Why not? Amazon helping the fossil fuel companies continues the cycle of the old way: using dirty energy to create products and then sell as many of those you can whilst the new version comes out next year and so forth. Amazon is the cookie jar of consumerism for adults and if they are not at least going to do the right thing by switching to renewables ASAP, then they are part of the problem just like the lobbyist trying to curtail the renewable movement. We dont have time for this *sugar* now, either get with it or get lumped in those hurting progress.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Merrill
Merrill
Unfortunately most corporations prostitute themselves for money, as far as our power companies in California they market themselves as being green and want you to save money on your electrical bill, go solar etc. The reality is that if you do this they find away to charge you more. It is all about selling more electricity so they make more money, I have been on solar since 2010 and I have seen an increase in their generation and distribution charges. Not sure what the answer is to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, have more green power and not be penalized for doing it.
Retail electricity rates don't accurately reflect the surplus of renewable energy we have right now during the day.Even worse, is when RE is curtailed.According to CAISO, 125,000 MWh was curtailed in the CAISO area just last month. If I did my math right, that’s 500,000,000 miles of electric driving at 4 mi/KWh.
Weekends are the worst right now - CAISO curtailed 10 GWH on Saturday and Sunday, though last Wednesday was pretty bad, too at 8 GWH. That's 32 million miles of EV driving, or enough for 1 million cars to drive 32 miles (about the average daily mileage for a car that's driven for 12,000 miles/year).
2 GW+ was curtailed on Sunday from 11AM - 3PM - so we need 8 GWH of batteries to shift the load to the evening hours.
Between Thermal (gas), Imports and Hydro, it seems that there is enough capacity to absorb all the renewables on the grid currently, but it's probably a lack of transmission capacity that's limiting flexibility.
It's pretty easy to see that stronger price signals for the retail market and incentives for battery storage would go a long ways towards helping.
SDG&E at least does make Super Off-Peak pricing in March/April include 10 AM - 2 PM on weekdays instead of the regular 12 AM - 6 AM. Weekends Super Off-Peak already run 12 AM - 2 PM, but how long before Super Off-Peak only includes 10-2 PM?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
That may be part of the story but the main problems are that 1, utilities choose the cheapest source first; and 2, utilities have fossil contracts they have money obligations to continue; and 3, coal plants in particular become more expensive per kWh when used intermittently and at low loads.
New coal plants will probably not be built in the US but the market inertia of those already built is no small problem.
As well as stuff like this:
Indiana GOP advances coal rescue bill that would pause utility plant builds
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Here's more unsurprising nonsense.
'Losing Earth' Explores How Oil Industry Played Politics With The Planet's Fate
'Losing Earth' Explores How Oil Industry Played Politics With The Planet's Fate
So much for the “freedom, free market, less govt” party.
Generally "less government" means less government that doesn't subscribe to your particular view.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Robert Reich has this take on socialism...
Wall Street loves socialism for bankers, but not for ordinary people | Robert Reich
To state it another way, Dimon and other Wall Street CEOs helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis when the dangerous and irresponsible loans their banks were peddling – on which they made big money – finally went bust. But instead of letting the market punish the banks (which is what capitalism is supposed to do) the government bailed them out and eventually levied paltry fines which the banks treated as the cost of doing business.
If this isn’t socialism, what is it?
Yet it’s a particular form of socialism. Millions of homeowners who owed more on their homes than the homes became worth didn’t get bailed out. Millions of workers who lost their jobs or their savings, or both, didn’t get bailed out. No major banker went to jail.
Call it socialism for rich bankers.
If Dimon were serious about the problem of widening inequality, he’d use his lobbying prowess to help raise the federal minimum wage. He’d also try to make it easier for workers to unionize, and to raise taxes on the super-wealthy like himself.
But, of course, Dimon isn’t really concerned about widening inequality. He’s not really concerned about socialism, either.
Dimon’s real concern is that America may end the kind of socialism he and other denizens of the Street depend on – bailouts, regulatory loopholes, and tax breaks.
These have made Dimon and his comrades a fortune, but they’ve brought the rest of America stagnation, corruption, and often worse.
Looking over at the Investors round table I see it get derailed a bit by discussion about Climate change.
Some interesting thoughts crossed my mind as I watched this.
1. How do people come to their belief .....or better stated their confidence in their stated position?
It seems to me that to really understand a subject one needs either a unusually adept mind or the willingness for a deep dive into the subject matter. Or a third option is to trust the experts on the subject.
2. Why won't people change their minds on a subject?
When faced with information that challenges ones belief is it possible to form a new opinion on said subject.
I admit for myself I use option three as it concerns climate change. I do not have the ability to measure ocean temperatures or salinity levels. I cant measure particle density in the upper levels or mean sea level temperature. Or any of the other variables that drive climate science. So I have to trust the people who do this for a living. In the same way I trust the Dr. who will operate on my knee next month.
Science and data HAVE to be what is trusted I believe. So it is with Deniers they must have sources that give them the information that is driving their beliefs.
So that leads to 2. How do people change their mind?
It is almost inevitable that before long any discussion devolves into nasty derisive dialog. There has to be a way of steering the folks who don't think the same way to change their minds. Of course some people are incapable of changing but from what I have seen at least on TMC they are not stupid ...just that they are in a different information silo.
It should be our job to make sure they at least have access to other news sources and maybe above all we should be nice.
Some interesting thoughts crossed my mind as I watched this.
1. How do people come to their belief .....or better stated their confidence in their stated position?
It seems to me that to really understand a subject one needs either a unusually adept mind or the willingness for a deep dive into the subject matter. Or a third option is to trust the experts on the subject.
2. Why won't people change their minds on a subject?
When faced with information that challenges ones belief is it possible to form a new opinion on said subject.
I admit for myself I use option three as it concerns climate change. I do not have the ability to measure ocean temperatures or salinity levels. I cant measure particle density in the upper levels or mean sea level temperature. Or any of the other variables that drive climate science. So I have to trust the people who do this for a living. In the same way I trust the Dr. who will operate on my knee next month.
Science and data HAVE to be what is trusted I believe. So it is with Deniers they must have sources that give them the information that is driving their beliefs.
So that leads to 2. How do people change their mind?
It is almost inevitable that before long any discussion devolves into nasty derisive dialog. There has to be a way of steering the folks who don't think the same way to change their minds. Of course some people are incapable of changing but from what I have seen at least on TMC they are not stupid ...just that they are in a different information silo.
It should be our job to make sure they at least have access to other news sources and maybe above all we should be nice.
I feel the same way, I do not have the ability either, so I put my trust in those that become experts in their field and make the observations and calculate the data. I'm not sure why people can't understand the material in front of them.....I grew up going to public school learning to trust the data if it has been thoroughly tested and verified.
I didn't just automatically believe what I was told about climate change, I read the articles AND the studies from those articles and began to put the whole picture together. People are blind because they've lost the curiosity to do their own research and instead are spoon fed information.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Even worse, they are afraid to confront information which might force them to make major changes in their lives, even if it would be better for them in the long run.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
That';s what I tell deniers. "How come you trust Doctors etc. etc. [all relevant points include here, including the fact that they work for a science-led company etc.] and yet you, with no technical knowledge on the subject at all, reckon you know better than all the climate change scientists"
Same thing with the child vaccination deniers ...
Smokers is easier ... "Killed my Father and many of his contemporaries in their 70's, seems to be killing my smoking-contemporaries in their 50's ..."
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Climate crisis: today’s children face lives with tiny carbon footprints
Climate crisis: today’s children face lives with tiny carbon footprints
Interesting analysis shows that future generations will have a much lower carbon budget than we have enjoyed with our profligate ways.
Climate crisis: today’s children face lives with tiny carbon footprints
Interesting analysis shows that future generations will have a much lower carbon budget than we have enjoyed with our profligate ways.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Glaciers and arctic ice are vanishing. Time to get radical before it's too late
Glaciers and arctic ice are vanishing. Time to get radical before its too late | Bill McKibben
Bill McKibben latest call to action. We should support the children striking.
Forget “early warning signs” and “canaries in coal mines” – we’re now well into the middle of the climate change era, with its epic reshaping of our home planet. Monday’s news, from two separate studies, made it clear that the frozen portions of the earth are now in violent and dramatic flux.
The respectable have punted; so now it’s up to the scruffy, the young, the marginal, the angry to do the necessary work. Their discipline and good humor and profound nonviolence are remarkable, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Greta Thunberg. They are what’s left of our fighting chance.
Glaciers and arctic ice are vanishing. Time to get radical before its too late | Bill McKibben
Bill McKibben latest call to action. We should support the children striking.
Forget “early warning signs” and “canaries in coal mines” – we’re now well into the middle of the climate change era, with its epic reshaping of our home planet. Monday’s news, from two separate studies, made it clear that the frozen portions of the earth are now in violent and dramatic flux.
The respectable have punted; so now it’s up to the scruffy, the young, the marginal, the angry to do the necessary work. Their discipline and good humor and profound nonviolence are remarkable, from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Greta Thunberg. They are what’s left of our fighting chance.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Is that relevant I wonder? Carbon Footprint Budget not the same as Total Energy Budget ... with technical progress over next 10 years, and replacement of Fossil Fuels with Renewables, I don't see why future generations shouldn't enjoy lifestyle the same as our generations have, and quite possibly better.
However, it does give me a new angle to be a crushing bore at dinner parties - "Your children will have 1/8th the Carbon Budget that you have had, so time to make yours negative, rather than zero, so you leave the planet with the same footprint you are restricting your children to"
This is why it's easier to be a denier. It plays perfectly into behavioral and cognitive laziness. You don't have to make a change, you don't have to worry, and you don't have to take any personal responsibility. Also, you're able to trick yourself into thinking you're too smart to be "fooled" by those silly PhDs.
roblab
Active Member
Don't know who you use for power. I have over 11 kW of solar, just put in some Power Walls. I am at the point that I could go off grid, but prefer to pay the $10 per month for grid connection. Since I have enough solar, I am able to sell power to PG&E during peak, also, so I usually get enough back to cover the monthly charge at the yearly true-up. Essentially, I pay less than zero for power.
My solar has been operational for a dozen years. I figure the panels paid for themselves (ie. saved enough on electric bills) in the first six years. I have not paid an electric bill for the last ten years.
Similar threads
