TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
B-ManFX4, looks like you are using a Victron Autotransformer, 32A
do you know the idle current draw of the split phase transformer?
do you know the idle current draw of the split phase transformer?
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
B-ManFX4
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2022
- Messages
- 152
I do not. I have not measured it. My RV is in storage mode. Next time I energize it I will try to get a measurement. That is a great question that I am embarrassed to say I never gave any consideration to.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Agreed, but I don't see them as "fight the things that can be changed", more like fighting to not change. ; -)
New technology is always coming along making things less expensive and better. Fighting against it is like spitting into the wind.
Ideally all the plans that get executed are sensible regardless of anything else. The best plans are the ones that accomplish the goal and save us money. If it isn't doing that, then we should be questioning it. It's why I like electrification and dislike capturing carbon from the air, that's a new cost... and one I'm not sure is needed now that I know methane removal can do more faster (and there's a lot of low hanging fruit like fixing leaky pipes).
Let's take fake meat as an example. People hate the concept and don't want to eat it right off the top without knowing anything else. Change is bad! ; -) But, if it can be perfected to where it tastes great, has all the same nutrition, eliminate the cancer causing aspects, and is half the cost of beef? Obviously if we can get the technology to that point it would be a boon for those that can't afford "real" meat today. But no, some people are scared of it and rail against it for a variety of imaginary reasons rather than see it as a nascent industry that might someday do a world of good.
When synthetic blood becomes a reality, it'll be poo-pooed as well. We see the same thing for every new technology that comes along. Some of that is reasonable. First generation technology runs the risk of unknowns despite all the testing. But the problems that crop up don't mean the technology is bad, just that it needs some refining.
Then there's all the new technology that no one told you was new technology and is bad for you and we don't find out until years later (e.g., PFAS, gasoline additives, changes to cooking oils that make them cheaper, easier to cook with, and very bad for the body).
Some of the problem is misinformation that purposely occurs because people are vested in old technology. For example, car dealerships won't be as profitable selling vehicles that don't break down as frequently or need as much service (e.g. EVs.).
Oops... I think I just used up my soapbox-Wednesday rant time. ; -)
It should make you furious. Carbon Credits should go as they don't work. Fortunately only California, Washington, and the Northeast states adopted them. The next time an environmentalist or believer is waiving it at you point them to Carbon Offsets Don't Work. Here's Why.
That doesn't mean global warming/climate change isn't real though, people are always trying to make a buck regardless of the crisis.
I came to the same conclusion: that we need to do more than just have a battery break-though. But, it looks like that can be plugged with some methane mitigation.
Curious as to why you think there's any sort of gap between renewables and nuclear? A watt is a watt regardless of the source and there are lot's of studies that show renewables can do the job. Australia even now has the first city running completely on renewables. California has seen numerous days where renewables provided > 100% of the power needs for the day. Iceland, Gabon, Paraguay, Sweden, Norway, Uruguay are mostly renewables. Some are well on their way (e.g., New Zealand gets 87% of it's power from renewables).
| Solar and wind have both been cheaper than fossil fuels for nearly a decade. The sticking point has always been night-time energy rather than base-load. As @Bongbong said, Lazard's now reports that renewables with energy storage are on par with fossil fuels. See image right. That's why you see record growth in renewables in the U.S., the EU, China, and other places. Capitalism wins. ; -) But don't expect cheaper prices for electricity. It's from private investors and they expect a return on their investments. |
|
Nuclear?
Nuclear power plants mostly work with U235, and there's just not enough of it to power the world for long (ref); so it's not a one-stop solution.
But, nuclear power has advantages over solar and wind in that they have small footprints and high outputs. There are a lot of exciting new technologies from thorium to modular reactors, to fusion that are very promising. The trick seems to be getting the $/kWh down.
Last edited:
The only problem with Lazard report is that its made up (or lies by omission). Which is not surprising as Lazard is global bank, so its only natural for banksters to push the agenda forward.
[A]n LCOE calculation completely omits the dominant costs of generating reliable electricity using mostly or entirely wind and solar generators. These dominant costs are the costs of energy storage and/or backup, the costs of overbuilding, and the costs of additional transmission.
[A]n LCOE calculation completely omits the dominant costs of generating reliable electricity using mostly or entirely wind and solar generators. These dominant costs are the costs of energy storage and/or backup, the costs of overbuilding, and the costs of additional transmission.
Climate Advocacy: Incompetence Versus Intentional Fraud — Lazard Edition
My last post, on December 14, asked readers, when considering climate advocacy journalism and reports promoting wind- or solar-generated energy, to ask themselves whether the author is merely incompetent versus perhaps committing intentional fraud. The post focused on a particular piece that had been published in November in euronews.green, byline Lauren Crosby Medlicott. In that piece, Ms. Medlicott had egregiously cherrypicked some operating data from the Spanish El Hierro Island wind/storage electricity system to make it appear that that system is a success, when in fact it is a disastrous failure. Could this really have been mere incompetence on her part, or was Ms. Medlicott intentionally seeking to deceive her readers?Ms. Medlicott’s piece was so appalling that I was unable just to let it pass. On the other hand, to be honest, Ms. Medlicott is a relatively small fish in the climate advocacy game. Are the larger fish any more honest?
Among the big players in this game, one that stands out is the investment bank Lazard. As an investment bank, Lazard makes its money — in its case quite big money — by causing deals to happen between investors and project developers. Investment banks often promote themselves by issuing reports on conditions for investment in various economic sectors. In Lazard’s case, back around 2008, they decided to become the gurus of green energy investing by issuing annual reports on what they call the Levelized Cost of Energy, or LCOE. They have continued to issue the LCOE reports annually since then, so I’m gathering that this must be quite a lucrative business. Here is a link for the most recent Lazard LCOE Report, which came out earlier this year in April 2023.
The Lazard LCOE Reports are famous for their repeated conclusion that wind turbines and solar panels have become the cheapest sources for generation of electricity. When you read someone in climate advocacy journalism reciting that talking point, most often the source of the point is one of these Lazard reports. In a post back in March 2019, title “Why Do Renewable Energy Sources Need Government Subsidies?,” I put together a sample list of half a dozen outlets citing Lazard LCOE studies for the proposition that wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity. Those sources included, for example, the Financial Times, CBS News, Australia’s governmental research arm CSIRO, Axios, Think Progress, and others.
For the first decade or so of its LCOE reports, Lazard calculated the cost of energy from wind and solar without including any cost at all for the backup or storage needed to turn those sources into a fully-functioning 24/7/365 electrical grid. But somewhere in there Lazard starting adding to its reports some additional pages on what they call the Levelized Cost of Storage, or LCOS. Remarkably, after adding in the cost of storage, Lazard still seems to be coming to the conclusion that wind and solar generation are usually cheaper than generation from fossil fuels, or at the very least they are competitive. Could this possibly be right?
The Lazard 2023 LCOE Report is presented almost entirely in the form of charts and graphs. There is very little text, and you will struggle to try to figure out what assumptions underlie the conclusions. (From the website Watt-Logic, commenting on the 2023 Lazard LCOE report, and particularly on Lazard’s calculation of the cost of “firming” intermittent renewable generation with storage: “It’s actually quite hard to work out what’s going on here.”; from Andy May at Watts Up With That, December 11, “[T]hey bury critical details in the fine print and do not define their terms.”)
With that introduction, here is the key chart from the 2023 Lazard LCOE Report giving figures for cost of wind and solar power with “firming,” supposedly compared to the cost of generating electricity from natural gas “CT” or natural gas “combined cycle.”
By all means take your time to try to digest all of that. If you go to the Lazard Report for assistance, you will not find any useful text beyond what is there in the footnotes at the bottom of the chart. I read the chart as putting the “levelized cost” of “firming” intermittent wind and solar generation at as little as $23/MWh in the Midwest, up to a maximum of $98/MWh in California. Add this cost of “firming” to the “unsubsidized” cost of wind and solar generation, and you get a total for “firmed” power from wind and solar that is mostly within the range (and often toward the lower end) of costs for generation from combined cycle natural gas plants, and at most toward the low end of the range of costs for generation from natural gas “peaker” plants. In other words, while wind and solar are not proven to always be “the cheapest” after including the costs of “firming,” they are generally toward the cheaper end of the range of costs from natural gas generation, and certainly not out of the range of affordability.
But wait a minute. Where did they get these costs of “firming”? These costs appear ridiculously low compared to amounts that I find in my December 2022 energy storage Report. Study those fine print footnotes all you want, and I do not think you are going to find the answer. Can we find anything anywhere else in this Lazard document to help us understand the difference?
After spending some time trying to figure this out, the best I come up with is this chart from page 17 of the Lazard LCOE Report:
This appears to be the set of assumptions they apply for how energy storage will be used to “firm” the intermittent wind and solar generation. Let’s pluck a few key numbers out of this chart:
- In the column headed “Storage Duration (Hours),” we find a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4. Four hours of duration just happens to be the norm for the capability of today’s most cost-effective battery storage technology, lithium ion batteries. Unfortunately, the studies that I feature in my energy storage Report calculate that the number of hours duration of storage needed to fully “firm” a system using only wind and solar generation would be at least one month (720 hours), and potentially two to three months (1440 to 2160 hours). Lazard would seem to be off by a factor of somewhere between 180 and 540 of what would be needed.
- Then there is a column headed “90% DOD Cycles/Day.” In each case the entry is “1.” I interpret this to mean that whatever battery we are dealing with here is assumed to have one full charge/discharge cycle per day. The next column tells us they are assuming 350 days per year, so therefore they are assuming that the batteries cycle 350 times per year. So the batteries can spread their costs over 350 cycles per year, or 7000 cycles in 20 years. Unfortunately, as shown in my energy storage Report, due to seasonal patterns of the wind and sun, much of the battery storage capacity needed to “firm” a wind/solar generation system will only go through one full charge and discharge cycle per year. Thus, for this part of the storage capacity, Lazard would appear to be understating the cost of the storage by a factor of 350.
Now, consider the question of whether cost figures in the Lazard Report are the result of rank incompetence versus intentional deception. Could the people at Lazard who produce all these fancy and complex charts and graphs really not know that 4 hour duration batteries cycling once per day are not going to come close to solving the intermittency problems of wind and solar generation? Or do they really know that, and they are just hoping to sell a few hundreds of billions of dollars worth of wind turbines and solar panels before the stupid politicians and investors figure out the scam?
The Actual Levelized Cost Of Energy
A company named Lazard puts out an annual report on something called the “Levelized Cost Of Energy” (LCOE). Here’s the April 2023 version. The LCOE estimates the total capital, operations, and maintenance costs for new electric power plants coming into service. People use the Lazard LCOE all the time to claim that renewable electricity sources are now cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. However, the Lazard data has a problem—it doesn’t include the cost of backup and other costs for renewable energy. These costs fall into four groups: backup costs, balancing costs, grid connection costs, and grid reinforcement/extension costs.
A few days ago, I posted the following tweet:
Fortunately for me, a user yclept @Roadshow11235 gave me a link to something I’d never seen, an analysis of those very costs. So let me lay them out for you.
I’ll start with the original Lazard data.
Figure 1. Original April 2023 Lazard Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE)
Looking at those Lazard LCOE numbers, you can see why people claim that renewables are cheaper than fossil or nuclear. It looks like solar and onshore wind are the clear winners.
However, and it’s a very big however, this does not include the other costs listed above which mostly affect renewables. Let me define each of them:
- BACKUP: All power sources require backup power for the times when they are not generating any or enough power. However, the amount of backup required is much larger for intermittent sources.
- GRID BALANCING: Extra equipment is required when you have intermittent sources, to keep their highly variable input to the grid from destabilizing it.
- GRID CONNECTION: Renewable wind and solar power is variable voltage direct current. Before it can be fed into the grid, it must be run through costly synchronous inverters to convert it to stable voltage, stable frequency alternating current.
- GRID REINFORCEMENT/EXTENSION: Unlike fossil or nuclear plants, which can generally be sited as required, renewable sources of energy are often located far from where the power is needed. As a result, the grid will generally need to be extended, strengthened, or both for such sources.
Why not use just the average? Good question.
• These figures are all from developed, industrialized countries with extensive grids already in place. When applied to the whole world, the grid-related costs will be higher.
• The less developed a country is, the more it costs to do business there, because many of the ancillary businesses, supplies, and transportation systems we take for granted in developed nations simply don’t exist.
• The greed factor will come into play. Existing renewables often have cozy agreements to sell their power at prices well above the market, and they are exploiting every loophole to do so.
• Unplanned events. Hailstorms destroy solar panels but don’t bother fossil plants. Ocean waves break and damage power cables coming to land from offshore wind turbines. See my post “Blocking The Wind” for examples.
• Finally, there’s what I modestly call “Willis’s Recursive Rule Of Construction”, which states that “Everything takes longer and costs more, even when you take Willis’s Recursive Rule into account.
With those caveats, here are the extra renewable costs for each of the power sources.
Figure 2. Total of the extra costs for each energy source. Note that for each source, the costs increase in line with the percentage of the total electricity supplied by that source (“penetration”).
You can see why Lazard says their levelized costs for renewables are not directly comparable to dispatchable or baseload fuels like nuclear, coal, and gas.
(It’s worth noting here that in many US states, the amount paid to power producers for electricity is on the order of $0.05 to $0.07 per kilowatt-hour. So with regards to solar farms, even if land, panels, mounting structures, and all the rest of the solar setup were totally free, it would still cost more than current power prices … but I digress …)
So, what does the original Lazard data look like when we add in the extra costs for each of the various power sources? Here you go …
Figure 3. Original April 2023 Lazard Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE, yellow lines) and LCOE plus ancillary backup, balancing, grid connection, and grid reinforcement/extension costs (colored lines). Note that nuclear is high in part because of the insane regulatory bureaucratic hoops you need to jump through to build one. This can be fixed.
Solar and wind not looking so good once you include all the costs …
Figure 3 above makes it quite clear why there are 1,008 new coal-fired power plants either announced, in planning, permitted, or under construction around the world.
Figure 4. Locations of 1,008 new coal power plants either announced, in planning, or under construction. I note in passing that Australian politicians think closing their 6 existing coal plants will save the planet. SOURCE
The reason those countries are building coal plants is that, unlike climate alarmist politicians in the West, people in most sane countries are looking at the total costs of different sources, not just the Lazard LCOE numbers.
Further affiant sayeth naught.
[UPDATE] For those who think this is only theoretical, ignorance of these facts cost the UK £10 million one day recently …
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
Right, because you say so.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Scientists found a power source with negative carbon emissions
Opinion: More on algae, video...
How farming could become the ultimate climate-change tool
A stark divide in Texas
Opinion: More on algae, video...
How farming could become the ultimate climate-change tool
A stark divide in Texas
| Will says the Cybertruck is a piece of junk. But I don't know... given all the flooding here maybe there's a niche market? ; -) There's actually quite a few amphibious EVs, not that I can afford one. Maybe DIY one? 
|
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
Scientists found a power source with negative carbon emissions
Opinion: More on algae, video...
How farming could become the ultimate climate-change tool
A stark divide in Texas
Will says the Cybertruck is a piece of junk.
But I don't know... given all the flooding here maybe there's a niche
market? ; -)
There's actually quite a few amphibious EVs, not that I can afford one.
Maybe DIY one?
How many Kwh of grid power did you use last year and how much gasoline did you burn?
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
while I couldn't tell the difference between a logical fallacy and a ham sandwich, something about this
title seems off "Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?"
as svetz and others have made very clear energy generation and storage is not a static thing as it once was.
and while some here stay laser focused on what world governments, organizations and corporations are doing
they may overlook the true benefit of Solar & Wind and battery break-throughs.
the power it gives us(you & me) to make our own impact, carry our own loads. while I can no longer climb a tree
I can still hang a panel or two(or even 20 if needed). make our own impact
title seems off "Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?"
as svetz and others have made very clear energy generation and storage is not a static thing as it once was.
and while some here stay laser focused on what world governments, organizations and corporations are doing
they may overlook the true benefit of Solar & Wind and battery break-throughs.
the power it gives us(you & me) to make our own impact, carry our own loads. while I can no longer climb a tree
I can still hang a panel or two(or even 20 if needed). make our own impact
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Thread Recap
This thread has been a journey. I started off as a skeptic/denier, but bad science is usually debunked after a decade and the whole topic of climate change had been around far too long not to give it a second look with an open mind. So I open Bill Gate’s book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster and saw problems. Bill's book was not the type of book I was looking for, but it did raise questions. Along the way, I looked hard at the science, and saw that Global Warming really was a significant issue.The biggest issue I had with Bill's book is it seemed reasonable to me that an energy storage solution (e.g., a battery) could be tied with wind and solar to resolve the crisis and the rest of it was noise, so I started this thread to see what others thought. From the OP it seemed ESS could get us all but about 28%.
From Lazard's report we now know ESS with renewables is cheaper than fossil fuels, and our natural capitalist steak could have the pro-climate people less concerned and reduce costs for everyone. But that lingering 28% was still a lot if climate change was something to worry about.
Planting more trees didn't seem like the answer (#8). I went looking for other books and not finding anything started doing some research and posting the findings for discussion as I had a lot of questions in terms of the validity of the science. That starts at post #9, based on the half-life of Green House Gases (GHGs), and recognizing the buildup I started changing my tune and seeing the value of net-zero. But I still had a lot of questions and the thread hit many subtopics:
- How we know it is not a hoax or wrong
- #15 talks about Anti-Greenhouse Gases.
- #20 talks about water as a GHG.
- #26 talks about GHG frequency/temperature, see also #50 & #309
- #29 talks about how they know the temperature from millions of years ago
- #32 talks about the accuracy of the IPCC temperature models.
- #40 is a quick synopsis.
- #41 the number of scientists that agree with climate change
- #53 the IPCC models
- #56 why most published papers are wrong
- #57 is the NASA image of the energy balance and why it doesn't make sense to me.
- #64 Noctilucent clouds
- #76 magma swelling from the earth's core.
- #72 and #78 discuss the geological temperature changes and extinction events
- #87 Start of posts that discuss the 6th IPCC report
- #94 looks at oxygen levels needed for fish to survive
- #122 Modern-day temperature measurements.
- #129 The IPCC tipping points
- #136 What big countries think and how American attitudes have been changing
- #229 Why temperatures will increase despite CO2 "saturation"
- #259 Talks about NF3
- #287 Economics of going carbon neutral and comparing it to existing fuel costs.
- #522 Review of energy storage systems including their costs and carbon footprints.
- #524 Nuclear power seems better than ESS, but expensive.
- #525 Would Reducing the population help or not.
- #541 Ocean Currents
- #648 Sustainable Energy Generation & Use see also #890#757 Transition expenses
- #767 Heatpumps
- #807 Minerals & Mining
- #827 Facts about the opposing view recap
- 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong
- Master Plan 3 - Synopsis
Conclusion to Date
A cost-effective ESS isn't enough, there seems to be a ~10% shortfall overall. Folks are working on new technologies to close the gap:- Minimizing methane helps a lot
- Biofuels can replace fuel for long-haul trucks & air travel
- Green Steel
- Concrete Replacements (e.g., Mycelium, ashCrete, ferroRock, glasscrete)
- New Concrete processes (e.g., CarbonCure)
- Beano for Cows, synthetic meats (also allows more agricultural land to shift to food for humans ref)
- Small/safe cost-efficient nuclear reactors (e.g., Terrapower)
- CCPI reports
Last edited:
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
Perhaps conclude your journey by turning in your Honda Clarity and going fully electric with no grid connection. That would be totally feasible in Florida.
You won't do this because:
1) An EV doesn't meet your needs, in which case seriously, WTF?
2) You can't afford an EV, in which case seriously, WTF?
3) You can afford one but just won't because you enjoy being a hypocritical libtard or you're so personality disordered to the point you actually don't think you're a hypocrite.
4) The weather, even in Florida, doesn't allow your as big as possible solar setup to power all your needs in which case, WTF??
5) Solar is too expensive. In which case...WHAT IN THE FORK.
Go ahead and justify why you own an ICE car and why you aren't fully off-grid...in Florida. Would love to hear the excuses.
You just HAVE to reply to the Thread Recap with another Thread Recap 
"A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get."
corbettreport.substack.com
economicprism.com
wattsupwiththat.com
www.corbettreport.com
wattsupwiththat.com
www.minds.com
wattsupwiththat.com
www.theepochtimes.com
alt-market.us
dailysceptic.org
wattsupwiththat.com
iaindavis.com
dailysceptic.org
www.zerohedge.com
dailysceptic.org
thefederalist.com
dailysceptic.org
mises.org
pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog
www.spectator.co.uk
dailysceptic.org
"A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get."
"Green" Energy Is a Scam. It Isn't MEANT to Work.
by James Corbett corbettreport.com September 24, 2022 Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars! You heard that right. It won't cost us trillions of dollars to build out a...
corbettreport.substack.com
Are You Willing to Starve for the Greater Good? | Economic Prism
economicprism.com
Failed Prediction Timeline
FilterTopic1.5 Degree ThresholdAcid RainArctic Sea IceBiodiversityClimate ChaosClimate ModelsDroughtsEnvironmental Disaster/PollutionEnvironmental RefugeesFamineHeat WavesHurricanesLandfillsMelting…
wattsupwiththat.com
Episode 381 – Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? | The Corbett Report
www.corbettreport.com
Corruption Of Science By Money And Power
One might ask if the Rockefeller Foundation, once a friend of science, society and industry, is now a powerful enemy.
wattsupwiththat.com
Absolute Zero: The Global Agenda Revealed | Minds
by James Corbettcorbettreport.comAugust 21, 2021As anyone who's been paying attention will know, Imperial College London played a key role i...
www.minds.com
‘Hottest Days’ Manipulation?
But there seems to be a problem with the Climate Reanalyzer.
wattsupwiththat.com
Cooling The Past Is The Foundation Of This Scam
The Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s and 1940’s than it is now, and unlike now – glaciers were melting very quickly. February 18. 1952 Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said last night that …
realclimatescience.com
The Fact-Check Racket Finally Unravels
www.theepochtimes.com
Globalists Suggest 'Finance Shock' And Climate Controls To Launch Their Great Reset - Alt-Market.us
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group At the end of June government...
alt-market.us
Nobel Physics Laureate 2022 Slams 'Climate Emergency' Narrative as "Dangerous Corruption of Science" – The Daily Sceptic
The co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize has launched an excoriating attack on the 'climate emergency' narrative, calling it a "dangerous corruption of science that threatens the well-being of billions of people".
dailysceptic.org
Videos: Climate Czar John Kerry Exposed As Bald Faced Liar Over Use Of Private Jet
Claims he doesn't fly on a private jet, then admits he did while acting as State Department climate czar
summit.news
NOAA/NCEI Temperature Anomaly Adjustments Since 2010, Pray They Don't Alter It Any Further
Guest Essay By Walter Dnes There is much interest in the latest temperature anomaly adjustments by NOAA/NCEI (formerly known as NOAA/NCDC). This author has been downloading NOAA monthly temperature…
wattsupwiththat.com
Not Fact Checkers
Fact checkers are the sole arbiters of the truth, they see and know all. At least that's what we are told to believe. But they're not fact checkers at all.
iaindavis.com
Climate Models Come With 'Dangerous' CO2 Warming Baked In, Code Review Finds – The Daily Sceptic
An expert review of NASA's climate model code has found that it comes with 'dangerous' warming from CO2 baked in despite consistently over-shooting the actual measured temperatures.
dailysceptic.org
Watch: Virtue-Signalling Spanish Environmental Minister Bikes To Climate Conference With Escort Of Gas Cars | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Central Bankers Predicted Net Zero Would Lower Inflation – and Got it Spectacularly Wrong – The Daily Sceptic
Central bankers around the world claimed the Net Zero transition away from fossil fuels would lower inflation, but new analysis from top financial services firm Nomura has found it is in fact driving it.
dailysceptic.org
U.N. To Seize Global ‘Emergency’ Powers With Biden’s Support
The proposal might be the biggest attempted power grab in the history of the U.N. If approved, the U.S. as we know it could cease to exist.
thefederalist.com
NASA Climate Model Fails at Basic Physics, Report Finds – The Daily Sceptic
A new paper examines the computer code inside NASA's Model E climate simulation and finds that it doesn't even reproduce basic physics correctly. So how will it get 50-year climate predictions right?
dailysceptic.org
Wind and Solar Are NOT Cheaper than Coal and Oil | Mises Institute
President Biden makes the false claim that wind- and solar-generated electricity are cheaper than power generated from coal and oil.
New York State Advanced Clean Cars
I believe that the majority of New Yorkers are unaware of the ramifications of regulations implementing control programs for the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) emis…
pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog
Science fiction: the crisis in research
The president of Stanford University, the neuroscientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne, has announced his resignation following an investigation into allegations of fraud and fabrication in three of his lab’s scientific papers, including one cited as the most important result on Alzheimer’s disease in 20...
www.spectator.co.uk
Last Year’s Nobel Physics Laureate Signs World Climate Declaration Stating ‘There is No Climate Emergency’ – The Daily Sceptic
Last year, the Daily Sceptic published a viral article about all the scientists who'd signed a declaration disputing we're in a climate emergency. Last year's winner of the Nobel Prize for physics has just added his name.
dailysceptic.org
No Amount Of Subsidies Will Ever Make A Wind/Solar Electricity System Economically Feasible
The COP 28 climate confab opened today in Dubai. Some 70,000 true believers in the energy transition are said to be gathering. And not one of them appears to be either willing or able to do the simple arithmetic that shows that this can’t possibly work.
So far, no country that has made a commitment to “net zero” has officially backed off. (Argentina may soon become the first.). Things proceed as if all that is needed is to build sufficient wind and solar generation facilities, until eventually you have enough of them to meet demand. But that’s not how this works. The absurdity becomes more obvious every day. Can somebody please tell the poor people making fools of themselves in Dubai?
Let’s consider the latest from Germany. According to Statista here, Germany consumed 511.59 TWh of electricity in 2021 (latest year given, although the numbers have recently changed very little from year to year). Divide by 8760 (number of hours in a year) and you learn that Germany’s average usage of electricity is 58.3 GW. So, can you just build 58.3 GW of wind and solar generators to supply Germany with electricity?
Absolutely not. In fact, Germany already has way more wind and solar electricity generation capacity than the 58.3 GW, but can’t come anywhere near getting all its electricity from those sources. As of June 2023 Germany had 59.3 GW of generation capacity from wind turbines alone, and (as of end 2022) another 67.4 GW of generation capacity from solar panels. The total of the two is 126.7 GW — which would supply more than double Germany’s usage at noon on a sunny and breezy June 21. But, according to Clean Energy Wire here, through the first three quarters of 2023, the percent of its electricity that Germany got from wind and solar was only 52%. Capacity seemingly sufficient to supply double the usage in fact only supplies half. That’s because the supply does not come at the same time as the demand, and the wind/solar generation system provides no mechanism to shift the supply to a time to meet the demand.
And why doesn’t Germany just double the amount of its wind/solar generation, so that those sources would go from supplying 52% of usage to 100%. Because it doesn’t work that way. If they double the wind and solar generation, then on the sunny/breezy June 21 mid-day they will now have over 250 GW of electricity generation — more than 4 times what they need — so they will have to discard or give away the rest. But on a calm night in January, they will still have nothing and need full backup from some other source. Multiplying the wind/solar generation capacity by 10 or even 100 (referred to as “overbuilding”) will increase the costs of the system exponentially, but will never be enough to keep the lights on all the time. Or you can try energy storage to save up the surpluses to cover the deficits, but that also multiplies the costs of the system exponentially. For more than you will ever want to know about energy storage and its costs, read my December 2022 energy storage report, “The Energy Storage Conundrum.”
Renewable energy promoters and governments committed to “net zero” are engaged in a gigantic exercise of self-deception. They have come up with a thoroughly misleading metric to compare the costs of generating electricity from various sources which they call “Levelized Cost of Electricity.” Reports that claim to calculate these LCOEs are published by various organizations, including notably the investment bank Lazard and the International Renewable Energy Agency or IRENA. Here is IRENA’s 2022 Report covering supposed renewable energy costs for 2021, title “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021.” Key quote from page 17:
In 2021, the global weighted average LCOE of new utility-scale solar PV and hydropower was 11% lower than the cheapest new fossil fuel-fired power generation option, whilst that of onshore wind was 39% lower.
Wow, solar is 11% cheaper than any fossil fuel alternative, and onshore wind 39% cheaper. Why would any dope ever look to fossil fuels again?
And here’s their key chart:
Incredible! Solar is under 5 cents per kWh, and onshore wind is even lower at 3.3 cents per kWh. And how much is in those numbers to account for the cost of either overbuilding or energy storage in order to make a system that works 24/7/365 without fossil fuel backup? The answer is, exactly nothing.
The fact is that building a wind/solar/storage electricity system without fossil fuel backup does not provide cheaper electricity than a predominantly fossil fuel system, but more expensive electricity. And the additional expense is not some small amount like 10 or 20 or 30 percent. It’s more like a multiple of 10 or 20. Nobody knows exactly how much, because there does not exist anywhere in the world a working demonstration project from which costs can be benchmarked and extrapolated. As you start to eliminate the fossil fuel backup from the system, far and away the predominant costs become the energy storage and/or overbuilding. The costs of the wind turbines and solar panels themselves become relatively insignificant. As noted, Germany has gotten to about 50% of its electricity generation from wind and solar, with so far about a 2 times overbuild of capacity, and almost no storage. With the next round of overbuild of capacity, should they do it, they will be lucky to get to 60% of electricity from renewables; and each successive round of overbuild adds less useful electricity and more that must be discarded. Meanwhile, storage is ruinously expensive in quantities that are meaningful to keeping the lights on year round.
In the real world of investment decisions, the costs are becoming increasingly obvious. Greg Ip has a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, headline “Why No One Wants to Pay for the Green Transition.” Excerpt:
Investors and consumers balk at costs of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, highlighting painful economics of climate mitigation. . . . In the past few years, Washington and Wall Street started fantasizing that the transition to net-zero carbon emissions could be an economic bonanza. . . . This year the fantasy ended. . . . [T]he economics of getting to net zero remain, fundamentally, dismal: Someone has to pay for it, and shareholders and consumers decided this year it wouldn’t be them.
Of course consumers are never voluntarily going to pay $2 for energy that can be had for $1. Nor are investors ever going to invest to provide consumers the $2 energy when the consumers can go elsewhere for $1. As it becomes obvious that the whole LCOE “wind and solar are cheaper” thing is a transparent lie, all private money will exit the energy transition. The only possible way to get this wind/solar system built is government subsidies. Gigantic, massive government subsidies on a scale far greater than anything ever seen in human history. It’s a very safe bet that it will never happen.Net Zero Aviation Targets Driving “Mass Scale” Fraud and Deforestation
Net Zero targets aimed at encouraging airlines to use so-called green aviation fuel are driving fraud “at a mass scale” and deforestation, campaigners have said. The Telegraph has the story.
Worth reading in full.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,187
I would include fake meat in that list of highly processed foods that are REALLY bad for you.
I saw an article about that a while back that included evidence of that and will link it if I see it again .... probably worse for us than hydrolyzed vegetable oil.
Tesla put numbers to everything that is required to accomplish moving to mostly solar and wind with a little hydrogen thrown in .... and a crap load of battery storage ..... I don't remember them saying anything about the necessity of moving to fake meat.
Trying to push this kind of thing is why so many people won't even consider jumping on board with a plan for "green" energy .... Most of the people preaching about it are pushing a LOT of crap like this when it isn't necessary ..... Drop all the fringe ideas about how to make a miniscule difference in GHG and get on board with a sensible plant like Tesla's ..... I don't remember them making a single reference to GHG in the presentation of their plan ...... They presented a straight forward engineered solution which included $ and resources necessary to achieve it ..... This approach should be a lesson for everyone.
When you boil it down like in the Tesla presentation .... The knee jerk hate will be limited to those with MDS.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
The FDA has approved them, so I don't know that they can be "really" bad, I suspect they can be as bad as other stuff (e.g., bread, vegetable oil). What I've seen is that they've nailed the macro ingredients, taste, and texture down. But prices are only on par and there are a number of micronutrient differences. Which doesn't mean good or bad, just different.
Vat-grown fake meat seems to be nutritionally on par regarding the macro/micro nutrients, no surprise there I guess. But they have a long way to go on price AFAIK.
Thanks Bob! As I recall it's a very hard topic to research. It's not just that there are tons of opinions and different players with stakes in the game muddying the waters with misinformation. It's also that the science of fake-meat takes huge leaps, so anything from two years ago is probably wildly out of date. It's also difficult to compare to existing foods (e.g., beef causes cancer, cardio issues, etc.) as scientific studies are numerous and varied. For example, it wasn't long ago that the egg industry almost went under because of the knee-jerk OMG! Eggs have cholesterol! Fast forward to today and it seems the opinion is they are healthy to eat.
Master Plan 3 is about electrification. That's sort of what the thread is about... does electrification get us to net zero? The answer seems to be no, but that's only important to those that believe in climate change.
We'll never be a GHG-free society. The trick is to be net-negative for a while and then go to net-zero. So, to be net-zero we need more than electrification. There's a lot of low hanging fruit with methane (e.g., leaky gaslines, biologicals in dumps) and a lot with soil NOx that can be done. That might get us far enough long that we don't need the Fossil Fuel solution (e.g., a carbon tax to pay for CO2 capture and sequestration).
Fake and synthetic meat is a topic in this thread as they have a significantly lower carbon footprint than their fauna sources. I don't have a link to the post handy, but hopefully it was shown prior that even the worse case Carbon-capture per pound of beef was negligible. There are also numerous other low cost ways to decrease emissions from cows.
Science isn't "force"; the only reason why there is controversy is the mountain of misinformation. There is zero rational to disbelieve climate change. I know, saying that just makes you want to prove me wrong. ; -)
It's rarely even new misinformation, it's all been debunked multiple times. Here's a video from six years ago that talks about the common myths, things even you've brought to the thread. The problem seems to be that deniers/skeptics don't bother to research both sides, they just look for an argument that supports their point of view and go full-stop, feeling confident that anything that doesn't fit or whatever anyone else is telling them is bamboozled or on the take. Real science looks at all the facts and continually evolves.
That's because the plan is an economical approach to sustainable energy. It bypasses the issue of if there is a climate crisis or not and shows electrification makes sense to do all on it's own.
All the "big" stuff that's happening that's good for the climate; it's being done because it makes economic sense. It's a climate change believer victory for those that were early adopters that helped drive the costs down (e.g., those that bought EVs and drove battery costs down) to pave the way for everything else.
Electrification takes us a long way towards net-zero. But we need more a bit more. There's a lot of basic research funded by the government and folks like Bill Gates in regards to nuclear, CO2 free steel and concrete, cleaning up emissions from dumps, etc. They won't all be winners, but new technologies do sometimes show a better / cheaper way of doing something. Highlighting a problem and showing it really is an urgent crisis will get minds working on real solutions.
We didn't stop burning so much coal to reduce climate change. It was because fraking make gas cheaper than coal. It didn't take decades to transition, we did it in record time. Not because of the environment, but because of profits.
So, one thing I'm pretty sure of, if there are some technology winners it won't be implemented to save the planet. History shows us it'll only be done to save money. Or for faster construction, less foul smelling land-fills, healthier foods (you probably won't get mad-cow disease from fake meat ; -), or whatever. If someone can make money it'll happen.
Speaking of newer better ways to do things... this (metal shaping like 3D printing rather than stamping) was freaking amazing...
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,187
Crisco appeared to be a no brainer alternative to butter or tallow .... It took way too long for the "science" to figure out it was a killer and those natural products are a LOT better for you.
There is no need to try to re-engineer natural products.
Pretty sure if China and India were "electrified" we wouldn't have a GHG problem. Still time to not have to do a re-do with India.
But, as far as the title of this thread .... Seems like Tesla has answered that question with no need to get into the weeds or punish people into getting on board .... Simply do it because it can be proven to make sense.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
Now this narcissist libtard is claiming to have eaten and studied fake meat.
This never gets old.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
No shit.
"It's FDA approved"
Bruh, the water is beading up on my tongue and my asshole is cramped-up from overworking and the flies are getting stuck to the mixing bowl.
Yeah, crisco must be fine because FDA.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
The thing about Biden voters is they will never acknowledge and admit their errors.
SVETZ will be sitting there, eating his own shit and barnacles he scraped off the side of his Clarity after his Island sinks still insisting we didn't go far enough to stop climate change.
Even if carbon emissions were zero, he would claim it's because we didn't address it soon enough.
If we had never admitted any carbon ever, he would claim we should have put up a giant curtain to shade out the sun and that big Levolor blinds engaged in a misinformation campaign to stamp out big curtain and that's why were drowning now.
SVETZ will be sitting there, eating his own shit and barnacles he scraped off the side of his Clarity after his Island sinks still insisting we didn't go far enough to stop climate change.
Even if carbon emissions were zero, he would claim it's because we didn't address it soon enough.
If we had never admitted any carbon ever, he would claim we should have put up a giant curtain to shade out the sun and that big Levolor blinds engaged in a misinformation campaign to stamp out big curtain and that's why were drowning now.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,057
Man Does The Math To Brag About EV Road Trip Savings But Finds It Would Be Just As Cheap And A Full Day Quicker In A Hybrid - The Autopian
There’s a tweet that is currently going somewhat viral, all about a long road trip taken in a Tesla Model Y. It’s a 3,605 mile road trip, which is absolutely no joke by any standards of a road trip. What’s notable about this trip is that the taker of this trip, Alex Gayer, kept some […]
www.theautopian.com
Con Edison Launches Campaign To Deflect Blame For The Coming Energy Disaster
The electric utility for most of New York City is Consolidated Edison, usually shortened to Con Edison, or even Con Ed. When I moved to New York almost 50 years ago, Con Ed was what they call “vertically integrated,” meaning that it was responsible for all aspects of the electricity system, from generation of the power, to high-voltage wholesale distribution, down to delivery to individual homes. That ended in the late 1990s. As part of the deregulation of that era, Con Ed sold off almost all of its generation facilities to independent operators who since then must bid for access to the grid. Today Con Ed is almost entirely in the distribution business, including both wholesale and retail.
Although it no longer generates the power, Con Ed does have competent grid engineers working for it, and it is in a position to have a bird’s-eye view of New York’s so-called energy transition. Clearly, they are very well informed about the looming energy disaster in this state. Also, of all the companies involved in some way in providing electricity in New York City, Con Ed is the main one that has direct contact with most of the ultimate consumers. They are like a sitting duck, waiting to take the blame when everything falls apart.
So, suppose you were Con Ed. What would be your strategy to deal with what you clearly know is an impending catastrophe?
If you found yourself in their position, there would be only one honest and righteous thing to do. You would sound the alarm, as loud as possible. You would shout from the rooftops that this can’t work. You would warn of the danger to human life of a predominantly wind/solar generation system that could fail completely for weeks in the dead of winter.
Instead, sad to say, Con Ed’s strategy is just as you would expect from people of no backbone and no principles. Today, the President of Con Ed, a guy named Matthew Ketschke, had an op-ed in the New York Daily News, titled “NYC’s power must be clean and reliable.” (unfortunately behind pay wall, but I will quote some substantial sections). Rather than leveling with the people, Ketschke goes the route of kowtowing to the political powers of the moment, while attempting to set up a narrative to deflect blame as best he can away from his own company. Oh, and while also preparing to cash in big by building a vast amount of new transmission capacity, with guaranteed return from the ratepayers, that will only exist to serve some near-useless wind and solar generators that will contribute almost nothing to useful electricity.
Before going into some detail, a few words on the Daily News. It was once the largest circulation newspaper in the country, with 2+ million daily subscribers in the 1940s and 50s. Since then it has shrunk continuously, until now it has fewer than 200,000 subscribers. Unlike the New York Post, which is not paywalled, the Daily News is almost entirely paywalled. As a result, I rarely look at it. Its editorials run substantially in line with the latest woke orthodoxy. (For example, today there is an editorial criticizing the Supreme Court’s bump stock case, and another advocating for free transit fares for low income people). However, to its credit, the Daily News has published a number of op-eds recently on both sides of issues of New York’s energy policies.
Here’s how Ketschke starts off:
New York’s energy system is at an inflection point. Energy use is rising — but due to climate change so are temperatures and the frequency of storms. Unfortunately, generators have been slow to meet that increasing demand with the clean energy we need to combat climate change, and now some are questioning the reliability of the power system. But I am here to tell you that New York City doesn’t need to sacrifice reliability to address climate change. We can have both.
I guess genuflecting to the climate change cult is a basic qualification for the job of President of Con Ed. But you could do that and still be honest when politicians are mandating the impossible. Instead, the gist here is that we are doing our part, and the looming problems are someone else’s fault. We can have “reliability” at the same time as we “address climate change” with wind and solar power. It’s just that those evil “generators” (not us!) have been “slow to meet the increasing demand with the clean energy we need.”
But what about the “gap” identified by the New York Independent System Operator, likely to manifest by 2030 or so in the form of insufficient generation to meet demand? Ketschke starts by acknowledging the looming gap:
[T]he NYISO report . . . found that in the coming decade, the buffer between New York’s peak energy use and ability to generate power is going to tighten — threatening reliability. That trend is a concern for those of us responsible for keeping the lights on and the air conditioners running, and a clarion call to move faster on building more sources of energy that are renewable and a system that is more reliable.
But hey, we don’t build generators, just transmission facilities. The generators are someone else’s problem. Rest assured, we are doing our part!:
Con Edison is currently investing more than $2 billion on infrastructure projects to ensure the grid can meet the increased demand for power as buildings and vehicles move away from fossil fuels and become electrified. . . . Con Edison is enhancing its electric delivery system to deliver more clean energy from solar arrays, wind turbines, hydro and other renewable resources to support New York State’s climate goals. The company is investing in energy efficiency programs, new substations, transmission lines to carry renewable energy, incentives for electric vehicle chargers, and other measures to usher in a clean energy future.
But what then about the generating facilities to provide the electricity? Sorry, not our job.:
The good news is that the NYISO report also found that the state is moving in the right direction, even if it’s slower than we want. In the last year, New York has added 452 MW of clean energy resources to the grid. We need that number to be in the 1000’s moving forward, but it’s a good start.
Those other guys just have to step up their game in a big way.
And then Ketscheke wraps up with some more genuflection, followed by kissing the feet and licking the toes of the climate cultists:
Opponents of New York’s clean energy plans would argue that we need to go back and embrace burning fossil fuels to ensure reliability. It’s a head scratching conclusion. . . . [W]e also know that the best long-term option for the state is to address climate change directly through smart investments that mitigate future climate change, while adapting to current reality. New York needs to build more clean energy resources to allow the retirement of high polluting peaker plants. And we need to invest in research and development to spur new technologies that will help deliver electricity 24/7.
My normal instinct would be to feel some sympathy for the President of Con Edison, who is caught in a difficult to impossible position. He and his company will likely get a big share of the blame for the coming disaster. But between the genuflection to the cult and the profiteering off useless new transmission lines, he completely loses me. Con Ed, if you don’t have the courage to say the obvious truth here, you deserve whatever is coming to you.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
News cycle is dominated by heat wave stories... hopefully everyone is keeping cool!
Climate change and urban violence: A critical knowledge gap
CRS:
Opinion: Almost didn't watch this, but really glad I did as it (eventually) explains the weekly weather forecasts
But yeah, we evolved based on consuming foods found in nature so most can handle most of them. The original crisco started out as natural ingredients, but the fats were changed to transfats. This made the fat more stable and less likely to be feasted upon by bacteria/fungus. Which, if they won't eat something should be a pretty good clue we shouldn't be eating it.
It's one of the concerns with fake meat. The original ingredients are all "natural", but has the processing made them bad for us? The FDA doesn't think they're any worse than anything else. I suspect they're fine in moderation.
Foods like the Impossible Burger have tremendous potential as they are tailored to be nutrient-rich and tasty. If cheap enough, it could solve a lot of the world's food issues. But, it is highly processed and even the best of intentions of humans can have unforeseen consequences that only extended trials will reveal.
Possibly the most controversial part of the Impossible Burger is the soy leghemoglobin which simulates the "blood" that comes out of the burger. It makes it look/feel like beef and passed the FDA's food additive requirements. It might also affect different ethnicities differently, for example cultures that commonly consume soy based products might not have any problem.
Beyond Beef doesn't use soy leghemoglobin, they use "beet juice" to create the effect. So, that's another issue when looking at these products, even if one does have long-term health issues...others might not.
But overall I disagree. Meat is expensive. In the U.S. alone, more than 12% of the population can't afford it on a regular basis (ref). Nutritious affordable food is a problem for over half of the world's population (ref). This is current data, even without any need to bring in climate change and future potential food shortages, there is a clear reason why pursuing this to reduce costs and ensure safety is reasonable.
Climate change and urban violence: A critical knowledge gap
CRS:
- Automobiles, Air Pollution, and Climate Change
- Desalination: Converting Saline Water into a Municipal Water Source
- Recovering Funds from Parties Liable: Stafford Act Authorities
Still on the market too! Although, weren't trans fats were banned... so possibly it's new & improved? ; -)
"naturalness" isn't really a good word for it. For example, lead and snake venom are all-natural too. ; -)
But yeah, we evolved based on consuming foods found in nature so most can handle most of them. The original crisco started out as natural ingredients, but the fats were changed to transfats. This made the fat more stable and less likely to be feasted upon by bacteria/fungus. Which, if they won't eat something should be a pretty good clue we shouldn't be eating it.
It's one of the concerns with fake meat. The original ingredients are all "natural", but has the processing made them bad for us? The FDA doesn't think they're any worse than anything else. I suspect they're fine in moderation.
Foods like the Impossible Burger have tremendous potential as they are tailored to be nutrient-rich and tasty. If cheap enough, it could solve a lot of the world's food issues. But, it is highly processed and even the best of intentions of humans can have unforeseen consequences that only extended trials will reveal.
Possibly the most controversial part of the Impossible Burger is the soy leghemoglobin which simulates the "blood" that comes out of the burger. It makes it look/feel like beef and passed the FDA's food additive requirements. It might also affect different ethnicities differently, for example cultures that commonly consume soy based products might not have any problem.
Beyond Beef doesn't use soy leghemoglobin, they use "beet juice" to create the effect. So, that's another issue when looking at these products, even if one does have long-term health issues...others might not.
You personally might not have a need.
But overall I disagree. Meat is expensive. In the U.S. alone, more than 12% of the population can't afford it on a regular basis (ref). Nutritious affordable food is a problem for over half of the world's population (ref). This is current data, even without any need to bring in climate change and future potential food shortages, there is a clear reason why pursuing this to reduce costs and ensure safety is reasonable.
You could be right. My estimates are based on U.S. data and didn't look at the world as a whole. Having low cost alternatives for other GHG producers seems like a good idea to me. I like it when Gates, Bezos, Elon Musk, and others drum up money for carbon removal projects as the projects seem well thought out.
The link you asked for. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
At 9.5 cents per kWh, which is very cheap, what made you decide to do your project at the time you did it? Considering that battery and solar was expected and still is continuing to drop..
Similar threads
