas breakdown began Sunday night when a powerful winter front began to move over the entire state, plunging temperatures well below 20 degrees in a state where many homes and businesses aren’t insulated for extreme cold.

Residents blasted the heat. Electricity demand topped 69 gigawatts, a winter record, Ercot said. For the grid operator, the paramount objective was to keep supply and demand in line. A major imbalance could damage critical pieces of equipment and cause the grid to be inoperable for weeks.

In rapid succession, power plants tripped offline, many hobbled by frozen parts. Demand threatened to exceed supply. At 1:25 a.m. on Monday, the grid operator called on the state’s electricity providers to begin rolling blackouts to reduce strain on the grid.

Around 5:30 a.m., one of the two units of the South Texas Project, a nuclear-power plant near the Gulf of Mexico, shut down. The unit’s water supply froze, causing two pumps to fail, according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials and the plant’s operator. The pumps delivered water that is turned into steam and used to generate electricity.

More plants followed, paralyzed by subfreezing temperatures. Natural gas pipelines froze at the wellheads, reducing the amount of fuel available to supply power plants. Wind turbines built for the heat of West Texas froze under coats of ice.

Ercot called for more outages, leaving millions of homes without power. Electricity providers typically rotate outages among customers so that no one is in the dark for too long. But they would soon prove unable to rotate and spread the pain.

Ercot ordered the electricity providers to shed as much as 14 gigawatts, enough to serve about 2.8 million households. The grid operator said that about 46 gigawatts of natural gas, coal and wind generation wasn’t working—roughly 40% of what it had expected to be available.

On Thursday, companies began restoring power as Texas started to thaw, but millions remained without water because of frozen pipes and damaged municipal water systems. As residents began to assess the damage and search for provisions, the Texas Public Utilities Commission issued an order mandating that electricity providers do more to rotate future blackouts.

Electricity customers, the agency said, couldn’t be without power for more than 12 hours. By that point, some Texans had been without light or heat for nearly 72 hours.






Old 02-20-2021, 06:21 AM
  #302  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 25,339
Received 5,439 Likes on 3,474 Posts
Default

How can anyone write so much at 3am?
Old 02-20-2021, 01:40 PM
  #303  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 2,027
Received 239 Likes on 189 Posts
Default

Rather than quote the entire report one comment warrants rebuttal: “Many climate scientists expect an increase in extreme weather events, which would further test the system’s vulnerabilities.”

The statement reflects common rhetoric as may be reported in the New York Times, but the facts don’t support it as reported by real scientists. Unfortunately every time a weather event occurs the rhetoric is applied as evidence of climate change.

The facts are:

Climate is warmer than 1970 but not as warm as the 1200’s and during the Roman Empire. Generally, temperature increased during the past two centuries in opposite reaction to “the little ice age” during the 17th and 18th century, and it is as warm now as it was in the 1930s.

Floods and draught have not increased

Forest and brush fires have not increased, and decreased in the past decade.

The rate of sea level rise (160 meters in the past 20,000 years since the ice age) remains at the same rate as during recent centuries.

Intense cyclonic weather events which are hurricanes and tornadoes have decreased in the past decade.

Old 02-20-2021, 03:36 PM
  #304  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,916
Received 208 Likes on 131 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by billinstuart View Post
How can anyone write so much at 3am?
It was copied and pasted from the Wall street journal
Old 02-20-2021, 03:43 PM
  #305  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,916
Received 208 Likes on 131 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Inlander View Post
The facts are:
Climate is warmer than 1970 but not as warm as the 1200’s and during the Roman Empire. Generally, temperature increased during the past two centuries in opposite reaction to “the little ice age” during the 17th and 18th century, and it is as warm now as it was in the 1930s.
Can you cite any sources of these so-called facts?

I will rebut the first assertion:
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." That warming event was regional, not global, and had different localized causes unrelated to atmospheric CO2. Past changes in climate are not proof that current changes in climate are not happening nor are they proof that the current climate is not being altered by anthropogenic causes. See https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
Old 02-20-2021, 05:45 PM
  #306  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 2,027
Received 239 Likes on 189 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by capt_matt View Post
Can you cite any sources of these so-called facts?

I will rebut the first assertion:
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." That warming event was regional, not global, and had different localized causes unrelated to atmospheric CO2. Past changes in climate are not proof that current changes in climate are not happening nor are they proof that the current climate is not being altered by anthropogenic causes. See https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
I say the burden of proof rests on the reciprocal, warmist theorists. warmist theorists must prove a warming climate, and prove that the cause is human activity. I reject that the reasoning that it is true because someone read about it in the NYT or NBC news.The fact is there is no scientific proof of anthropogenic climate change. No one even represents there is proof. It is a theory supported by selective circumstantial evidence and often false and/or manipulated data.

There are a number of studies regarding the warm climate of the 1200’s and the Roman empire, and mini ice age and I urge an objective person seek that info. Unfortunately, too many blindly accept a pop theory. They also reject the cyclical nature of climate, as if the ice ages didn’t occur, and or that there is wide variation in CO2 over the ions, and that the present concentration is extremely low. The warmists view climate as a condition only in the post 1970 era.

I could take more time to link to the many sources of climate history. Here is one that I previously bookmarked : https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08...o-denial-here/
Old 02-21-2021, 06:36 AM
  #307  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 615
Posts: 3,827
Received 820 Likes on 420 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Inlander View Post
I say the burden of proof rests on the reciprocal, warmist theorists. warmist theorists must prove a warming climate, and prove that the cause is human activity. I reject that the reasoning that it is true because someone read about it in the NYT or NBC news.The fact is there is no scientific proof of anthropogenic climate change. No one even represents there is proof. It is a theory supported by selective circumstantial evidence and often false and/or manipulated data.

There are a number of studies regarding the warm climate of the 1200’s and the Roman empire, and mini ice age and I urge an objective person seek that info. Unfortunately, too many blindly accept a pop theory. They also reject the cyclical nature of climate, as if the ice ages didn’t occur, and or that there is wide variation in CO2 over the ions, and that the present concentration is extremely low. The warmists view climate as a condition only in the post 1970 era.

I could take more time to link to the many sources of climate history. Here is one that I previously bookmarked : https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08...o-denial-here/
Leftists now claim to be all about "science." Yet, their first comment is always to want those who question their theory to prove a negative. Part of what makes them lunatics.
Old 02-21-2021, 06:48 AM
  #308  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 25,339
Received 5,439 Likes on 3,474 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SalmonDaze View Post
Leftists now claim to be all about "science." Yet, their first comment is always to want those who question their theory to prove a negative. Part of what makes them lunatics.
When a leftist says "science" it means it's black magic to them..............
Likes:
Old 02-21-2021, 07:16 AM
  #309  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Right Coast of Florida/E.Tennessee
Posts: 6,767
Received 1,477 Likes on 890 Posts
Default

Selective science isn't science... it's talking points.
Likes:
Old 02-21-2021, 12:26 PM
  #310  
aln
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West America
Posts: 3,658
Received 61 Likes on 45 Posts
Default

Knowing your system is vulnerable to cold, they were told, wouldn't it behoove one to guard against a system wide destruction of resources from low voltage high current situations normally encountered when large numbers of power plants go offline? This whole scenario doesn't make any sense. Did they think that the ratepayers would be OK with this mess in order for utilities to not spend the money to guard against it? California's and the countries largest utility PG&E has been found criminally negligent for their part in the destructive wildfires...repeatedly. Good luck Texas, trying to get reforms.
Old 02-21-2021, 06:23 PM
  #311  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Retired Bizy Livin
Posts: 7,887
Received 1,373 Likes on 972 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aln View Post
Knowing your system is vulnerable to cold, they were told, wouldn't it behoove one to guard against a system wide destruction of resources from low voltage high current situations normally encountered when large numbers of power plants go offline? This whole scenario doesn't make any sense. Did they think that the ratepayers would be OK with this mess in order for utilities to not spend the money to guard against it? California's and the countries largest utility PG&E has been found criminally negligent for their part in the destructive wildfires...repeatedly. Good luck Texas, trying to get reforms.

Cali put the branding iron to the company after the fires. Texas will make the consumers pay for this.
Old 02-21-2021, 10:28 PM
  #312  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 2,027
Received 239 Likes on 189 Posts
Default

You are right California puts the blame on PG&E so as to avoid accepting responsibility for the mandates the State imposed on the company. Instead, they blame the company.

Texas is different in many respects but reflects policy decisions by the state regulators.

In both cases the customers pay the bill.

The customers pay now or they pay more later. In both cases, one common thread is the false promises of renewable energy play a significant role in the fiascos.
Old 02-22-2021, 06:13 AM
  #313  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,080
Received 767 Likes on 441 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by capt_matt View Post
Can you cite any sources of these so-called facts?

I will rebut the first assertion:
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." That warming event was regional, not global, and had different localized causes unrelated to atmospheric CO2. Past changes in climate are not proof that current changes in climate are not happening nor are they proof that the current climate is not being altered by anthropogenic causes. See https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm


Let's assume for one moment that there is human caused warming and one can provide incontrovertible evidence it is global in scope. How are we to determine that this is "bad" for the earth as a whole? What is the perfect baseline temperature and by what standard would that be determined? You see, the warmists must not only prove that warming exists, but that it is bad and unnatural on a global scale. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that global temperatures should be static or declining. I see no evidence that polar icecaps are "good" and that their melting away is particularly "bad". It could be argued from an evolutionary viewpoint that warming is what allowed human life to evolve to the point it is at today.

In fact, science based on astronomical cycles and fossil record clearly shows that the earth has been warmer in times past than it presently is, and that there have been periods in which the polar icecaps were non-existent. Assumptions based on astronomical observations and mathematical calculation would indicate that the Earth has been warmer than present for a much greater duration than is has been cooler than present so if you are to draw conclusions about an average, normal or "optimal" temperature, it would not be the average temperature that we have enjoyed for the past millennium. It would actually be much warmer, with extreme heat and cold events that dwarf those of present day times. What we are calling temperature extremes or extreme weather today are nothing in comparison to past events and temperature cycles. They wouldn't even move the needle. 3 centuries of human CO2 emission have failed to change the temperature as much as a degree, while nature changed temperatures by more than 2 degrees in one day when Krakatoa erupted in 1883 and then again in 1915 with the eruption of Tambora.

Geologists and seismologists have recognized a correlation between rising atmospheric temperatures and volcanic eruptions. It seems sensible and indeed likely that an increase in global temperatures can lead to increased volcanic activity which then cools the earth rapidly. Is this natures means of maintaining thermal balance? I find it unlikely that man can alter these vast systems of thermal equilibrium on a global scale by changing the types of vehicles we drive or using more wind energy. One might even postulate or argue that by decreasing wind speeds at the earths surface, global temperature rise might be caused or accelerated as winds serve to cool the earths crust and dissipate heat as well as increase evaporation and rain. We really have no clue what the impact of wind and solar power will be long term, and the renewable energy with the longest track record, hydro-power, has certainly not been all positive when you look at overall environmental impact.


Keep is mind that most scientists will tel you that any climate data older than 250 years before present day are based on assumptions, extrapolations, and estimates and there is no empirical observed record on which to base theories.
Old 02-22-2021, 06:18 AM
  #314  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 615
Posts: 3,827
Received 820 Likes on 420 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 1blueheron View Post
Let's assume for one moment that there is human caused warming and one can provide incontrovertible evidence it is global in scope. How are we to determine that this is "bad" for the earth as a whole? What is the perfect baseline temperature and by what standard would that be determined? You see, the warmists must not only prove that warming exists, but that it is bad and unnatural on a global scale. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that global temperatures should be static or declining. I see no evidence that polar icecaps are "good" and that their melting away is particularly "bad". It could be argued from an evolutionary viewpoint that warming is what allowed human life to evolve to the point it is at today.

In fact, science based on astronomical cycles and fossil record clearly shows that the earth has been warmer in times past than it presently is, and that there have been periods in which the polar icecaps were non-existent. Assumptions based on astronomical observations and mathematical calculation would indicate that the Earth has been warmer than present for a much greater duration than is has been cooler than present so if you are to draw conclusions about an average, normal or "optimal" temperature, it would not be the average temperature that we have enjoyed for the past millennium. It would actually be much warmer, with extreme heat and cold events that dwarf those of present day times. What we are calling temperature extremes or extreme weather today are nothing in comparison to past events and temperature cycles. They wouldn't even move the needle. 3 centuries of human CO2 emission have failed to change the temperature as much as a degree, while nature changed temperatures by more than 2 degrees in one day when Krakatoa erupted in 1883 and then again in 1915 with the eruption of Tambora.

Geologists and seismologists have recognized a correlation between rising atmospheric temperatures and volcanic eruptions. It seems sensible and indeed likely that an increase in global temperatures can lead to increased volcanic activity which then cools the earth rapidly. Is this natures means of maintaining thermal balance? I find it unlikely that man can alter these vast systems of thermal equilibrium on a global scale by changing the types of vehicles we drive or using more wind energy. One might even postulate or argue that by decreasing wind speeds at the earths surface, global temperature rise might be caused or accelerated as winds serve to cool the earths crust and dissipate heat as well as increase evaporation and rain. We really have no clue what the impact of wind and solar power will be long term, and the renewable energy with the longest track record, hydro-power, has certainly not been all positive when you look at overall environmental impact.


Keep is mind that most scientists will tel you that any climate data older than 250 years before present day are based on assumptions, extrapolations, and estimates and there is no empirical observed record on which to base theories.
Earth Good
Human Bad

That's all the proof the leftists need
Old 02-22-2021, 07:19 AM
  #315  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seacoast NH
Posts: 6,806
Received 1,684 Likes on 763 Posts
Question

Originally Posted by 1blueheron View Post
Let's assume for one moment that there is human caused warming and one can provide incontrovertible evidence it is global in scope. How are we to determine that this is "bad" for the earth as a whole? What is the perfect baseline temperature and by what standard would that be determined? You see, the warmists must not only prove that warming exists, but that it is bad and unnatural on a global scale. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that global temperatures should be static or declining. I see no evidence that polar icecaps are "good" and that their melting away is particularly "bad". It could be argued from an evolutionary viewpoint that warming is what allowed human life to evolve to the point it is at today.

In fact, science based on astronomical cycles and fossil record clearly shows that the earth has been warmer in times past than it presently is, and that there have been periods in which the polar icecaps were non-existent. Assumptions based on astronomical observations and mathematical calculation would indicate that the Earth has been warmer than present for a much greater duration than is has been cooler than present so if you are to draw conclusions about an average, normal or "optimal" temperature, it would not be the average temperature that we have enjoyed for the past millennium. It would actually be much warmer, with extreme heat and cold events that dwarf those of present day times. What we are calling temperature extremes or extreme weather today are nothing in comparison to past events and temperature cycles. They wouldn't even move the needle. 3 centuries of human CO2 emission have failed to change the temperature as much as a degree, while nature changed temperatures by more than 2 degrees in one day when Krakatoa erupted in 1883 and then again in 1915 with the eruption of Tambora.

Geologists and seismologists have recognized a correlation between rising atmospheric temperatures and volcanic eruptions. It seems sensible and indeed likely that an increase in global temperatures can lead to increased volcanic activity which then cools the earth rapidly. Is this natures means of maintaining thermal balance? I find it unlikely that man can alter these vast systems of thermal equilibrium on a global scale by changing the types of vehicles we drive or using more wind energy. One might even postulate or argue that by decreasing wind speeds at the earths surface, global temperature rise might be caused or accelerated as winds serve to cool the earths crust and dissipate heat as well as increase evaporation and rain. We really have no clue what the impact of wind and solar power will be long term, and the renewable energy with the longest track record, hydro-power, has certainly not been all positive when you look at overall environmental impact.


Keep is mind that most scientists will tel you that any climate data older than 250 years before present day are based on assumptions, extrapolations, and estimates and there is no empirical observed record on which to base theories.
Great perspective. I think it is much simpler than that. There has and always will be climate change. We need to deal with the climate we are given. I do believe in climate change, but what impact humans have had on it is irrelevant. I will say I do believe in clean air and water whole heartedly. Mostly because I enjoy nature and it sucks when you're diving in pristine waters to find garbage on the bottom or your lungs hurt from a run in a filthy city. But there is what makes sense and then there is this hysteria which has grown to epic proportions.

There is a common theme among a certain group of the population who need to believe they can and should control everything. They believe they are impactful enough that they have changed the climate, or can alter nature.
Old 02-22-2021, 09:48 AM
  #316  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,799
Received 2,773 Likes on 1,728 Posts
Default

A lot of these climate discussions remind me of the extremes folks will go to in fending off ultimate death. What if we do cancel all CO2 emissions and stop the temperature rise for ~50 years? (if that's even possible). Do those folks really think that the Earth won't respond with some other change and ultimately end up with rising temperatures anyways (as history has proven)?? So if we can't control the Earth's temperature long-term, what's our fate? Can we live in a world where the average temperature is 2-4 degrees hotter than it is now? If not, then does human existence on Earth end within a couple hundred years regardless what we do?? It's not much different than the 85 year old guy, who smoked and drank all his life, but now needs to be restricted to a hospital bed with those pleasures removed, while they cut him open over and over replacing organs as they fail. Can't they just let the poor guy enjoy his last days??
Old 02-23-2021, 02:58 AM
  #317  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: DE & Chincoteague Bay, VA
Posts: 1,077
Received 124 Likes on 69 Posts
Default

Don't you know that humans killed the dinosaurs, back when the Earth was a lot warmer and the CO2 was a lot higher?

Typical human conceit - we can control everything

Not to say that good stewardship doesn't have its place - no need to dump toxic sludge in the ocean - but follow the $ (US reduction of emissions benefits who while India and China go on ever upwards)
Old 02-23-2021, 06:20 AM
  #318  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,080
Received 767 Likes on 441 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by DOYAM View Post
Time till tell my wisdom oozing brotato chip. I'll set the timer for 5 years and come back. I'll either eat crow or just be polite and post a fact on the sales.

Edit: 10 years. Annnd go!
DOYAM,

How's that TSLA stock looking this AM. I assume you are buying big on the downturn and savoring your opportunity today to become a millionaire?
Old 02-23-2021, 06:32 AM
  #319  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: SE NC
Posts: 1,008
Received 75 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 1blueheron View Post
DOYAM,

How's that TSLA stock looking this AM. I assume you are buying big on the downturn and savoring your opportunity today to become a millionaire?
Patience is a virtue. That is strange coming from young -> old, isn't it? The whole market is crashing so what do you expect? Yes, buying more. It will come back, higher than before. Just you wait and see.
Old 02-23-2021, 07:59 AM
  #320  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,080
Received 767 Likes on 441 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by DOYAM View Post
Patience is a virtue. That is strange coming from young -> old, isn't it? The whole market is crashing so what do you expect? Yes, buying more. It will come back, higher than before. Just you wait and see.
When I was your age kiddo, Global Crossing was a great stock to buy it was a rocketship. It followed pretty much the same trajectory as your beloved TSLA. It was a pioneer in the internet during the dot com bubble. First provider running IPV6 native and a Tier 1 provider. Everyone who was drinking the GLBC Kool-Aid was saying the same things you are saying now. Patience, hold, it will come back, it's got the best tech, the internet isn't going anywhere, it's the future, etc.

The Chairman was a rockstar. This was his Bel Air Mansion in CA which in 2019 went up for sale as the highest estate listing price in the US at $225M.





It came out of nowhere, became a $47B telecom juggernaut and by 2011 it disappeared into nowhere. Bought for $3B plus 1B in debt, by Level 3 basically for their infrastructure.

They were operating under the same faulty business model as TSLA is currently running on.
Here is an interesting and perhaps prophetic article written about global crossing. See if you can pick out any familiar phrases or circumstances to what we see today....

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/an...ssings-failure

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.