I guess I'll never understand why having "conservative views" means you have to deny all green ideas.
To be conservative is to be cautious. You don not throw money at every wild A** idea put out there by those that are not conservative. It is not the fact that "Green" ideas are bad. Some are good ideas. Just not practical or cost effective. The idea of recycling is good. We have been able to recycle lead acid batteries for a 100 years very profitably. That is a good green idea. Paper to a lessor extent is good for recycling. Though most of the slick papers in magazines and catalogs are not usable. So paying people to sort out the good from the bad could make paper recycling less than cost effective. A better "Green Idea" would be to get rid of catalogs, magazines and newspapers. You can get the same information online in a much more timely manner. And the best green idea of them all is refilling glass bottles. The only reason they quit using glass was our laziness. It was easier to just toss a can or bottle in the trash, so refilling went out of style. While you would like US to believe things are better than the past. It just ain't so. I miss those old milk bottles. Drinks were so much colder in a glass bottle.
Just hard for me to accept this lazy, wasteful society we have become. Where you toss out a $400 iPhone when they come out with a new one 6 months later.
Gary says, "To be conservative is to be cautious. "
EXACTLY. "To err on the side of CAUTION" is what I have been saying since Day One of this debate on Edmunds !!
Better SAFE than sorry !! Better to ASSUME that the Science is correct which says huge introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is risking raising global temperatures!!!
Better SAFE than Sorry !! Better to recycle and CONSERVE RESOURCES than to just fill up the landfills !!!
The hard, cold truth of the matter is this, however:
Conservatives are against "green ideas" for JUST ONE STUPID REASON:
Most of them are proposed by Liberals.
That's the ONLY reason most Conservatives are against changing their daily lives JUST A LITTLE BIT. Merely to be contrary and argumentative and to try and avoid the "supposed loss of stature" because the OTHER GUY might be right.
That was a very stereotypical rant. Conservatives by nature are more green than Liberals. And most wasteful green ideas come from the liberal side of the aisle. Such as taxing ethanol from Brazil so that Corn ethanol can be produced in the USA. Corn ethanol may be one of the most environmentally detrimental things to come down the line. Liberals want to subsidize Solar and Wind power in spite of the fact it will likely never be cost effective. Yes liberals have proposed green things such a CFL bulbs then made it impossible to manufacture them in the USA. So there is a reason that Conservatives despise Liberal ideas. Most of them are a horrible waste of money.
Give US some alternatives that are self sustaining and I will be all for them. So far the AGW and liberal eco nuts are batting ZERO
Oh, so if it has a COST it's automatically not worthy? Puh-Leeze.
Solar may not be cost effective - but only temporarily. Technology websites have solar advance stories almost daily. ( But better than breathing Coal Exhaust.)
Wind not cost effective - hundreds of giant wind farms seemingly proving that wrong, and costs, again, like solar, are coming down all the time.
Auto mpg, corn ethanol, lightbulbs, solar, wind, recycling, HVAC settings ... are all secondary issues. Repeat ... they are all secondary issues to POPULATION GROWTH. As long as population growth continues there is NO long-term solution to any environmental issue.
As an analogy consider your house to be the Earth. It is a fixed size, with limits. Say today your wife and you live there, and you have a decent lifestyle and all you need to be comfortable. You have a roomy house, garden out back, a well, and a supply of fuel. But tomorrow you've invited another person to move in with you, and every day after that another person moves in with the existing folks. So what happens after people start moving in. Well at first you make some adjustments, everyone gets a little less space. You increase your garden's production. You put in more electrical outlets. But each and every day another person shows up. So everyone in the house is asked to conserve and recycle to make the food and fuel go further.
But as each day goes on the problems don't get better despite your best planning, conservation and recycling. You continue to get more crowded and each person has less. Your fuel supply continues to deplete. The amount of waste in the house continues to increase with the number of people. And to make things worse, everyone is fighting for more food, access to water, and fuel. This is the situation on the Earth today.
So I will say again to you larsb that you need to look at long-term. No environmental problem will get better globally or long-term as lomng as the global population continues to grow.
It does not matter whether you get 20mpg, 30mpg, 50mpg, or have an EV, and you drive very little. What matters is if the global population and numbers of people using energy and resources grows. I know you'll reject this as you have for many months now, as I believe you emotionally need to feel that you can make a difference. Environmental issues and population growth are issues that only the entire world coming together can address. And I see no urgency yet despite the warnings of scientists over the years, that our growth is unsustainable. This will probably result in some grand wars several decades out.
Well, I don't disagree that the world population growth is unsustainable.
I DO disagree that because of it, we should just "throw our hands up in the air" and stop all conservation and recycling and pollution-reducing activities.
I DO disagree that because of it, we should just "throw our hands up in the air" and stop all conservation and recycling and pollution-reducing activities.
There are 2 types of problems related to conservation, recycling, and pollution in my mind. There are the short-term, local issues which we can do something about. These things keep our local environment nice and pleasant for us, in the short-term. They are short-term, non-global things we can do and control.
But population growth is a global, uncontrollled issue. As it relates to this topic, it means that as more and more people are on Earth, they will use the fossil fuel, if we do not. Someone, somewhere will burn that fuel, and that fuel is going to make CO2 going into the atmosphere. If there is going to be GW from increased CO2 that is going to happen then, simply because there are going to be more people who want the benefits (improve their lifestyle) of burning those fuels. Whether we burn the fuels in our vehicles, or simply burn the oil, natural gas, and coal to heat our houses and produce electricity, those fuels get burnt.
So I'm saying, it is not a major difference if I burn a gallon of gasoline this week, or some new driver in India burns it next year. It will all be burnt and go into the atmosphere.
As I said before there could be hope if we could find a great tapable energy source - like nuclear fusion. But then if it were easy to make a great energy source, then it would be easy to make great bombs. So I'm not wishing that someone finds a way to fuse seawater atoms!
Most of the items you mention I already do. And I doubt seriously they were Liberal ideas. Most have been around since before you or I was born.
CFL, LED, both far better than incandescent.
They are energy saving. That does not by itself make them environmentally good. CFLs are turning into a headache with the mercury problem and short life. I have had at least half a dozen go bad in less than two years. I did keep the receipts and bought extras. So I just take them back to Wally World and get my money back. You know it is a scam right? When I bought the 56 CFLs for my house SDG&E had a promotional going at WalMart. They were 89 cents each. Now those same bulbs are over $5 each. If their life continues to be short it will not be cost effective using them. Fortunately I did keep all my incandescent bulbs. May cost a bit more to use, but much longer life span.
Wind not cost effective - hundreds of giant wind farms seemingly proving that wrong
You better do some serious reading. They are heavily subsidized and when the wind dies down, who is going to pick up the slack? That has turned out to be another government boondoggle. Notice Pickins is trying to unload his bunch that he bought.
T. Boone Pickens to Sell Off 667 Wind Turbines
As part of the first phase to build a 4,000 MW wind farm in the Texas panhandle, Pickens ordered 667 turbines from GE. These turbines are to be ready in 2010 and 2011, but the wind farm was called off due to funding and transmission problems. Now that’s a boondoggle.
You have always been a Pie in the Sky Dreamer. Most of the schemes and scams in the "Green Realm" are designed to make the schemer rich. Nothing to do with saving the planet. T Boone got caught with his pants down. He can afford to lose a couple $billion on the Wind idiocy. He did not plan far enough ahead. He believed that people would welcome a power line across TX to deliver wind power. Our Power line to bring solar energy looks like a snake crossing the state. It has been diverted so many times it will cost us the energy buyers a fortune. All because that bunch of Liberal idiots in Sacramento have forced alternative energy down our throats. I hope they rot in hell.
When the wind dies down? Are you joking? In those locations in Texas, the wind NEVER dies down.
Ask those people in the area if they like the Wind Turbines. They LOVE 'EM. As a rule. There are some old persnickity old timers who complain, but there are many small towns whose fortunes have been turned by selling wind power.
And the farmers get paid to have the turbines on their land.
Sure, you can find horror stories about wind farms going bad, complaints about EMF, killing birds, noise, etc. But nothing is perfect.
Remember - the alternative is DIRTY COAL PLANTS.
When you look at the alternative, you should see that all these problems need to be and CAN be worked out.
Look at your complaint Gary:
"Because the transmission lines are a "problem" then wind power sucks."
That's silly.
The transmission line issues will be worked out. If not, then the turbines in THAT area might go away.
But using the wind is a totally intelligent thing to do. And we humans ARE intelligent.
That is the point. Wind and solar has not actually replaced anything on a permanent basis. It is a feel good subsidy program. And there is NO PLACE that the wind blows at least 9 mph 24/7 365 days a year. And they get shut down in high wind and for maintenance. I have no problem with wind generation. Even if it does cost a bit more. It is the huge subsidies being paid that I revolt against. Our wind farm is quite relaxing to watch as is the one we visit in Hawaii. Last time we were up there the wind was blowing like crazy at the Indian casino. They were all turned sideways to the wind and stopped. The head guy at the casino said they only have a certain window of safe operation. So what provides the power during those periods? Exactly, coal, gas, diesel. Coal generators take too long to bring on line. So the utility is stuck with conventional gas generation to keep in good shape for those time.
The transmission line issues will be worked out. If not, then the turbines in THAT area might go away.
Not as long as LIBERAL ECO NUTS have access to the courts. And it is also concerned citizens that balk against these high voltage over head power lines. There have been numerous fires started by lines that have been blown down in high winds. In 2007 we had a fire that burned 200,000 acres and 1700 homes with numerous deaths. It was caused by a downed power line. The point being, nothing is perfect. And building large wind farms in windy areas or solar arrays in desert areas, then transmitting over long distances, is not always the best alternative solution.
Then we come to individual Solar systems such as your own. What would happen if everyone in Phoenix put a solar system on their home? Do you think the power company could justify the expense of storing your energy for night usage? Big coal and nuclear plants cannot be turned off and on when it gets dark and light. Someone has to pay for that service you are now getting. It is the tax payers subsidizing your use of solar. Making you a welfare recipient.
Allow me to obliterate/disintegrate any hope you had of scoring with this point:
Gary says:"There have been numerous fires started by lines that have been blown down in high winds."
Part One of the Decimation of Gary's Point:
Well, that's not exactly NEW to electricity, is it? Any transmission lines, regardless of the source of the energy, is a risk for that sort of fire. Those fires happened before anyone was using Wind energy.
Part Two of the Decimation of Gary's Point:
Yesterday in San Bruno, CA, a ruptured gas line explosion caused a neighborhood fire. The point: MANY forms of energy transmission are a risk. Why not use a CLEAN method for creating it?
Gary says, "What would happen if everyone in Phoenix put a solar system on their home? Do you think the power company could justify the expense of storing your energy for night usage?"
First of all, if that DID happen, I would have a "HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY" party that would last for about 2 weeks. Because with all that extra clean energy being produced, one or more dirty coal plant could be turned off. Whoop Whoop !!!! :shades:
But since it's virtually out of the realm of possibility, let me try to address it in a similar fashion.
Long before something like that could happen, the utility company COULD take measures.
Technologies to do just that (store the extra energy) are already in place:
One possible answer? In Japan, so-called “flow” batteries have been used for years to store backup power at industrial plants. Conventional batteries store energy in chemical form. With flow batteries, charged chemicals are pumped into storage tanks, allowing still more chemical to be charged and pumped away, then pumped back into the active portion of the battery and drawn down as needed. One big advantage: Battery “size” can be expanded by simply adding more chemicals and more storage tanks. In 2003, the local utility on small King Island, off the coast of Australia, installed a large flow battery to sop up and later release excess power from a wind farm.
And there is progress being made on an entirely different front — using excess electricity to pump compressed air into caverns, salt domes, and old natural gas wells, and then releasing the air to help state-of-the-art natural gas power plants spin turbines, lowering the amount of fuel consumed by as much as 70 percent. A consortium of utilities in Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakotas is already working with the U.S.’s Sandia National Laboratories to develop a giant, 268-megawatt compressed air system. Called the Iowa Stored Energy Park, it would store excess energy from the region’s burgeoning wind industry.
Ultracapacitor technology is also making progress.
So don't worry Gary. Before the USA get's powered more by solar/wind than by coal (a goal which will SOMEDAY be achieved) the technology will be in place to store all that extra juice.
First off I was pointing out the obstacles our local SDG&E are facing in trying to meet the alternative energy mandate. They have run up against the Eco Nuts and those wanting assurance that adding more power lines will not increase the risk of fire. Which is extreme in So California.
The projects you have listed for storage do sound promising. Though at this time our utility is so screwed over by the CA legislature they are not at all friendly to home solar installations. And the county has gotten downright obstinate. My friend that was working for a solar installation company quit. He was only getting about one day a week work. And the pay was paltry. They probably can get illegals a lot cheaper. Solar is a long way from main stream. Even though San Diego is at the leading edge of Solar installations. It has become a political football and so far only gotten worse. I think that will keep the vast majority from getting involved in Solar.
You should feel fortunate that you still live in a state that has a few freedoms left.
It seems like a perennial story in the Golden State: the temperatures go up, air conditioners across the state kick into high gear and power utilities simply can't keep up. Now, a group of Southern California utilities plans to combat the state's searing summers with ice, building a 53-megawatt distributed energy storage project that will lock away off-peak cooling power for use during the sweltering mid-day peak.
During those peak consumption hours -- generally from noon to 6 p.m. -- the albatross around the neck of power utilities is air conditioning units, which all tend to kick on more or less at the same time as daytime temperatures rise. To keep these consumption spikes from overpowering the generators and transmission lines, the utilities will deploy Ice Energy's Ice Bear -- winner of a PopSci Best Of What's New award in 2007 -- across a 7,000-square-mile service area, attaching the units to 1,500 commercial and rooftop air conditioners to help offset the burden.
The Ice Bear works by freezing 450 gallons in an insulated tank during the night, when energy consumption is at its lowest. A series of copper coils running through the tank pumps in enough coolant to turn the water to ice, where it remains until temperatures begin to rise during the day. When the AC begins its daily struggle to cool the building the Ice Bear kicks in, pumping the AC's warm refrigerant through the copper coils in the ice, cooling it without employing the AC's energy intensive compressor.
When the ice is completely melted, usually about six hours later, the AC kicks back into normal operation, but by then peak demand has passed and the AC coasts into the cooler evening hours with less power consumption. The Ice Bear begins freezing the melted water in its tank, and the process starts again.
Someone up in Fairbanks tried the ice deal once about 20 years ago. They just used mother nature to freeze the ice and then turned it into a heat exchanger. Never heard how it worked out.
(and didn't intend to single anyone out on the labeling comment Larsb. Sorry).
As of last year, it was apparently still working out: A more robust world of solar and wind power might be better served by some sort of giant battery — or, more likely, many of them, widely distributed. The basic concept has been proven. Since 2003, the world’s largest battery backup has been storing energy for an entire city: Fairbanks, Alaska. Isolated as it is, and not part of any regional electricity grid, the metropolitan area of about 100,000 residents needs an electricity backstop more than most: In its sub-zero winters, pipes can freeze solid in as little as two hours. Six years ago, the city installed a huge nickel-cadmium battery, the same technology used for years in laptop computers and other portable devices.
Housed in a giant warehouse, the 1,300-metric ton battery is larger than a football field, and can crank out 40 million watts of power. Still, the Fairbanks battery provides only enough electricity for about 12,000 residents for seven minutes. That was enough to prevent 81 blackouts in the city in the battery’s first two years of operation.
If it takes that big of a battery for 12,000 residents and gets drained in 7 minutes, what would it take for a city of 3 million? I think they are going to have to come up with a new storage concept completely. I wonder if that was one of the Pork projects that Uncle Ted pushed through Congress?
I know who Steve was posting about. I just get so frustrated with people that claim to be environmentally astute and worried about the planet. When they push for CO2 emissions reduction and then block progress in that direction. Many of them also fall into the NIMBY group. Think Kennedys and half the people in San Francisco. I think a person would be hard pressed to find any of the high profile environmentalists, that actually live the life. Maybe GW Bush. None I can name.
The wasted tax dollars on Wind and Solar projects may cut our GHG emissions. It is not creating green jobs or helping our trashed economy.
'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus
The Department of Energy estimated that 82,000 jobs have been created and has acknowledged that as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.
Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, said much of the green stimulus funding was "squandered."
"Large grants to build green buildings don't generate many new jobs, except for a few architects," he said. "Subsidies for windmills and solar panels created lots of jobs in China,"but few at home.
In one of several embarrassing disclosures for the administration, a report last fall by American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 11 U.S. wind farms used their grants to purchase 695 out of 982 wind turbines from overseas suppliers.
Another AGW myth has been dispelled this year. The last 4 years of poor salmon runs in the Fraser river have been blamed on AGW. When in reality it is the Canadian government that is to blame.
The Fraser River is brimming with sockeye as it hasn’t in a century. Estimates are that 30 million salmon are scrambling their way to the place from whence they once came, the largest return since 1913. B.C.’s fishermen might be delighted, you would expect. Many are not.
The fishing is good. In a 32-hour frenzy near Vancouver this week, nets bulged with fat sockeye. But the industry is scarcely equipped to handle it anymore: There were shortages of ice, totes and freezer space while processing plants turned away boatloads of salmon for lack of processing capacity and available workers.
Prices are swooning. B.C.’s fishery has been so devastated by low returns and accompanying moratoria in the past decade that even record years are bittersweet. And the blame, say many, lies not with global warming, sea lice or any other oft-suspected abstruse scientific phenomena. Rather, it is mismanagement by, and conflicting political interests — clashing agendas involving First Nations policies, environmentalists and industry — within none other than the same Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that oversaw the disastrous collapse of the East Coast’s northern cod fisheries.
“We have fought them tooth and nail. We have fought them politically, we have fought them in the courts, and we have lost every single battle,” says Phil Eidsvik, a Vancouver-area fisherman and executive director of the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition.
“DFO got their way on everything in the past 20 years and what did we get? We have a fishery that’s closed three out of four years.”
The green replacement, compact flourescents, are made exclusively out of the US. Mostly in China. We legislated ourselves out of many jobs again. Winchester, Va. just lost 600 good jobs that averaged $30 an hour. Way to go BO.
Barry says No Way, does he want solar panels on the WH.
Barack Obama: 'no' to solar panels on the White House roof
A California company Sungevity had offered to equip the White House with the latest technology.
But the White House declined - twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison to one-term Democratic president Carter in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections in November. The White House did send three staffers to meet the campaigners.
Carter held a rooftop press conference in 1979 to show off the 32 solar panels and drive home a message to Congress that it was time to get America off imported oil. The panels were used to heat water for the White House staff mess.
The message did not take though, and the panels themselves did not even survive Ronald Reagan.
That was my experience with Solar in the early 1980s. Looks like Obama is not convinced.
The world's largest solar power plant cleared an important hurdle on Wednesday, laying the groundwork for a dramatic expansion in solar energy generation in the United States and around the world.
The proposed $6 billion-plus Blythe, Calif., plant, originally proposed by Chevron and Solar Millennium, won clearance to build from the California Energy Commission.
The plant has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts. By comparison, for all of last year, the U.S. installed about 481 megawatts of solar energy, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. The largest solar plants to date are in the 200- to 350-megawatt range.
The Blythe plant essentially groups four 250MW plants, with the first slated to start generating electricity in 2013. The total price tag is estimated at north of $6 billion.
Solar power through parabolic trough technology
The Blythe plant will use parabolic trough technology, in which heat from mirrors generates steam that passes through turbines to create electricity. (Credit: U.S. Bureau of Land Management)
On Wednesday, Solar Millennium said it and Ferrostaal were the sole two co-developers, working through a U.S. joint venture, Solar Trust of America. Chevron maintained it was still a co-developer through Chevron Energy Solutions.
The commission said it had received no word that Chevron had dropped out. Although Chevron is still listed as a developer on the commission's Web site, it didn't mention Chevron in its press release about the approval.
The developers have already struck an agreement with Southern California Edison, which has said it will purchase the full capacity of the first two plants.
The plant will make electricity by using mirrors to heat a fluid that generates steam, which expands through steam turbine generators. The technique is known as parabolic trough technology.
It is one of nine proposed California solar plants that federal and state regulators are trying to evaluate by the end of the year.
Solar plants that begin construction before December 31 qualify for a Treasury Department grant totaling 30 percent of a project's cost, as part of last year's economic stimulus package.
Building Blythe would create up to 1,004 construction jobs, a spokeswoman for Solar Millennium says. Unemployment in the area slated for the plant is above the state average of 12.35 percent, commissioners said during a meeting Wednesday.
If all nine fast-tracked plants win approval and are constructed, they will create an additional 4,300MW of solar power. But the bulk of the plants won't start generating energy until 2013.
For Blythe, the developers still need final approval from the Bureau of Land Management for use of public lands. The BLM is scheduled to rule on the matter toward the end of next month.
To win the most favorable financing from outside investors, the developers must also secure a Department of Energy loan.
The DOE is currently evaluating the Blythe plant's proposal, including its engineering and financial models.
Having the DOE approval "really lowers the risk to the eventual lender," says Burt Chao, an analyst at Simmons & Co. "The government's pretty thorough in vetting these projects."
The DOE, which has a large backlog of applications, is reviewing them "as quickly and efficiently as possible," says Julie Offner, a DOE loan-guarantee analyst.
Hallelujah. At last something that actually makes sense. You guys in the USA have huge acreages of land with nothing other than tumbleweed and jackrabbits, (apologies, probably the influence of too many Tom Mix or Hoppalong Cassidy films as a young 'un) and sunshine. Solar power just has to make sense in those circumstances. Same goes for wave power.........the tides are as predictable as er, as - the good guy wearing a white hat and getting the girl. :shades:
Wind power ? Fine when the wind is blowing within the turbine's design parameters but useless the rest of the time.........so you need full-scale back-up generation. Just a money-making scam for the wind power companies and thicko politicians seem to fall for it.
Here in the U.K. we are seeing more and more wind power and criticising it is approaching heresy. We could utilise wade/tidal power 'cos we're an island and, IIRC, no-one is further than about 75 miles from the coast. No brainer but little investment other than by university projects. Criminal waste of opportunity. Solar power ? Er, for the 10 days a year when the sun shines we could use it but there's no demand as everyone is outdoors enjoying the big golden ball in the sky. Slight exaggeration there, of course, but you get the idea.
I do hope you guys get your big-scale solar and wake up the rest of the world as to the possibilities - and to Hades with the jackrabbits. If your Mr Obama doesn't understand solar then he really is in the wrong job; or has the wrong advisers. Oh, hang on, you don't need advisers to see the simple efficacy of solar power so it's down to him.
If you look at chart 61 on this U.S. government provided page, you will see the 2008 electrical consumption, and 3 projections on demand in 2035, for 3 different scenarios of growth.
Notice the units on the graph. It looks to me from that graph, that with average growth, we will need a little over 1,000 Billion additional KWH; just in this country alone. The U.S. is only 5% of the world's population; worldwide the demand for electricity will be several times that!
Anyone want to do the math and tell him how many of those solar plants need to be built, just so we don't burn any additional fossil fuels? And a solar plant only runs at peak capacity for a few hours a day, and doesn't produce anything at night, so take that into consideration when doing the calculation. So even if we did build that many renewable energy plants, that effort would not REDUCE our current emissions of CO2.
White House: Global Warming Out, 'Global Climate Disruption' In
Why not? Then you can blame man for any kind of weather related change. Warmer, Colder, Wetter, Windier. All caused by Harry Reid and his string of mega SUVs. :shades:
What a bunch of Liars in DC. They will do or say anything to push their tax and spend agenda. I hope Cap n Trade is the Liberal Waterloo.
Gary asks, "Will the AGW Cult ever just give it up?"
Until someone definitively declares and proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that man is not damaging the environment with his UNNECESSARY pollution, then NO, they won't give up.
And that's good that they DON'T give up.
Just think where we would be without the EPA watching over the pollution hounds.
Think about the scenario that would allow any corporation to pollute in any way they wanted to. That would be like some of those future movies where the Earf is ravaged and men live again like barbarians.
Just think where we would be without the EPA watching over the pollution hounds.
Pollution from factories and cars has NOTHING to do with Global Climate Warming, Cooling or being Disrupted. It is all a political scam to rape the ignorant tax payer. The climate has been and will continue to change for millions of years. With and without man being on the planet. That is the Truth that needs to be looked at. If all the polar bears die because they cannot adapt to changes in the Arctic, so be it. They can join the 95% of all species that are already extinct. That includes man if we do not learn to adapt to changes.
We can kill off all the horny toads building solar collectors and the raptors killed by wind farms and it will not make one bit of difference in the climate 100 years from now.
Until we know that, is it not better to err on the side of caution?
That is what Al Gore and his minions would like you to buy into. And you have. We are cleaning up our air and water. That is good.
Buying and selling CO2 credits with the money ending up in some corrupt politicians pocket is NOT GOOD. The research and hoopla has NOTHING to do with GW or GC, it has to do with the transfer of MONEY, from our pockets to the thieves in control.
PS Your hybrid still puts out as much CO2 as any other vehicle using the same amount of carbon fuel. That has not changed at all. A diesel car getting 40 MPG and a Hybrid getting 40 MPG put out the same amount of CO2. It is an important element in the growing of plants. Lets hope they don't cut too much CO2 out of the air. Or we will be eating cardboard. I need to go drive my SUV so my garden will grow.
Gary says, "Buying and selling CO2 credits with the money ending up in some corrupt politicians pocket is NOT GOOD. The research and hoopla has NOTHING to do with GW or GC, it has to do with the transfer of MONEY, from our pockets to the thieves in control. "
Of COURSE no one with any common sense believes that system would be good, even IF it really existed!!
But then again, it's also a cynical, conspiratorial view that cannot be backed up by facts: "Sinister Secret Plan To Transfer Money From Our Pockets To The Thieves" Puh-Leeze.
Gary says, "It is an important element in the growing of plants. Lets hope they don't cut too much CO2 out of the air. Or we will be eating cardboard. I need to go drive my SUV so my garden will grow."
Gary, you are using exaggeration to try and prove a faulty point. At no point will (OR CAN) Man do anything to restrict the amount of CO2 needed to support plant life on Earf.
At no point will (OR CAN) Man do anything to restrict the amount of CO2 needed to support plant life on Earf.
Thankfully you are right on that point. If Al Gore and his CC companies could store all the CO2 in caves we would be at their mercy and pay even more than the CnT they are trying to push through Congress. I think CnT is dead if we knock the Dems out of control in November. Otherwise it will be one of the first things passed. Barry is trying to do an end around via the EPA to make his own CnT program. Hang on to your wallet if that happens. With his position on Solar he may just want to slap a sunshine use tax onto your solar system. :shades:
Cap and Trade alive and kicking at EPA
Now forced to send his columns to Canada Free Press (CFP) by means other than his own email account which has been hacked, climatologist Dr. Tim Ball wrote more than one year ago that President Barack Obama would bypass Congress by “creating” his own system on Cap and Trade.
When Senator Harry Reid announced last week that Cap and Trade was dead, did it feel like someone was walking over your grave?
While it is true that Cap and Trade doesn’t live in Congress anymore, it is very much alive and kicking over at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“I believe they’re turning this machine on with the help of Cass Sunstein—again, the guy I’ve said from the beginning is the most dangerous man in America, because he’s our regulatory czar. He’s the guy that just takes the laws and then turns them into regulation. All these bills are, is someone else regulates. Well, Cass Sunstein is the guy who is that “someone else.”
“And when it comes to cap-and-trade, we don’t have to look any further than the EPA. Oh, yes, but the EPA they’re just protecting you. Yes.
“These are the same people that did a video contest touting how great government regulation is in, quote, “every aspect of your life”. And now they want to regulate air.”
Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules
lawsuit says science behind 'global warming' claims is junk, discredited By Jim Forsyth Thursday, September 16, 2010 The state of Texas today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' 1200 WOAI news reports.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the rules are illegal and if imposed, will cost Texans in higher energy costs and tens of thousands of lost jobs.
"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."
The Obama end around the law begins. Control, control, control. Has nothing to do with proven science. I say let the Supreme Court decide if AGW science is flawed.
There is a lawsuit challenging the EPA's mandates on GHG. Those mandates are based on supposed AGW scientific facts. If the SC says the evidence does not show that AGW exists, then by law it does not exist. This may save the Congress from passing a cap n trade law, if the SC says AGW is based on flawed science.
It will be good as many of the lame mandates in CA will then be challenged in court. That is the way our system of government works.
Keep in mind. Almost every SC decision has made about half the people mad and half happy.
We were just talking about this a couple of weeks ago and here it is - planning for the exact scenario (storing excess solar panel power during the night or on cloudy days for use when the solar panels are not producing at peak performance levels )
"In the garage of Peter Rive’s San Francisco home is a battery pack. It is not connected to Mr. Rive’s electric Tesla Roadster sports car, but to the power grid.
The California Public Utilities Commission has awarded $1.8 million to Mr. Rive’s company, SolarCity, a residential photovoltaic panel installer, to research the feasibility of storing electricity generated by rooftop solar arrays in batteries.
As rooftop solar systems provide a growing percentage of electricity to California’s grid, regulators and utilities are increasingly concerned about how to balance the intermittent nature of that power with demand.
One possible solution is to store energy generated by solar arrays in batteries and other systems and then feed that electricity to the grid when, say, a cloudy day results in a drop in power production. And when demand peaks, electricity generated from renewable sources could be dispatched from batteries rather than fossil-fuel burning power plants.
“As soon as distributed solar starts providing 5 to 10 percent of demand, its intermittent nature will need to be addressed,” said Mr. Rive, who is SolarCity’s co-founder and chief operating officer.
SolarCity is teaming with Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley electric car company run by Mr. Rive’s cousin, Elon Musk, and the University of California, Berkeley, to study how to integrate solar arrays and off-the-shelf Tesla lithium-ion battery backs into the grid. SolarCity plans to put such systems in six homes.
“We think in the years ahead this will be the default way that solar is installed,” Mr. Rive said. “Getting the costs down, though, is not going to be an easy task.”
Homeowners could potentially benefit by tapping batteries at hours when electricity rates are high or using them to provide backup power if the grid goes down.
The research has just begun, and at the moment SolarCity is testing the impact of charging and discharging electricity from the Tesla battery pack in Mr. Rive’s garage. His roof sports a three-kilowatt solar array.
“We’re at the point now where we can direct the battery to charge and discharge at specific times by sending a signal over the Internet,” Mr. Rive said.
Included in the $14.6 million awarded for solar energy storage research by the utilities commission was $1.9 million to SunPower for a project that will store in ice and batteries electricity generated by solar arrays at Target stores.
SunPower, a Silicon Valley solar panel manufacturer and power plant developer, will work with Ice Energy, a Colorado company that makes systems that use electricity when rates are low to form ice. When rates are high, air conditioning refrigerant is cooled by the melting ice rather than by an electricity-hogging compressor.
The Ice Bear system and a solar array will be installed at one Target store while battery packs will be used at two other stores in California.
Julie Blunden, SunPower’s vice president for public policy, said commercial customers like Target could benefit by taking part in utility programs that reward them financially for reducing demand from the grid when rates are high.
“From a customer perspective, is a great opportunity to assess the value of the solar storage proposition,” she said.
The key here is "one of the hottest years", not the hottest year. That means that there have been hotter years in the past when there were fewer people and fewer cars. Get back to me in 200 years or so. You are still violating your own rule and talking about weather and not climate.
houdini1 says, "You are still violating your own rule and talking about weather and not climate."
No, Sir.
I did not associate my local weather with being the cause of the hot weather nationwide (and in Russia, and other places) where it will be perhaps the hottest year EVER.
I just used my "local weather" as a lead-in point to post the CLIMATE ISSUE about it being one of the (if not ending up being THE) hottest years on record.
The point remains that the "overall GLOBAL CLIMATE trend is still on an UPTICK" and not a downtick.
This means that the Earf is till warming.
Cause? As yet Unknown.
Strong Likelihood? Man's activities contributing. Unproven but looking more and more possible.
The places that are experiencing a warm summer are far outpaced by, Africa, South America, New Zealand, Australia that are experiencing a record cold winter. Not to mention CA has experienced the overall coldest summer on record. I would expect a couple hot days in Phoenix, from the times I was there. I know when we had a few days near a hundred we were wondering where our near perfect summer went. We are back about 10 degrees below normal and loving it. You all keep driving them Hummers, it is working out very well for us in CA.
PS I do not believe NOAA or the NWS temperature readings. If their station close to me is so far off, they are probably screwed up around the globe. Typical government operation.
Comments
I guess they have to Kowtow to their base.
I guess I'll never understand why having "conservative views" means you have to deny all green ideas.
To be conservative is to be cautious. You don not throw money at every wild A** idea put out there by those that are not conservative. It is not the fact that "Green" ideas are bad. Some are good ideas. Just not practical or cost effective. The idea of recycling is good. We have been able to recycle lead acid batteries for a 100 years very profitably. That is a good green idea. Paper to a lessor extent is good for recycling. Though most of the slick papers in magazines and catalogs are not usable. So paying people to sort out the good from the bad could make paper recycling less than cost effective. A better "Green Idea" would be to get rid of catalogs, magazines and newspapers. You can get the same information online in a much more timely manner. And the best green idea of them all is refilling glass bottles. The only reason they quit using glass was our laziness. It was easier to just toss a can or bottle in the trash, so refilling went out of style. While you would like US to believe things are better than the past. It just ain't so. I miss those old milk bottles. Drinks were so much colder in a glass bottle.
Just hard for me to accept this lazy, wasteful society we have become. Where you toss out a $400 iPhone when they come out with a new one 6 months later.
EXACTLY. "To err on the side of CAUTION" is what I have been saying since Day One of this debate on Edmunds !!
Better SAFE than sorry !! Better to ASSUME that the Science is correct which says huge introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is risking raising global temperatures!!!
Better SAFE than Sorry !! Better to recycle and CONSERVE RESOURCES than to just fill up the landfills !!!
The hard, cold truth of the matter is this, however:
Conservatives are against "green ideas" for JUST ONE STUPID REASON:
Most of them are proposed by Liberals.
That's the ONLY reason most Conservatives are against changing their daily lives JUST A LITTLE BIT. Merely to be contrary and argumentative and to try and avoid the "supposed loss of stature" because the OTHER GUY might be right.
It's just idiotic.
Give US some alternatives that are self sustaining and I will be all for them. So far the AGW and liberal eco nuts are batting ZERO
Solar may not be cost effective - but only temporarily. Technology websites have solar advance stories almost daily. ( But better than breathing Coal Exhaust.)
Wind not cost effective - hundreds of giant wind farms seemingly proving that wrong, and costs, again, like solar, are coming down all the time.
CFL, LED, both far better than incandescent.
Gary, there are TONS of good GREEN ideas:
Clean diesel.
Recycling.
Composting.
Forced water rationing.
Don't buy bottled water.
Reusable grocery bags.
Grow your own veggies.
Use vinegar for cleaning instead of chemicals.
Wash your clothes only in cold water.
Buy a heat pump water heater.
Filter your own tap water.
Upgrade your appliances to Energy Star models.
Low-E windows in your home.
I could go on for a few dozen more lines.
As an analogy consider your house to be the Earth. It is a fixed size, with limits. Say today your wife and you live there, and you have a decent lifestyle and all you need to be comfortable. You have a roomy house, garden out back, a well, and a supply of fuel. But tomorrow you've invited another person to move in with you, and every day after that another person moves in with the existing folks. So what happens after people start moving in. Well at first you make some adjustments, everyone gets a little less space. You increase your garden's production. You put in more electrical outlets. But each and every day another person shows up. So everyone in the house is asked to conserve and recycle to make the food and fuel go further.
But as each day goes on the problems don't get better despite your best planning, conservation and recycling. You continue to get more crowded and each person has less. Your fuel supply continues to deplete. The amount of waste in the house continues to increase with the number of people. And to make things worse, everyone is fighting for more food, access to water, and fuel. This is the situation on the Earth today.
So I will say again to you larsb that you need to look at long-term. No environmental problem will get better globally or long-term as lomng as the global population continues to grow.
It does not matter whether you get 20mpg, 30mpg, 50mpg, or have an EV, and you drive very little. What matters is if the global population and numbers of people using energy and resources grows. I know you'll reject this as you have for many months now, as I believe you emotionally need to feel that you can make a difference. Environmental issues and population growth are issues that only the entire world coming together can address. And I see no urgency yet despite the warnings of scientists over the years, that our growth is unsustainable. This will probably result in some grand wars several decades out.
I DO disagree that because of it, we should just "throw our hands up in the air" and stop all conservation and recycling and pollution-reducing activities.
That's just ludicrous.
That is truly remarkable considering how many more people and autos we have.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There are 2 types of problems related to conservation, recycling, and pollution in my mind. There are the short-term, local issues which we can do something about. These things keep our local environment nice and pleasant for us, in the short-term. They are short-term, non-global things we can do and control.
But population growth is a global, uncontrollled issue. As it relates to this topic, it means that as more and more people are on Earth, they will use the fossil fuel, if we do not. Someone, somewhere will burn that fuel, and that fuel is going to make CO2 going into the atmosphere. If there is going to be GW from increased CO2 that is going to happen then, simply because there are going to be more people who want the benefits (improve their lifestyle) of burning those fuels. Whether we burn the fuels in our vehicles, or simply burn the oil, natural gas, and coal to heat our houses and produce electricity, those fuels get burnt.
So I'm saying, it is not a major difference if I burn a gallon of gasoline this week, or some new driver in India burns it next year. It will all be burnt and go into the atmosphere.
As I said before there could be hope if we could find a great tapable energy source - like nuclear fusion. But then if it were easy to make a great energy source, then it would be easy to make great bombs. So I'm not wishing that someone finds a way to fuse seawater atoms!
CFL, LED, both far better than incandescent.
They are energy saving. That does not by itself make them environmentally good. CFLs are turning into a headache with the mercury problem and short life. I have had at least half a dozen go bad in less than two years. I did keep the receipts and bought extras. So I just take them back to Wally World and get my money back. You know it is a scam right? When I bought the 56 CFLs for my house SDG&E had a promotional going at WalMart. They were 89 cents each. Now those same bulbs are over $5 each. If their life continues to be short it will not be cost effective using them. Fortunately I did keep all my incandescent bulbs. May cost a bit more to use, but much longer life span.
Wind not cost effective - hundreds of giant wind farms seemingly proving that wrong
You better do some serious reading. They are heavily subsidized and when the wind dies down, who is going to pick up the slack? That has turned out to be another government boondoggle. Notice Pickins is trying to unload his bunch that he bought.
T. Boone Pickens to Sell Off 667 Wind Turbines
As part of the first phase to build a 4,000 MW wind farm in the Texas panhandle, Pickens ordered 667 turbines from GE. These turbines are to be ready in 2010 and 2011, but the wind farm was called off due to funding and transmission problems. Now that’s a boondoggle.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/07/t-boone-pickens-to-sell-off-667-wind-turbine- s/
You have always been a Pie in the Sky Dreamer. Most of the schemes and scams in the "Green Realm" are designed to make the schemer rich. Nothing to do with saving the planet. T Boone got caught with his pants down. He can afford to lose a couple $billion on the Wind idiocy. He did not plan far enough ahead. He believed that people would welcome a power line across TX to deliver wind power. Our Power line to bring solar energy looks like a snake crossing the state. It has been diverted so many times it will cost us the energy buyers a fortune. All because that bunch of Liberal idiots in Sacramento have forced alternative energy down our throats. I hope they rot in hell.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Ask those people in the area if they like the Wind Turbines. They LOVE 'EM. As a rule. There are some old persnickity old timers who complain, but there are many small towns whose fortunes have been turned by selling wind power.
And the farmers get paid to have the turbines on their land.
Sure, you can find horror stories about wind farms going bad, complaints about EMF, killing birds, noise, etc. But nothing is perfect.
Remember - the alternative is DIRTY COAL PLANTS.
When you look at the alternative, you should see that all these problems need to be and CAN be worked out.
Look at your complaint Gary:
"Because the transmission lines are a "problem" then wind power sucks."
That's silly.
The transmission line issues will be worked out. If not, then the turbines in THAT area might go away.
But using the wind is a totally intelligent thing to do. And we humans ARE intelligent.
That is the point. Wind and solar has not actually replaced anything on a permanent basis. It is a feel good subsidy program. And there is NO PLACE that the wind blows at least 9 mph 24/7 365 days a year. And they get shut down in high wind and for maintenance. I have no problem with wind generation. Even if it does cost a bit more. It is the huge subsidies being paid that I revolt against. Our wind farm is quite relaxing to watch as is the one we visit in Hawaii. Last time we were up there the wind was blowing like crazy at the Indian casino. They were all turned sideways to the wind and stopped. The head guy at the casino said they only have a certain window of safe operation. So what provides the power during those periods? Exactly, coal, gas, diesel. Coal generators take too long to bring on line. So the utility is stuck with conventional gas generation to keep in good shape for those time.
The transmission line issues will be worked out. If not, then the turbines in THAT area might go away.
Not as long as LIBERAL ECO NUTS have access to the courts. And it is also concerned citizens that balk against these high voltage over head power lines. There have been numerous fires started by lines that have been blown down in high winds. In 2007 we had a fire that burned 200,000 acres and 1700 homes with numerous deaths. It was caused by a downed power line. The point being, nothing is perfect. And building large wind farms in windy areas or solar arrays in desert areas, then transmitting over long distances, is not always the best alternative solution.
Then we come to individual Solar systems such as your own. What would happen if everyone in Phoenix put a solar system on their home? Do you think the power company could justify the expense of storing your energy for night usage? Big coal and nuclear plants cannot be turned off and on when it gets dark and light. Someone has to pay for that service you are now getting. It is the tax payers subsidizing your use of solar. Making you a welfare recipient.
Gary says:"There have been numerous fires started by lines that have been blown down in high winds."
Part One of the Decimation of Gary's Point:
Well, that's not exactly NEW to electricity, is it? Any transmission lines, regardless of the source of the energy, is a risk for that sort of fire. Those fires happened before anyone was using Wind energy.
Part Two of the Decimation of Gary's Point:
Yesterday in San Bruno, CA, a ruptured gas line explosion caused a neighborhood fire. The point: MANY forms of energy transmission are a risk. Why not use a CLEAN method for creating it?
Gary says, "What would happen if everyone in Phoenix put a solar system on their home? Do you think the power company could justify the expense of storing your energy for night usage?"
First of all, if that DID happen, I would have a "HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY" party that would last for about 2 weeks. Because with all that extra clean energy being produced, one or more dirty coal plant could be turned off. Whoop Whoop !!!! :shades:
But since it's virtually out of the realm of possibility, let me try to address it in a similar fashion.
Long before something like that could happen, the utility company COULD take measures.
Technologies to do just that (store the extra energy) are already in place:
One possible answer? In Japan, so-called “flow” batteries have been used for years to store backup power at industrial plants. Conventional batteries store energy in chemical form. With flow batteries, charged chemicals are pumped into storage tanks, allowing still more chemical to be charged and pumped away, then pumped back into the active portion of the battery and drawn down as needed. One big advantage: Battery “size” can be expanded by simply adding more chemicals and more storage tanks. In 2003, the local utility on small King Island, off the coast of Australia, installed a large flow battery to sop up and later release excess power from a wind farm.
And there is progress being made on an entirely different front — using excess electricity to pump compressed air into caverns, salt domes, and old natural gas wells, and then releasing the air to help state-of-the-art natural gas power plants spin turbines, lowering the amount of fuel consumed by as much as 70 percent. A consortium of utilities in Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakotas is already working with the U.S.’s Sandia National Laboratories to develop a giant, 268-megawatt compressed air system. Called the Iowa Stored Energy Park, it would store excess energy from the region’s burgeoning wind industry.
Ultracapacitor technology is also making progress.
So don't worry Gary. Before the USA get's powered more by solar/wind than by coal (a goal which will SOMEDAY be achieved) the technology will be in place to store all that extra juice.
How about an Energy Star label for cars?
EPA Fuel Economy Label Proposals: What do YOU Think? (Green Car Advisor)
But you know, those kind of people DO exist. They don't hide from it.
It's not "libel" if it's true.......:)
.
.
.
The projects you have listed for storage do sound promising. Though at this time our utility is so screwed over by the CA legislature they are not at all friendly to home solar installations. And the county has gotten downright obstinate. My friend that was working for a solar installation company quit. He was only getting about one day a week work. And the pay was paltry. They probably can get illegals a lot cheaper. Solar is a long way from main stream. Even though San Diego is at the leading edge of Solar installations. It has become a political football and so far only gotten worse. I think that will keep the vast majority from getting involved in Solar.
You should feel fortunate that you still live in a state that has a few freedoms left.
It IS a shame.
And I am happy to be living in AZ.
You sure seem like you'd certainly be happier in Hilo than in Slam Diego.
California Utilities to Store Off-Peak Power In Blocks of Ice
It seems like a perennial story in the Golden State: the temperatures go up, air conditioners across the state kick into high gear and power utilities simply can't keep up. Now, a group of Southern California utilities plans to combat the state's searing summers with ice, building a 53-megawatt distributed energy storage project that will lock away off-peak cooling power for use during the sweltering mid-day peak.
During those peak consumption hours -- generally from noon to 6 p.m. -- the albatross around the neck of power utilities is air conditioning units, which all tend to kick on more or less at the same time as daytime temperatures rise. To keep these consumption spikes from overpowering the generators and transmission lines, the utilities will deploy Ice Energy's Ice Bear -- winner of a PopSci Best Of What's New award in 2007 -- across a 7,000-square-mile service area, attaching the units to 1,500 commercial and rooftop air conditioners to help offset the burden.
The Ice Bear works by freezing 450 gallons in an insulated tank during the night, when energy consumption is at its lowest. A series of copper coils running through the tank pumps in enough coolant to turn the water to ice, where it remains until temperatures begin to rise during the day. When the AC begins its daily struggle to cool the building the Ice Bear kicks in, pumping the AC's warm refrigerant through the copper coils in the ice, cooling it without employing the AC's energy intensive compressor.
When the ice is completely melted, usually about six hours later, the AC kicks back into normal operation, but by then peak demand has passed and the AC coasts into the cooler evening hours with less power consumption. The Ice Bear begins freezing the melted water in its tank, and the process starts again.
(and didn't intend to single anyone out on the labeling comment Larsb. Sorry).
A more robust world of solar and wind power might be better served by some sort of giant battery — or, more likely, many of them, widely distributed. The basic concept has been proven. Since 2003, the world’s largest battery backup has been storing energy for an entire city: Fairbanks, Alaska. Isolated as it is, and not part of any regional electricity grid, the metropolitan area of about 100,000 residents needs an electricity backstop more than most: In its sub-zero winters, pipes can freeze solid in as little as two hours. Six years ago, the city installed a huge nickel-cadmium battery, the same technology used for years in laptop computers and other portable devices.
Housed in a giant warehouse, the 1,300-metric ton battery is larger than a football field, and can crank out 40 million watts of power. Still, the Fairbanks battery provides only enough electricity for about 12,000 residents for seven minutes. That was enough to prevent 81 blackouts in the city in the battery’s first two years of operation.
I know who Steve was posting about. I just get so frustrated with people that claim to be environmentally astute and worried about the planet. When they push for CO2 emissions reduction and then block progress in that direction. Many of them also fall into the NIMBY group. Think Kennedys and half the people in San Francisco. I think a person would be hard pressed to find any of the high profile environmentalists, that actually live the life. Maybe GW Bush. None I can name.
'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus
The Department of Energy estimated that 82,000 jobs have been created and has acknowledged that as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.
Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, said much of the green stimulus funding was "squandered."
"Large grants to build green buildings don't generate many new jobs, except for a few architects," he said. "Subsidies for windmills and solar panels created lots of jobs in China," but few at home.
In one of several embarrassing disclosures for the administration, a report last fall by American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 11 U.S. wind farms used their grants to purchase 695 out of 982 wind turbines from overseas suppliers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/9/green-jobs-no-longer-golden-in-st- imulus/
The Fraser River is brimming with sockeye as it hasn’t in a century. Estimates are that 30 million salmon are scrambling their way to the place from whence they once came, the largest return since 1913. B.C.’s fishermen might be delighted, you would expect. Many are not.
The fishing is good. In a 32-hour frenzy near Vancouver this week, nets bulged with fat sockeye. But the industry is scarcely equipped to handle it anymore: There were shortages of ice, totes and freezer space while processing plants turned away boatloads of salmon for lack of processing capacity and available workers.
Prices are swooning. B.C.’s fishery has been so devastated by low returns and accompanying moratoria in the past decade that even record years are bittersweet. And the blame, say many, lies not with global warming, sea lice or any other oft-suspected abstruse scientific phenomena. Rather, it is mismanagement by, and conflicting political interests — clashing agendas involving First Nations policies, environmentalists and industry — within none other than the same Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that oversaw the disastrous collapse of the East Coast’s northern cod fisheries.
“We have fought them tooth and nail. We have fought them politically, we have fought them in the courts, and we have lost every single battle,” says Phil Eidsvik, a Vancouver-area fisherman and executive director of the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition.
“DFO got their way on everything in the past 20 years and what did we get? We have a fishery that’s closed three out of four years.”
Poor Salmon runs Not AGW
Ed Begley Jr. immediately comes to mind. Jackson Browne.
But you are correct that there are not many who immediately come to mind.
Barack Obama: 'no' to solar panels on the White House roof
A California company Sungevity had offered to equip the White House with the latest technology.
But the White House declined - twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison to one-term Democratic president Carter in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections in November. The White House did send three staffers to meet the campaigners.
Carter held a rooftop press conference in 1979 to show off the 32 solar panels and drive home a message to Congress that it was time to get America off imported oil. The panels were used to heat water for the White House staff mess.
The message did not take though, and the panels themselves did not even survive Ronald Reagan.
That was my experience with Solar in the early 1980s. Looks like Obama is not convinced.
One Thousand Megawatts Of Power !!!!
The world's largest solar power plant cleared an important hurdle on Wednesday, laying the groundwork for a dramatic expansion in solar energy generation in the United States and around the world.
The proposed $6 billion-plus Blythe, Calif., plant, originally proposed by Chevron and Solar Millennium, won clearance to build from the California Energy Commission.
The plant has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts. By comparison, for all of last year, the U.S. installed about 481 megawatts of solar energy, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. The largest solar plants to date are in the 200- to 350-megawatt range.
The Blythe plant essentially groups four 250MW plants, with the first slated to start generating electricity in 2013. The total price tag is estimated at north of $6 billion.
Solar power through parabolic trough technology
The Blythe plant will use parabolic trough technology, in which heat from mirrors generates steam that passes through turbines to create electricity.
(Credit: U.S. Bureau of Land Management)
On Wednesday, Solar Millennium said it and Ferrostaal were the sole two co-developers, working through a U.S. joint venture, Solar Trust of America. Chevron maintained it was still a co-developer through Chevron Energy Solutions.
The commission said it had received no word that Chevron had dropped out. Although Chevron is still listed as a developer on the commission's Web site, it didn't mention Chevron in its press release about the approval.
The developers have already struck an agreement with Southern California Edison, which has said it will purchase the full capacity of the first two plants.
The plant will make electricity by using mirrors to heat a fluid that generates steam, which expands through steam turbine generators. The technique is known as parabolic trough technology.
It is one of nine proposed California solar plants that federal and state regulators are trying to evaluate by the end of the year.
Solar plants that begin construction before December 31 qualify for a Treasury Department grant totaling 30 percent of a project's cost, as part of last year's economic stimulus package.
Building Blythe would create up to 1,004 construction jobs, a spokeswoman for Solar Millennium says. Unemployment in the area slated for the plant is above the state average of 12.35 percent, commissioners said during a meeting Wednesday.
If all nine fast-tracked plants win approval and are constructed, they will create an additional 4,300MW of solar power. But the bulk of the plants won't start generating energy until 2013.
For Blythe, the developers still need final approval from the Bureau of Land Management for use of public lands. The BLM is scheduled to rule on the matter toward the end of next month.
To win the most favorable financing from outside investors, the developers must also secure a Department of Energy loan.
The DOE is currently evaluating the Blythe plant's proposal, including its engineering and financial models.
Having the DOE approval "really lowers the risk to the eventual lender," says Burt Chao, an analyst at Simmons & Co. "The government's pretty thorough in vetting these projects."
The DOE, which has a large backlog of applications, is reviewing them "as quickly and efficiently as possible," says Julie Offner, a DOE loan-guarantee analyst.
Wind power ? Fine when the wind is blowing within the turbine's design parameters but useless the rest of the time.........so you need full-scale back-up generation. Just a money-making scam for the wind power companies and thicko politicians seem to fall for it.
Here in the U.K. we are seeing more and more wind power and criticising it is approaching heresy. We could utilise wade/tidal power 'cos we're an island and, IIRC, no-one is further than about 75 miles from the coast. No brainer but little investment other than by university projects. Criminal waste of opportunity. Solar power ? Er, for the 10 days a year when the sun shines we could use it but there's no demand as everyone is outdoors enjoying the big golden ball in the sky. Slight exaggeration there, of course, but you get the idea.
I do hope you guys get your big-scale solar and wake up the rest of the world as to the possibilities - and to Hades with the jackrabbits. If your Mr Obama doesn't understand solar then he really is in the wrong job; or has the wrong advisers. Oh, hang on, you don't need advisers to see the simple efficacy of solar power so it's down to him.
Thank you for getting this far. End of rant.
Notice the units on the graph. It looks to me from that graph, that with average growth, we will need a little over 1,000 Billion additional KWH; just in this country alone. The U.S. is only 5% of the world's population; worldwide the demand for electricity will be several times that!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
Anyone want to do the math and tell him how many of those solar plants need to be built, just so we don't burn any additional fossil fuels? And a solar plant only runs at peak capacity for a few hours a day, and doesn't produce anything at night, so take that into consideration when doing the calculation. So even if we did build that many renewable energy plants, that effort would not REDUCE our current emissions of CO2.
If we're gonna need an additional TRILLION kWh, then we better start figgerin' out how to harness LiTeNiN'.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Why not? Then you can blame man for any kind of weather related change. Warmer, Colder, Wetter, Windier. All caused by Harry Reid and his string of mega SUVs. :shades:
What a bunch of Liars in DC. They will do or say anything to push their tax and spend agenda. I hope Cap n Trade is the Liberal Waterloo.
Until someone definitively declares and proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that man is not damaging the environment with his UNNECESSARY pollution, then NO, they won't give up.
And that's good that they DON'T give up.
Just think where we would be without the EPA watching over the pollution hounds.
Think about the scenario that would allow any corporation to pollute in any way they wanted to. That would be like some of those future movies where the Earf is ravaged and men live again like barbarians.
Pollution from factories and cars has NOTHING to do with Global Climate Warming, Cooling or being Disrupted. It is all a political scam to rape the ignorant tax payer. The climate has been and will continue to change for millions of years. With and without man being on the planet. That is the Truth that needs to be looked at. If all the polar bears die because they cannot adapt to changes in the Arctic, so be it. They can join the 95% of all species that are already extinct. That includes man if we do not learn to adapt to changes.
We can kill off all the horny toads building solar collectors and the raptors killed by wind farms and it will not make one bit of difference in the climate 100 years from now.
BUT.
WE.
JUST.
DON'T.
KNOW.
EXACTLY.
HOW.
AND.
TO.
WHAT.
EXTENT.
THE.
CURRENT.
HUGE.
POPULATION.
OF.
THE.
EARF.
AND.
IT'S.
ACCOMPANYING.
POLLUTION.
IS.
AFFECTING.
GLOBAL.
CLIMATE.
Until we know that, is it not better to err on the side of caution?
That is what Al Gore and his minions would like you to buy into. And you have. We are cleaning up our air and water. That is good.
Buying and selling CO2 credits with the money ending up in some corrupt politicians pocket is NOT GOOD. The research and hoopla has NOTHING to do with GW or GC, it has to do with the transfer of MONEY, from our pockets to the thieves in control.
PS
Your hybrid still puts out as much CO2 as any other vehicle using the same amount of carbon fuel. That has not changed at all. A diesel car getting 40 MPG and a Hybrid getting 40 MPG put out the same amount of CO2. It is an important element in the growing of plants. Lets hope they don't cut too much CO2 out of the air. Or we will be eating cardboard. I need to go drive my SUV so my garden will grow.
Of COURSE no one with any common sense believes that system would be good, even IF it really existed!!
But then again, it's also a cynical, conspiratorial view that cannot be backed up by facts: "Sinister Secret Plan To Transfer Money From Our Pockets To The Thieves" Puh-Leeze.
Gary says, "It is an important element in the growing of plants. Lets hope they don't cut too much CO2 out of the air. Or we will be eating cardboard. I need to go drive my SUV so my garden will grow."
Gary, you are using exaggeration to try and prove a faulty point. At no point will (OR CAN) Man do anything to restrict the amount of CO2 needed to support plant life on Earf.
Thankfully you are right on that point. If Al Gore and his CC companies could store all the CO2 in caves we would be at their mercy and pay even more than the CnT they are trying to push through Congress. I think CnT is dead if we knock the Dems out of control in November. Otherwise it will be one of the first things passed. Barry is trying to do an end around via the EPA to make his own CnT program. Hang on to your wallet if that happens. With his position on Solar he may just want to slap a sunshine use tax onto your solar system. :shades:
Cap and Trade alive and kicking at EPA
Now forced to send his columns to Canada Free Press (CFP) by means other than his own email account which has been hacked, climatologist Dr. Tim Ball wrote more than one year ago that President Barack Obama would bypass Congress by “creating” his own system on Cap and Trade.
When Senator Harry Reid announced last week that Cap and Trade was dead, did it feel like someone was walking over your grave?
While it is true that Cap and Trade doesn’t live in Congress anymore, it is very much alive and kicking over at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“I believe they’re turning this machine on with the help of Cass Sunstein—again, the guy I’ve said from the beginning is the most dangerous man in America, because he’s our regulatory czar. He’s the guy that just takes the laws and then turns them into regulation. All these bills are, is someone else regulates. Well, Cass Sunstein is the guy who is that “someone else.”
“And when it comes to cap-and-trade, we don’t have to look any further than the EPA. Oh, yes, but the EPA they’re just protecting you. Yes.
“These are the same people that did a video contest touting how great government regulation is in, quote, “every aspect of your life”. And now they want to regulate air.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25927
lawsuit says science behind 'global warming' claims is junk, discredited
By Jim Forsyth
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The state of Texas today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' 1200 WOAI news reports.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the rules are illegal and if imposed, will cost Texans in higher energy costs and tens of thousands of lost jobs.
"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&artic- le=7606198
The Obama end around the law begins. Control, control, control. Has nothing to do with proven science. I say let the Supreme Court decide if AGW science is flawed.
There is enough data on hand from both sides to say either is right and that either is wrong.
There is no possible correct answer right now.
.
.
.
It will be good as many of the lame mandates in CA will then be challenged in court. That is the way our system of government works.
Keep in mind. Almost every SC decision has made about half the people mad and half happy.
Storing excess solar capacity on batteries
"In the garage of Peter Rive’s San Francisco home is a battery pack. It is not connected to Mr. Rive’s electric Tesla Roadster sports car, but to the power grid.
The California Public Utilities Commission has awarded $1.8 million to Mr. Rive’s company, SolarCity, a residential photovoltaic panel installer, to research the feasibility of storing electricity generated by rooftop solar arrays in batteries.
As rooftop solar systems provide a growing percentage of electricity to California’s grid, regulators and utilities are increasingly concerned about how to balance the intermittent nature of that power with demand.
One possible solution is to store energy generated by solar arrays in batteries and other systems and then feed that electricity to the grid when, say, a cloudy day results in a drop in power production. And when demand peaks, electricity generated from renewable sources could be dispatched from batteries rather than fossil-fuel burning power plants.
“As soon as distributed solar starts providing 5 to 10 percent of demand, its intermittent nature will need to be addressed,” said Mr. Rive, who is SolarCity’s co-founder and chief operating officer.
SolarCity is teaming with Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley electric car company run by Mr. Rive’s cousin, Elon Musk, and the University of California, Berkeley, to study how to integrate solar arrays and off-the-shelf Tesla lithium-ion battery backs into the grid. SolarCity plans to put such systems in six homes.
“We think in the years ahead this will be the default way that solar is installed,” Mr. Rive said. “Getting the costs down, though, is not going to be an easy task.”
Homeowners could potentially benefit by tapping batteries at hours when electricity rates are high or using them to provide backup power if the grid goes down.
The research has just begun, and at the moment SolarCity is testing the impact of charging and discharging electricity from the Tesla battery pack in Mr. Rive’s garage. His roof sports a three-kilowatt solar array.
“We’re at the point now where we can direct the battery to charge and discharge at specific times by sending a signal over the Internet,” Mr. Rive said.
Included in the $14.6 million awarded for solar energy storage research by the utilities commission was $1.9 million to SunPower for a project that will store in ice and batteries electricity generated by solar arrays at Target stores.
SunPower, a Silicon Valley solar panel manufacturer and power plant developer, will work with Ice Energy, a Colorado company that makes systems that use electricity when rates are low to form ice. When rates are high, air conditioning refrigerant is cooled by the melting ice rather than by an electricity-hogging compressor.
The Ice Bear system and a solar array will be installed at one Target store while battery packs will be used at two other stores in California.
Julie Blunden, SunPower’s vice president for public policy, said commercial customers like Target could benefit by taking part in utility programs that reward them financially for reducing demand from the grid when rates are high.
“From a customer perspective, is a great opportunity to assess the value of the solar storage proposition,” she said.
Can't remember that ever happening in the 14.75 years I have lived here.
I'm guessing we are headed for the hottest September on record.
The USA is looking at one of the hottest years ever, so no surprise really.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No, Sir.
I did not associate my local weather with being the cause of the hot weather nationwide (and in Russia, and other places) where it will be perhaps the hottest year EVER.
I just used my "local weather" as a lead-in point to post the CLIMATE ISSUE about it being one of the (if not ending up being THE) hottest years on record.
The point remains that the "overall GLOBAL CLIMATE trend is still on an UPTICK" and not a downtick.
This means that the Earf is till warming.
Cause? As yet Unknown.
Strong Likelihood? Man's activities contributing. Unproven but looking more and more possible.
Don't be silly. Of course man's activities contribute, but to a tiny, tiny extent. Let's let the SC decide what has been proven and what is hogwash.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The places that are experiencing a warm summer are far outpaced by, Africa, South America, New Zealand, Australia that are experiencing a record cold winter. Not to mention CA has experienced the overall coldest summer on record. I would expect a couple hot days in Phoenix, from the times I was there. I know when we had a few days near a hundred we were wondering where our near perfect summer went. We are back about 10 degrees below normal and loving it. You all keep driving them Hummers, it is working out very well for us in CA.
PS
I do not believe NOAA or the NWS temperature readings. If their station close to me is so far off, they are probably screwed up around the globe. Typical government operation.