So do germs and disease. (since no one else seems to be mentioning it).
I must be missing the headlines of the massive plagues in Hawaii? And the few times I've been there, I've nary seen an insect.
And I really don't want to imagine giving up cold beer, don't even want to think about going English. If you've been here a bit, you'd know I have no AC at my house, I don't mind 95F temp. for a few hours each year. I only run the AC in the car when my wife insists, or I'm dressed going to a wedding or funeral. People around the world have higher temps. than 95F and don't need AC. The problem with much of the modern world is we insist on working thru the hottest part of the day, or seal ourselves in office buildings that aren't designed for fresh air movement. And our cities are great heat-sinks since we decided to pour so much concrete and blacktop in a small area, and then run all kinds of machinery generating heat in that area.
What does a building AC unit do? It takes the heat from inside, generates additional heat by drawing energy, and then dumps it outside your house or building - which then increases the need (temperature) for everyone to have AC to avoid the increased temperature. So when you hear of a city like Phoenix baking, consider that some of that problem is the heat that the machinery (including AC) in that city is generating. Every MW of electricity a city draws, or every gallon of fuel or KW a vehicle uses to move, is converted into BTU's that get pumped into that environment.
Gary, I thought the traditional definition of "snake oil" is "Something sold with a promise of performance which DOESN'T meet the performance promised?"
That is exactly correct. And this says it all about the Green alternatives we are wasting tax dollars on:
I'll believe it when I see it. I would like an accounting on how much we have wasted on Corn Ethanol with no decrease in imported oil. And you forgot the solar cell factory we built in New England, that was shut down and moved to China. Or the subsidies to build Wind mills that got diverted to China. All part of the "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" surrounding so called Green Alternatives. Which is the stepchild of the UN Global scam called AGW.
Plug-in electric vehicles may be the hip newcomers on U.S. streets this year, but they aren't the only eco-friendly stars, a scorecard of greenest cars reveals Tuesday.
The natural gas Honda Civic GX wins top honors for the eighth year, earning 54 points, followed this time by the all-electric Nissan Leaf and the gasoline-powered, two-seater, the Smart Fortwo, according to the 14th annual environmental ratings by the private American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE.)
Hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Civic and Honda Insight) take the next three spots, followed closely by Ford's new Fiesta SFE (Super Fuel Economy) and the new Chevrolet Cruze Eco. Also making the top dozen are three other gas-powered cars (Hyundai Elantra, Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris) as well as the Chevy Volt, a new electric vehicle with a back-up gas engine.
"We're seeing an increasing number of highly efficient gasoline options from both foreign and domestic automakers along with the first electric vehicles," ACEEE vehicle analyst Shruti Vaidyanathan said in announcing the results, which include five new models among its top dozen.
Why don't plug-in electric cars win hands-down?
"Vehicles running on electricity emit nothing from the tailpipe, but their 'upstream' emissions can be substantial, depending on where they're charged. As U.S. power generation becomes cleaner, these vehicles' scores will rise," said Therese Langer, ACEEE's transportation director.
The ratings are based not only on tailpipe emissions but also fuel consumption, emissions that cause global warming and emissions associated with battery manufacture and disposal. Hybrids lose a few points because of their batteries.
The ratings, posted on ACEEE's greenercars.org website, also pick winners in each vehicle class. Honors go to trucks and SUVs such as the Hyundai Tucson, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Canyon, and the Ford F-150 (FFV).
The "meanest" list this year includes mostly heavy trucks and SUVs, a marked change from the numerous European sports cars that dominated last year's list. The Bugatti Veyron gets the overall lowest score, 19.
I find it interesting that the Civic GX is on top. When it is all but impractical for a private individual. Last I checked all the public access CNG stations were closed for business. So where are the grants to install CNG sales locations? The reason, it is not the Green du jour this year. The Feds are off and wasting on the latest and greatest scam, EVs. and Plugin hybrids. When they fail as they have before it will be something else to waste tax dollars on. Something they don't tell you about the GX is the high cost of maintenance. http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0fdc5d/27#MSG27
I don't think you can get a device to fuel a GX at home any longer. So it may top the list. Just not practical to own. Much like the LEAF and our high electric rates in CA.
Fuelmaker goes bankrupt, Honda to blame?
Fuelmaker, the company that creates the PHILL compressed natural gas filling stations for residential and commercial use, has just been driven into involuntary bankruptcy. You may recall that Fuelmaker is owned by Honda, which had been in negotiations last year to sell the company to a number of different suitors, most notably to T. Boone Pickens' Clean Energy Fuels. None of those negotiations resulted in a sale.
Fuelmaker's bankruptcy leaves a number of questions as to how companies relying on PHILL fueling units will get their products serviced, and it also casts doubts on the future of CNG vehicles for private residential use. Fuelmaker president John Lyon has hopes that another suitor will "see this as an opportunity and come to the rescue."
Life Cycle Cost of Coal Power in the U.S. - $500 Billion/Year Written by Megan Treacy on 17/02/11
A new Harvard University study examines the life cycle cost of coal power including all the resulting environmental and health expenses and found that although the coal itself might be cheap, the price of generating power from it is not. The study found that coal power actually costs the U.S. somewhere between $345 billion and $500 billion each year. The study says If all of those expenses were included in people's electricity bills, it would double to triple the cost of coal power, adding by $0.09 - $0.27 per kWh, making it no longer the cheapest source of electricity, but one of the most expensive.
Some of the hidden expenses outlined in the study are elevated rates of cancer and other diseases in coal-mining regions, environmental damage to those areas (including water and air pollution), loss of tourism dollars and costs related to climate change.
The full study titled "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal" will be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences soon.
Your article conveniently left out the loss of jobs to folks involved in coal mining. Safety regs have diminished much of the health risks of the past. Nice try though at deflecting from the high cost of unreliable Wind and Solar. Remember we still need coal or more expensive gas generation when the wind stops blowing or the wind mill freezes up. So that kind of makes the article moot. Even if we stop using coal the rest of the world will buy ours. We sell most of the coal from Alaska to Korea last I checked. A steady stream of coal rail cars pass through Anchorage headed to the ports. So we get the negative benefits in the global air quality and lose the good benefits of cheaper power. So how smart is that?
Jobs, Schmobs. Anytime any industry tails off, the people get other work. Americans adapt.
Solar and Wind are not unreliable at all, when placed in the correct locations.
Albuquerque (and other places) get 300+ days of sun per year....how "unreliable" would solar be in those towns? NOT VERY UNRELIABLE AT ALL.
10 sunniest cities Annual percent of possible sunshine 1. Yuma, Arizona 90% 2. Las Vegas, Nevada 85% 3. Phoenix, Arizona 85% 4. Tucson, Arizona 85% 5. El Paso, Texas 83% 6. Flagstaff, Arizona 79% 7. Fresno, California 79% 8. Reno, Nevada 79% 9. Sacramento, California 78% 10. Albuquerque, N.M. 76%
Lots of cities and locales (I posted a chart last week) get daily wind averaging more than 12 MPH - how "unreliable" is wind in those areas? NOT VERY UNRELIABLE AT ALL.
10 windiest cities Avg annual wind speed in mph 1. Blue Hill Observatory, Massachusetts 15.4 2. Dodge City, Kansas 14.0 3. Amarillo, Texas 13.5 4. Rochester, Minnesota 13.1 5. Casper, Wyoming 12.9 6. Cheyenne, Wyoming 12.9 7. Great Falls, Montana 12.7 8. Goodland, Kansas 12.6 9. Boston, Massachusetts 12.5 10. Lubbock, Texas 12.4
Gary says, "So we get the negative benefits in the global air quality and lose the good benefits of cheaper power. So how smart is that? "
I only understand HALF of that......How is getting "negative benefits" a smart thing?
Jobs, Schmobs. Anytime any industry tails off, the people get other work. Americans adapt.
Tell that to the 19%+ Americans that are currently out of work or underemployed. When they have a job building Solar panels or Wind mills and the plant closes and moves to China after the Federal Subsidy is gone, what other job takes its place? The Federal dollars spent on green projects invariably cause more problems than they solve. It is vaporware.
NOT VERY UNRELIABLE AT ALL.
HMMMM, any lack of reliability is too much when you expect to get electricity. If I wanted to live OFF the Grid I would look at Solar and an array of lead acid batteries. So I sit smug with solar panels providing my needs for 300 days of the year. Then when the sun does not produce enough I expect the power company to make up the difference. I think you know that San Diego has the highest percentage of Solar powered residences in the US. And we have the highest electric rates. Think about that.
How is getting "negative benefits" a smart thing?
You tell me. That is what your article is advocating. Quit using coal for electricity and sell the coal to China. So we get their dirty air and negative benefits from the GHG, if there are any. Last I read coal plants actually cause global cooling.
High SO2 emissions notably from the electricity produced in coal fired power plants lead to a strong cooling from sulfate aerosols.'
Gary says, "So I sit smug with solar panels providing my needs for 300 days of the year. Then when the sun does not produce enough I expect the power company to make up the difference. "
You seem to have this situation confused. I PAY THEM when they have to supply me with extra energy. I don't get it FREE.
What is wrong with that setup? If we ALL did that, we would be better off. More green power, less coal burned, fewer power generation plants required, smaller. less powerful utility companies.
There is no DOWNSIDE to that scenario - so I can't understand where your negative feelings are coming from....
What is wrong with that setup? If we ALL did that, we would be better off. More green power, less coal burned, fewer power generation plants required, smaller. less powerful utility companies.
There is no DOWNSIDE to that scenario - so I can't understand where your negative feelings are coming from....
Well you gave me my laugh for the day. You obviously did not think about my statement before rushing to post. San Diego has a fairly high percentage of Solar homes. It has only managed to RAISE our rates. Sure those with solar get a lower cost for the present. What happens when more people have it? How about the utility goes bankrupt trying to maintain a bunch of backup generation for those times the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow. Our utility SDG&E is somewhat of a shell organization as it is. They own the transmission lines and the residential lines. They can and do charge a monthly fee for being hooked up. They do not allow those with solar to store up for the off periods. That went away when too many were taking advantage. Maybe your solar provides you a free lunch now. Someone is paying for it. It is welfare for you, higher taxes or electric costs for someone else. I think what we saw in TX is a wake up call to all those that think alternatives are the answer. They are not if the cost to maintain 100% backup gets too high. Or the carbon tax on backups make them obsolete. You cannot just turn a coal generation plant off and on. Gas generators are much quicker. But as we saw last week the gas supply is not always able to keep up with demand.
LOL - you're not implying with your list of the Top 10 Sunniest Cities that thus solar is therefore a solution to the world? Should we all just move to these sunny cities?
What do you think if Phoenix became a city of 20M? Las Vegas 5M? Double or triple the population of So. Cal? Oh, but there's a problem right? You don't have enough water right now for the current population in many of these areas. LOL. Isn't that the downside of having so many sunny days?
I'm happy you make use of solar and people who have wind can use some wind, but it is mainly supplemental to fossil fuel use. Very few people live off the grid, full-time. Even those who do live off the grid, usually buy goods that are transported to them from afar. Everyone has a carbon footprint using fossil fuels to some extent. Fossil fuels are still being burned up.
You can reduce your personal use of fossil fuels 50% or even 75%, but the population of the world continues to increase such that even with each person using less the amount of fossil fuels used stays the same or increases - virtually every year. And if we don't use the fossil fuels in 2011, they'll still be used in 2050, 2100, and 2150, because there isn't enough reliable "green" energy available throughout the world for everyone.
I'd guess about 1/3 of the world has as much energy as they reasonably can use. That means 2/3 of the Earth's population want some or more energy. If the 1/3 of us wealthy users stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we all get solar or wind energy, that means the cost of oil, gasoline and coal plummet, and thus become available to new buyers the other 2/3 of the world. Someone is going to buy the coal, gas, and oil as long as it is available, and if it is done in 2nd and 3rd world countries then you will have a larger pollution problem then if the U.S. and Europe and such countries burn the fossil fuels.
Gary, Gary, Gary. So jaded. So misinformed. Sad, actually.
Here's what you are doing: Taking your situation with SDG&E and using that to disregard/disrespect/misrepresent green energy.
No one is paying anything extra for the utilities which are dealing with green power sources provided by home owners. It allows them to scale back, BURN LESS COAL, and have less equipment in use. I don't know how you are thinking otherwise. It's completely obvious.
If your utility is a bunch of crooks, then I feel bad for you. But by blaming green energy, you are not helping anything. It's not the fault of a solar industry that some companies cannot keep their books and their processes in line when their demand goes up and down.
AND GET OFF THAT THING IN TEXAS !! No one but you and some randomly incorrectly guessing bloggers are trying to blame "lack of wind power" when EVEN THE BIGWIGS AT ERCOT ARE *NOT* doing that !! They are doing the opposite and THANKING the wind providers for keeping the power coming when fossil fuel sources were failing and pipes were bursting and freezing up !! Good Gosh already !! You are COMPLETELY WRONG so just stop saying it !!
You are close to the base on a lot of things, Gary. But not in this case. The correct views are at home plate and you are in deep center field.
AND GET OFF THAT THING IN TEXAS !! No one but you and some randomly incorrectly guessing bloggers are trying to blame "lack of wind power"
Not lack of wind power. Lack of reliable power. Of which Wind is far from reliable. Even under the best of circumstances you get only about 35% of capacity from wind. That is hardly cost effective in the real world. I am far from the only one downplaying the reliability of Wind power.
Texas Insider Report: ARLINGTON, TX - “There is no excuse for the rolling blackouts across the state of Texas today. This is a dangerous situation. Power isn’t just a luxury in weather like this; it is a life saving necessity,” Cong. Joe Barton (R-Arlington/Ennis) said Wednesday’s after blackouts left millions of Texans suffering in life threatening cold without power.
“The severe cold put stress on the grid and it failed when many Texans needed it most.
“This only underscores what I have been saying for many years – we need more power generation in Texas to keep up with the demands of a growing economy and a growing population. We have the desire, the resources, the knowhow and the will to build new plants, but federal red tape has blocked construction.
“The power base load needs to be built on a foundation of reliable, affordable, environmentally friendly energy sources such as natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power.
“I am a supporter of alternative energy, but at this point we can’t depend on wind and solar power because the sun isn’t always shining and the wind isn’t always blowing.
“We need to make sure our power plants are ready to supply real power so that when people flip the switch on their heater, it comes on – without exception.
“Everyone needs to learn from this situation and allow Texas to do what is best for Texans before these dangerous blackouts become more widespread.”
If your utility is a bunch of crooks, then I feel bad for you. But by blaming green energy, you are not helping anything.
It is not our utility. It is the state of CA and their AGW mandates that have raised the price of electricity and all utilities along with them. Mandating alternative energy sources then allowing a bunch of green nuts block the building of alternative energy sources. If some company wants to build a wind farm and sell our utility electricity at a competitive rate, that is fine. Just don't fine the utility when the state allows those nut cases to tie up the projects in court. Same goes for the Solar plant that was supposed to be online in 2008 and is still tied up in litigation. So I have every right to blame the environmentalist at the Federal and State level for causing our rates to be higher than the rest of the country. It is the Green Weenies that force alternatives then block alternatives. They are Neo Marxist that hate people and do everything in their power to stop progress. Living in a relatively Free state like AZ you do not feel the pressure imposed by warring Eco Nuts.
Gary, you posted one man's opinion. A Republican, at that, who probably has the oil lobby behind his career.
So the only thing that means is that you are BOTH misinformed. Those opinions are just unenforceable by facts.
Mr Congressman apparently does not realize (know) that wind and solar power AROUND THE GLOBE INCLUDING HIS BACKYARD OF TEXAS are doing a FINE job of producing steady (if imperfect) alternative power to the old ways of fossil polluting.
Fossil fuel plants are not perfect either. They are incredibly costly to maintain and fuel. WAY costlier to maintain than either wind or solar. Especially solar. Solar is mostly "build it and forget it."
Gary, you posted one man's opinion. A Republican, at that, who probably has the oil lobby behind his career.
And your postings come from folks that are making money on the Wind scam. I don't know how you can justify spending tax dollars for 11,000 MW of wind generators in TX, and getting a maximum of 3500 MW. You think maybe the ERCOT executive has his fingers in the Windmill business? Maybe you can explain to us how that is financially smart business. And 35% seems to be the best anyone is doing around the globe. If our utility bought a gas generator rated at 10 MW and it would only produce 3.5 MWs you think there would be questions asked? I would guess it would go back to the manufacturer. With wind and solar the manufacturer has a big smoke screen to hide behind that is considered green. Your production may vary depending on the wind and the sun. How stinking convenient is that?
The Congressman's gripe if you have followed the subject is all the non alternative power plants that are being held up by goofy regulations. Time for the states to rebel against our repressive Federal Government. I believe some are. Thank you AZ for showing some backbone.
New determinations from the EPA allows corn ethanol to pass. Can we cry foul?
Several months ago, when the EPA released a draft version of the new fuel standards, they included "indirect land-use" calculations in the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis. An example of indirect land use is when forests get cleared in developing nations to grow food crops that were grown in the West for biofuels. These forests contain sequestered carbon that gets released as these forests are chopped down and burnt. Any holistic lifecycle analysis must incorporate indirect land use into the equation.
Unfortunately, when the EPA originally calculated indirect land use, corn ethanol was found to have a higher carbon footprint than an equal gallon of gasoline – and thus would not qualify under the RFS. The corn ethanol lobby (i.e., Big Agriculture) cried foul and claimed that since there was no universally agreed-upon methodology for evaluating indirect-land use effects, the EPA should shelve it. The corn ethanol lobby also mobilized their Republican and Democratic friends in Congress, who subsequently threatened to pass laws taking away the EPA's power to regulate "indirect land-use" effects in life-cycle greenhouse gas analysis.
Under the final determinations established Wednesday, the EPA ruled that corn ethanol produced from a "new or expanded capacity from an existing natural gas-fired facility using advanced efficient technologies" complies with the 20% GHG emission threshold.
The EPA cites "significant new scientific data available to the agency," "rigorous independent peer review," and "extensive public comments" as the bases of their decision. Yet, one cannot help wonder if the congressional pressure vis-à-vis ethanol and agriculture lobbyists prevented the EPA from maintaining the independence necessary to maintain such a controversial finding as corn ethanol having a worse GHG footprint than petroleum?
Same kind of shenanigans are behind Wind and Solar power. Follow the money. $billions wasted on renewables that are not any better than what they replace. And maybe worse for the environment. Glad to see some Green journalists that tell it like it is.
Unfortunately for the point you are trying to make, you insist on "lumping" all the Green Energy options into the same rejection basket.
Here's how it really breaks down - in REALITY, not opinion:
Solar - a no-brainer in cities and locales which get a lot of sunshine. Questionable value in areas with limited sunshine and/or a lot of snow. Technology advances are making it cheaper and cheaper. Maintenance costs LOW, fuel is FREE.
Wind Power - a no-brainer for Seabound installations and areas close (but not too close) to heavily populated areas and satisfactory transmission lines and which get good wind speeds MOST or ALL of the time. Questionable in areas that don't meet those criteria. Getting cheaper every year, and some studies have it approaching or surpassing coal power in low cost of production. Maintenance costs LOW, fuel is FREE.
Corn Ethanol - seems unnecessary. Takes corn products away from food production and is environmentally questionable.
Those are the FACTS. Look 'em up if you don't believe me.
Those are the FACTS. Look 'em up if you don't believe me.
The facts were 5 years ago that corn ethanol was carbon neutral or better. Truth is it is not nor will it ever be. So now you want me to believe the same bunch that sold US Corn ethanol when they say Wind and Solar is a great alternative. I don't think Wind will ever be viable for individuals. Solar could be when the price comes down to a 5 year pay back. Not likely the company that makes the panels will still be around when the warranty expires in 20 years. Right today in San Diego the pay back for me buying Solar is 16.67 years. Not a smart buy if you use any sort of logic when you buy. I need some alternative to Propane. Just filled the tank yesterday. $363 for a little over a month keeping the house at 68 degrees during the day. No heat on at night.
Gary says, "Not likely the company that makes the panels will still be around when the warranty expires in 20 years. Right today in San Diego the pay back for me buying Solar is 16.67 years. Not a smart buy if you use any sort of logic when you buy."
Well, don't buy it then. Lease it like I did. You sound like a good candidate.
BTW - my panels are KYOCERA - they are likely to be around in 20 years, having been founded in 1959. But since I don't own or maintain the panels, I DON'T CARE HOW LONG THEY LAST - NOT MY PROBLEM.
Leasing is the way to go, Gary. Contact SolarCity and get you a quote. Tell them I sent you and I get a $400 referral fee :shades: :shades: :shades:
Leasing is the way to go, Gary. Contact SolarCity and get you a quote. Tell them I sent you and I get a $400 referral fee
I would do that. However you are leasing and I am sure the lease is tied to your home. The leasing company could care less if the panels last the length of the lease. They have your home as collateral. If Solar City is not around when the panels go bad do you really believe that Kyocera will send out a person to replace them. Not likely. I learned about this the hard way in Havasu back in the 1980s. I am just not as trusting as you my friend. Keep in mind Solar City got all their money from the leasing company. You are the only one on the hook if SC goes bankrupt.
Well, you can say that, but only because you haven't read the contract.
I'm safe. Not on the hook.
Whomever takes over the SC side of the lease is obligated in the lease to continue the SC contractual obligations. The worst thing that could happen is that they would come remove the panels from the house.
Ran the Solar City calculator again. Projected savings $2 per month. Hardly worth the risk to our roof. You do know they penetrate your roof's waterproof sheathing? We have concrete tiles a roof that is highly over rated. Does Solar City guarantee no leaks for the period of the lease? All I can find on their website is they will repair or replace the components that are covered.
On CFL bulbs. Walmart has a promotional going with SDG&E. They have the medium and large size floodlights for a buck a piece. I bought 10 yesterday. Should have gotten 20. They look so much better than the curly lights in recessed fixtures. They start out real dim. End up brighter than the ones I replaced after about 20 minutes. CFLs are really best in places you leave lit for long periods of time. These should be safer than the curly lights as they have the extra glass globe. CFLs save electricity. Not sure they are as safe or healthy as incandescent. If you start having unusual pains or headaches go back to incandescent. CFLs are probably the culprits.
I'll let you know when I need an opinion from someone at Harvard.
Having someone from Harvard in the White House is currently costing us trillions.
GM's Volt was just voted the 12th greenest car. It fell behind 6 IC only cars, including the Cruze which came in at 8th place. Some car that gets 41 mpg hwy topped the Volt. Heck, I can get 41 in my Malibu behind a semi. Does that put my Malibu above the Volt, at least temporarily?
The ratings said that we already have the best in efficiency: the IC powered vehicle.
Then consider the electricity for the recharge coming from dirty coal.
The gov. has to pass laws that require wind sourced electricity to be purchased by utility companies and forced down customers throats at high prices.
How about the wind farms being built mostly with gov grant money. No skin in the game for the wind farm developers. Then they have the gov forcing us to be customers. Doesn't sound free market to me.
If there was no skin in the game, why did T. Boone just about just down his Pampa wind farm scheme?
I think T Boone was making a statement. From what I can gather he backed out when his link from the farm to the market was blocked by NIMBYs.
The mighty T. Boone Pickens has had to completely abandon his grandiose plan for a massive wind farm in Texas. This would have been the world’s largest wind farm and could have contributed much to the fight for energy independence and the fight against global warming. Sadly, it is not to be. What went wrong?
1. Transmission lines. No one wants them in their back yard, so few would give T. the rights to build them. Without the lines, the windmills would simply twist in the wind, generating power with no place to go.
2. Natural gas costs. The prices for this carbon-based fuel have fallen dramatically, making wind power far less attractive than it was a year or so ago. With prices less than half what they were last year, and the transmission pipes already in place, natural gas is the new wind.
3. Counting your chickens before they hatch. T. did a great job hyping his “plan” but spent much less time figuring out if it was feasible. The changing landscape of energy use has dealt him a hand he can not play.
Pickens is equally frustrated with Washington. He pointed to President Obama’s post-election pledge to end U.S. dependence on imports of Middle East oil within 10 years.
“Two and a half years,” Pickens said. “And there’s no plan.”
You don't get a lot of rain. It can still be a mess if you get a leak. I know two people here in San Diego that had the hot water panels installed on their roofs. They both leaked within 5 years. Ended up getting a new roof on the one place. I would not use Silicone seal caulking where it is exposed to sunlight. Much better products for sealing a roof.
Leaks around skylights are very common. If put in during original building they are usually done right. I have seen too many hack jobs that leaked from day one. Again it would be less of a test in Phoenix than even San Diego. We just got 2.75 inches of rain last night and this morning. I check my skylight every time it rains.
I could use an attic fan to keep the hot air out in the hottest part of the summer. My neighbor put one in his house and says it works very well. I would probably install one if not for the concrete tile roof. I would never use them if I built the house.
"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia in November 2009 produced what is popularly called "Climategate." They exposed the thoroughly unethical behavior of a group of climate scientists, mainly in the UK and US, involved in producing the global surface temperature record used and relied on by governments.
Not only did these climate scientists hide their raw data and their methodology of selection and adjustment of temperature data, but they fought hard against all attempts by independent outside scientists to replicate their results. They also undermined the peer-review system and tried to make it impossible for skeptical scientists to publish their work in scientific journals. There is voluminous evidence in the e-mails to this effect. In the process, they damaged not only the science enterprise -- full publication of data and methods, replication of results, open debate, etc -- but they also undermined the public credibility of all scientists.
However, the most serious revelation from the e-mails is that they tried to "hide the decline" in temperatures, using various "tricks" in order to keep alive a myth of rising temperatures in support of the dogma of anthropogenic global warming. There have now been a number of investigations of the activities of this group, mainly in the UK. These have all turned out to be complete whitewashes, aimed to exonerate the scientists involved. None of these investigations has even attempted to learn how and in what way the data might have been manipulated."
That sums it up quite nicely. Many on this board suspected as much before it was ever exposed, and it turns out we were right. It is all about politics and money. If the money went away, global warming would go away.
You can bet that anyone who can't see that, or just won't admit it, has a vested interest somewhere.
houdini1 says, "...and anyone who sees different has a vested interest."
Yes, I do have a vested interest - in being a good steward for my planet.
That ClimateGate thing is SO OVER....you folks need to quit harping on it.
5 independent reviews already cleared them.....All they did was be advocates for their data......
Just like WE DO HERE - we are advocates for what we believe in.
To think climate scientists are ROBOTS who don't feel emotion and get mad when people are disrespecting their findings is sorta silly.
ClimateGate was seen as an "end game" for people who WANTED the discussion about MMGW to end.
But until the average global temps start declining over a significant period like it has been climbing over the current significant period, IT AIN'T GOIN' AWAY.
First U.S. Offshore Wind Turbine Factory Opens in Virginia, But Has No Customers Yet Gamesa, which just opened the nation's first offshore wind turbine factory, isn't expecting the U.S. market to take off until 2015
By Maria Gallucci Feb 17, 2011
Wind energy giant Gamesa unveiled America's first offshore turbine factory this month in Norfolk, Va., to eventually supply windmills for projects and build a competitive home-grown industry that is now essentially run by Europe.
The announcement addresses speculation over whether the U.S. is moving into the emerging offshore manufacturing industry. But for a nation that still doesn't have a single turbine in its waters, the news invites another question: Who will be Gamesa's first customer?
David Rosenberg, a spokesperson for Langhorne, Pa.-based Gamesa North America, was tightlipped on the matter in an interview with SolveClimate News. He said only that the company would be eyeing Virginia's coast to install its new G11X turbine, a state that is ripe for wind development but has no ventures on the books, in addition to three other East Coast sites.
About a half a dozen proposals are on the drawing board for U.S. waters., the most famous of which — the long-beleaguered 130-turbine, 468-megawatt Cape Wind offshore farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass. — is slowly inching forward.
NRG Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power are expected to build 150 turbines off the coast of Delaware. Other projects are at various stages in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina and Texas, while Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt, $100 million wind demonstration project on Lake Erie.
By contrast, nine European countries already boast nearly 3,000 megawatts of total installed maritime wind capacity, according to the European Wind Energy Association.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is eager to catch up. It has set a goal to install 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2020 and 54,000 megawatts by 2030, in an effort to help reach the administration's goal of getting 80 percent of the country’s electricity from cleaner sources by 2035.
That ClimateGate thing is SO OVER....you folks need to quit harping on it.
Not till the criminals are in prison. They cost US untold $billions with their lies and distortions. Same go for the Criminals in the UN with their phony IPCC reports.
When you tamper with and refuse to have peer review of your scientific evidence it is no longer of any value. You need to accept that. And all those supposed "Climategate" hearings were by agencies with an iron in the AGW fire. Nothing new here, same old Liberal smoke and mirrors, trying to extort money from the people.
At the same Feb. 7 event, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the federal government would spend $50.5 million over the next five years to fund research and development for offshore turbines to drive down costs and ramp up energy efficiency.
You may get a tingling feeling from all the money we throw at alternative energy. It MAKES ME SICK: :sick:
BEIJING — Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.
The factory closing in Devens, Mass., which Evergreen announced earlier this week, has set off political recriminations and finger-pointing in Massachusetts
I may be stuck buying Chinese CFL bulbs by the Federal Mandate. I'll be danged if I am going to put Chinese solar panels on my roof. The whole alternative energy business is becoming Un-American.
Same old story get the tax payer dollars then move the jobs to China. Not my idea of an investment in America.
I see you completely misunderstood the controversy.
I am not the one willing to cover up a FRAUD to push an agenda based on bogus data and computer generated theories. Hopefully by the election in 2012 we will have voted out enough of the perpetrators of the AGW scam to put it where it belongs. In the history books, as one of the most expensive scams in history.
"...to drive down costs and ramp up energy efficiency."
If we KNOW that offshore wind farms are going to be established
(and we DO know that)
then WHY NOT spend money figuring out how to make them CHEAPER and to improve their ENERGY EFFICIENCY?
That's not a bad idea, and can't be convoluted into being one.
Enough about Evergreen Solar already. It was a failed solar panel company. Get over it.
Like I told you - my solar panels are KYOCERA, a JAPANESE company.
About Kyocera Corporation Kyocera Corporation, the headquarters and parent company of the global Kyocera group, was founded in 1959 in Kyoto, Japan as a start-up venture by Dr. Kazuo Inamori and seven colleagues. Kyocera's founders shared a vision of creating a company dedicated to the successful manufacture and sale of innovative, high-quality products based on advanced materials and components. Over the past four decades, this vision has resulted in a highly successful and widely diversified global enterprise.
Kyocera's North American operations have contributed strongly to the company's overall success. We established our first North American sales company in 1969, a two-person operation serving Silicon Valley's burgeoning semiconductor industry and other high-tech markets throughout the United States. Our North American operations have since expanded to more than 5,000 employees engaged in the manufacture and sale of a broad range of state-of-the-art, high-technology products in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Everything you say adds to the fact that you definitely didn't understand the situation, but instead took the "Sean Hannity/Glenn Beck" view of the situation, which is totally bogus.
Everything you say adds to the fact that you definitely didn't understand the situation, but instead took the "Sean Hannity/Glenn Beck" view of the situation, which is totally bogus.
That would be rather difficult as I have not read or heard anything from either gentleman, in over 5 years. I do not watch TV and have not read any current political books. I have too many historical books to read.
It is obvious you buy into the AGW scam. Which does not make you bad only deceived. Your desire to see all things green as good does not allow for *objective thinking.
*not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Comments
And I don't think that can be done.
So do germs and disease. (since no one else seems to be mentioning it).
If there is no place for cold, then I take it you would be willing to give up the freezer portion of your fridge??
And the A/C in your car and home?
Doing a 'slight' bit of devil's advocate here...but only slightly. My question marks aren't entirely rhetorical, you must realize tho, right?
It is never wise to mess with Mother Nature...
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
We have done it before.
I must be missing the headlines of the massive plagues in Hawaii? And the few times I've been there, I've nary seen an insect.
And I really don't want to imagine giving up cold beer, don't even want to think about going English. If you've been here a bit, you'd know I have no AC at my house, I don't mind 95F temp. for a few hours each year. I only run the AC in the car when my wife insists, or I'm dressed going to a wedding or funeral. People around the world have higher temps. than 95F and don't need AC. The problem with much of the modern world is we insist on working thru the hottest part of the day, or seal ourselves in office buildings that aren't designed for fresh air movement. And our cities are great heat-sinks since we decided to pour so much concrete and blacktop in a small area, and then run all kinds of machinery generating heat in that area.
What does a building AC unit do? It takes the heat from inside, generates additional heat by drawing energy, and then dumps it outside your house or building - which then increases the need (temperature) for everyone to have AC to avoid the increased temperature. So when you hear of a city like Phoenix baking, consider that some of that problem is the heat that the machinery (including AC) in that city is generating. Every MW of electricity a city draws, or every gallon of fuel or KW a vehicle uses to move, is converted into BTU's that get pumped into that environment.
That is exactly correct. And this says it all about the Green alternatives we are wasting tax dollars on:
Obama is selling Snake Oil in regard to the Housing, ObamaCare, and Big Guvmint areas.
But the Green stuff is NOT snake oil. It works.
I'll believe it when I see it. I would like an accounting on how much we have wasted on Corn Ethanol with no decrease in imported oil. And you forgot the solar cell factory we built in New England, that was shut down and moved to China. Or the subsidies to build Wind mills that got diverted to China. All part of the "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" surrounding so called Green Alternatives. Which is the stepchild of the UN Global scam called AGW.
My electric bill will be $16.41 or less for 8 months out of the year.
Cleanest Cars list is out
Plug-in electric vehicles may be the hip newcomers on U.S. streets this year, but they aren't the only eco-friendly stars, a scorecard of greenest cars reveals Tuesday.
The natural gas Honda Civic GX wins top honors for the eighth year, earning 54 points, followed this time by the all-electric Nissan Leaf and the gasoline-powered, two-seater, the Smart Fortwo, according to the 14th annual environmental ratings by the private American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE.)
Hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Civic and Honda Insight) take the next three spots, followed closely by Ford's new Fiesta SFE (Super Fuel Economy) and the new Chevrolet Cruze Eco. Also making the top dozen are three other gas-powered cars (Hyundai Elantra, Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris) as well as the Chevy Volt, a new electric vehicle with a back-up gas engine.
"We're seeing an increasing number of highly efficient gasoline options from both foreign and domestic automakers along with the first electric vehicles," ACEEE vehicle analyst Shruti Vaidyanathan said in announcing the results, which include five new models among its top dozen.
Why don't plug-in electric cars win hands-down?
"Vehicles running on electricity emit nothing from the tailpipe, but their 'upstream' emissions can be substantial, depending on where they're charged. As U.S. power generation becomes cleaner, these vehicles' scores will rise," said Therese Langer, ACEEE's transportation director.
The ratings are based not only on tailpipe emissions but also fuel consumption, emissions that cause global warming and emissions associated with battery manufacture and disposal. Hybrids lose a few points because of their batteries.
The ratings, posted on ACEEE's greenercars.org website, also pick winners in each vehicle class. Honors go to trucks and SUVs such as the Hyundai Tucson, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Canyon, and the Ford F-150 (FFV).
The "meanest" list this year includes mostly heavy trucks and SUVs, a marked change from the numerous European sports cars that dominated last year's list. The Bugatti Veyron gets the overall lowest score, 19.
I don't think you can get a device to fuel a GX at home any longer. So it may top the list. Just not practical to own. Much like the LEAF and our high electric rates in CA.
Fuelmaker goes bankrupt, Honda to blame?
Fuelmaker, the company that creates the PHILL compressed natural gas filling stations for residential and commercial use, has just been driven into involuntary bankruptcy. You may recall that Fuelmaker is owned by Honda, which had been in negotiations last year to sell the company to a number of different suitors, most notably to T. Boone Pickens' Clean Energy Fuels. None of those negotiations resulted in a sale.
Fuelmaker's bankruptcy leaves a number of questions as to how companies relying on PHILL fueling units will get their products serviced, and it also casts doubts on the future of CNG vehicles for private residential use. Fuelmaker president John Lyon has hopes that another suitor will "see this as an opportunity and come to the rescue."
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/06/fuelmaker-goes-bankrupt-honda-to-blame/
Maybe you can find a practical way to own the cleanest car on the planet.
PS
It is nice that you get your electricity for a total of $16 per month. Most of US are not able to do that.
I have indeed seen a couple of these driving around town.
http://www.altfuelprices.com/stations/CNG/Arizona/Phoenix/
Life Cycle Cost of Coal Power in the U.S. - $500 Billion/Year
Written by Megan Treacy on 17/02/11
A new Harvard University study examines the life cycle cost of coal power including all the resulting environmental and health expenses and found that although the coal itself might be cheap, the price of generating power from it is not. The study found that coal power actually costs the U.S. somewhere between $345 billion and $500 billion each year.
The study says If all of those expenses were included in people's electricity bills, it would double to triple the cost of coal power, adding by $0.09 - $0.27 per kWh, making it no longer the cheapest source of electricity, but one of the most expensive.
Some of the hidden expenses outlined in the study are elevated rates of cancer and other diseases in coal-mining regions, environmental damage to those areas (including water and air pollution), loss of tourism dollars and costs related to climate change.
The full study titled "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal" will be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences soon.
We don't need alternatives, huh? Harrumph.
Solar and Wind are not unreliable at all, when placed in the correct locations.
Albuquerque (and other places) get 300+ days of sun per year....how "unreliable" would solar be in those towns? NOT VERY UNRELIABLE AT ALL.
10 sunniest cities
Annual percent of possible sunshine
1. Yuma, Arizona 90%
2. Las Vegas, Nevada 85%
3. Phoenix, Arizona 85%
4. Tucson, Arizona 85%
5. El Paso, Texas 83%
6. Flagstaff, Arizona 79%
7. Fresno, California 79%
8. Reno, Nevada 79%
9. Sacramento, California 78%
10. Albuquerque, N.M. 76%
Lots of cities and locales (I posted a chart last week) get daily wind averaging more than 12 MPH - how "unreliable" is wind in those areas? NOT VERY UNRELIABLE AT ALL.
10 windiest cities
Avg annual wind speed in mph
1. Blue Hill Observatory, Massachusetts 15.4
2. Dodge City, Kansas 14.0
3. Amarillo, Texas 13.5
4. Rochester, Minnesota 13.1
5. Casper, Wyoming 12.9
6. Cheyenne, Wyoming 12.9
7. Great Falls, Montana 12.7
8. Goodland, Kansas 12.6
9. Boston, Massachusetts 12.5
10. Lubbock, Texas 12.4
Gary says, "So we get the negative benefits in the global air quality and lose the good benefits of cheaper power. So how smart is that? "
I only understand HALF of that......How is getting "negative benefits" a smart thing?
Tell that to the 19%+ Americans that are currently out of work or underemployed. When they have a job building Solar panels or Wind mills and the plant closes and moves to China after the Federal Subsidy is gone, what other job takes its place? The Federal dollars spent on green projects invariably cause more problems than they solve. It is vaporware.
NOT VERY UNRELIABLE AT ALL.
HMMMM, any lack of reliability is too much when you expect to get electricity. If I wanted to live OFF the Grid I would look at Solar and an array of lead acid batteries. So I sit smug with solar panels providing my needs for 300 days of the year. Then when the sun does not produce enough I expect the power company to make up the difference. I think you know that San Diego has the highest percentage of Solar powered residences in the US. And we have the highest electric rates. Think about that.
How is getting "negative benefits" a smart thing?
You tell me. That is what your article is advocating. Quit using coal for electricity and sell the coal to China. So we get their dirty air and negative benefits from the GHG, if there are any. Last I read coal plants actually cause global cooling.
High SO2 emissions notably from the electricity produced in coal fired power plants lead to a strong cooling from sulfate aerosols.'
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7977/New-paper-Coalfired-power-plants-cause-global- -cooling
You seem to have this situation confused. I PAY THEM when they have to supply me with extra energy. I don't get it FREE.
What is wrong with that setup? If we ALL did that, we would be better off. More green power, less coal burned, fewer power generation plants required, smaller. less powerful utility companies.
There is no DOWNSIDE to that scenario - so I can't understand where your negative feelings are coming from....
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There is no DOWNSIDE to that scenario - so I can't understand where your negative feelings are coming from....
Well you gave me my laugh for the day. You obviously did not think about my statement before rushing to post. San Diego has a fairly high percentage of Solar homes. It has only managed to RAISE our rates. Sure those with solar get a lower cost for the present. What happens when more people have it? How about the utility goes bankrupt trying to maintain a bunch of backup generation for those times the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow. Our utility SDG&E is somewhat of a shell organization as it is. They own the transmission lines and the residential lines. They can and do charge a monthly fee for being hooked up. They do not allow those with solar to store up for the off periods. That went away when too many were taking advantage. Maybe your solar provides you a free lunch now. Someone is paying for it. It is welfare for you, higher taxes or electric costs for someone else. I think what we saw in TX is a wake up call to all those that think alternatives are the answer. They are not if the cost to maintain 100% backup gets too high. Or the carbon tax on backups make them obsolete. You cannot just turn a coal generation plant off and on. Gas generators are much quicker. But as we saw last week the gas supply is not always able to keep up with demand.
What do you think if Phoenix became a city of 20M? Las Vegas 5M? Double or triple the population of So. Cal? Oh, but there's a problem right? You don't have enough water right now for the current population in many of these areas. LOL. Isn't that the downside of having so many sunny days?
I'm happy you make use of solar and people who have wind can use some wind, but it is mainly supplemental to fossil fuel use. Very few people live off the grid, full-time. Even those who do live off the grid, usually buy goods that are transported to them from afar. Everyone has a carbon footprint using fossil fuels to some extent. Fossil fuels are still being burned up.
You can reduce your personal use of fossil fuels 50% or even 75%, but the population of the world continues to increase such that even with each person using less the amount of fossil fuels used stays the same or increases - virtually every year. And if we don't use the fossil fuels in 2011, they'll still be used in 2050, 2100, and 2150, because there isn't enough reliable "green" energy available throughout the world for everyone.
I'd guess about 1/3 of the world has as much energy as they reasonably can use. That means 2/3 of the Earth's population want some or more energy. If the 1/3 of us wealthy users stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we all get solar or wind energy, that means the cost of oil, gasoline and coal plummet, and thus become available to new buyers the other 2/3 of the world. Someone is going to buy the coal, gas, and oil as long as it is available, and if it is done in 2nd and 3rd world countries then you will have a larger pollution problem then if the U.S. and Europe and such countries burn the fossil fuels.
Here's what you are doing: Taking your situation with SDG&E and using that to disregard/disrespect/misrepresent green energy.
No one is paying anything extra for the utilities which are dealing with green power sources provided by home owners. It allows them to scale back, BURN LESS COAL, and have less equipment in use. I don't know how you are thinking otherwise. It's completely obvious.
If your utility is a bunch of crooks, then I feel bad for you. But by blaming green energy, you are not helping anything. It's not the fault of a solar industry that some companies cannot keep their books and their processes in line when their demand goes up and down.
AND GET OFF THAT THING IN TEXAS !! No one but you and some randomly incorrectly guessing bloggers are trying to blame "lack of wind power" when EVEN THE BIGWIGS AT ERCOT ARE *NOT* doing that !! They are doing the opposite and THANKING the wind providers for keeping the power coming when fossil fuel sources were failing and pipes were bursting and freezing up !! Good Gosh already !! You are COMPLETELY WRONG so just stop saying it !!
You are close to the base on a lot of things, Gary. But not in this case. The correct views are at home plate and you are in deep center field.
Not lack of wind power. Lack of reliable power. Of which Wind is far from reliable. Even under the best of circumstances you get only about 35% of capacity from wind. That is hardly cost effective in the real world. I am far from the only one downplaying the reliability of Wind power.
Texas Insider Report: ARLINGTON, TX - “There is no excuse for the rolling blackouts across the state of Texas today. This is a dangerous situation. Power isn’t just a luxury in weather like this; it is a life saving necessity,” Cong. Joe Barton (R-Arlington/Ennis) said Wednesday’s after blackouts left millions of Texans suffering in life threatening cold without power.
“The severe cold put stress on the grid and it failed when many Texans needed it most.
“This only underscores what I have been saying for many years – we need more power generation in Texas to keep up with the demands of a growing economy and a growing population. We have the desire, the resources, the knowhow and the will to build new plants, but federal red tape has blocked construction.
“The power base load needs to be built on a foundation of reliable, affordable, environmentally friendly energy sources such as natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power.
“I am a supporter of alternative energy, but at this point we can’t depend on wind and solar power because the sun isn’t always shining and the wind isn’t always blowing.
“We need to make sure our power plants are ready to supply real power so that when people flip the switch on their heater, it comes on – without exception.
“Everyone needs to learn from this situation and allow Texas to do what is best for Texans before these dangerous blackouts become more widespread.”
If your utility is a bunch of crooks, then I feel bad for you. But by blaming green energy, you are not helping anything.
It is not our utility. It is the state of CA and their AGW mandates that have raised the price of electricity and all utilities along with them. Mandating alternative energy sources then allowing a bunch of green nuts block the building of alternative energy sources. If some company wants to build a wind farm and sell our utility electricity at a competitive rate, that is fine. Just don't fine the utility when the state allows those nut cases to tie up the projects in court. Same goes for the Solar plant that was supposed to be online in 2008 and is still tied up in litigation. So I have every right to blame the environmentalist at the Federal and State level for causing our rates to be higher than the rest of the country. It is the Green Weenies that force alternatives then block alternatives. They are Neo Marxist that hate people and do everything in their power to stop progress. Living in a relatively Free state like AZ you do not feel the pressure imposed by warring Eco Nuts.
So the only thing that means is that you are BOTH misinformed. Those opinions are just unenforceable by facts.
Mr Congressman apparently does not realize (know) that wind and solar power AROUND THE GLOBE INCLUDING HIS BACKYARD OF TEXAS are doing a FINE job of producing steady (if imperfect) alternative power to the old ways of fossil polluting.
Fossil fuel plants are not perfect either. They are incredibly costly to maintain and fuel. WAY costlier to maintain than either wind or solar. Especially solar. Solar is mostly "build it and forget it."
And your postings come from folks that are making money on the Wind scam. I don't know how you can justify spending tax dollars for 11,000 MW of wind generators in TX, and getting a maximum of 3500 MW. You think maybe the ERCOT executive has his fingers in the Windmill business? Maybe you can explain to us how that is financially smart business. And 35% seems to be the best anyone is doing around the globe. If our utility bought a gas generator rated at 10 MW and it would only produce 3.5 MWs you think there would be questions asked? I would guess it would go back to the manufacturer. With wind and solar the manufacturer has a big smoke screen to hide behind that is considered green. Your production may vary depending on the wind and the sun. How stinking convenient is that?
The Congressman's gripe if you have followed the subject is all the non alternative power plants that are being held up by goofy regulations. Time for the states to rebel against our repressive Federal Government. I believe some are. Thank you AZ for showing some backbone.
Several months ago, when the EPA released a draft version of the new fuel standards, they included "indirect land-use" calculations in the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis. An example of indirect land use is when forests get cleared in developing nations to grow food crops that were grown in the West for biofuels. These forests contain sequestered carbon that gets released as these forests are chopped down and burnt. Any holistic lifecycle analysis must incorporate indirect land use into the equation.
Unfortunately, when the EPA originally calculated indirect land use, corn ethanol was found to have a higher carbon footprint than an equal gallon of gasoline – and thus would not qualify under the RFS. The corn ethanol lobby (i.e., Big Agriculture) cried foul and claimed that since there was no universally agreed-upon methodology for evaluating indirect-land use effects, the EPA should shelve it. The corn ethanol lobby also mobilized their Republican and Democratic friends in Congress, who subsequently threatened to pass laws taking away the EPA's power to regulate "indirect land-use" effects in life-cycle greenhouse gas analysis.
Under the final determinations established Wednesday, the EPA ruled that corn ethanol produced from a "new or expanded capacity from an existing natural gas-fired facility using advanced efficient technologies" complies with the 20% GHG emission threshold.
The EPA cites "significant new scientific data available to the agency," "rigorous independent peer review," and "extensive public comments" as the bases of their decision. Yet, one cannot help wonder if the congressional pressure vis-à-vis ethanol and agriculture lobbyists prevented the EPA from maintaining the independence necessary to maintain such a controversial finding as corn ethanol having a worse GHG footprint than petroleum?
Why I don't trust the FEDS
Same kind of shenanigans are behind Wind and Solar power. Follow the money. $billions wasted on renewables that are not any better than what they replace. And maybe worse for the environment. Glad to see some Green journalists that tell it like it is.
Here's how it really breaks down - in REALITY, not opinion:
Solar - a no-brainer in cities and locales which get a lot of sunshine. Questionable value in areas with limited sunshine and/or a lot of snow. Technology advances are making it cheaper and cheaper. Maintenance costs LOW, fuel is FREE.
Wind Power - a no-brainer for Seabound installations and areas close (but not too close) to heavily populated areas and satisfactory transmission lines and which get good wind speeds MOST or ALL of the time. Questionable in areas that don't meet those criteria. Getting cheaper every year, and some studies have it approaching or surpassing coal power in low cost of production. Maintenance costs LOW, fuel is FREE.
Corn Ethanol - seems unnecessary. Takes corn products away from food production and is environmentally questionable.
Those are the FACTS. Look 'em up if you don't believe me.
The facts were 5 years ago that corn ethanol was carbon neutral or better. Truth is it is not nor will it ever be. So now you want me to believe the same bunch that sold US Corn ethanol when they say Wind and Solar is a great alternative. I don't think Wind will ever be viable for individuals. Solar could be when the price comes down to a 5 year pay back. Not likely the company that makes the panels will still be around when the warranty expires in 20 years. Right today in San Diego the pay back for me buying Solar is 16.67 years. Not a smart buy if you use any sort of logic when you buy. I need some alternative to Propane. Just filled the tank yesterday. $363 for a little over a month keeping the house at 68 degrees during the day. No heat on at night.
Well, don't buy it then. Lease it like I did. You sound like a good candidate.
BTW - my panels are KYOCERA - they are likely to be around in 20 years, having been founded in 1959. But since I don't own or maintain the panels, I DON'T CARE HOW LONG THEY LAST - NOT MY PROBLEM.
Leasing is the way to go, Gary. Contact SolarCity and get you a quote. Tell them I sent you and I get a $400 referral fee
I would do that. However you are leasing and I am sure the lease is tied to your home. The leasing company could care less if the panels last the length of the lease. They have your home as collateral. If Solar City is not around when the panels go bad do you really believe that Kyocera will send out a person to replace them. Not likely. I learned about this the hard way in Havasu back in the 1980s. I am just not as trusting as you my friend. Keep in mind Solar City got all their money from the leasing company. You are the only one on the hook if SC goes bankrupt.
I'm safe. Not on the hook.
Whomever takes over the SC side of the lease is obligated in the lease to continue the SC contractual obligations. The worst thing that could happen is that they would come remove the panels from the house.
I'm not Dupid, my friend.
On CFL bulbs. Walmart has a promotional going with SDG&E. They have the medium and large size floodlights for a buck a piece. I bought 10 yesterday. Should have gotten 20. They look so much better than the curly lights in recessed fixtures. They start out real dim. End up brighter than the ones I replaced after about 20 minutes. CFLs are really best in places you leave lit for long periods of time. These should be safer than the curly lights as they have the extra glass globe. CFLs save electricity. Not sure they are as safe or healthy as incandescent. If you start having unusual pains or headaches go back to incandescent. CFLs are probably the culprits.
Having someone from Harvard in the White House is currently costing us trillions.
GM's Volt was just voted the 12th greenest car. It fell behind 6 IC only cars, including the Cruze which came in at 8th place. Some car that gets 41 mpg hwy topped the Volt. Heck, I can get 41 in my Malibu behind a semi. Does that put my Malibu above the Volt, at least temporarily?
The ratings said that we already have the best in efficiency: the IC powered vehicle.
Then consider the electricity for the recharge coming from dirty coal.
The gov. has to pass laws that require wind sourced electricity to be purchased by utility companies and forced down customers throats at high prices.
How about the wind farms being built mostly with gov grant money. No skin in the game for the wind farm developers. Then they have the gov forcing us to be customers. Doesn't sound free market to me.
Yeah, that stint at Harvard Business School didn't serve Bush II too well did it? :P
If there was no skin in the game, why did T. Boone just about just down his Pampa wind farm scheme?
Back to batteries, here's a true believer:
Shai Agassi was a high-flying software executive until he felt the need to do something more worthwhile with his life. Now he runs a pioneering electric car project. (BBC)
I think T Boone was making a statement. From what I can gather he backed out when his link from the farm to the market was blocked by NIMBYs.
The mighty T. Boone Pickens has had to completely abandon his grandiose plan for a massive wind farm in Texas. This would have been the world’s largest wind farm and could have contributed much to the fight for energy independence and the fight against global warming. Sadly, it is not to be. What went wrong?
1. Transmission lines. No one wants them in their back yard, so few would give T. the rights to build them. Without the lines, the windmills would simply twist in the wind, generating power with no place to go.
2. Natural gas costs. The prices for this carbon-based fuel have fallen dramatically, making wind power far less attractive than it was a year or so ago. With prices less than half what they were last year, and the transmission pipes already in place, natural gas is the new wind.
3. Counting your chickens before they hatch. T. did a great job hyping his “plan” but spent much less time figuring out if it was feasible. The changing landscape of energy use has dealt him a hand he can not play.
http://oregoncatalyst.com/2495-T-Boone-T-Boned-on-Wind-Farm.html
Pickens is equally frustrated with Washington. He pointed to President Obama’s post-election pledge to end U.S. dependence on imports of Middle East oil within 10 years.
“Two and a half years,” Pickens said. “And there’s no plan.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40612094/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Ba-Ha-HA-HA-HA !!!!!
They used clear silicate caulk around the bracket mounts, like any other project which penetrates your roof.
People put in skylights, etc all the time. Don't hear about roof leaks from those too often.
I have TWO solar attic fans installed in 2004 and 2008 and they have not leaked.
I'm willing to chance it. Not much risk there IMEO.
Leaks around skylights are very common. If put in during original building they are usually done right. I have seen too many hack jobs that leaked from day one. Again it would be less of a test in Phoenix than even San Diego. We just got 2.75 inches of rain last night and this morning. I check my skylight every time it rains.
I could use an attic fan to keep the hot air out in the hottest part of the summer. My neighbor put one in his house and says it works very well. I would probably install one if not for the concrete tile roof. I would never use them if I built the house.
Not only did these climate scientists hide their raw data and their methodology of selection and adjustment of temperature data, but they fought hard against all attempts by independent outside scientists to replicate their results. They also undermined the peer-review system and tried to make it impossible for skeptical scientists to publish their work in scientific journals. There is voluminous evidence in the e-mails to this effect. In the process, they damaged not only the science enterprise -- full publication of data and methods, replication of results, open debate, etc -- but they also undermined the public credibility of all scientists.
However, the most serious revelation from the e-mails is that they tried to "hide the decline" in temperatures, using various "tricks" in order to keep alive a myth of rising temperatures in support of the dogma of anthropogenic global warming. There have now been a number of investigations of the activities of this group, mainly in the UK. These have all turned out to be complete whitewashes, aimed to exonerate the scientists involved. None of these investigations has even attempted to learn how and in what way the data might have been manipulated."
You can bet that anyone who can't see that, or just won't admit it, has a vested interest somewhere.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Um, No. You weren't right at all.
houdini1 says, "...and anyone who sees different has a vested interest."
Yes, I do have a vested interest - in being a good steward for my planet.
That ClimateGate thing is SO OVER....you folks need to quit harping on it.
5 independent reviews already cleared them.....All they did was be advocates for their data......
Just like WE DO HERE - we are advocates for what we believe in.
To think climate scientists are ROBOTS who don't feel emotion and get mad when people are disrespecting their findings is sorta silly.
ClimateGate was seen as an "end game" for people who WANTED the discussion about MMGW to end.
But until the average global temps start declining over a significant period like it has been climbing over the current significant period, IT AIN'T GOIN' AWAY.
Deal with it.
Here we go
First U.S. Offshore Wind Turbine Factory Opens in Virginia, But Has No Customers Yet
Gamesa, which just opened the nation's first offshore wind turbine factory, isn't expecting the U.S. market to take off until 2015
By Maria Gallucci
Feb 17, 2011
Wind energy giant Gamesa unveiled America's first offshore turbine factory this month in Norfolk, Va., to eventually supply windmills for projects and build a competitive home-grown industry that is now essentially run by Europe.
The announcement addresses speculation over whether the U.S. is moving into the emerging offshore manufacturing industry. But for a nation that still doesn't have a single turbine in its waters, the news invites another question: Who will be Gamesa's first customer?
David Rosenberg, a spokesperson for Langhorne, Pa.-based Gamesa North America, was tightlipped on the matter in an interview with SolveClimate News. He said only that the company would be eyeing Virginia's coast to install its new G11X turbine, a state that is ripe for wind development but has no ventures on the books, in addition to three other East Coast sites.
About a half a dozen proposals are on the drawing board for U.S. waters., the most famous of which — the long-beleaguered 130-turbine, 468-megawatt Cape Wind offshore farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass. — is slowly inching forward.
NRG Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power are expected to build 150 turbines off the coast of Delaware. Other projects are at various stages in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina and Texas, while Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt, $100 million wind demonstration project on Lake Erie.
By contrast, nine European countries already boast nearly 3,000 megawatts of total installed maritime wind capacity, according to the European Wind Energy Association.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is eager to catch up. It has set a goal to install 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2020 and 54,000 megawatts by 2030, in an effort to help reach the administration's goal of getting 80 percent of the country’s electricity from cleaner sources by 2035.
Not till the criminals are in prison. They cost US untold $billions with their lies and distortions. Same go for the Criminals in the UN with their phony IPCC reports.
When you tamper with and refuse to have peer review of your scientific evidence it is no longer of any value. You need to accept that. And all those supposed "Climategate" hearings were by agencies with an iron in the AGW fire. Nothing new here, same old Liberal smoke and mirrors, trying to extort money from the people.
Nevermind.
At the same Feb. 7 event, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the federal government would spend $50.5 million over the next five years to fund research and development for offshore turbines to drive down costs and ramp up energy efficiency.
You may get a tingling feeling from all the money we throw at alternative energy. It MAKES ME SICK: :sick:
BEIJING — Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.
The factory closing in Devens, Mass., which Evergreen announced earlier this week, has set off political recriminations and finger-pointing in Massachusetts
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html
I may be stuck buying Chinese CFL bulbs by the Federal Mandate. I'll be danged if I am going to put Chinese solar panels on my roof. The whole alternative energy business is becoming Un-American.
Same old story get the tax payer dollars then move the jobs to China. Not my idea of an investment in America.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af7bc5f4-ca73-11df-a860-00144feab49a.html#axzz1EbYDIB8- k
I am not the one willing to cover up a FRAUD to push an agenda based on bogus data and computer generated theories. Hopefully by the election in 2012 we will have voted out enough of the perpetrators of the AGW scam to put it where it belongs. In the history books, as one of the most expensive scams in history.
"...to drive down costs and ramp up energy efficiency."
If we KNOW that offshore wind farms are going to be established
(and we DO know that)
then WHY NOT spend money figuring out how to make them CHEAPER and to improve their ENERGY EFFICIENCY?
That's not a bad idea, and can't be convoluted into being one.
Enough about Evergreen Solar already. It was a failed solar panel company. Get over it.
Like I told you - my solar panels are KYOCERA, a JAPANESE company.
About Kyocera Corporation
Kyocera Corporation, the headquarters and parent company of the global Kyocera group, was founded in 1959 in Kyoto, Japan as a start-up venture by Dr. Kazuo Inamori and seven colleagues. Kyocera's founders shared a vision of creating a company dedicated to the successful manufacture and sale of innovative, high-quality products based on advanced materials and components. Over the past four decades, this vision has resulted in a highly successful and widely diversified global enterprise.
Kyocera's North American operations have contributed strongly to the company's overall success. We established our first North American sales company in 1969, a two-person operation serving Silicon Valley's burgeoning semiconductor industry and other high-tech markets throughout the United States. Our North American operations have since expanded to more than 5,000 employees engaged in the manufacture and sale of a broad range of state-of-the-art, high-technology products in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
That would be rather difficult as I have not read or heard anything from either gentleman, in over 5 years. I do not watch TV and have not read any current political books. I have too many historical books to read.
It is obvious you buy into the AGW scam. Which does not make you bad only deceived. Your desire to see all things green as good does not allow for *objective thinking.
*not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.