Has Greta studied this?

[Notanumber]

Common sense shines through.

All is not lost while we have young people like Naomi.

She even forgives Piers Morgan.

 

[Prim969]

Coal is dying out. Its economics are poor, compared to gas or even renewables. See for instance this recent article in Forbes: Is The US Coal Industry Completely Burned Out?

According to the article, the average coal power station in the US is >40 years old. It seems unlikely any new ones will be ever be built. A dozen US coal mining companies have filed for bankruptcy in the last five years.

Coal is not a good power source to use to fill in the gaps in renewable power generation, because it takes hours or days to fire up a furnace and raise steam. It works best for base load generation. The solution to the intermittent nature of renewables is to have firstly a mix of different renewables, e.g. solar, wind and hydro, then storage systems (pumped storage and increasingly batteries) and then use quick response fossil fuel capacity for peak shaving, e.g. gas turbines. (Hydro is also ideal for peak shaving.) It is also likely in future that demand management will play a bigger role, i.e. by providing incentives for industry to use power when it is plentiful.

Natural gas (CH4) produces only half as much CO2 per unit energy as coal does, so moving to gas is already a big step in the right direction, while we wait for the economics of renewables to improve further, which they are doing every year.

Coal has had it.

Then why are people abandoning coal power in favor of literally every other source of energy?

Then why are people abandoning coal power in favor of literally every other source of energy?

In countries such as America and my country Australia they are. But their economy’s are still fossil fuel based if not by coal then it is by gas plants. Australia is down to about 6 coal power plants some states and territories like South Australia and the ACT Canberra have none they are now reliant on other states power grids to make up the short fall of reliable power which come from either Victoria or NSW which alternative energy can’t provide. It’s also the reason for our spiralling electricity prices. America is some different being 30 percent coal based with some 400 coal power plants remaining. Around 20 percent of their economy is nuclear powered. Around 40 percent is gas driven along with some hydro power as well. Tambourine and Exchemist I note with interest with alternative power such as wind power that is around 7 percent for the USA which entails around 1050 wind plants what is the viability and expense of that if coal power is able to produce 30 percent of power with 400 plants when it takes 1050 wind farms to produce only 7 percent. You have solar power also but that is even a lower percentage. As to coal power being finished? In other countries it is quite the opposite. With South Korea 58 another 26 on the way. Japan 90 another 45 on the way. India 589 another 446 on the way. Turkey 56 another 93 on the way. I have not mentioned all but of course there is China as well 2363 coal plants another 1171 plants on the way. Take coal out of the equation and all you have left is really natural gas to fill the void and even though It’s some more climate friendly it’s not friendly enough for our climate change friends who demand a fossil free fuel world with their climate change demands. So what alternative would you replace that with? Wind farms certainly won’t do considering the blooms of power they produce and the vast amount of acreage they require. And solar power works under certain conditions but it is not a reliable source when it comes to supply and demand. coal power may be on the way out in America and Australia I guess time will tell if we have chosen wisely, more so in Australia if any more of the last six power plants should close.

 

[Tambourine]

If you are not, then welcome to the Naomi supporters club.

Do you ever actually answer questions?

 

[Tambourine]

All is not lost while we have young people like Naomi.

If those reports were convincing they would not need the support of a child.

 

[Notanumber]

Do you ever actually answer questions?

Naomi is a free thinker. No one is pulling her strings.

As she says, do your own research.

Don’t panic. Think.

 

[Valjean]

Naomi doesn't know what she's talking about. Cheap and reliable energy? better crop yeilds? Antifa?These are simplistic, corporate talking points. She's either a simpleton or a political pawn.
Her views are unsupported. She's denying basic science from a dozen different fields.

Almost all the world's scientists, in relevant fields, believe the planet's undergoing a dangerously fast warming; a transformation the biosphere can't keep up with. The evidence for this is overwhelming and consilient.

 

[Valjean]

I stopped listening to Greta when it became obvious that she was being manipulated.

You can stop listening to Naomi for any reason you like, but do not try to stop others from listening.

Confirmation bias, anyone?
Greta simply advocates looking at the evidence and listening to the scientists. She's not taking credit for any of the research, data or conclusions.
It amazes me how focused many people are on her rather than the facts she's telling them to examine.

Feel free to ignore her, but ignore the evidence at your peril.

 

[exchemist]

Confirmation bias, anyone?
Greta simply advocates looking at the evidence and listening to the scientists. She's not taking credit for any of the research, data or conclusions.
It amazes me how focused many people are on her rather than the facts she's telling them to examine.

Feel free to ignore her, but ignore the evidence at your peril.

Seems some people resent being lectured by a teenage girl who doesn't even have the decency to have an American accent. That she is not the usual corpulent, corporate, constipated guy in a suit, with a red tie, challenges their value system.

But then, to be fair, I suppose this Naomi person, whoever she may be, won't quite be that either. I don't know who she is but I imagine one of these shrieking blonde robotic harpies of the US Right that Fox and Trump's White House seem to specialise in.

 

[Valjean]

Reminds me of a younger Sarah Palin, somehow.

 

[exchemist]

In countries such as America and my country Australia they are. But their economy’s are still fossil fuel based if not by coal then it is by gas plants. Australia is down to about 6 coal power plants some states and territories like South Australia and the ACT Canberra have none they are now reliant on other states power grids to make up the short fall of reliable power which come from either Victoria or NSW which alternative energy can’t provide. It’s also the reason for our spiralling electricity prices. America is some different being 30 percent coal based with some 400 coal power plants remaining. Around 20 percent of their economy is nuclear powered. Around 40 percent is gas driven along with some hydro power as well. Tambourine and Exchemist I note with interest with alternative power such as wind power that is around 7 percent for the USA which entails around 1050 wind plants what is the viability and expense of that if coal power is able to produce 30 percent of power with 400 plants when it takes 1050 wind farms to produce only 7 percent. You have solar power also but that is even a lower percentage. As to coal power being finished? In other countries it is quite the opposite. With South Korea 58 another 26 on the way. Japan 90 another 45 on the way. India 589 another 446 on the way. Turkey 56 another 93 on the way. I have not mentioned all but of course there is China as well 2363 coal plants another 1171 plants on the way. Take coal out of the equation and all you have left is really natural gas to fill the void and even though It’s some more climate friendly it’s not friendly enough for our climate change friends who demand a fossil free fuel world with their climate change demands. So what alternative would you replace that with? Wind farms certainly won’t do considering the blooms of power they produce and the vast amount of acreage they require. And solar power works under certain conditions but it is not a reliable source when it comes to supply and demand. coal power may be on the way out in America and Australia I guess time will tell if we have chosen wisely, more so in Australia if any more of the last six power plants should close.

The UK has already become 25% powered by renewables, without any fanfare. It actually came as a surprise to me to discover this. We have only 2 coal plants left, one of which is converting to wood chips (closer to carbon-neutral) to avoid being shut down completely. We are nowhere near saturation point for renewables. We could easily get to 50% renewable, I think, by which time coal would have long since vanished and gas would be considerably reduced.

In the whole EU, an economy of half a billion people, renewables were already providing 18% of electricity in 2018, with a target of 20% by the end of this year.

Nobody sensible thinks we will be 100% renewables in the next few decades, largely because of the storage issue you highlight, but coal's share is going to decline steeply from here on. Gas generates only half the CO2 per kW, so it is far better. Nuclear probably has a future in the mix, in spite of the waste disposal issue, because that is a more manageable problem than climate change. Coal is bottom of everybody's list as an option. Its long term future will be where its chemistry is critical, e.g. in the reduction of iron ore in steelmaking.

China is interesting. They continue to build coal power plants because their electricity demand is rising rapidly. But they are also leaders in renewables, not least because of the pollution that coal causes. But the Chinese are not fools. They understand climate change and, in a command economy, they can implement energy policy unworried by consumer resistance. It looks as if for them coal is a stop-gap.

 

[Tambourine]

Naomi is a free thinker. No one is pulling her strings.

If those reports were convincing they would not need the support of a child.

 

[Tambourine]

Take coal out of the equation and all you have left is really natural gas to fill the void and even though It’s some more climate friendly it’s not friendly enough for our climate change friends who demand a fossil free fuel world with their climate change demands. So what alternative would you replace that with?

Austria's energy mix relies on coal for less than 3 percent of its total output, the overwhelming share made up of hydroelectric power (over two thirds) and gas (about 25%), with the rest taken up by alternate energy sources such as wind power.

The US has massive potential for renewable energy sources, it just refuses to utilize that potential, primarily out of political reasons. Coal power in particular was already seen on the out in the US (and still is, as the source I've linked concerning the developing demand for it shows) and is only kept on life support by backwards thinking nostalgia politics.

China is interesting. They continue to build coal power plants because their electricity demand is rising rapidly. But they are also leaders in renewables, not least because of the pollution that coal causes. But the Chinese are not fools. They understand climate change and, in a command economy, they can implement energy policy unworried by consumer resistance. It looks as if for them coal is a stop-gap.

It's worth noting that, due to China being among the very few developed countries that even bothers building new coal plants in the first place, theirs tend to be far more efficient and less pollutant than e.g. Australian or American ones, although they still are of course reliant of dangerous and extremely pollutant ancient technologies.

 

[Notanumber]

Confirmation bias, anyone?
Greta simply advocates looking at the evidence and listening to the scientists. She's not taking credit for any of the research, data or conclusions.
It amazes me how focused many people are on her rather than the facts she's telling them to examine.

Feel free to ignore her, but ignore the evidence at your peril.

If you can provide a link that shows Greta talking rational sense about science or a particular scientist that she refers to, I will watch it.

How many more “10 years” have we got left?

Greta keeps saying that no one is talking about it, but the Green Movement does not like it when people with differing opinions try to talk about it.

Do you believe that the planet is heating up at a dangerous rate?

Piers did not like the sensible answer that he was given.

 

[Tambourine]

If you can provide a link that shows Greta talking rational sense about science or a particular scientist that she refers to, I will watch it.

Are you actually capable of researching a topic in ways that don't involve watching videos of teenage girls?

 

[Notanumber]

Are you actually capable of researching a topic in ways that don't involve watching videos of teenage girls?

You have your methods and I have mine.

It is called diversity.

 

[Valjean]

You have your methods and I have mine.

It is called diversity.

Your method seems to be to criticize the messenger and ignore the message.
Greta is not making any original claims, She's pointing to the research and saying "look at this."

You're using her as a distraction to avoid confronting unsettling facts.

 

[Notanumber]

Your method seems to be to criticize the messenger and ignore the message.
Greta is not making any original claims, She's pointing to the research and saying "look at this."

You're using her as a distraction to avoid confronting unsettling facts.

The climate realists are not the ones using her.

 

[Tambourine]

You have your methods and I have mine.

It is called diversity.

As far as I can tell from casual observation, it appears to me that your method should rather be called "I have no clue but really need to have a strong opinion that differs from mainstream science, therefore I will latch on to the first person who has a contrary view on climate change, no matter their actual knowledge or credentials, even if they literally haven't even graduated from school yet."

Do I need to remind you that, the last time when you were talking about "climate scientists" in support of your position, your go to choice was a man who had never conducted scientific research in the field of climatology, or even any related field?

Have you bothered to look even once at the papers I linked to?

 

[Valjean]

The climate realists are not the ones using her.

So ignore her and take a close look at what the climate realists -- the scientists -- are saying.

 

[Notanumber]

So ignore her and take a close look at what the climate realists -- the scientists -- are saying.

I will ignore her when world leaders do the same.

Greta Thunberg depression: Activist’s devastating confession on health exposed

The comments make interesting reading.