Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Boo!

 

"By the way, CO2 is a harmless, even positively beneficial gas, regardless what the EPA, IPCC or the Supreme Court say. It is not pollution just because some hoaxers say it is."

Perhaps you would like to breath a 100% concentration of this harmless, positively beneficial gas. Then you don't have to the the EPA, IPCC or any other hoaxers word about it's safety. Let me know how well that works for you.

 

You're invited to do the same thing with Nitrogen, a gas that makes up nearly 80% of our atmosphere.

That's a really inane comment icarus. Even breathing a 100% concentration of Oxygen...a gas necessary for life, is not a good thing to do. The CO2 content of the atmosphere is about 0.038% by volume [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth"]Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.[/ame]

 

Don't like taking your own medicine do you? You are the one who jumps on me for every real or perceived misspeak,,,.

It is certainly no more useless than your statement

"By the way, CO2 is a harmless,"!

 

I'm not the one suggesting that CO2 is harmless!

 

Man, I feel sorry for someone here. I cannot, in good conscience, pile on a defenseless, rationally challenged commenter whose wings melted long ago. It's a long fall back to earth. (mythological reference to one aptly named)

 

I'm not entirely sure what your point is with this link. The chart at the bottom shows that subsidies given to fossil fuel industries are about four times higher than those given to renewable energy industries. And this is only federal government subsidies in one country for one year. I'm talking about the big picture over a much longer time frame.

Yes and no. I was not defining the word 'subsidy' so narrowly. There's no real difference, in concept or effect, between granting tax exemptions and issuing outright grants. The end result is to reward certain behaviours and shift the tax burden.

And subsidies aren't just cash. Pollution, for instance, affects the quality of everyone's life. Nobody pays for it, yet in a very real sense, we all pay for it. Such environmental and social costs should be included in any analysis of the relative merits and demerits of different forms of energy. The costs may be difficult to quantify, but they are not zero.

 

Your exact quote was:
'renewable energy already IS cheaper in the long run'

Apart from being a non-sensical statement (that is, 'already IS', and 'in the long run' cannot logically describe the same thing - It either is now or will be in the long run, or possibly both. If it is not now, then it cannot be both.) if you mean to indicate that solar and wind are cheaper than other sources of energy, you are incorrect - in other words, entirely wrong.

MY POINT IS THAT THEY ARE NOT NOW CHEAPER. The link includes in the column next to the one you chose to cite a listing of how much energy in subsidy dollars it takes to produce a megawatthour of energy.

THIS IS WHY I POSTED THE LINK - To support MY original assertion that subsidizing inefficient sources of energy is a waste of resources. In this case, the main resource of government is taxpayer dollars.

You will, if you bother to look at ALL of the chart, see that it takes about 100 times as much subsidy money to produce the same amount of energy as natural gas or petroleum. Solar and wind are among the three most inefficient from this standpoint.

THAT IS THE POINT. Excuse me for shouting, but I just felt like it.

 

Please define cheaper.

Cheaper first cost?
Cheaper last cost?
Cheaper life cycle cost?
Cheaper without "transparent" subsidy?
Cheaper without "hidden" sugsidy?
Cheaper in it's total environmental cost?
Cheaper net/net in public health?
Cheaper for the end user?
Cheaper for the producer?
Cheaper taking in all ancillary costs?

Please define.

 

Ask the Lone Ranger. He used it first.

 

I'll ask you both.

If you feel you (ufourya) your statement "MY POINT IS THAT THEY ARE NOT NOW CHEAPER." is true, then please define cheaper.

I'll ask Hyo the same question.

 

Please define 'first cost'
Please define 'last cost'
Please define '"transparent" subsidy
Please define 'hidden sugsidy (sic)'
Please define 'total environmental cost'
Please define 'net/net in public health'
Please define 'all ancillary costs'
Please define all these in the context of how you understand them.

If you do this, I will answer your questions. If you do not, I will refrain from answering any more frivolous queries.

Thank you.

 

None are frivolous questions. My definitions:

First cost= What is the price of something just taking account only it's purchase cost.

Last cost= Considers the cost to purchase along with the cost to dispose of any given hardware.

Transparent subsidy=Subsidies that are generally obvious such as direct tax credits, cash grants etc.

Hidden subsidies=Are one that may have some element of transparency (see above) but have substantial subsidies that are not EASILY seen. For example, how much of the air traffic control system is paid by users? What is not paid by users by is paid by tax revenue would be considered a hidden subsidy by me in this conversation. (Understanding I have to be very careful as to what/how/when I say something because of certain peoples propensity to twist!)

(Hidden "cost" should have probably been written "hidden subsidy")

Total environmental cost= the cost of environmental damage/clean up associated with the product in question. For example, a toxic waste clean up (tax payer, super fund funded, to clean up a oil spill/toxic waste spill for just one example.

Another environmental cost would include the economic cost of habit damage due to acid rain from power plants for example, Or it would include the loss of habitat from a hydro dam.

Net/Net Public health costs= Include in any calculation all known health costs from a give action/purchase. For example what is the quantifiable or estimated costs illness/premature death due to air pollution due to coal burning or gasoline burning. Just because a cost isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't exist by the way!
What might the public health costs associated with Nuclear power from Uranium mining through to waste disposal/decommissioning etc.
What are the environmental cost(s) of mining nickel and making/using recycling batteries for a Prius?

Ancillary cost= All the other costs that are not otherwise accounted. Like capital cost, interest, management etc

Total cost includes all of the above and more. So comparing Pv solar to coal fired grid power is really and truly an apples and oranges comparison. If you don't include ALL the real and true costs into the equation then you can't get a real idea of what things reallycost.

No folks on both sides can discount any of these as not being relevant or important, but I contend that to a great extent, we are not currently coming close to paying the real, total and true cost of our energy choices.

 

Okay. My definition of cheaper is less costly.

In terms of fossil fuels as less costly in comparison to 'renewable energy':

first cost - yes
All the rest, probably yes, but there are so many unknown variables and unknown consequences that a definitive answer is not readily demonstrable.