Climate Change
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
My point would be, and I think it is a cogent one not easily dismissed, that without Hansen there is nothing else, so far, to base public policy on. There isn't Hansen anymore! Let's not rush forth, therefore, until we know something that if acted upon will work. I'd like to suggest population control and human thermal pollution as fruitful places to start looking.
No. Once again with regards to AGW you are simply wrong. Hansen is inconsequential. What IS consequential is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the levels of which regulate the the temperature of the planet. You seem to be obsessed with Hansen which is a common way for the deniers to personalize the science and make it easier to ad hom attack.
In your long history of saying ludicrous things about AGW, the idea that without Hansen "there is nothing to base policy on" is just the latest absurdity.
Its kind of a done deal. The people have spoken.
The fact is that solar cannot overcome the obvious storage problem.
It has been shown repeatedly that more energy is consumed producing a wind-turbine tower than it generates over its useful lifetime so mass producing them generates more emissions than if they simply weren't built to begin with.
The number of electric car charging stations is now steadily decreasing as the economics of having to maintain charging stations that generate no revenue comes into play.
People have become leery of fission nuclear power generation and fusion is a long way off.
So we're going to burn fossil fuels including coal. The economy will remain hydrocarbon based. You will enjoy the fruits of our economy (such as you are able to) whether you like it or not.
Without positive feedback, as hypothesized by Hansen, there is no dangerous runaway warming as predicted by the models that assumed positive feedback. There is only very moderate warming of both warm and cold climate cycles. The feedback has been found to be slightly negative, rather than positive. There is no need for expensive CO2 controls, as without positive feedback they will have an insignificant effect on global temperature. (You can ask any electrical engineer to explain this to you if it is not clear.)
No, there is and has always been positive feedbacks to rising temps and this principle certainly does not require Hansen. Rising water vapor, new open areas of dark, low albedo, ice-free water and release of CO2 and methane from thawing soils all work as positive feedback mechanisms. You really don't know much about climate science do you?
And what is the safest source of power? Nuclear. By far. Safer than solar, hydro and wind. To save the earth we need to rapidly increase the safest source of energy that we have to get us over the hump until fusion comes online.
Here Comes the Sun: America's Solar Boom, in Charts
It's been a bit player, but solar power is about to shine.
—By Tim McDonnell
| Fri Nov. 7, 2014 6:30 AM EST
Izu navi/Flickr
Last week, an energy analyst at Deutsche Bank came to a startling conclusion: By 2016, solar power will be as cheap or cheaper than electricity from the conventional grid in every state except three. That's without any changes to existing policy. In other words, we're only a few years away from the point where, in most of the United States, there will be no economic reason not to go solar. If you care about slowing climate change or just moving toward cleaner energy, that is a huge deal.
And solar energy is already going gangbusters. In the past decade, the amount of solar power produced in the United States has leaped 139,000 percent. A number of factors are behind the boom: Cheaper panels and a raft of local and state incentives, plus a federal tax credit that shaves 30 percent off the cost of upgrading.
Still, solar is a bit player, providing less than half of 1 percent of the energy produced in the United States. But its potential is massive—it could power the entire country 100 times over.
So what's the holdup? A few obstacles: pushback from old-energy diehards, competition with other efficient energy sources, and the challenges of power storage and transmission. But with solar in the Southwest already at "grid parity"—meaning it costs the same or less as electricity from conventional sources—Wall Street is starting to see solar as a sound bet. As a recent Citigroup investment report put it, "Our viewpoint is that solar is here to stay."
Some numbers that tell the story:
Sources
Solar growth: Solar Energy Industries Association
New solar installations: SEIA
Sunlight: Sandia National Lab, Energy Information Administration/National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Electricity generating capacity: SEIA
Carbon savings, electricity demand: SEIA, EIA/NREL
Installed PV capacity: International Energy Agency
Solar jobs: The Solar Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Solar panels on a typical house: NREL
Panel cost, VC funding: Greenpeace; Mercom Capital Group (2013 & 2014)
It's been a bit player, but solar power is about to shine.
—By Tim McDonnell
| Fri Nov. 7, 2014 6:30 AM EST
Last week, an energy analyst at Deutsche Bank came to a startling conclusion: By 2016, solar power will be as cheap or cheaper than electricity from the conventional grid in every state except three. That's without any changes to existing policy. In other words, we're only a few years away from the point where, in most of the United States, there will be no economic reason not to go solar. If you care about slowing climate change or just moving toward cleaner energy, that is a huge deal.
And solar energy is already going gangbusters. In the past decade, the amount of solar power produced in the United States has leaped 139,000 percent. A number of factors are behind the boom: Cheaper panels and a raft of local and state incentives, plus a federal tax credit that shaves 30 percent off the cost of upgrading.
Still, solar is a bit player, providing less than half of 1 percent of the energy produced in the United States. But its potential is massive—it could power the entire country 100 times over.
So what's the holdup? A few obstacles: pushback from old-energy diehards, competition with other efficient energy sources, and the challenges of power storage and transmission. But with solar in the Southwest already at "grid parity"—meaning it costs the same or less as electricity from conventional sources—Wall Street is starting to see solar as a sound bet. As a recent Citigroup investment report put it, "Our viewpoint is that solar is here to stay."
Some numbers that tell the story:
Sources
Solar growth: Solar Energy Industries Association
New solar installations: SEIA
Sunlight: Sandia National Lab, Energy Information Administration/National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Electricity generating capacity: SEIA
Carbon savings, electricity demand: SEIA, EIA/NREL
Installed PV capacity: International Energy Agency
Solar jobs: The Solar Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Solar panels on a typical house: NREL
Panel cost, VC funding: Greenpeace; Mercom Capital Group (2013 & 2014)
Great post. This is a great illustration of why cap and trade is a complete shit for brains idea.
It is encouraging but until the true cost of fossil fuel use is included market forces cannot properly work their magic and solar will remain a bit player. We are currently not paying the true cost for fossil fuel use.