So any renewables there are also using that lignite to provide a backup - and thus the cost of renewables is actually higher than the backup (since the renewables are in addition to the backup).
So now we must require that countries reign in their population growth to stabilize the population? Take a look at where the population is growing - it's not the 1st world. We started with "CO2 is bad for the Earth" and now we've reached eugenics.
If CO2 is bad, it doesn't matter where it comes from, or who generates it - it should be limited. Calling out a country that is reducing its CO2 - and is half as much as the leader - seems petty and done from spite. If you want to solve the CO2 issue, focus on the big source of CO2 - China.
The AVERAGE age for getting a phone is 10 years; that means many younger than that get phones (and in your own article it talks about another study putting the average at 6 or 7). But if you want to bitch that 95% is actually 92% or 88% - well, it's still pretty much everyone, and there is VERY little room for growth left.
Don't you understand the amount of grief that will be felt by millions when they realize they are not a "minority" race, but just plain old Western European?
So you have zero non-renewable backup systems? That is the fallacy of the claim - if you rely upon existing non-renewable backup systems to make renewables viable, then you also have to accept their costs including all externalities. And that includes coal plants in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and other countries.
So the climate only worries about who emits the most per capita, not the most overall? Great to know! So why not rail against Luxembourg with higher emissions per capita than the US? Hey, it's even part of the EU! Luxembourg is much worse for the environment than the US - their CO2 emissions are higher per capita, after all...
And guess what - those same externalities apply to renewables! Pretty much all renewable systems require non-renewable backups to be viable, meaning they also have to share in that same externality cost. If the renewable requires an alternate supply to cover when it cannot supply, then it must include the costs of that backup. Which means the externalities as well as the up-front cost of the power generation and fuel.
And the UK Government subsidizes offshore wind to undercut the price of nuclear as well. Have to make it attractive for the French and Chinese companies to come and install those turbines after all...
If electric cars are not cost-competitive without large subsidies, then wouldn't it be prudent to not subsidize them and spend the money on better things, such as more nuclear? Why should we subsidize uncompetitive vehicles for the rich?
Perhaps the UK could join the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement? Who says they have to stand alone, they could join the biggest trading bloc out there - and we'd welcome them.
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...
It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive, and with increasing CO2 emissions for Germany (as opposed to falling CO2 for the US), it's not doing much to lower their impact.
To be fair, they are the biggest polluters and their crap affects the entire world.
You mean China? China was essentially exempted from the Paris Accord until 2030. They can continue to be the worst polluter for another 14 years, that was all A-OK. In fact, the US was supposed to pay China to continue polluting...
Did you include the mandatory backup energy source for solar? Or are you going with 100% solar only, and accepting the issues of no storage and no contingency. Most of those "solar/wind are cheaper!" studies assume the existing power infrastructure will always be available to "back up" the renewable source as needed - but do not include the costs of that backup source. The reality is that renewables are very expensive because it is a redundant system - the renewable sources, and a completely redundant secondary non-renewable power generation grid.
Accumulated cyclone energy has been trending down since 1992. So the "energy" of storms has been decreasing, even though costs from storm damage have been increasing. Construction costs have roughly doubled in the last 25 years, meaning you can do half the damage and end up with the same total cost.
The US spends about $700 billion a year on defense. Clearly not all of that is spent on oil and the Middle East, but let's say it is. The EU gets about 20% of its petroleum from the Middle East, and the US gets about 16% from the Middle East. Assuming that oil runs about 30% of the economy of a region (transport, pharma, power, manufacturing, plastics, etc) that means about $7 trillion in annual economic activity is dependent upon the US military in the Middle East. And assuming that all US military spending is in the Middle East, that would be about a 10X return.
Now, we could always slash all our involvement in the Middle East, and turn off the spigots. The US currently has a net import of oil around 30% of its consumption (we do produce a massive amount domestically), and most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico. The EU has a net import of oil around 85% of its consumption - meaning it would have essentially no way of replacing oil (at least for now). So, ultimately, we're spending those hundreds of billions of dollars to protect and ensure the delivery of power predominantly for our allies in the EU. And that's generating around 10-15X returns in terms of economic activity. Is that worth the cost?
So what data do you have that says otherwise? I know in my neighborhood, the kids on each side (all between the ages of 7 and 17) have cellphones. And the retired couple (in their 80s) two houses down have cellphones too - in fact, I helped them get their SONOS system configured for them and they use their phones exclusively for controlling it.
So - the EU will be petulant and force visas to punish the UK? Sounds about right for the EU, how dare people think for themselves rather than being good little subjects of their masters in Brussels...
Says about 327MM in the US so right around 95%. Sure, many people have two or even more cell phones, but there is still about one cellphone per person in the US, and it's been a LONG time since I've ever ran into a person who did not have a cellphone - even the elderly.
The old Crackberry (the 8100 series) was in heavy use in 2006 and 2007, it seemed that everyone with a corporate phone had either a Windows CE phone or a Crackberry. Probably 20+ million of those (and I'd say they classify as smartphones, even if the UI is different) in use before the iPhone release.
Slashdot Mirror
So any renewables there are also using that lignite to provide a backup - and thus the cost of renewables is actually higher than the backup (since the renewables are in addition to the backup).
So now we must require that countries reign in their population growth to stabilize the population? Take a look at where the population is growing - it's not the 1st world. We started with "CO2 is bad for the Earth" and now we've reached eugenics.
If CO2 is bad, it doesn't matter where it comes from, or who generates it - it should be limited. Calling out a country that is reducing its CO2 - and is half as much as the leader - seems petty and done from spite. If you want to solve the CO2 issue, focus on the big source of CO2 - China.
What country is that?
Oh, so it's not CO2 per country, nor CO2 per capita, it's now CO2 per unit GDP? Is the actual goal to always find a way to paint the US as "bad"?
The AVERAGE age for getting a phone is 10 years; that means many younger than that get phones (and in your own article it talks about another study putting the average at 6 or 7). But if you want to bitch that 95% is actually 92% or 88% - well, it's still pretty much everyone, and there is VERY little room for growth left.
Don't you understand the amount of grief that will be felt by millions when they realize they are not a "minority" race, but just plain old Western European?
So then - renewables are not cheaper than non-renewables?
So you have zero non-renewable backup systems? That is the fallacy of the claim - if you rely upon existing non-renewable backup systems to make renewables viable, then you also have to accept their costs including all externalities. And that includes coal plants in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and other countries.
And all those externalities apply to renewables as well. So here's a simple math example:
In general, the cost of generation can be defined as Cost = plants + fuel + externalities
Cost(nr) = plants(nr) + fuel(nr) + externalities(nr)
Cost(r) = plants(r) + externalities(r) + plants(nr) + fuel(nr) + externalities(nr)
Under what set of numbers does Costs(r) become lower than Costs(nr)?
Huh - an either/or question and you answer "no"?
So the climate only worries about who emits the most per capita, not the most overall? Great to know! So why not rail against Luxembourg with higher emissions per capita than the US? Hey, it's even part of the EU! Luxembourg is much worse for the environment than the US - their CO2 emissions are higher per capita, after all...
And guess what - those same externalities apply to renewables! Pretty much all renewable systems require non-renewable backups to be viable, meaning they also have to share in that same externality cost. If the renewable requires an alternate supply to cover when it cannot supply, then it must include the costs of that backup. Which means the externalities as well as the up-front cost of the power generation and fuel.
And the UK Government subsidizes offshore wind to undercut the price of nuclear as well. Have to make it attractive for the French and Chinese companies to come and install those turbines after all...
If electric cars are not cost-competitive without large subsidies, then wouldn't it be prudent to not subsidize them and spend the money on better things, such as more nuclear? Why should we subsidize uncompetitive vehicles for the rich?
Perhaps the UK could join the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement? Who says they have to stand alone, they could join the biggest trading bloc out there - and we'd welcome them.
So they can't be compared?
He needs to keep the UK in the EU totals to make the EU totals look better...
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...
It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive, and with increasing CO2 emissions for Germany (as opposed to falling CO2 for the US), it's not doing much to lower their impact.
To be fair, they are the biggest polluters and their crap affects the entire world.
You mean China? China was essentially exempted from the Paris Accord until 2030. They can continue to be the worst polluter for another 14 years, that was all A-OK. In fact, the US was supposed to pay China to continue polluting...
Did you include the mandatory backup energy source for solar? Or are you going with 100% solar only, and accepting the issues of no storage and no contingency. Most of those "solar/wind are cheaper!" studies assume the existing power infrastructure will always be available to "back up" the renewable source as needed - but do not include the costs of that backup source. The reality is that renewables are very expensive because it is a redundant system - the renewable sources, and a completely redundant secondary non-renewable power generation grid.
Accumulated cyclone energy has been trending down since 1992. So the "energy" of storms has been decreasing, even though costs from storm damage have been increasing. Construction costs have roughly doubled in the last 25 years, meaning you can do half the damage and end up with the same total cost.
The US spends about $700 billion a year on defense. Clearly not all of that is spent on oil and the Middle East, but let's say it is. The EU gets about 20% of its petroleum from the Middle East, and the US gets about 16% from the Middle East. Assuming that oil runs about 30% of the economy of a region (transport, pharma, power, manufacturing, plastics, etc) that means about $7 trillion in annual economic activity is dependent upon the US military in the Middle East. And assuming that all US military spending is in the Middle East, that would be about a 10X return.
Now, we could always slash all our involvement in the Middle East, and turn off the spigots. The US currently has a net import of oil around 30% of its consumption (we do produce a massive amount domestically), and most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico. The EU has a net import of oil around 85% of its consumption - meaning it would have essentially no way of replacing oil (at least for now). So, ultimately, we're spending those hundreds of billions of dollars to protect and ensure the delivery of power predominantly for our allies in the EU. And that's generating around 10-15X returns in terms of economic activity. Is that worth the cost?
So what data do you have that says otherwise? I know in my neighborhood, the kids on each side (all between the ages of 7 and 17) have cellphones. And the retired couple (in their 80s) two houses down have cellphones too - in fact, I helped them get their SONOS system configured for them and they use their phones exclusively for controlling it.
So - the EU will be petulant and force visas to punish the UK? Sounds about right for the EU, how dare people think for themselves rather than being good little subjects of their masters in Brussels...
Says about 327MM in the US so right around 95%. Sure, many people have two or even more cell phones, but there is still about one cellphone per person in the US, and it's been a LONG time since I've ever ran into a person who did not have a cellphone - even the elderly.
The old Crackberry (the 8100 series) was in heavy use in 2006 and 2007, it seemed that everyone with a corporate phone had either a Windows CE phone or a Crackberry. Probably 20+ million of those (and I'd say they classify as smartphones, even if the UI is different) in use before the iPhone release.