Climate Clown Planet

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Panels producing a combined 18859 watts just before noon today. All carbon emission and carbon tax free. Surplus going into the grid for someone else.

[ATTACH]11958[/ATTACH][ATTACH]11959[/ATTACH]

I keep asking you this, and doubt you will ever answer. But I'll try again.
Who is this someone else who is going to be willing to pay you for your electricity production at noon in June, or even at noon in December when the rest of us have all been forced to install enough solar panels to meet our annual consumption?
What will be the value of that electricity? And what will be the cost of extracting the " stored" electricity back out of the grid after dark?
Do you consider this model to be scalable and sustainable if you extrapolate it out to ever more users doing the same thing you are doing?

[chuckChuck]

Ask the AESO these questions and see what they say about the future in Alberta.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Ask the AESO these questions and see what they say about the future in Alberta.

AESO isn't going to be the one footing the bill for the disparity in production versus consumption. It will be the producers and consumers such as yourself.
You have invested upwards of six figures into dubious asset, with a business model relying on exactly what I just described, selling power to the grid when the sun shines, and buying it back when the Sun goes down. That model does not work with any significant market penetration of solar. Your production becomes worthless when the sun is shining. And the price to buy it back would literally approach Infinity, since there is no such thing as storage.
That is why you should be the one pondering this question, not sticking your head in the sand and pretending it isn't an issue, or that somehow the electrical system operator can wave their magic wand and just store your electrons until you need them later on.
If you are unable to sell any electricity to the grid, and the non Sunny hours cost skyrockets, what does that do for the payback period on your investment?

[chuckChuck]

Ask the companies that invested in wind and solar in Alberta. I doubt they invested just to lose money.

And solar and wind can be used for ammonia,hydrogen, and irrigation among all the other uses for electricity.

You seem to forget that when carbon free solar and wind are generating they are reducing carbon emissions from other sources.

[shtferbrains]

Word population is 8 billion+.

Norh America and Europe have approx 1.2 billion.
Less than China at 1.4 billion. Coal is their primary source of electricity and will be for the foreseeable future.

C02 emissions are a low priority for 5 to 7 billion people.
Most of their leadership look at it an opertunity to enrich themselves.

Including our own PM

[biglentil]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Ask the companies that invested in wind and solar in Alberta. I doubt they invested just to lose money.

By your logic you should also ask all of the investors in FTX and cryptocurrencies, Tesla, cannabis, the dotcom bubble, the housing bubble, tulip mania etc etc. Bandwagon investors have an almost perfect track record of being wrong, and losing a fortune in the process.

In this case, they think they have the bought and paid for government on their side. But even that only goes so far, I you follow my example above, of everyone trying to sell their excess production in the sunny or windy hours. Government mandates and subsidies and wishful thinking can't find somewhere to stuff the useless electricity at the wrong times, and give it back on a whim.

[fjlip]

Word population is 8 billion+.

North America and Europe have approx. 1.2 billion.
Less than China at 1.4 billion. Coal is their primary source of electricity and will be for the foreseeable future.

C02 emissions are a low priority for 5 to 7 billion people.
Most of their leadership look at it an opertunity to enrich themselves.

Including our own PM

They all say...



your GREEN sh it, climate lies, reset BS!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Coastal flooding from sea level rise is already a reality in some parts of the world.

But flat earthers will ignore the overwhelming evidence and in some cases die in a home made rocket trying to prove the earth is flat!

So I am not expecting the flat earthers on Agrisilly to change their mind on sea level rise or human caused climate change anytime soon.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/daredevil-mad-mike-hughes-dies-in-crash-of-his-homemade-rocket-in-california
Daredevil, flat-earther 'Mad Mike' Hughes dies in crash of homemade rocket in California

I saw an article today indicating that man has created an additional 2350 km square of new land by filling waterfronts areas for development since 2000. Not insignificant. So I wondered, how does this compare to the amount of land lost to sea level rise due to catastrophic man made global warming caused by the CO2 released by the fossil fuel powered machines which were used to create all that new land that used to be ocean.

https://phys.org/news/2023-02-creation-waterfronts.html

Since Chuck seems to think that Nat Geo is a reliable source as indicated in the quoted post, I checked their site.

According to the experts at National Geographic, who are fanatically attached to the global warming hysteria: Scientists who mapped where land and water have shifted were surprised to find that Earth has gained more land than it has lost since 1985.

Earth has gained almost 60,000 square km of land that used to be under water since 1985.
Much of that was inland, but even oceans gained 13,000 km2. Far more than just what man has accomplished.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/water-land-sea-levels-shift-map?loggedin=true&rnd=1676182830298

But that was way back in 2016, so perhaps their luck has changed, and the trend has completely reversed in the meantime.

Isn't it strange how in spite of the climate emergency, and the deadly rate of sea level rise, that the earth keeps gaining land from the oceans?

Good thing the science is settled.

I was going to suggest that we can harness fossil fuels to add land faster than the sea level rises, but apparently we don't even need to do that, since land is gaining naturally much faster than what we add.

[chuckChuck]

So instead of making plans for adaptation and reducing global warming risk and sea level rise we should spend taxpayers money on making more land? Thats your solution on a global scale? LOL

So how does this help in the poorer regions of the world that are most at risk that will struggle to fund adaptation and cant really fund any new land?

Who in the geo science engineering and scientific world thinks this is a credible idea? We are waiting!

This unworkable solution to a massive long term problem for many coastal cities and vulnerable regions of the world is almost as dumb as your idea that we need to keep burning fossil fuels because we are going to run low on carbon dixiode.