Awkward_moments

t1_ixfz25j wrote

Reply to comment by in Large parts of Europe are warming twice as fast as the planet on average. As a consequence of human emissions of greenhouse gases, the climate across the continent has also become drier, particularly in southern Europe, leading to worse heat waves and an increased risk of fires. by

How much of that is recent though?

Because the driest month in Portland is 3 days of rain and the driest month in Cardiff is 14 days of rain.

That's a huge difference.

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainy-days,portland,United-States-of-America

http://www.cardiff.climatemps.com/precipitation.php

1

t1_ixfcstw wrote

Reply to comment by in Large parts of Europe are warming twice as fast as the planet on average. As a consequence of human emissions of greenhouse gases, the climate across the continent has also become drier, particularly in southern Europe, leading to worse heat waves and an increased risk of fires. by

I can still rain. Just needs less of the slight drizzle for three weeks followed by a week if heavy rain.

Malaysia is very green. It just shits down for a couple of hours and then has clear blue skies.

−1

t1_ixfadod wrote

Reply to comment by in Large parts of Europe are warming twice as fast as the planet on average. As a consequence of human emissions of greenhouse gases, the climate across the continent has also become drier, particularly in southern Europe, leading to worse heat waves and an increased risk of fires. by

I'm not saying I want climate change but seeing as it is happening it would be nice if Wales was the place getting abnormally hotter and drier.

−5

OP t1_iufznku wrote

Reply to comment by in The economics of overproducing renewable energy by

I really don't understand this nuclear arguement about baseline. Supply needs to match demand.

Having a stable baseline doesn't mean supply matches demand and nuclear isn't really variable. So how could it possibly improve anything? It's not like at peak demand you are going to tell people not to cook, heat their homes or watch TV because there is only baseline power available and baseline demand needs to keep running.

That's not the issue that's the beauty. Solar and wind are the cheapest forms of power. So they can be built profitability for a cheaper price than anything else. That's means we will have more energy and it will cost us less. Don't even need to get the government invovled. Nuclear is just expensive and gains us nothing. Sure the government could build it but why? Again there are better things to spend the money on.

3

OP t1_iuft6px wrote

Reply to comment by in The economics of overproducing renewable energy by

I disagree. Even if governments pay for nuclear then they are still spending money which has to come from taxes or borrowing. So that still costs the economy. That money could be better spend on other things like insulation, heat pumps, public transport etc. So I don't think getting the government to pay for nuclear has any benefits. Also roll out of renewables is faster than nuclear.

I didn't really explain how profits work in economic theory, that's my fault. In a competitive market (which is usually a market that is easy to enter) profits will cause more businesses and people to invest and also cause companies inside that market to expand. Solar and batteries seem incredibly competitive to me as even homeowners are even able to get into the market. Supply of the goods even seems highly competitive just based on how rapidly costs are decreasing.

In economic theory high profits in competitive markets just means growth. Eventually profits will get to a point where marginal costs =0. This means that the last solar farm or battery farm will turn no profit and if anyone entered the market they would actually lose money. So until people stop making money we are going to see a lot of people wanting to get in the game and make money.

4