So you simply repeated what I claimed you have been saying all along. Decades of independent research have no meaning to you. They all must be rigged to show what they wanted to show from the beginning because they are somehow slanted. That's why for some no amount of evidence is sufficient.
Lol, how is 4 paragraphs with stuff you won't even acknowledge simply repeating you?
It's not that they have no meaning to me. It's that they don't apparently have the same simplistic meaning that they have to you.
No amount of evidence seems to get you to expand your mind. You keep it clenched on a limited, simplified, partial "understanding" and refuse to let anything else penetrate your skull.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
It's repeating what I claimed you have been saying all along.
There's nothing simplistic about separate independent studies over decades. I certainly don't what is penetrating your skull to start penetrating mine.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I am watching "The Next Great Extinction Event" on freetvee. I don't know how I got to be able to watch it because I have a new remote from a "fire stick."
Very interesting and very scary. There have been five great extinctions in the last 500 or so million years.
There is a very strong case that we are in one now. Oceans Warming is kind of "the canary in the coal mine."
There are actually "plastic rocks" forming in our fossil record today. Extinctions of plants and animals are happening so fast right now it is unparalleled in the geologic fossil record.
This is a trailer of "The Next Great Extinction Event."
It's repeating what I claimed you have been saying all along.
There's nothing simplistic about separate independent studies over decades. I certainly don't what is penetrating your skull to start penetrating mine.
Yes, you are repeating made up claims that I didn't make.
There's nothing simplistic about the studies, sure. Your understanding of what a meta analysis of those studies means, on the other hand, appears to primarily consist of one number repeated over and over again.
Your skull seems too thick for either of us to need to worry about something getting in from outside. Now a rattling issue and echoes could be some things you have problems with.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
I heard about that. Yikes that does not make me feel good.
After watching "The Next Great Extinction" pretty depressing really.
The next hundred years there will be issues. Most big cities are in delta areas near oceans. At the rate that ice is melting on both poles ocean levels will rise.
Food production will be impacted.
Understanding the previous five major extinctions it becomes clear others will follow.
Your skull seems too thick for either of us to need to worry about something getting in from outside. Now a rattling issue and echoes could be some things you have problems with.
Everyone can read what you post. You have consistently refused to accept the reality of data that has been found to be accurate over decades of research and studies. That would indicate rocks, rattling and thickness that needs to be addressed. Even a moron can't claim such accusations aren't personal but you thus far have refused to accept that reality as well. Reality is not your strong suit.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Your skull seems too thick for either of us to need to worry about something getting in from outside. Now a rattling issue and echoes could be some things you have problems with.
Everyone can read what you post. You have consistently refused to accept the reality of data that has been found to be accurate over decades of research and studies. That would indicate rocks, rattling and thickness that needs to be addressed. Even a moron can't claim such accusations aren't personal but you thus far have refused to accept that reality as well. Reality is not your strong suit.
They aren't accusations and attacks. They are carefully (okay, in some cases quickly, because some people make it so easy) crafted presentations of possibilities that you seem to blunder through like a human mine seeker.
Now yours are personal attacks because would and needs are absolutes with no disclaimers. If you said it seems like that could indicate rocks and probably should be addressed, those aren't patently false. That's describing things from your perspective without making definitive claims. Alas, subtle distinctions escape some people. Unsubtle distinctions escape some people.
Then again, I probably shouldn't hold not knowing the meanings of words against you. It is really hard for me not to when you seemingly refuse to try to learn anything new due to the apparent belief that you know things that you actually don't.
You seem not to understand that data is a representation of a part of reality and not actually all of reality itself.
Ignoring reality appears to be something you have quite a bit of familiarity with and might be something you have a propensity to project on others.
The reality that I seem to have trouble accepting is that some people will never learn no matter what. Clearly my outward pessimism is cover for an indomitable inner optimist. Lol
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
You perform linguistic dance in a manner unseen on Dawgtalkers before. It is however interpretive dance in its most disingenuous form with nothing of actual meaning. Performed for no other reason than an attempt to discredit people that have actually done the work. Bravo!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Solar Passes 100% of Power Demand in California! [UPDATED] 6 days ago Zachary Shahan 178 Comments Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! California has been a leader in the installation of solar power plants and wind power plants for many years now (despite its recent anti-rooftop solar shift via “Net Metering 3.0”). That has led to more and more of its electricity generation coming from renewables. The trend has been going on for years, but there are a couple of recent developments that should really get people’s attention.
Record Solar Power in California Passes 100% of Power Demand For 55 days in a row, electricity from solar, wind, and water (hydro) power exceeded 100% of power demand on California’s main grid for part of the day. Also, going back further, that has been achieved in 80 out of the last 87 days. That is since early March (International Women’s Day), late winter.
As part of that, solar power recently hit record output, and it actually surpassed 100% of power demand briefly.
As you can see above, at its peak, solar power was providing 102.1% of electricity demand in California. Together, wind, water, and solar peaked at 136.4% of electricity demand!
Clearly, California’s progress on renewables is proving pro-renewables advocates right. But what about the infamous “duck curve?”…
California Quickly Solving the Duck Curve The best news is that California seems to quickly be chopping the duck curve down to size. The duck curve basically comes down to this: “In some energy markets, daily peak demand occurs after sunset, when solar power is no longer available. In locations where a substantial amount of solar electric capacity has been installed, the amount of power that must be generated from sources other than solar or wind displays a rapid increase around sunset and peaks in the mid-evening hours, producing a graph that resembles the silhouette of a duck.”
The solution for the duck curve is clear: energy storage. Store that bursting solar energy produced in the middle of the day and gradually use it in the evening as the sun goes down and electricity demand rises. The good news is that California has been making progress on this very fast! Look at the graph below regarding electricity generation from natural gas and note the line for 2023 versus the line for 2024.
Here’s another one showing battery dispatch on the grid:
Indeed — batteries are taking charge and solving California’s duck curve crisis.
It makes me think of the decade-long net metering debate and how much the duck curve was used as an excuse to cut rooftop solar power incentives. Looking at how quickly this duck curve issue has been solved, one has to wonder how disingenuous some of those anti-rooftop solar arguments were. …
The California Electricity Prices Critique Some people love to counter any positive news about California renewable energy progress by bringing up California’s relatively high electricity prices. This is not from renewables. In fact, research has repeatedly shown that renewable energy drives down electricity prices. There are other things that have resulted in high electricity prices in California. Mark Z. Jacobson summarizes (text modification to spell out words):
“California electricity prices are high because California has the 3rd-highest fossil gas prices in US; & utilities have passed on to customers costs of San Bruno+Aliso Canyon gas disasters, retrofitting gas pipes, wildfires from transmission sparks, undergrounding lines, and keeping Diablo Canyon nuclear open.”
California Renewable Energy Leading the Way The overall story is that California renewable energy continues to lead the way forward. Solar power is now peaking at more than 100% of electricity demand, renewables as a whole are peaking at 134% electricity demand, the duck curve has been shaved down to basically no duck curve at all (but you could now call the battery charge/discharge curve a duck curve), and the whole state (and world) is benefitting.
Get ready for more records in the days to come. We’re still a few weeks away from the summer solstice.
And because somebody who heard it from somewhere on FB or somewhere and are going to come back with "what about" solar panels-here is the lifetime footprint of solar and the comparison of solar vs natural gas utility scale plants.
What is the carbon footprint of solar panels?
Residential solar panels emit around 41 grams of CO2 equivalent emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. Most of these lifecycle emissions are tied to the process of manufacturing panels and are offset by clean energy production within the first three years of operation. The lifetime emissions of rooftop solar are 12 times less than electricity generated by gas plants and 20 times less than electricity generated by coal.
That's quite a mouthful " so let's break it down a bit further.
First off, life-cycle emissions refer to the total emissions " from mining to manufacturing to installation to maintenance to disposal " associated with creating energy. This measurement is standardized into grams of CO2 equivalents to account for the various types of emissions and their warming impacts.
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the total emissions associated with generating 1 kWh of electricity from rooftop solar adds up to 41 grams of CO2 equivalents " roughly the mass of a medium chicken egg. www.solar.com
.news.climate.columbia.edu In the United States, the emissions intensity of electricity produced by natural gas-fired power plants is about 1,071 pounds per megawatt-hour (MWh) on a lifecycle basis, whereas the emissions intensity of solar PV is about 95 pounds per MWh, a difference of 976 pounds per MWh. According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, utility-scale solar power produces between 394 and 447 MWh per acre per year. Thus, when solar panels are installed to replace natural gas, an acre of solar panels saves approximately 385,000 to 436,000 pounds, or 175 to 198 metric tons, of carbon dioxide per year. By comparison, according to the EPA, the average acre of forest in the United States sequesters 0.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, an acre of solar panels installed to replace natural gas reduces approximately 208 to 236 times more carbon dioxide per year than an acre of forest.
And because somebody who heard it from somewhere on FB or somewhere and are going to come back with "what about" solar panels-here is the lifetime footprint of solar and the comparison of solar vs natural gas utility scale plants.
What is the carbon footprint of solar panels?
Residential solar panels emit around 41 grams of CO2 equivalent emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. Most of these lifecycle emissions are tied to the process of manufacturing panels and are offset by clean energy production within the first three years of operation. The lifetime emissions of rooftop solar are 12 times less than electricity generated by gas plants and 20 times less than electricity generated by coal.
That's quite a mouthful " so let's break it down a bit further.
First off, life-cycle emissions refer to the total emissions " from mining to manufacturing to installation to maintenance to disposal " associated with creating energy. This measurement is standardized into grams of CO2 equivalents to account for the various types of emissions and their warming impacts.
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the total emissions associated with generating 1 kWh of electricity from rooftop solar adds up to 41 grams of CO2 equivalents " roughly the mass of a medium chicken egg. www.solar.com
.news.climate.columbia.edu In the United States, the emissions intensity of electricity produced by natural gas-fired power plants is about 1,071 pounds per megawatt-hour (MWh) on a lifecycle basis, whereas the emissions intensity of solar PV is about 95 pounds per MWh, a difference of 976 pounds per MWh. According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, utility-scale solar power produces between 394 and 447 MWh per acre per year. Thus, when solar panels are installed to replace natural gas, an acre of solar panels saves approximately 385,000 to 436,000 pounds, or 175 to 198 metric tons, of carbon dioxide per year. By comparison, according to the EPA, the average acre of forest in the United States sequesters 0.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, an acre of solar panels installed to replace natural gas reduces approximately 208 to 236 times more carbon dioxide per year than an acre of forest.
It was pretty cool-the one poster I saw on the site lives in Cali and for the last 2 months has had a negative electric bill-they said they don't pay electric-got some money back the last 2 months and is driving around an EV without a fuel bill running off free electricity-thats pretty cool
Thats great if you live in a desert and solar panels dont affect the ecosystem (they probably do), but it wouldnt work where I live. Everything is forest, there is no place for mass solar panels. You would destroy the environment to put that up.
Correct me if I’m wrong, you have not studied earth systems, at a collegiate, or profesional level?
Like a global pandemic, uneducated people claim to know more.
I did take some courses like Human Geography at Kent State, a big component of which was covering the human impact on the environment. I read peer-reviewed articles on the subject. I also have taken courses like the Philosophy of Logic. That's more where my issue lies. It seems that our education system focuses way too much on imparting information and not enough on how to apply that information or what it really means.
Just because someone has read something on Popular Science or watched a documentary (frequently more mockumentary, as they have been known to make a mockery of the science,) doesn't make someone educated on a subject. Worse, sometimes individuals point at one study (or something even less informative like an analysis of other studies) they saw an article on somewhere on the internet and think that makes them an expert. Many individuals seem to have a tendency to think in "if this, then that" ways. Unfortunately, knowing the "this" frequently doesn't necessitate the "that" that they believe. My issues are the assumptions and simplifications that don't really encompass/coincide with the data they give as evidence.
Most people think they know more than they actually know. I know some people think I do this, but my thing isn't so much telling people that I know more of the subject material, it's that the logic they use to support their conclusions is faulty. I don't have to be an expert on everything to see flaws in logic.
"Education" is overrated (not worthless, but not a great indicator of intelligence.) Completing "education" through undergrad mostly demonstrates the ability to follow directions. Just about anyone can get a degree these days. It seems percentage of students that pass a course is one of the criteria professors are evaluated on. As a result, material gets dumbed down and things are graded on curves, in my opinion, all too often. The ability to repeat some trivia doesn't constitute understanding of the material/subject.
TLDR; Yes, I've got a piece of paper that shows I can follow directions, and some of those courses on my transcript covered "earth systems."
Yes, a lot of uneducated people think they know more than they do. Unfortunately, a lot of allegedly "educated" individuals also think they know more than they actually do. I know that there is a lot that I don't know. It just bothers me when others present things they think they know as the truth without actually having concrete, verifiable evidence. An individual's interpretation of the data may or may not be accurate. Everyone seems to believe that their interpretation is always accurate. Sadly, people frequently use logic along the lines of "if that jewelry is blue, then I know it is made of sapphires," which completely disregards the possibility of colored glass and paste. They know the jewelry is blue. They only think they know the latter. It seems to be a rather common bad logic pattern.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Thats great if you live in a desert and solar panels dont affect the ecosystem (they probably do), but it wouldnt work where I live. Everything is forest, there is no place for mass solar panels. You would destroy the environment to put that up.
They do. Large solar farms in any desert would likely prove disastrous.
Disclaimer: I did not go to college to study solar farms, I went to first grade and learned to read.
Thats great if you live in a desert and solar panels dont affect the ecosystem (they probably do), but it wouldnt work where I live. Everything is forest, there is no place for mass solar panels. You would destroy the environment to put that up.
They do. Large solar farms in any desert would likely prove disastrous.
Disclaimer: I did not go to college to study solar farms, I went to first grade and learned to read.
...I'm not sure that that disclaimer helps your argument/assertion. Personally, it kind of does the opposite.
Affecting the ecosystem, sure. The panels themselves are a change to the ecosystem, but the "likely prove disastrous" part feels pulled from a See Spot Run book now.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Thanks for your input. Then maybe you should literally go "See Spot Run" and talk to your dog. Or write another thesis that people can't read without falling asleep.
Drought in the Amazon, cyclones in Vietnam
Covering 20 percent of the Sahara with solar farms raises local temperatures in the desert by 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to our model. At 50 percent coverage, the temperature increase is 2.5 degrees Celsius. This warming is eventually spread around the globe by atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the world’s average temperature by 0.16 degrees Celsius for 20 percent coverage, and 0.39 degrees Celsius for 50 percent coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform, though — the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.
This massive new heat source in the Sahara reorganizes global air and ocean circulation, affecting precipitation patterns around the world. The narrow band of heavy rainfall in the tropics, which accounts for more than 30 percent of global precipitation and supports the rainforests of the Amazon and Congo Basin, shifts northward in our simulations. For the Amazon region, this causes droughts as less moisture arrives from the ocean. Roughly the same amount of additional rainfall that falls over the Sahara due to the surface-darkening effects of solar panels is lost from the Amazon. The model also predicts more frequent tropical cyclones hitting North American and East Asian coasts.
Any idea on the methodology they used here? The numbers themselves don't tell a whole lot.
Did they take the readings at solar farms? I'm being facetious there, but that would likely result in higher readings. I'm guessing it was some sort of average taken at different places, but what places and how many? What equipment did they use?
Did some digging.
Here's (link) some documentation on the ERA5 data set, but it's still a bit unclear how that image was extrapolated from the data. What exactly was the query that produced it?
Axios Visuals doesn't seem the most reliable. A quick search of them leads to an article titled "Richmond's most haunted places." (link)
After the doctored image issues that scholarly journals have been having, I'm somewhat skeptical of the chart. The anomalies in the title also throws me a bit.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Thanks for your input. Then maybe you should literally go "See Spot Run" and talk to your dog. Or write another thesis that people can't read without falling asleep.
Drought in the Amazon, cyclones in Vietnam
Covering 20 percent of the Sahara with solar farms raises local temperatures in the desert by 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to our model. At 50 percent coverage, the temperature increase is 2.5 degrees Celsius. This warming is eventually spread around the globe by atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the world’s average temperature by 0.16 degrees Celsius for 20 percent coverage, and 0.39 degrees Celsius for 50 percent coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform, though — the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.
This massive new heat source in the Sahara reorganizes global air and ocean circulation, affecting precipitation patterns around the world. The narrow band of heavy rainfall in the tropics, which accounts for more than 30 percent of global precipitation and supports the rainforests of the Amazon and Congo Basin, shifts northward in our simulations. For the Amazon region, this causes droughts as less moisture arrives from the ocean. Roughly the same amount of additional rainfall that falls over the Sahara due to the surface-darkening effects of solar panels is lost from the Amazon. The model also predicts more frequent tropical cyclones hitting North American and East Asian coasts.
I can't help it that people used to Twitter and sound bytes have the attention span of gnats, and apparently suffer from narcolepsy.
You're the one that brought up 1st grade. If you'd posted that article instead of the disclaimer, I'd have simply nodded and moved along. (Those quoted numbers are from a model and not actual measured data, but I'd have probably let that slide.) It was just weird/illogical to me that you made 1st grade a part of the argument. To me, it seemed the argument would have been better without bringing the 1st grade into it.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
I'm a smartass to no one in particular. You're not even a part of that conversation. You respond to me with with some smart-assed "See Spot Run" b.s.
And then tell me I shouldn't be a smartass?
"If you'd posted that article instead of the disclaimer, I'd have simply nodded and moved along."
If I'm responding directly, in a quoted post, to someone else, maybe you should just nod and move along in the first place. That statement above just admits you have no interest in the conversation anyway. If your response is to antagonize from some holier-than-thou point of view, you're just going to get it directed right back at you.
Moving forward, how about I let you know when I need your advice on how I should map out my conversations with others and you keep your preschool book comments to yourself?
Here's (link) some documentation on the ERA5 data set, but it's still a bit unclear how that image was extrapolated from the data. What exactly was the query that produced it?
Axios Visuals doesn't seem the most reliable. A quick search of them leads to an article titled "Richmond's most haunted places." (link)
After the doctored image issues that scholarly journals have been having, I'm somewhat skeptical of the chart. The anomalies in the title also throws me a bit.
Ha, I've seen that chart before. I've hopefully begun my journey on the Slope of Enlightenment. I don't think I'll ever reach the Plateau of Sustainability.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Something I thought would be interesting to some.......
And of course here is a response to his sanity.........
Republican Turns Against Governor After 'Embarrassing' Climate Speech
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon is facing blowback from a Republican colleague after he advocated for reducing his state's carbon emissions.
Gordon made the comments while discussing his Decarbonizing the West initiative at a JFK Jr. Forum event at the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics on Monday evening.
Gordon, who was elected in 2018, has made reaching negative carbon emissions a top goal in his administration. Rather than jump ship with President Joe Biden, Gordon has criticized Biden's green energy transition. Instead of halting the use of fossil fuels, Gordon advocates for capturing the emissions by using strategies like capture, utilization and storage technologies, according to Decarbonizing the West's website.
"It is clear that we have a warming climate," Gordon said at the event according to a report by The Harvard Crimson. "It is clear that carbon dioxide is a major contributor to that challenge. There is an urgency to addressing this issue.
"Wyoming is the first that has said that we will be carbon negative," he added, before advocating for new carbon capture technologies, forest management and other initiatives as being on "the entire spectrum of things that we can do to produce reliable, dispatchable energy that people require and need at affordable costs."
Wyoming state Rep. John Bear, also a Republican, bristled and told Fox News Digital that he was embarrassed by Gordon's comments. He also slammed the governor's willingness to speak at Harvard University, which has faced blowback regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
""Frankly, I was embarrassed," Bear said in the report. "I was embarrassed that our chief executive would go to a pro-Hamas, pro-China school and appease an anti-fossil fuel crowd.
"I was embarrassed that someone who campaigned as a conservative is ready to close the coffin on coal, oil and gas in his state. He has given in to the AOC (Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and Al Gore hysteria that is, in fact, disputed science.
"At a time when Western governors should be embracing the idea of energy independence and pushing back on the anti-American, Biden agenda, I think he should be taking us a different direction," Bear continued.
"We can't afford to give an inch to the anti-fossil fuel crowd and their utopian view of green energy. Mark Gordon needs to explain to the people of Wyoming why he's selling our economy and our livelihoods down the liberal river."
Gordon has, however, previously pushed back against Biden and the president's focus on transitioning to green energy. Other states have followed Biden's lead and implemented legislation to offset the negative impacts of climate change, but the Wyoming governor has long advocated for utilizing carbon capture technologies to reduce the state's carbon emissions rather than switching the state over to green energy as its sole source.
Michael Pearlman, Gordon's communications director, told Newsweek in a statement that Gordon has advocated for the use of technology to keep fossil fuels viable since his 2019 State of the State address. The governor received the invite to speak at Harvard four months ago.
"The Governor has been committed to protecting Wyoming's core fossil fuel industries and tackling climate issues since the beginning of his administration," the statement said.
"He has continually promoted policies and litigation targeted at keeping the fossil fuel industry meaningful and viable. A part of the honest discussion led by Governor Gordon is that we cannot ignore what policies are being made in Washington, nor can we ignore that many in Washington who work every day to see that fossil fuels are shut down.
"Governor Gordon took that honest discussion directly to those who are most opposed to fossil fuels. Instead of being attacked with half-truths and rhetoric, the Governor should be praised for having the courage to do so."
Wyoming has relied overwhelmingly on fossil fuels and remains one of the top coal-producing and crude-oil producing states. Last year, coal power plants provided nearly three-quarters of Wyoming's electricity with natural gas fueling 3.6 percent of the state's power, according to the Fox report. Nearly a quarter of the state's electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources.
Here's (link) some documentation on the ERA5 data set, but it's still a bit unclear how that image was extrapolated from the data. What exactly was the query that produced it?
Axios Visuals doesn't seem the most reliable. A quick search of them leads to an article titled "Richmond's most haunted places." (link)
After the doctored image issues that scholarly journals have been having, I'm somewhat skeptical of the chart. The anomalies in the title also throws me a bit.
Sorry, I posted the wrong plot.
I think the chart in reality more cuts off at the slope of enlightenment. Unfortunately, people on the Peak of Mount Stupid have a tendency to think they are on the Plateau of Sustainability. I'm just trying to claw my way up the slope of enlightenment and out of the Valley of Despair. The more a wise man knows, the more he realizes that he doesn't know. If "you" think you've reached the Plateau of Sustainability, you're probably still on Mount Stupid.
Last edited by Bull_Dawg; 06/10/2410:55 AM. Reason: make clearer the "you" is generic by adding the quotation marks
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Something I thought would be interesting to some.......
And of course here is a response to his sanity.........
Republican Turns Against Governor After 'Embarrassing' Climate Speech
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon is facing blowback from a Republican colleague after he advocated for reducing his state's carbon emissions.
Gordon made the comments while discussing his Decarbonizing the West initiative at a JFK Jr. Forum event at the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics on Monday evening.
Gordon, who was elected in 2018, has made reaching negative carbon emissions a top goal in his administration. Rather than jump ship with President Joe Biden, Gordon has criticized Biden's green energy transition. Instead of halting the use of fossil fuels, Gordon advocates for capturing the emissions by using strategies like capture, utilization and storage technologies, according to Decarbonizing the West's website.
"It is clear that we have a warming climate," Gordon said at the event according to a report by The Harvard Crimson. "It is clear that carbon dioxide is a major contributor to that challenge. There is an urgency to addressing this issue.
"Wyoming is the first that has said that we will be carbon negative," he added, before advocating for new carbon capture technologies, forest management and other initiatives as being on "the entire spectrum of things that we can do to produce reliable, dispatchable energy that people require and need at affordable costs."
Wyoming state Rep. John Bear, also a Republican, bristled and told Fox News Digital that he was embarrassed by Gordon's comments. He also slammed the governor's willingness to speak at Harvard University, which has faced blowback regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
""Frankly, I was embarrassed," Bear said in the report. "I was embarrassed that our chief executive would go to a pro-Hamas, pro-China school and appease an anti-fossil fuel crowd.
"I was embarrassed that someone who campaigned as a conservative is ready to close the coffin on coal, oil and gas in his state. He has given in to the AOC (Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and Al Gore hysteria that is, in fact, disputed science.
"At a time when Western governors should be embracing the idea of energy independence and pushing back on the anti-American, Biden agenda, I think he should be taking us a different direction," Bear continued.
"We can't afford to give an inch to the anti-fossil fuel crowd and their utopian view of green energy. Mark Gordon needs to explain to the people of Wyoming why he's selling our economy and our livelihoods down the liberal river."
Gordon has, however, previously pushed back against Biden and the president's focus on transitioning to green energy. Other states have followed Biden's lead and implemented legislation to offset the negative impacts of climate change, but the Wyoming governor has long advocated for utilizing carbon capture technologies to reduce the state's carbon emissions rather than switching the state over to green energy as its sole source.
Michael Pearlman, Gordon's communications director, told Newsweek in a statement that Gordon has advocated for the use of technology to keep fossil fuels viable since his 2019 State of the State address. The governor received the invite to speak at Harvard four months ago.
"The Governor has been committed to protecting Wyoming's core fossil fuel industries and tackling climate issues since the beginning of his administration," the statement said.
"He has continually promoted policies and litigation targeted at keeping the fossil fuel industry meaningful and viable. A part of the honest discussion led by Governor Gordon is that we cannot ignore what policies are being made in Washington, nor can we ignore that many in Washington who work every day to see that fossil fuels are shut down.
"Governor Gordon took that honest discussion directly to those who are most opposed to fossil fuels. Instead of being attacked with half-truths and rhetoric, the Governor should be praised for having the courage to do so."
Wyoming has relied overwhelmingly on fossil fuels and remains one of the top coal-producing and crude-oil producing states. Last year, coal power plants provided nearly three-quarters of Wyoming's electricity with natural gas fueling 3.6 percent of the state's power, according to the Fox report. Nearly a quarter of the state's electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources.
I don't hate it. And I do think the Republican backlash is ...sad and misguided/misdirected.
I do question whether its really about going green or whether its about increasing tax revenue. Gordon was born in NYC and would appear to come from family money (it seems he's a descendant of Frederick Ayer and James Cook Ayer.)(link) Also seems to get a decent bit of campaign contributions from the petroleum industry, though most came directly from his wife to the tune of not quite ~$2 Million (supporting the family money idea.) She's a rancher, so her contributions show up in the Agriculture category. (link)
That stuff could mean nothing and he could have nothing but the best of intentions. But, I'm cynical.
600 giant turbines seems a bit ...excessive/ambitious. The environmental impact of construction alone seems somewhat non-"green." Transmission from Wyoming to California also seems somewhat counter productive as a lot of energy is lost through transmission.
Personally, I think many smaller, local energy producers is a better approach for alternative energy. Energy independence from foreign interests sounds great. Energy independence from the giant energy corporations sounds even better to me. There will/would likely be a lot of ecosystem destruction to implement the transmission towers they are talking about (There are over ~1000 miles to cover between Wyoming and California.)
Throw in questions like "how will all those turbines change wind patterns?" and "what effects will those changes have 'downstream?'" are also things to consider.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
I'm certain that it's motivated from the direction of bringing jobs and tax money to Wyoming. I would consider attracting business to his state a part of his job as governor. I certainly don't consider that a nefarious part of the equation. But in this case he had to consider the political backlash involved in trying to attract these jobs in particular to the state.
And as per usual, you can pose a lot of hypothetical questions without answers. That's rather easy as you have shown.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
So was that post a self proclamation as to how wise you are? Am I reading that right?
No, it's a reference to a philosophical idea. (Try Confucius, Socrates, Carl Jung, and/or Lao Tsu, if you'd like to read more on the idea)
But, there you go trying to interpret things again.
And here you claim I'm the one that has trouble understanding. It seems that somehow asking questions for you to clarify what you meant is interpreting something in your world.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
So was that post a self proclamation as to how wise you are? Am I reading that right?
No, it's a reference to a philosophical idea. (Try Confucius, Socrates, Carl Jung, and/or Lao Tsu, if you'd like to read more on the idea)
But, there you go trying to interpret things again.
And here you claim I'm the one that has trouble understanding. It seems that somehow asking questions for you to clarify what you meant is interpreting something in your world.
Asking if you read something right implies that you read it a certain way. The naughty devil smiley would seem to support that idea.
I clarified as you asked. What didn't I understand?
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Thats great if you live in a desert and solar panels dont affect the ecosystem (they probably do), but it wouldnt work where I live. Everything is forest, there is no place for mass solar panels. You would destroy the environment to put that up.
Different scenarios would be required for different locations/conditions. Not everywhere in Cali would work for a mass solar farm-There are different technologies that can be used like solar, tidal or wind. And the first/most important that must be done is reducing energy consumption-more efficient motor loads/HVAC, reducing lighting loads by installing LED.
There are ever changing technologies with solar including increasing battery storage and changing how solar can be installed including adding a solar wrap to roadway lighting poles so streetlighting can operate without extending electric infrastructure to the poles if they are in the middle of nowhere. There is also other technology that companies like Tesla is working on where instead of replacing your roof and then adding solar panels and racking to your roof, the solar panels are installed inside the new roof tiles and you get a battery and roof provides some power for your house. Each 15"x45" roof tile is also a 72watt solar panel.
This part of sustainable design is changing every day. Some have better payback than others
I asked you if you meant it in a certain way. A way in which it sounded as though you may have meant it. I suppose a question mark doesn't mean what it used to.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
38% of California is desert. You are correct that it wouldn't work everywhere but there are vast expanses of America that are either desert or sparsely populated which both solar and wind could produce huge amounts of our domestic energy needs. Just the wind farm in Idaho alone referenced in my post above will supply electric for a million homes.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/KnEVNo8.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from dreamendstate.com]](https://www.dreamendstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/DunningKrugar-1024x735.jpg)
