Thousands of activists block London roads to demand action on climate change

[bristolboy]

To give some further idea of how fast the price of solar has fallen, in 2015 it was predicted that by 2020 the cost of solar power would fall to 91 dollars per megawatt hour. 

http://www.environment.gov.au/energy/national-electricity-market-review

But in 2018 solar power was auctioned at a price of around 50 dollars per megawatt hour. That easily beats the price of coal generated power and gas generated power. And it has dropped even lower in 2019.

 

And the cost of storage is plummeting, too.

Solar battery costs set to plummet in 2019 – the battery boom is here: S&P Globa

Commercial solar battery cost fell significantly in 2018 and are set for further falls in 2019, according to S&P Global.

The financial analyst giant reported a drop of 40 per cent in the cost of installed battery storage between 2017 and 2018.

The world also doubled its energy storage capacity between 2017 and 2018 to 9 GWh. A further surge of close to 80 per cent is expected by the end of 2019.

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/solar-battery-cost-falls-predicted-2019/

 

So by an rational standard, new coal fired generating plants in Australia make no economic sense at all. Despite the beliefs of some that coal is still economically competitive there.

 

[observer90210]

And in the next 2 or 3 decades the ecological disaster of that era will be not knowing how to dispose of the highly polluting solar pannels or eCar batteries that will reach the end of their lifespan.

 

(I am ready to get bashed on this one ????)

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

And in the next 2 or 3 decades the ecological disaster of that era will be not knowing how to dispose of the highly polluting solar pannels or eCar batteries that will reach the end of their lifespan.

 

(I am ready to get bashed on this one ????)

Actually, it's a fair point. The EU has addressed the problem by mandating that solar cells be recycled. Presumably their exampl will be followed by nations in other parts of the world. Crystalline solar cells have a lifespan of roughly 30 years. 

As for batteries, right now the battery of choice is liquid lithium ion batteries. Because their technology is constantly changing as they improve, it's hard to set up a recycling model. But in the future, most likely the batteries of choice will be solid state batteries  which have a potential to hold a greater charge, last longer, and be made of far less polluting material. Rechargeable zinc oxide batteries are currently the most cost effective way to store electricity and they are virtually 100 percent recyclable. They've been something of a dark horse but are now seriously in contention.

It's also important to keep in mind that solar panels and the various batteries are still far far superior to coal in respect to pollution, which is a major polluter not only of air but, thanks to highly toxic coal ash, a grave threat to the land and groundwater as well. And while natural gas, methane, is less polluting, it still produces CO2, which despite what some crackpots believe, is a very potent greenhouse gas, and is causing global temperatures to rise at an increasingly high rate. And methane itself is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, although it has a much shorter life.

Finally, the cost of electricity is already dropping thanks to solar and wind, so the energy cost of recycling will actually be less than it is today.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 hours ago, Ulic said:

Someone should tell these people the single most important thing they can do is make a commitment not to have children and second is to promote birth control in third world countries. AS I have no children I am doing the most I can possibly do. 

We appreciate your efforts more than is polite to say.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, blazes said:

Mindless middle-class morons, all of whom are dependent on some form of fossil fuel to enable their "protests" against fossil fuels.

 

 

Mindless you say, morons you say.

[Cat ji]

19 hours ago, peterb17 said:

Would agree

 

The world’s population has more than doubled in my lifetime.

 

The climate change lobby never seem to mention the pressure from a vast population is the problem.

They were not taught to think of it.
Actually, the population growth is the underlying reason for most social problems, economic issues and so on.  ...There are more "issues" than ever before, that people talk about, motivated via the media, but the population growth is the "elephant in the room." ???????????? ...The closest they get to it is when they talk about the idea of a universal basic income.

[Cat ji]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Finally, the cost of electricity is already dropping thanks to solar and wind, so the energy cost of recycling will actually be less than it is today.

Please show me somewhere where the price of electricity has dropped over the last few years.  (As in, the consumers' electricity bills.  And i don't mean people that reduced their dependency on the grid by installing solar power stuff at their houses and so on.)

[blazes]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's literally a thankless job correcting you..

Solar Power Investment Outstripped Coal, Gas And Nuclear Combined In 2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/04/09/solar-power-investment-outstripped-coal-gas-and-nuclear-combined-in-2017/#846d8e212379

 

And it's a pity that the UK doesn't have access to some other form of renewable energy. But I guess the calmness of its seas shows that wind power would be futile there A pity because...

 

It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-than-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/

 

Sorry, BB, this is a tad long and so may be somewhat taxing for the old brain, but this paper by the physicist Mark P. Mills of Northwestern University turns all your religious fervour on its head.

Sorry if it's confusing:
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

[bristolboy]

First off, I love the way you worded your question. In effect, please tell me where consumer prices have been lowered, but don't tell me where consumer prices have been lowered. Such an honest question.

It's like asking why auto prices didn't fall back when the price of steel fell.  Auto prices may increase but not as much. The wholesale cost of energy is just one factor in pricing. Utility companies are generally allowed to charge for their fixed costs but adding that into their rates. So utilities are allowed to recoup the cost of building and operating a coal powered plant or nuclear powered plant even as production declines. Also, electricity can be very highly taxed. in addtion,, solar and wind are still in their early days. Whilst their contribution to the energy mix is rising rapidly, it still has a long ways to go.  the But in fact consumer rates in the USA have risen less than inflation.

Inflation Rate of Electricity Prices

Residential electricity prices in the U.S. have risen from an average of 7.83 cents per kilowatthour in 1990 to an average of 11.44 cents per kwh in 2010. This is a 46% increase in 20 years and sounds like a lot but as you can see from the chart below for many years electricity prices did not keep up with overall inflation (the red line is falling).

 

https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/electricity-price-inflation-rate/

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Sorry, BB, this is a tad long and so may be somewhat taxing for the old brain, but this paper by the physicist Mark P. Mills of Northwestern University turns all your religious fervour on its head.

Sorry if it's confusing:
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

Well, if Mark P. Mills says so... I guess we'll have to take his word over the judgement of all those softhearted fuzzy thinking capitalists who apparently are donating their money to a foolish cause. After all, what do the world markets know? In fact, he relies on old outdated data to support his case. There's this, for instance:

"More than a decade ago, Google focused its vaunted engineering talent on a project called “RE<C,” seeking to develop renewable energy cheaper than coal. After the project was canceled in 2014, Google’s lead engineers wrote: “Incremental improvements to existing [energy] technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive... We don’t have the answers.”[97] Those engineers rediscovered the kinds of physics and scale realities highlighted in this paper."

 

Markets already are paying prices below the cost of coal. Yet this Miller person just blithely ignores that fact. Apparently, to his way of thinking, if Google labs says it can't be done, then reality be damned.

 

And he ignores the latest advances in battery technology. One of the requirement for renewables to completely replace fossil fuel generated power is a battery that can be built at a cost of less than anywhere from $100-$120 per kilowatt hour of storage capacity.

Green rechargeable battery breaks cost barrier

 

The manufacturer of a green rechargeable battery says its technology is ready to provide developing countries with cheap affordable carbon-free energy.

NantEnergy informed the recent One Planet Summit in New York City that its “air-breathing zinc battery” can now store power more cheaply than competitive systems.

The technology, which uses only zinc and air, “has now broken the manufacturing cost barrier of $100 per kilowatt hour,” says the energy storage solutions company.

https://marketbusinessnews.com/green-rechargeable-battery-breaks-cost-barrier/188735/

 

And did you by any chance notice how Mark. P. Miller somehow manages never to cite the actual current cost of new solar or wind energy per MWH and compare it to the cost of fossil fuels? Didn't that strike you as being slightly evasive?

 

[blazes]

To Bristol 

Boy person!

 

I wish I could put this Miller person in touch with you.  I am sure you would give Dr Mills a sound thrashing.

End of stupidity and religiosity.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Cat ji said:

Please show me somewhere where the price of electricity has dropped over the last few years.  (As in, the consumers' electricity bills.  And i don't mean people that reduced their dependency on the grid by installing solar power stuff at their houses and so on.)

Good point. What Bristolboy means, even if he's in denial about it, is that energy costs from fossil fuels have been gradually rising as electricity from renewables 'invade' the market. Simultaneously, solar panels and battery storage costs have been falling as the technology develops. The cost of energy from renewables is now approaching the inflated cost of energy from fossil fuels. 

 

Consider the following example. A company builds a new coal-fired power plant with the expectation it will be running at full capacity (or near full capacity) for the following 40 years, especially when taking into account the expected gradual increase in the number of homes and/or factories in the area.

 

Alas! Whilst the number of homes in the area does increase, the number of home owners that buy electricity from the coal power plant falls significantly because of the widespread installation of solar panels on roofs.
In order to prevent the privately owned coal plant company going into receivership, electricity prices have to rise. The rising electricity prices, in conjunction with falling solar panel prices, make the installation of solar panels more attractive, economically, which drives up the cost of electricity from the coal plant even more.

 

Renewable energy requires a back-up source of energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. However, a coal-fired power plant is not ideal for this purpose. It cannot easily and quickly be shut down or started up. Gas power plants are much better suited for back-up purposes.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, blazes said:

To Bristol 

Boy person!

 

I wish I could put this Miller person in touch with you.  I am sure you would give Dr Mills a sound thrashing.

End of stupidity and religiosity.

Why don't you arrange for Dr. Mills to meet the soft headed investment specialists at Lazard Freres?

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

 

[blazes]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why don't you arrange for Dr. Mills to meet the soft headed investment specialists at Lazard Freres?

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

 

You mean the Wall Street kiddos who brought us to the verge of global bankruptcy in 2008/9??

I'll look into it...

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, blazes said:

You mean the Wall Street kiddos who brought us to the verge of global bankruptcy in 2008/9??

I'll look into it...

Nice try. We're not talking about hedge funds and exotic financial instruments here. This is very basic economics. Maybe the most basic: commodities.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point. What Bristolboy means, even if he's in denial about it, is that energy costs from fossil fuels have been gradually rising as electricity from renewables 'invade' the market. Simultaneously, solar panels and battery storage costs have been falling as the technology develops. The cost of energy from renewables is now approaching the inflated cost of energy from fossil fuels. 

 

Consider the following example. A company builds a new coal-fired power plant with the expectation it will be running at full capacity (or near full capacity) for the following 40 years, especially when taking into account the expected gradual increase in the number of homes and/or factories in the area.

 

Alas! Whilst the number of homes in the area does increase, the number of home owners that buy electricity from the coal power plant falls significantly because of the widespread installation of solar panels on roofs.
In order to prevent the privately owned coal plant company going into receivership, electricity prices have to rise. The rising electricity prices, in conjunction with falling solar panel prices, make the installation of solar panels more attractive, economically, which drives up the cost of electricity from the coal plant even more.

 

Renewable energy requires a back-up source of energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. However, a coal-fired power plant is not ideal for this purpose. It cannot easily and quickly be shut down or started up. Gas power plants are much better suited for back-up purposes.

You truly are tenacious in clinging to your falsehoods; At levelized rates, a new solar power plant will produce electricity more cheaply than a coal power plant Period. Nothing to do with solar taking away demand from coal power plants. Nothing. Nada. Zip.. 

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

 

And in countries like India where demand is still growing massively, tell me why it is that private investors refuse to invest in coal plants but leave that to the government? Instead they're investing in solar power and to a lesser extent, in wind power.

 

As for gas peaker plants which you referred to as a "backup source", they are also beginning to be pushed out by solar power. Even in the USA where gas prices are very low:

This report is from GE one of the world's biggest producers of turbines for gas powered plants:

Energy Storage Poses a Growing Threat to Peaker Plants

https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants

 

[bristolboy]

41 minutes ago, blazes said:

To Bristol 

Boy person!

 

I wish I could put this Miller person in touch with you.  I am sure you would give Dr Mills a sound thrashing.

End of stupidity and religiosity.

Are you in the habit of awarding honorary degrees to all people who endorse your point of view? What makes you think that Mr. Mills has a doctorate?

[blazes]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are you in the habit of awarding honorary degrees to all people who endorse your point of view? What makes you think that Mr. Mills has a doctorate?

There may be a few physicists holding senior posts at Northwestern University  or at the Manhattan Institute, without a PH. D,  but if there are I  don't know of them.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, blazes said:

There may be a few physicists holding senior posts at Northwestern University  or at the Manhattan Institute, without a PH. D,  but if there are I  don't know of them.

This is from Mills' own website:

"Mark holds a BSc Honours degree in physics from Queen’s University, Canada, and is a member of numerous professional societies including the American Physical Society and Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers."

I'm not saying he's not a smart guy. But he's not an honest one.

[Liverpudlian]

It is my opinion that the world should focus on our oceans above all ! and radiation levels.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Liverpudlian said:

It is my opinion that the world should focus on our oceans above all ! and radiation levels.

You have a point. CO2 is lowering the PH of the oceans. In the past 150 years it's alkalinity has declined by 30 percent from what it was over the past 14 million years.

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is from Mills' own website:

"Mark holds a BSc Honours degree in physics from Queen’s University, Canada, and is a member of numerous professional societies including the American Physical Society and Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers."

I'm not saying he's not a smart guy. But he's not an honest one.

Now you own Blazes in this, What will you do with him?

 

I say let him off the hook if he admits he’s wrong.

[blazes]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now you own Blazes in this, What will you do with him?

 

I say let him off the hook if he admits he’s wrong.

Phew, thanks Chomper.  That should let me off with only half a dozen Hail Mary's....

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now you own Blazes in this, What will you do with him?

 

I say let him off the hook if he admits he’s wrong.

Let's take bets on which happens first: he admits he's wrong or Jesus returns.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You truly are tenacious in clinging to your falsehoods; At levelized rates, a new solar power plant will produce electricity more cheaply than a coal power plant Period. Nothing to do with solar taking away demand from coal power plants. Nothing. Nada. Zip.. 

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

 

I am surprised you are having difficulty in understanding the point I made, although perhaps I shouldn't be because I'm used to climate alarmists trying to wriggle away from undeniable facts. ????

 

If solar, and renewables generally, are not taking away the demand from coal power plants, then what is? It's probably true that solar can produce electricity more cheaply than coal when the sun shines, but electricity from battery storage when the sun doesn't shine, is much more expensive than electricity from coal. Do you deny that?

 

Also, it is not only during the night that the sun doesn't shine, but quite often throughout the day during rainy periods and prolonged periods of cloudy skies.

 

An ideal location for a solar-panel farm would be a desert area, but the cost of that would be increased significantly because of the need for long power lines to transport the electricity to the cities.

 

Nevertheless, I understand that solar power and battery storage will become cheaper as the demand increases and technology progresses. This is to be expected, and I have absolutely no problem with the development of additional sources of energy whether renewables or not.

 

My concern is for the people who continue to build their homes in flood plains and areas subject to hurricanes, and kid themselves that extreme weather events will be reduced because the government is tackling climate change.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You have a point. CO2 is lowering the PH of the oceans. In the past 150 years it's alkalinity has declined by 30 percent from what it was over the past 14 million years.

The average pH of the ocean surfaces is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline. 

The pH scale is logarithmic. Converting it to percentages can be misleading, but that's what climate alarmists are experts at, so no surprise there. ????

 

A fall in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is a 26% decline in alkalinity. However, a fall from a pH of 8.2 to 7.1, which is still slightly alkaline, is a 900% decline in alkalinity. Blast it! That makes a 30% decline non-alarming. Better not mention it. ????

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The average pH of the ocean surfaces is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline. 

The pH scale is logarithmic. Converting it to percentages can be misleading, but that's what climate alarmists are experts at, so no surprise there. ????

 

A fall in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is a 26% decline in alkalinity. However, a fall from a pH of 8.2 to 7.1, which is still slightly alkaline, is a 900% decline in alkalinity. Blast it! That makes a 30% decline non-alarming. Better not mention it. ????

Links please.

[transam]

Interrogate any one of that lot regarding their personal input to the problem they are protesting about and they will all be found guilty as I doubt any of them live in a tent with a bicycle awning....????

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I am surprised you are having difficulty in understanding the point I made, although perhaps I shouldn't be because I'm used to climate alarmists trying to wriggle away from undeniable facts. ????

 

If solar, and renewables generally, are not taking away the demand from coal power plants, then what is? It's probably true that solar can produce electricity more cheaply than coal when the sun shines, but electricity from battery storage when the sun doesn't shine, is much more expensive than electricity from coal. Do you deny that?

 

Also, it is not only during the night that the sun doesn't shine, but quite often throughout the day during rainy periods and prolonged periods of cloudy skies.

 

An ideal location for a solar-panel farm would be a desert area, but the cost of that would be increased significantly because of the need for long power lines to transport the electricity to the cities.

 

Nevertheless, I understand that solar power and battery storage will become cheaper as the demand increases and technology progresses. This is to be expected, and I have absolutely no problem with the development of additional sources of energy whether renewables or not.

 

My concern is for the people who continue to build their homes in flood plains and areas subject to hurricanes, and kid themselves that extreme weather events will be reduced because the government is tackling climate change.

Back in the late 80s I lived in a house that was heated completely by solar energy, hot water came from heat exchangers on the roof, room heating came from a heat pump pumping heat from the garden and outside air.

 

The house was always comfortably warm and there was always plenty of hot water.

 

The house is in Sterling, Scotland.

 

Your understanding of the limitations of solar energy is at least a few decades out of date.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Interrogate any one of that lot regarding their personal input to the problem they are protesting about and they will all be found guilty as I doubt any of them live in a tent with a bicycle awning....????

Because that’s what environmentalists are advocating?

 

Of course it is not, but what do you care, engaging in the issue is not your point.