Sarah Sanders of her rocker

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i can’t read it. the insurers have noticed change for awhile. frequency and severity of storms is increasing. but the insurers have no idea how to change forecasts if, say, we all drive electric cars. no one knows.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, because you can't quantify it, you can't justify it.

Sounds like a similar reason given by the people who don't want to build a wall, though those people want to do something about illegal immigration, not just stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So, because you can't quantify it, you can't justify it.

Sounds like a similar reason given by the people who don't want to build a wall, though those people want to do something about illegal immigration, not just stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

"So, because you can't quantify it, you can't justify it."

gain, I'd take you more seriously if you could respond to what I actually say, rather than responding to nonsense that I never said.

For the tenth time, I feel it's justified to study this some more. I don't think it's justified to ask people to make massive sacrifices, nor to transfer wealth and power to the self-described leaders of this movement. Especially when those leaders sure act like they don't think this is an issue, with their mansions and private jets.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So, because you can't quantify it, you can't justify it."

gain, I'd take you more seriously if you could respond to what I actually say, rather than responding to nonsense that I never said.

For the tenth time, I feel it's justified to study this some more. I don't think it's justified to ask people to make massive sacrifices, nor to transfer wealth and power to the self-described leaders of this movement. Especially when those leaders sure act like they don't think this is an issue, with their mansions and private jets.

the questions I asked and you didn't answer
1. Who said you would
Have to live in a yurt
Give up every comfort you know
2.What glaciers did you visit in Alaska, how much have they changed?
How much "old" ice is left in the Arctic?
What happened to the Long Island lobster fishery?
Why do Hurricanes and cyclones do more damage?
Does the insurance company you work for see climatic threats or are they waiting for “real” proof before they reassess their exposure?
3.So insurance firms are waiting for?

But perhaps you could tell me
1. What the Massive sacrifices people are being asked to make are?
2. Who the self-described leaders are that all have Mansions and Private Jets (I thought that you would think those are good things, perhaps they should burn them)?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the questions I asked and you didn't answer
1. Who said you would
Have to live in a yurt
Give up every comfort you know
2.What glaciers did you visit in Alaska, how much have they changed?
How much "old" ice is left in the Arctic?
What happened to the Long Island lobster fishery?
Why do Hurricanes and cyclones do more damage?
Does the insurance company you work for see climatic threats or are they waiting for “real” proof before they reassess their exposure?
3.So insurance firms are waiting for?

But perhaps you could tell me
1. What the Massive sacrifices people are being asked to make are?
2. Who the self-described leaders are that all have Mansions and Private Jets (I thought that you would think those are good things, perhaps they should burn them)?

no one said i’d live in a yurt. it’s called humor. not something liberals are known for.

i visited a few glaciers in glacier bay, they are shrinking. i conceded that.

i don’t know how much oldmuce is left.

don’t know what happened to long island and ct lobster fishing. but lobsters are doing ok in RI and cape cod bay. so is weather different in LI and CT?

i don’t know why hurricanes and cyclones do
more damage. i’m not sure anyone else knows either . i can build a model that says it’s because of climate change.

my insurance company is pricing for recent changes in hurricanes. they don’t know what’s causing the recent trends, or if they can be reversed. neither does anyone else.

carbon taxes are sacrifices we’d be asked to make. potentially big sacrifices. are you saying we don’t have to do anything different, in order to undo the damage?

the hypocritical, self described leaders are al gore, everyinenin Hillywood, and democrats in congress.

i do say mansions and jets are good if people want to buy them. but those who buy them, shouldn’t tell everyone else
not to buy them.

that’s liberalism. never about what “they” should
do, always about what “we” should
do.

lead by example, or shut up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Yes Jim things would change, they always do.
Change is great, just look at your phone.

Question: Won’t a carbon fee be bad for the economy?
Answer: A properly designed carbon policy will be good for the economy. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will have a positive impact on our well-being, especially if we consider the avoided costs of climate change and the health benefits from reduced air pollution.

An impressive 98 percent of economists agree that a price on carbon will promote efficiency and innovation. [1] A 2013 review by Resources for The Future [2] held that the impact of various carbon tax plans on GDP would be ‘trivially small,’ and a 2014 analysis of the carbon fee and dividend by REMI [3] predicted that over 20 years, it would actually increase U.S. GDP by $1.4 trillion.

Neither of those studies accounted for how much money we will save by avoiding fossil fuel damages. [4] According to a 2016 government report, every metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted now will cost tomorrow’s economy from $12 to $120, and that cost could double by 2050. [5] We currently emit over 160 metric tons of CO2 per second. [6] In 2017, a string of climate-related disasters cost our economy over $300 billion,

Include the health costs of fossil fuel air pollution, which have been estimated at $188 billion annually, [7] and it’s clear that burning fossil fuels is already costing our economy upwards of $250 billion a year. This was confirmed by the Fourth National Climate Assessment [8] issued by our government in November 2018.

When someone claims a carbon tax will depress the economy, they fail to consider how returning the money back to U.S. households changes the results, and also fail to account for the huge costs of doing nothing.

Why do you think change is bad for you or the economy
https://www.climaterealityproject.or...newable-energy

I'm sorry that you feel victimized by all of the moviestars, all dem Democrats and Al Gore but many more people than that have concerns about the environment. Look at polling and tell me that the environment is not viewed as important by a majority of voters. Lead or get left behind. Currently the US is getting left behind and the administration is bragging about it.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-environment/

Leading by example on Immigration would be a good start for the current President
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...d-workers.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yes Jim things would change, they always do.
Change is great, just look at your phone.

Question: Won’t a carbon fee be bad for the economy?
Answer: A properly designed carbon policy will be good for the economy. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will have a positive impact on our well-being, especially if we consider the avoided costs of climate change and the health benefits from reduced air pollution.

An impressive 98 percent of economists agree that a price on carbon will promote efficiency and innovation. [1] A 2013 review by Resources for The Future [2] held that the impact of various carbon tax plans on GDP would be ‘trivially small,’ and a 2014 analysis of the carbon fee and dividend by REMI [3] predicted that over 20 years, it would actually increase U.S. GDP by $1.4 trillion.

Neither of those studies accounted for how much money we will save by avoiding fossil fuel damages. [4] According to a 2016 government report, every metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted now will cost tomorrow’s economy from $12 to $120, and that cost could double by 2050. [5] We currently emit over 160 metric tons of CO2 per second. [6] In 2017, a string of climate-related disasters cost our economy over $300 billion,

Include the health costs of fossil fuel air pollution, which have been estimated at $188 billion annually, [7] and it’s clear that burning fossil fuels is already costing our economy upwards of $250 billion a year. This was confirmed by the Fourth National Climate Assessment [8] issued by our government in November 2018.

When someone claims a carbon tax will depress the economy, they fail to consider how returning the money back to U.S. households changes the results, and also fail to account for the huge costs of doing nothing.

Why do you think change is bad for you or the economy
https://www.climaterealityproject.or...newable-energy

I'm sorry that you feel victimized by all of the moviestars, all dem Democrats and Al Gore but many more people than that have concerns about the environment. Look at polling and tell me that the environment is not viewed as important by a majority of voters. Lead or get left behind. Currently the US is getting left behind and the administration is bragging about it.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-environment/

Leading by example on Immigration would be a good start for the current President
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...d-workers.html

"Change is great, just look at your phone"

That change, maybe, is good. Some change, like announcing that I can follow a 9 year-old girl into a public restroom if I feel like it, not so much. "Change" isn't always an improvement.

"A properly designed carbon policy will be good for the economy."

well, by jiminy, that's good enough for me!

Green energy, at this time, is stupidly inefficient and expensive. Oil is cheaper than green. Far, far cheaper. Not even close., When green is cheaper, companies will have no reason to use oil.

"An impressive 98 percent of economists agree that a price on carbon will promote efficiency and innovation"

Obviously a carbon tax will incentivize businesses to use less carbon. It will also result in price increases, layoffs, and cuts to employee compensation.

"When someone claims a carbon tax will depress the economy, they fail to consider how returning the money back to U.S. households "

Oh, geez, how could I be so stupid! Because every time the feds impose massive regulations, I always get huge checks in the mail from Uncle Sam! How could I forget?

"In 2017, a string of climate-related disasters cost our economy over $300 billion"

And no way of knowing what the cost would have been, if we all used zero carbon. Impossible to tell, too many variables.

"I'm sorry that you feel victimized by all of the moviestars, all dem Democrats and Al Gore "

I don't feel victimized by them, they aren't taking anything from me - yet. Once again, you ignore what I actually said, and pretend I said something I never said. I am not victimized by them, and I prefer to continue to avoid being victimized by them. If you want to buy Al Gores book, so he can put an addition on his house which requires another central A/C compressor, knock yourself out. I think it's funny. If the leaders of the movement don't believe in it, why should I?

"Look at polling and tell me that the environment is not viewed as important by a majority of voters"

Count me among them. But I'm not ready to demand massive, burdensome changes, based on assumptions made by people, some of whom will (or already have) profit form the shift.

"Lead or get left behind"

What does that mean? Don't we all live on the same planet? So if we outlaw gas-powered cars, but India and China produce more gas-powered cars, is the planet better off? I don't see how...it's all too connected.

[Pete F.]

We can’t do anything till we study it
Would you say that about Trump’s Wall, I can find plenty of conflicting evidence on that, but for that anecdotal evidence that it would have some result suffices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We can’t do anything till we study it
Would you say that about Trump’s Wall, I can find plenty of conflicting evidence on that, but for that anecdotal evidence that it would have some result suffices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"We can’t do anything till we study it
Would you say that about Trump’s Wall"

Yes, I would say that. So let's see what happened in San Diego and Yuma, when they expanded barriers. Or on Israel's southern border, where a wall was build not to keep out terrorists, but to keep out illegal immigrants. And let's see how many people build houses without doors. Barriers work. Anyone who says otherwise, is an idiot. Your "conflicting" evidence might show that walls aren't perfect. But no one is saying they are.

By what logic do walls not help keep people out of places where we don't want them to be?

You're talking nonsense. Sheer nonsense. You have a door on your house? How come? A master thief could still get in, right?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're talking nonsense. Sheer nonsense. You have a door on your house? How come? A master thief could still get in, right?

It's 30 degrees outside.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"We can’t do anything till we study it
Would you say that about Trump’s Wall"

Yes, I would say that. So let's see what happened in San Diego and Yuma, when they expanded barriers. Or on Israel's southern border, where a wall was build not to keep out terrorists, but to keep out illegal immigrants. And let's see how many people build houses without doors. Barriers work. Anyone who says otherwise, is an idiot. Your "conflicting" evidence might show that walls aren't perfect. But no one is saying they are.

By what logic do walls not help keep people out of places where we don't want them to be?

You're talking nonsense. Sheer nonsense. You have a door on your house? How come? A master thief could still get in, right?

So if you want a impenetrable house will doors do it?
And do you need an alarm system?
Which is the greater deterrent to a master thief, the door or the electronic device?
I guarantee you a standard door is one kick

What will the wall do here?


Why did Trump's budget for border wall go from 1.6 billion to a ransom demand of 5.7 billion?
Here is what his FY 2019 budget issued in February of 2018 called for
"Critical investments include $1.6 billion for construction of the border wall and $782 million to hire and
support 2,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents at U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's 30 degrees outside.

so in the early summer, you take your door off the hinges? houses don’t have doors in San Diego?

you sure showed me there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

So just what source would be believable?

The climate of the United States is strongly connected to the changing global climate. The statements below highlight past, current, and projected climate changes for the United States and the globe.

Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization. The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, and the last three years have been the warmest years on record for the globe. These trends are expected to continue over climate timescales.

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

For example, global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years. Global sea level rise has already affected the United States; the incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities.

Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise—by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1–4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out. Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States.

Changes in the characteristics of extreme events are particularly important for human safety, infrastructure, agriculture, water quality and quantity, and natural ecosystems. Heavy rainfall is increasing in intensity and frequency across the United States and globally and is expected to continue to increase. The largest observed changes in the United States have occurred in the Northeast.

Heatwaves have become more frequent in the United States since the 1960s, while extreme cold temperatures and cold waves are less frequent. Recent record-setting hot years are projected to become common in the near future for the United States, as annual average temperatures continue to rise. Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016; over the next few decades (2021–2050), annual average temperatures are expected to rise by about 2.5°F for the United States, relative to the recent past (average from 1976–2005), under all plausible future climate scenarios.

The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate changes, with profound changes to regional ecosystems.

Annual trends toward earlier spring melt and reduced snowpack are already affecting water resources in the western United States and these trends are expected to continue. Under higher scenarios, and assuming no change to current water resources management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible before the end of this century.

The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally. Without major reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial times could reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century. With significant reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less.

The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has now passed 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today. Continued growth in CO2 emissions over this century and beyond would lead to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds of millions of years. There is broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth system is pushed towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of which are potentially large and irreversible.

The observed increase in carbon emissions over the past 15–20 years has been consistent with higher emissions pathways. In 2014 and 2015, emission growth rates slowed as economic growth became less carbon-intensive. Even if this slowing trend continues, however, it is not yet at a rate that would limit global average temperature change to well below 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov...utive-summary/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

late Senator McCain Put climate action in simple terms (i am paraphrasing) his basic premise was

if we build renewables we reduce emissions increase gas mileage increase energy efficiency in all areas home business clean our air

and Climate change doesn't happen as expected what harm have we done? compared to doing nothing .....

its a much different stance than todays GOP denial its man made or that some how it will destroy the economy..

I dont hear Jim talking about those predictions which haven't happened at all

oil and gas extraction employment has increased 16 percent since 2009, correlating directly with the shale revolution that has taken place during that time. By comparison, DOE estimated that 2,989,844 Americans were directly employed by the fossil fuel industry


According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), renewable energy employment alone (excluding efficiency) grew by nearly 18 percent between Q2 2015 and Q1 2016. The agency reports that 3,384,834 Americans were directly employed by the clean energy industry


Coal employment averaged 6,550 in Kentucky in the first quarter of 2017 when Trump was sworn in, according to the state Energy and Environment Cabinet.

The estimated average in the July-through-September quarter this year was 6,381,

Trump's U.S. Coal Consumption Is Less Than Obama's

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

late Senator McCain Put climate action in simple terms (i am paraphrasing) his basic premise was

if we build renewables we reduce emissions increase gas mileage increase energy efficiency in all areas home business clean our air

and Climate change doesn't happen as expected what harm have we done? compared to doing nothing .....

its a much different stance than todays GOP denial its man made or that some how it will destroy the economy..

I dont hear Jim talking about those predictions which haven't happened at all

oil and gas extraction employment has increased 16 percent since 2009, correlating directly with the shale revolution that has taken place during that time. By comparison, DOE estimated that 2,989,844 Americans were directly employed by the fossil fuel industry


According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), renewable energy employment alone (excluding efficiency) grew by nearly 18 percent between Q2 2015 and Q1 2016. The agency reports that 3,384,834 Americans were directly employed by the clean energy industry


Coal employment averaged 6,550 in Kentucky in the first quarter of 2017 when Trump was sworn in, according to the state Energy and Environment Cabinet.

The estimated average in the July-through-September quarter this year was 6,381,

Trump's U.S. Coal Consumption Is Less Than Obama's

"if we build renewables we reduce emissions increase gas mileage increase energy efficiency in all areas home business clean our air"

I agree 100% with that sentence.

"and Climate change doesn't happen as expected"

That is a "maybe".

"harm have we done?"

well, for one, where did we talk about the cost of switching to renewable energy? Hybrid cars are insanely expensive. Geothermal systems in homes are insanely expensive. If we mandate those things, you think that has no impact on the middle class, or on business?

And then, where do we get all the electricity needed? because liberals are opposed to nuclear plants which produce massive amounts of dirt cheap electricity. Do we all spend all day, rubbing balloons on our heads to power all these batteries?

"I dont hear Jim talking about those predictions which haven't happened at all "

I have no idea what that sentence means, no idea.

"DOE estimated that 2,989,844 Americans were directly employed by the fossil fuel industry

Many of whom will be disrupted by switching to green energy.

The switch is coming, it will be a good change, and we should be investing in it. And we are.

I believe in climate change. I'm not a zealot or a disciple.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"if we build renewables we reduce emissions increase gas mileage increase energy efficiency in all areas home business clean our air"

I agree 100% with that sentence.

It's great when you state the obvious and people agree with you


"I dont hear Jim talking about those predictions which haven't happened at all "

I have no idea what that sentence means, no idea.

frequent occurrence probably your fault and inability to understand gibberish

"DOE estimated that 2,989,844 Americans were directly employed by the fossil fuel industry

Many of whom will be disrupted by switching to green energy.

The switch is coming, it will be a good change, and we should be investing in it. And we are.

shhhhh....don't disrupt the narrative

I believe in climate change. I'm not a zealot or a disciple.

I heard on the news this morning it's so cold in the midwest that people's eyeballs are freezing and forecasters are warning people not to breathe or talk....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I heard on the news this morning it's so cold in the midwest that people's eyeballs are freezing and forecasters are warning people not to breathe or talk....

That's why they switched it from global warming, to climate change. That way, unless nothing ever changes, they are correct and you're a science denier if you disagree.

But in NY, they are lighting up buildings to celebrate the fact that babies can be aborted for any reason, up until the moment of labor, because even at that moment, it's not a human being. And I am the science denier.

[Pete F.]

Now denying climate change while professing to believe it’s occurring, Jim somehow conflates it with abortion as a reason why you cannot believe science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But in NY, they are lighting up buildings to celebrate the fact that babies can be aborted for any reason, up until the moment of labor, because even at that moment, it's not a human being. And I am the science denier.

You continually complain that I am not responding correctly
Explain how this fits in to the discussion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Now denying climate change while professing to believe it’s occurring, Jim somehow conflates it with abortion as a reason why you cannot believe science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Now denying climate change "

Please point to where I denied it's changing. I said multiple times that it's changing.

"Jim somehow conflates it with abortion as a reason why you cannot believe science"

Nope. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. What I said was, it's funny that the side which claims that an about-to-be delivered, full-term baby isn't human, accuses me of denying science. The side that claims that walls don't keep people out, has little to teach me about science.

The left will say or do anything to advance The Narrative. The Narrative checked itself into rehab on the eve of the 2016 election, and now it's back, and it's angry.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"DOE estimated that 2,989,844 Americans were directly employed by the fossil fuel industry

Many of whom will be disrupted by switching to green energy.

.

This is the false claims I was referring to ^^^^^

Fossil fuel jobs grew along side green jobs

There is No massive disruption and the elevated claims of cost are also a red herring.. solar cost have come down
A new Tesla is like 45 what’s a Ford F-150
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You continually complain that I am not responding correctly
Explain how this fits in to the discussion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You continually complain that I am not responding correctly "

Because you are responding to silly gibberish that no one has ever said.

"Explain how this fits in to the discussion"

So the discussion isn't served if you respond to what I actually say?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is the false claims I was referring to ^^^^^

Fossil fuel jobs grew along side green jobs

There is No massive disruption and the elevated claims of cost are also a red herring.. solar cost have come down
A new Tesla is like 45 what’s a Ford F-150
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"There is No massive disruption "

That's because we haven't mandated a massive shift away from oil towards renewable. I want to prevent that disruption. Of course it hasn't happened yet. because climate zealots aren't running things yet.

"solar cost have come down"

Not much. And state and federal subsidies are vanishing, so it's still very expensive to a middle class person. I put them on my house in 2016. I know what it cost. I leased my system, to buy it, would have been more than $20k, on the roof of a 2750sf house.

"A new Tesla is like 45 "

You think that refutes my point? I can get two Honda Civics for that price. And I can drive them to Florida without making hours-long stops to re-fuel. You are making my case for me.

"what’s a Ford F-150"

You're comparing the dinky little Tesla sedan, to a Ford F150? That makes all kinds of sense!

I can get an F150 for under 30k. And I can drive it to Florida without having to make hours-long stops along the way, to recharge.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is the false claims I was referring to ^^^^^

Fossil fuel jobs grew along side green jobs

There is No massive disruption and the elevated claims of cost are also a red herring.. solar cost have come down
A new Tesla is like 45 what’s a Ford F-150
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope you understand why solar costs came down.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I hope you understand why solar costs came down.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Price Of Power. Even without subsidies, new wind and solar power plants are usually cheaper than new coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants.

Better technology and panel design

Lower manufacturing costs

Lower soft costs

Soft costs － the costs that are not directly associated with panels inverters, and other

Government investment and financial incentives

Economies of scale and better financing options

So let me guess your reason for lower prices are just subsidies?
Like oil companies? I can only guess . because you never stated a reason
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Price Of Power. Even without subsidies, new wind and solar power plants are usually cheaper than new coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants.

Better technology and panel design

Lower manufacturing costs

Lower soft costs

Soft costs － the costs that are not directly associated with panels inverters, and other

Government investment and financial incentives

Economies of scale and better financing options

So let me guess your reason for lower prices are just subsidies?
Like oil companies? I can only guess . because you never stated a reason
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Even without subsidies, new wind and solar power plants are usually cheaper than new coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants. "

Wow. Wind is cheaper than nuclear, to generate electricity? Maybe when talking about a house or two. Not when talking about 300 million people.

If what you said is true, why are developers still building homes and building with systems powered by natural gas and oil?

[Pete F.]

Here is a really simple analogy for why energy conservation is important and not a great fortune.
The client asked, what's the return on investment for my solar panels, upgraded insulation, more efficient heating system and the answer is: "A lot better than your Granite countertops"
Now if you don't do the upgraded energy items, not only do you pay, but in many cases all the owners of the house do forever.
It's not just about changing the method, it's changing what is valuable to us.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Even without subsidies, new wind and solar power plants are usually cheaper than new coal, nuclear, or natural gas power plants. "

Wow. Wind is cheaper than nuclear, to generate electricity? Maybe when talking about a house or two. Not when talking about 300 million people.

If what you said is true, why are developers still building homes and building with systems powered by natural gas and oil?

You got a Myopic view just because it’s not happening every place it’s Not happening ?

How long did it take the country to move from heating a house with wood to coal to oil to gas ... or electric or pellets or a little of both I call it progress slow and steady
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You got a Myopic view just because it’s not happening every place it’s Not happening ?

How long did it take the country to move from heating a house with wood to coal to oil to gas ... or electric or pellets or a little of both I call it progress slow and steady
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"just because it’s not happening every place it’s Not happening ?"

Do you hear voices in your head? Are the voices telling you that I'm saying these things?

If green was cheaper, we'd all be doing it. It's not, so we aren't.

When we had our house built, we looked at a development that was all solar and geothermal. The houses had an enormous price tag, because that stuff is still very expensive.

"I call it progress slow and steady"

I agree 100%. Slow and steady. I AGREE WITH YOU. I don't want massive, sudden disruptions, that aren't based on good science. That's all I'm saying.

[Sea Dangles]

Simply put,without the subsidies only a fool with money to burn would put in solar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Boston announced they will ban all carbon based vehicles by 2050 and I heard Ford is moving to all electric on the F150 line, so it’s coming whether we (I won’t be anyway) will be around to witness it is another story. The irony is the technology was available to make that change long before now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device