M564038 wrote:

So yes,
You are going at it the wrong way and using the wrong numbers.
I drive a bit more than average, but my car also use a bit less than an average EV per km, and the meter show it has consumed 2503.55kWh over the last year. (Including transmission loss)

In addition, to find the actual draw on the grid, you need to subtract the savings in gasoline refinement which, according to those in the know is about about 1kWh/10km.

Combining these numbers with average driving distances, you’ll find that an average draw over 24hours for a EV is 125Wh.

To point you to where your numbers is off:
A car has 2 kW ratings:
1/The engine size: Maximum theoretical power output, just as an fossil car, where it was traditionally measured in Horse Power. You never actually reach even a fraction of this number. This is not an interesting number in measuring consumption.

2/The battery size, measured in kWh.
The most popular size for newer mid range EVs (Polestar, Tesla 3, Ioniq 5 etc) seems to be around 70kWh. This will get you around 400Km in real life. Upwards of 500Km in an M3 on a summers day.

Completely in line with what I measure myself of my owns car’s consumption, and what I see from the numbers I have access to from our housing area’s garage charging stations where we have closer to 200EVs with individual stations to measure.

Aquila3 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Sorry, but you are making things up.

Electrification of road transport barely makes a dent in electricity consumption. We are already well under way over here, and it doesn't register on the total grid usage. Full electrification would be around 1-2%
The average draw for a car, would be in the range of changing 2 incadescent bulbs to LEDs in your home.

And even if it did take a small nuclear plant in each city, so be it. Bring it on!

Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand her.

Aquila3 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

So yes,
You are going at it the wrong way and using the wrong numbers.
I drive a bit more than average, but my car also use a bit less than an average EV per km, and the meter show it has consumed 2503.55kWh over the last year. (Including transmission loss)

In addition, to find the actual draw on the grid, you need to subtract the savings in gasoline refinement which, according to those in the know is about about 1kWh/10km.

Combining these numbers with average driving distances, you’ll find that an average draw over 24hours for a EV is 125Wh.

To point you to where your numbers is off:
A car has 2 kW ratings:
1/The engine size: Maximum theoretical power output, just as an fossil car, where it was traditionally measured in Horse Power. You never actually reach even a fraction of this number. This is not an interesting number in measuring consumption.

2/The battery size, measured in kWh.
The most popular size for newer mid range EVs (Polestar, Tesla 3, Ioniq 5 etc) seems to be around 70kWh. This will get you around 400Km in real life. Upwards of 500Km in an M3 on a summers day.

Completely in line with what I measure myself of my owns car’s consumption, and what I see from the numbers I have access to from our housing area’s garage charging stations where we have closer to 200EVs with individual stations to measure.

Aquila3 wrote:

Sorry but I would love to see your numbers. I really hope you show me wrong like you easyly did by words. Really.
Here are mine, in a simplified example. I do not pretend to be accurate, just an example.
A normal small car would have a 50KW engine. Commuting to work 1 hour a day, shopping, etc and using it at average 50% of power I will burn 25Kwh a day. Like 2 Kg of the good old gas, not bad. I will have to charge it practically every day, though.
In my household I consume about 10Kwh a day for light, apparates, etc. I have no AC, like many (were) in Central EU and I heat with gas, ooops.
Nevertheless my car would consume 2.5 times the electric energy of my household.
Or using your numbers + 250%
And like everybody I will connecting it to the grid when I arrive home, around 6 pm. No significant sun at that time, year around. Wind, maybe.
The peak power will probably be even worse, so , since the infrastructure must be dimensioned for peak it will need probably to be quadrupled. It means that the copper wires of my mains line that are now 2.5 sq mm will go to 10 sq mm, and at the same rate all the way along until where there is some significant energy accumulation (that today there is almost none) . I hope it will be always a windy night, (like almost never in places like Milan metropolitan area, 4 M people and cars). Otherwise I will have to draw that energy from some far away place, most probaly a French nuclear plant, losing some 30% of it along the way.
Where we are? +330% electric?
So we will have to dig all our roads and install all that copper (that is so... carbon neutral to refine) and build trice monster high voltage lines on towers and poles.. Then think to densely populated areas, where peple lives in blocks and has no own park place. Entire district of our old cities are like that. I wonder where they will charge their e-cars. No , the populace will have to take the bike, at best an e-bike, that they can charge in their small bedroom.

Does this look insignificant to you? Do you really think that there is a solution by 2036? Or that we come close by 2030?
Ah, Greta will not let you build any new Nukes that, BTW takes an average of 20 years to build if all goes well and no NIMBYs show up. I can understand her.

No, I think your numbers are out of a couple of orders of magnitude.
125 Wh? That is the consumtion of a small kitchen tool for one hour, like a mixer or a coffe grinder. Not for moving around a one ton or more vehicle. A small Nissan Leaf has a WLTP consuption of about 20kWh, for 100 Km. If it does 60 Km in such hour, it will take about 12kWh, 100 times more of your 125 Wh.
Your same car at 2500/365 takes about 7kWh a day in average, that, even if fantastic, is 50 times more than your 125 Wh.

Aquila3 wrote:

No, I think your numbers are out of a couple of orders of magnitude.
125 Wh? That is the consumtion of a small kitchen tool for one hour, like a mixer or a coffe grinder. Not for moving around a one ton or more vehicle. A small Nissan Leaf has a WLTP consuption of about 20kWh, for 100 Km. If it does 60 Km in such hour, it will take about 12kWh, 100 times more of your 125 Wh.
Your same car at 2500/365 takes about 7kWh a day in average, that, even if fantastic, is 50 times more than your 125 Wh.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Only what is easily possible. Not one thing is very difficult. Renewable energy is already cheaper than the alternatives. Some fossil fuels to cover shortages. EVs are about ready to predominate, battery shortages are the only real slow down. Modern public health care is surprisingly inexpensive. Agriculture presents some readily solivable challenges. Selfishness can wreck it all.

Dutchy wrote:

Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

There are vested interest groups and lobbyists on both sides of the divide, it’s not the scientific community that change the political minds it’s the lobbyist who do that most effectively

A101 wrote:

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

M564038 wrote:

I am really tired of this «both sides are equally bad» strategy.
This isn’t a football match. These aren’t two equally weighted «opinions”.

One side is solidly backed up by all known science and fact.
The other side is backed up by the opinion of a bunch of selfish boomers and insane amounts of money from the fossil industries.

This is not in any way two equal sides.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

Could you please give us some reliable data, including their budgets and access, to substantiate this 'fact'.

And indeed, the politicians should listen more to scientists, I full-heartedly agree. We would have had a much more green society by now.

M564038 wrote:

I am really tired of this «both sides are equally bad» strategy.
This isn’t a football match. These aren’t two equally weighted «opinions”.

One side is solidly backed up by all known science and fact.
The other side is backed up by the opinion of a bunch of selfish boomers and insane amounts of money from the fossil industries.

This is not in any way two equal sides.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

There are vested interest groups and lobbyists on both sides of the divide, it’s not the scientific community that change the political minds it’s the lobbyist who do that most effectively

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy.

Could you please give us some reliable data, including their budgets and access, to substantiate this 'fact'.

And indeed, the politicians should listen more to scientists, I full-heartedly agree. We would have had a much more green society by now.

Here a couple, if you goggle you will find more just as you will on traditional energy Lobbyists that is the point I’m making

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ ... ?ind=E1500

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... istration/

A101 wrote:

Don’t think I have said both sides equally bad, from my POV that there is no climate emergency

Nope it’s all about money and funding and subsidies and blah blah blah

Dutchy wrote:

now you are expanding the issue: as you are well aware, the new clean energy business is something else than the green-lobby, a.k.a. NGO's wanting better environment for us all and making sure that my grandchildren still have a good world to live in.

And you are taking the US as source, just have a look at your own source 'opensectets' link:

Oil & gas: $82,309,750
Coal mining: $2,132,000
Natural Gas Pipelines: $14,596,072

Versus:

Alternative Energy Production & Services: $23,467,377

Just going by your own source, you are wrong, 4 times as many gray and black lobbies as green energy lobby.

So the original question still stands. You make a statement and present it as fact, so giving a source for your presented facts should be no problem at all, or alternatively don't present it as a fact but as an opinion.

Dutchy wrote:

So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

A101 wrote:

[Good lord, I haven’t expanded anything you were trying to paint a picture between scientists and lobbyists on who you trust.

A101 wrote:

I had not even looked into the funding streams of lobbyists, I literally got that little bit of information within a few minutes after reading your post and you wanting a breakdown on funding. I think if I really drilled down into it I could make a better presentation of funding stream but those links were the first to pop up, but I can’t be arsed.

A101 wrote:

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

How do you know that those facts are right?

Not all scientists agree

You obviously haven’t been reading what I posted a short while ago

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Good lord, I haven’t expanded anything you were trying to paint a picture between scientists and lobbyists on who you trust.

False, I have never said anything about trusting lobbyist, so do not put words in my mouths. And of course, I don't trust lobbyists. Scientists on the other hand, yes, science is fundamental in this and every discussion.

Vested interests groups are very effective in putting their propaganda out there, remember the same people are behind that as the tobacco lobby. I rather listen to scientists than lobbyists, but that is just me.

Dutchy wrote:

Science is transparent in its methods. I know you do not put too much value in it given your statements in the past, this thread very much included.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

There are just as many green lobbyists out there as those of traditional energy

Fine, but don't make any statements like this:

Dutchy wrote:

You literally say you do not have any foundation for these kinds of statements. And yes, I already suspected that, so I asked for your source. Now we have established that you do not have a source and you should not present unfounded things like that. That's all.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So you say your POV is distorted by your own belief there is no climate emergency. As mentioned earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

How do you know that those facts are right?

Not all scientists agree

Alright, the moderators are ok with you saying this, so I have to reply to this. As mentioned before, the scientific consensus is that human-induced climate change is here and humankind is experiencing it with real-life consequences. If you don't subscribe to it, fine, but then you're living in a parallel universe and we have nothing to talk about. I have nothing more to say about that, it is as simple as that.

A101 wrote:

As I said before scientists are not infallible and not all agree that we are in a climate emergency

Dutchy wrote:

Here we go again. All word games, as I have said before, it is boring, so will not participate in your little games

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

As I said before scientists are not infallible and not all agree that we are in a climate emergency

Now in itself, it is a truism, sure, find one scientist, doesn't matter if he is a climate scientist or not, let's say a linguist and he or she says: no climate emergency - what is that anyway, and there you go.

Dutchy wrote:

But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.

Dutchy wrote:

In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.

Dutchy wrote:

Shell and other oil companies have successfully argued that since the mid-1990-ish, before that the narrative was we don't know the extent of the damage etc. The parallel with the tobacco lobby is there for anyone to see.

A101 wrote:

It’s a valid question, I already replied to the “ scientific consensus” which was debunked in the earlier thread so there is no actual consensus.

A101 wrote:

I’d say it’s well before that to an extant, what some are arguing is the extent of man- made CO2 on the environment to what the modelling shows that climate research has already diverged significantly from the real world compared to modelling compared to the actual climate sensitivity .

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.

Would that not equally apply to yourself?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.

You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists

DTVG wrote:

Now is the best time to buy oil stocks. Just like Tobacco they will become uninvestable for pensions funds and endowments, keeping their stock prices relatively low. And while oil firms will be unwilling/unable to finance new exploration (due to public pressure) limiting oil supply, demand will be rising because we in the West are not willing to shift our consumption habits (so quickly) and millions of people in emerging economies will want to enjoy the lifestyle that we currently enjoy. So in the long term oil prices remain high and oil firms enjoy great cash flows that they pay out as dividends or share buybacks…

A report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) shows that in scenarios consistent with the 1.5-degree goal, Latin American oil production needs to fall to less than 4 million barrels per day by 2035--60% below pre-pandemic levels. This would mean that up to 81% of their proven, probable, and possible oil reserves will not be used before 2035. The fiscal impact would be enormous: the region’s oil exporters could lose up to around US$ 3 trillion in royalties by 2035 if strong global climate action materializes.

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s a valid question, I already replied to the “ scientific consensus” which was debunked in the earlier thread so there is no actual consensus.

Excuse me, what?
Your «arguments» where absolutely smashed to pieces regarding the consensus. This is cognitive dissonance on a pretty high level.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

M564038 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I’d say it’s well before that to an extant, what some are arguing is the extent of man- made CO2 on the environment to what the modelling shows that climate research has already diverged significantly from the real world compared to modelling compared to the actual climate sensitivity .

Not true. The modelling is incredibly close to what is observed in real life. The width of rral observations supporting man-made climate change is undeniable, and thus there is consensus among those that paid any attention at school.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But man, unless one is a climate scientist, one is not able to judge the scientific debate. So for all purposes, for laymen as I am - and I am quite sure you are - the human-induced climate change is here and given that we need to act. So that makes your statement useless.

Would that not equally apply to yourself?

Bingo, yes it does, that's why I said that I am a layman for climate change modeling. And as a consequence, I am not going to debate it, but instead listen to those who are in the know, who are experts. I am not the one who is questioning science and the scientific consensus.

Dutchy wrote:

See the difference between me and you? I acknowledge my limitations on my own limited knowhow, you, on the other hand, think you can point to some scientists who disagree with the scientific consciences and use that as an excuse to have your own train of thought about a matter which you, by your own admission, know far too little about. And that, my friend, is why I said it is useless to debate this issue with you.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In my own experience, people who deny science like denying the link between human behavior and climate change have some common characteristics: many are babyboomers, many are not too well educated, many believe in conspiracies, many subscribe to populistic views and vote for populistic parties or views, many have very conservatives views. Don't want to listen to facts, scientists, professionals, but only listen to opinions. But in the end, their main argument seems to be very selfish: they actually don't want to change their own lives.

You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists

Haha, it is not an argument, it is an observation. And I do not use it to justify anything, let alone my position of green lobbyists, which you don't know what my position is, anyway.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Would that not equally apply to yourself?

Bingo, yes it does, that's why I said that I am a layman for climate change modeling. And as a consequence, I am not going to debate it, but instead listen to those who are in the know, who are experts. I am not the one who is questioning science and the scientific consensus.

You make a interesting comment and continue repeat the same pattern and theme hopping to shut down debate using the same formula to silence dissent,

You said;
I am not the one who is question science and the scientific consensus.

One should always be questioning it and not blindly following the crowd because it is convenient, you are closing your mind to the alternative thinking from the scientific community and quite unashamedly continue to put the “con” into consensus when has has been shown to be false.

Dutchy wrote:

See the difference between me and you? I acknowledge my limitations on my own limited knowhow, you, on the other hand, think you can point to some scientists who disagree with the scientific consciences and use that as an excuse to have your own train of thought about a matter which you, by your own admission, know far too little about. And that, my friend, is why I said it is useless to debate this issue with you.

What are you saying you cannot fathom an independent thought after reading arguments from those who have broader knowledge on the subject on both sides of the divide

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You used that argument on another topic and in a surprising turn of events you are using the same sort of reasoning as to justify your position on green lobbyists

Haha, it is not an argument, it is an observation. And I do not use it to justify anything, let alone my position of green lobbyists, which you don't know what my position is, anyway.

You comment changed from an observation to an argument when you called people who question the science selfish and do not want to change, that changes the complexity of your so called observations.

M564038 wrote:

Questioning science is how science itself works.
You aren’t questioning, you are denying and cherry picking. You act the same way when reading and reading back on posts in this thread. This is how cognitive dissonance happens.

M564038 wrote:

I can’t read your mind, so I don’t know why this happens, and I am not trying to attack you personally, but you seem to represent a pattern that is shared by many. This is about how an emotional connection to a certain (often traditional) way of seeing things, is so strong that objective facts, observation, science and logic come up short when opinion is formed.

A101 wrote:

True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either

And that's it, it is your conclusion based on your own opinion and in the big scheme of things that makes it worthless.

Dutchy wrote:

The problem is that your conclusions cannot be verified in any scientific way, so we should take your word for it that it is the right sort of conclusion and not just an opinion.

Dutchy wrote:

Ad as with all things: the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence. And your opinion goes against the scientific consensus.

Dutchy wrote:

So yes, you believe in something, that is the exact right word for it, 'believe', because facts point in another direction.

Dutchy wrote:

Don't you think your believes and 'conclusions' might be wrong?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

True we can’t read minds, it’s not an emotional subject for me I’ve looked at both sides arguments over a long time and came to the conclusion that while yes man does emit additional gases, I do not believe it is in the extremes or the limits of the earths capacity to absorb it and we are in no dire emergency, that doesn’t mean I believe we should continue to pollute willy nilly either

And that's it, it is your conclusion based on your own opinion and in the big scheme of things that makes it worthless.

If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Don't you think your believes and 'conclusions' might be wrong?

Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

A101 wrote:

there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions

Now you are getting it, you are absolutely correct. The world is very complex, climate change is very complex, people who dedicated their lives to understanding the matter, those opinions do matter. We call those people experts in their field. Those people work in the academia of the world and those opinions have been resumed in the IPCC report. That's why I rely on that source and not my own 'research', aka reading some papers and cherry-picking some scientists which happen to coincide with my opinion. My opinion isn't leading, facts are experts interpreting those facts are.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

So if you believe you are not 100% correct, why don't you think we should be on the safe side and listen to the experts and act on their recommendations?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

Nobody said that science is infallible, but you only know about this, because of the scientific process which in itself corrects itself. And given science isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that one can do a bit of 'research' in the evening, reading a few papers and think that one's layman opinion has the same value as the opinion of experts, that is ludicrous.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Germany's ongoing nuclear exit programme takes 4.2 gigawatt (GW) of capacity out by Dec. 31.POWER/DE

A101 wrote:

Because this post is your opinion can we take it the entire post is worthless?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

If that is the case that means a majority of opinions are worthless yours, mine, and everyone that forms an opinion on the matter because they are just that opinions

Now you are getting it, you are absolutely correct. The world is very complex, climate change is very complex, people who dedicated their lives to understanding the matter, those opinions do matter. We call those people experts in their field. Those people work in the academia of the world and those opinions have been resumed in the IPCC report. That's why I rely on that source and not my own 'research', aka reading some papers and cherry-picking some scientists which happen to coincide with my opinion. My opinion isn't leading, facts are experts interpreting those facts are.

So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Off course they could be I have never said they are 100% correct, there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

So if you believe you are not 100% correct, why don't you think we should be on the safe side and listen to the experts and act on their recommendations?

Because I don’t believe we should not act in haste until alternate technologies have proved themselves to be reliable affordable and practical, fossil fuels have had an enormous impact across the wealth of the industrialised societies. With the move to decarbonisation we are increasingly creating inequality in the industrialised nations because of the shift to renewable energy because we are currently using tax subsidies incentives while those that can least afford it at the same time driving up the cost of prices of fossil fuel energy, which in turn leads to an energy poverty crisis

Also why should we deny those same benefits to those developing nations that do not have access to cheap reliable basic energy service and help provide the means for more people to be released from generational poverty

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

there is a lot of empirical evidence to show that the scientific community is not infallible either

Nobody said that science is infallible, but you only know about this, because of the scientific process which in itself corrects itself. And given science isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that one can do a bit of 'research' in the evening, reading a few papers and think that one's layman opinion has the same value as the opinion of experts, that is ludicrous.

Yet you propagate myth by your inane belief to not hold the modelling to account and to continue blindly accept it without your own research, you don’t blindly accept a political POV without research acceptance in this area is no different

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies

Yes, I take at face value what experts in the field are telling us. I lack the knowledge to judge those research papers

Dutchy wrote:

And that is the main difference between you and me, you claim that you understand climate change a lot better than the IPCC researchers and I do not,

Dutchy wrote:

I listen to experts. By not listing to experts you are debating what facts are and what is not, so one cannot have a thought process if you donot have a paradigm.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Because I don’t believe we should not act in haste until alternate technologies have proved themselves to be reliable affordable and practical, fossil fuels have had an enormous impact across the wealth of the industrialised societies. With the move to decarbonisation we are increasingly creating inequality in the industrialised nations because of the shift to renewable energy because we are currently using tax subsidies incentives while those that can least afford it at the same time driving up the cost of prices of fossil fuel energy, which in turn leads to an energy poverty crisis

Also why should we deny those same benefits to those developing nations that do not have access to cheap reliable basic energy service and help provide the means for more people to be released from generational poverty

There you go, the selfish argument, nicely packed in consequences for others people. 2% of the world's GDP should be directed towards making the world carbon neutral. So if you think that is not doable, then why have you voted for b, that has cost one of your home countries 4% of its GDP and has a lot more consequences for the poorer part of the population over there than this can ever have. BTW fossil fuels have more subsidies than green energy, so what are you talking about?
And if your worries were truly with developing nations, yes they have a point there, and with energy poverty, then you would have thoughts about how to solve that. That is a political question and we can have a debate on that, but that is a totally different thing than what you are doing, and that is debating the scientific consensus.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yet you propagate myth by your inane belief to not hold the modelling to account and to continue blindly accept it without your own research, you don’t blindly accept a political POV without research acceptance in this area is no different

On the contrary, it makes all the difference. Political POV are personal and just are opinions, modeling climate change is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter for experts to decide. I do not propagate to not holding the modeling to account, I propagate to have the scrutiny of the modeling done by experts, not by laymen like you and me. See the difference?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

So you take everything at face value hey, just a continuation of being resistant of a thought process, but hey those same people within the community for which you speak are actually doing there own research and are calling the IPCC report out for its inaccuracies

Yes, I take at face value what experts in the field are telling us. I lack the knowledge to judge those research papers

It’s not about judgment on the paper, it’s about informing yourself on the different aspects of the problem

Dutchy wrote:

And you and I are no experts in the field, you can think you informed yourself in different aspects of the problem, but you are not an expert,

And that is the main difference between you and me, you claim that you understand climate change a lot better than the IPCC researchers and I do not,

Dutchy wrote:

so you cannot make the call on it and that is the main point. And because you cannot your opinion is just that, your opinion and your opinion is quite useless. As is mine. Or do you think your opinion has much more merit or even is equal to experts?

Dutchy wrote:

I had written a rebottle to everything you claim and say,

Dutchy wrote:

So, if you don't want to accept the scientific consensus in the IPCC as facts and go from there, fine, but then we live in a totally different reality and have nothing to talk about.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The recent problems with the French reactor and the continuing shut down of German reactors. Add in the chance of a Russian embargo if war starts in Ukraine. Europe will be in for a world of hurt if they don't keep coal plants ready to go. The US is more than willing to ship tons of low sulfur coal in case you need it. Wood chips and LNG too.

IMO - this points out that Green aspirations can get ahead of the energy needs of nations. At least for the next few years.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Resilience in the grid is critical.
Hacking the grid, sabotage, or system error along with brown outs and rolling blackouts will crush a modern economy. I would hope that "the smart grid" would be less vunerable but the more we electrify the more important resilience becomes.

A101 wrote:

You have been saying that also for quite some time and continue to engage with me and try and silence dissent.

Dutchy wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Resilience in the grid is critical.
Hacking the grid, sabotage, or system error along with brown outs and rolling blackouts will crush a modern economy. I would hope that "the smart grid" would be less vunerable but the more we electrify the more important resilience becomes.

Resilience is always important. Given that electricity can be generated anywhere with solar panels and with wind, it will be much more decentralized and thus more resilient. Smart grid is also important to spread out the peaks and low of the system as a whole. With systems as a powerwall or even with electricity from your electric car, one could power one's home. That would be the ultimate resilience on a personal level.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You have been saying that also for quite some time and continue to engage with me and try and silence dissent.

You are right on this point, I will leave you with your drool. If you want to believe in drool, that is up to you. The rest of the world will move away from its fossil fuel addiction, hopefully in time to avoid catastrophe.

Last week, Shell walked away from 170 million barrels of oil off the coast of Shetland, declaring the “economic case for investment” too weak. As might be expected with such a politically sensitive venture, there has been much speculation about what other factors might have been at play, whether pressure from Nicola Sturgeon or from Whitehall. But let’s try another question: how did Shell ever decide that there was an economic case? After all, the energy giant does not deny that its entire business will have to change. It advertises its “target to become a net zero emissions” company by 2050, publishes a “sustainability report” and partners with environmental organisations around the world. Yet little of this environmental awareness shows up in the hard numbers.