Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters.
There is no switch marked “investment” which one can flip. It’s steam engine time when it’s steam engine time.
For example, the price of solar was falling at 20% a year in the 1970s, before all the investment. All the investment in the 00s and 10s has led to solar falling in price at – 20% a year.
Shrug.
A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.
It didn’t, but they just say it did because that’s what Science is now.
If they thought a company (like Exxon) was lying, they could have invested in the opposite and made a fortune.
If wind and solar are so cheap why are ‘Green Tarriff’ energy bills higher than fossil fuel only bills and why are those of us who use fossil fuels subsidising wind, solar and biomass (6Bn to Drax over the last 5-6 years, £250million to wind farms to not produce energy last year alone)?
It’s a fucking scam. We know it, they know it, they know we know it, but they don’t care so long as they look good and are making money from it.
‘reference to the various lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.’
This reference to the usual reparations scam does suggest why this is being trumpeted now.
investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters
Wasn’t the point that if the current climate disaster isn’t averted there will be no more climate disaasters? Asking on behalf of a king.
Did the Exxon scientists predict that there would be no warming since 2014?
The Germans have been investing heavily in wind and solar for over 30 years (30 000+ wind mills) but still depends heavily on gas and coal… increasing the number of power stations using the latter.
GW = unit of energy; GWh = unit of consumption and it is the latter that is important.
So it doesn’t matter how many windmills there are, what matters is when and for how long they can collectively maintain output to meet consumption. The answer from observation is never more than about 25% of total consumption annualised and intermittently. That cannot support a balanced, stable grid without near parallel capacity constantly available to provide the shortfall, and be on-call to take over near immediately if ‘renewables’ output fails.
That dominant – now coal is no more – contribution by gas to the mix means electricity prices will be determined by the price of gas even the ‘free’ wind and solar. Price levels are exacerbated by the fact that intermittency of all the modalities means there is insufficient sales revenue fir each to cover costs and yield profit, so prices are ratcheted up to compensate. As more and more wind and solar are put into the mix, prices will continue to go up.
This is why we are urged by propaganda and pricing to use less electricity because Govts are well aware so-called renewables cannot meet consumption.
So Governments and the activist filth have caught themselves in paradox: urging us to switch to electricity from motor fuels and gas and use more electricity, whilst simultaneously telling us to use less.
‘ For example, the price of solar was falling at 20% a year in the 1970s, before all the investment. All the investment in the 00s and 10s has led to solar falling in price at – 20% a year.’
You are speaking of the price of solar panels, not solar electricity the price of which has been going up and up along with wind power, as prices are determined by gas prices and other inefficiencies that intermittent wind and solar introduce.
It would make (initial) sense to spend money for research into more compact means of energy storage. Intermittent sources cannot work the way politicians want them to without it.
Of course, these are not exciting enough. I also don’t think it really matters how much money you put into them, they aren’t going to do the job – we’ve had them for centuries now and you just can’t compact them much more than they are already.
[pendant alert]
Power is measured in Watts; energy in Joules (or Wh if more convenient, but that’s not an SI unit).
[/pendant]
But otherwise JohnB is spot on.
If the price were falling by 20% per year, after 10 years it would be down 90%. After 20 years it would be down 99%. I don’t know where the 20% per year figure is coming from but something doesn’t compute.
No, that is about right. Which is why it’s so damn stupid that all that money was spent 10 and 20 years ago.