Renewable Energy Is Trouncing Fossil Fuels

[Dizzy1]

Dizz writes, contributing to the topic drift created by a denier;

Your assumption, like your thread title is very far off the mark.

[Smurf]

I just wish someone could tell us accurately if humans are creating 5%, 25%, 75% or a negligible portion of the problem. I do believe there is at least some global warming, but have no idea if we are really a negligible part of the problem.

I like the fact that we are working towards renewable energy but feel that we have to be careful that we can keep costs etc. at a level that we as people and countries can afford it. I have to wonder if it has not become the new goldmine for business on the back of a bunch of hype that might not mean anything. I am far from convinced that we are a major cause of the global warming if indeed there is any or if it is a cycle that happens every few thousand years, minutes in earth time. As far as the topic I feel we are a long way, probably at least decades for renewable energy to trounce fossil fuels.

[I Think]

This summary from Lazard, pretty much sums up the current situation re electrical energy sources and costs.
Lazard is recognized by utilities as the authority on electrical generating matters.

Despite a sharp drop in the price of natural gas since last year’s LCOE, the costs of all forms
of utility-scale solar photovoltaic and utility-scale wind technologies continue their dramatic
declines (by ~80% and 60% since 2009, respectively). They remain competitive with
conventional generation technologies in certain situations, as powerfully illustrated by the
proliferation of successful bids by renewable energy providers in open, generation-agnostic
power procurement processes

• Currently, rooftop solar PV is not cost competitive without significant subsidies, due, in part,
to the small-scale nature and added complexity of rooftop installation. However, the LCOE
of rooftop solar PV is expected to decline in coming years, partially as a result of more
efficient installation techniques, lower costs of capital and improved supply chains.
Importantly, we exclude from our analysis the value associated with certain uses of rooftop
solar PV by sophisticated commercial and industrial users (e.g., demand charge management,
etc.), which appears increasingly compelling to certain large energy customers

• Community solar, in which members of a single community (e.g., housing subdivisions,
rental buildings, industrial parks, etc.) own divided interests in small-scale ground-mounted
solar PV facilities, is becoming more widespread and compelling in certain geographies.
These projects, which allow participants to receive credits against their electric bills either by
state statute or negotiated agreements between the project sponsors and local utilities,
provide solar energy access to consumers without the economic means or property rights to
install rooftop solar PV. However, while community solar projects benefit from increased
scale and decreased installation complexity as compared to rooftop solar PV, such projects
are still expensive compared to utility-scale solar PV

• The pronounced cost decrease in certain intermittent Alternative Energy technologies,
combined with the needs of an aging and changing power grid in the U.S., has significantly
increased demand for energy storage technologies to fulfill a variety of electric system needs
(e.g., frequency regulation, transmission/substation investment deferral, demand charge
shaving, etc.). Industry participants expect this increased demand to drive significant cost
declines in energy storage technologies over the next five years. Increased availability of

lower-cost energy storage will likely facilitate greater deployment of certain Alternative
Energy technologies.

https://www.lazard.com/media/2392/lazar ... ndings.pdf

The material at this link should answer any and all questions you may have.

[JLives]

Church of Global Warming People are modern day flat earthers. The science is not settled and if you honestly cared what "scientists are saying" you would listen to all of them, and not just the ones that line up with your opinion. Anyone who ever has the audacity to claim that the "science is settled" on anything is either naïve, lying, or trying to sell you something.

Here's the difference. I formed my opinion based on the facts as determined by the experts. I don't look for people to back up a predetermined opinion. This is an international group of scientists, funded from both private and public sources, with some of them actually funded by the oil industry to discredit climate change and then being unable to do that. They come from multiple disciplines and are using peer reviewed studies. These are the people who have settled the science and they are worth listening to.

Are you claiming it is possible for this huge of a group of a people, from so many varied backgrounds and distributed around the entire planet, to come up with a conspiracy to somehow fleece the public to send carbon tax to the government? How do those scientists benefit from that? How would none of them speak out? Should this thread be moved to conspiracy theories?

The science that human activity is having an influence on the accelerated rate of climate change is settled. The discussion has moved on to what to what to do about it. So, yes, your opinion is equivalent to a flat earther. Catch up.

[Ka-El]

I just wish someone could tell us accurately if humans are creating 5%, 25%, 75% or a negligible portion of the problem. I do believe there is at least some global warming, but have no idea if we are really a negligible part of the problem.

Even more importantly, how effective are carbon taxes going to be in even slowing global warming, and why are we not instead investing major resources in building up protection (eg. levies, storm breaks) for storm vulnerable areas and coastal cities given what little impact humankind will really have in slowing climate change and/or severe weather events.

[I Think]

Interesting that the Lazard study does not include major hydro power.

[Donald G]

by I Think » 7 minutes ago

Interesting that the Lazard study does not include major hydro power.

I assume it is because at the moment hydro electricity is, by far, the cheapest electricity available in BC.

We also have access to terrain suited to producing hydro electricity that much of the world does not have.

Site C is a classic example.

[Donald G]

by Ka-El » 33 minutes ago

Even more importantly, how effective are carbon taxes going to be in even slowing global warming, and why are we not instead investing major resources in building up protection (eg. levies, storm breaks) for storm vulnerable areas and coastal cities

Probably because it is not in any way possible for Canada or most other countries to build dikes and levees high enough and strong enough to hold back the ocean from all of the land needed to protect all of our existing inhabited areas.

To move the areas we inhabit to higher ground would IMO be far more sensible and realistic but equally expensive, providing we can even figure out how much higher the ocean will rise and what effect that will have on the rivers now draining into the oceans and lakes that feed the rivers.

In the past the oceans have been as much as 300 feet higher than present. How much of Canada would that cover ??

[I Think]

Ka el writes;

Even more importantly, how effective are carbon taxes going to be in even slowing global warming, and why are we not instead investing major resources in building up protection (eg. levies, storm breaks) for storm vulnerable areas and coastal cities given what little impact humankind will really have in slowing climate change and/or severe weather events

So are you proposing that we should be using renewable energy to hold back the ocean?