We want to know what you think. As a consumer, what kind of gas mileage do you think vehicles should offer? We want your opinions on fuel efficiency rules and your questions about gas mileage during a live chat Tuesday (7/26) at noon, Eastern.
Chat guests represent Union of Concerned Scientists, National Automobile Dealers Association and Edmunds.com.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
The newly released REN21 Renewables 2011 Global Status Report shows that renewable energy hit a major milestone in 2010 by making up 25 percent of global energy capacity by the end of that year. Renewable sources supplied 20 percent of the energy consumed in 2010.
Total guvmint spending on solar power was less than $200 million in 2007.
The wars we are in cost exponentially more than we are spending on renewable energy.
Though the war in Iraq now costs about $120B a year, two authors (one a Nobel prize winner) estimates the total cost of this war exceeds 2 Trillion Dollars. “Accrued liabilities for U.S. federal employees’ and veterans’ benefits now total $4.5 trillion. Indeed, our debt for veterans’ health and disability payments has risen by $228 billion in the past year alone The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the interest payments on the money borrowed to finance the Iraq war will total $264 billion to $308 billion.” That $2,000,000,000,000? Well, that amount of money could’ve built solar thermal plants here that would have provided energy for 2/3rds of our nation’s energy demand.
Worldwide the report said $162 billion was spent on renewable energy, down just 6.6% from the year before. That compares to a 19% drop in investment in the oil and gas industry, according to the report.
In 2010, Bloomberg New Energy Finance is expecting a 25% increase in renewable energy investments to $200 billion.
Asia, with economies that were less severely hit by the recession and easier access to money, saw a 37% increase in investments in 2009. In Europe and America's harder hit economies and tighter capital markets, investments dropped 16% and 33% respectively.
In relation to the size of its economy, Spain saw the largest investment, 0.71% of its gross domestic product went into clean energy. Spain was followed by the United Kingdom, China and Brazil. The United States ranked 11th.
May through early July is "iceberg season" in Newfoundland and the bergs attract a lot of tourists. We saw some in August '99, on the ferry ride south to the island. Earlier in the summer you can see them from various points around the island. The biggest one this season was ~260 kilometers long.
You may have heard it before, but I’ll say it again: Solar power is about to become the next big thing.
Seriously, I mean it this time — and quite literally too. That’s because EnviroMission, an Australian-based firm, has recently set in motion plans to erect a massive 2,625-feet solar updraft tower at a site in Arizona that, when finished, should generate 200 megawatts of electricity. To get a good sense of the project’s epic scale, the structure is a mere 30 feet shorter than Dubai’s Burj Khalifa skycraper, the world’s tallest building, which is already more than twice the height of the empire state building.
And while solar updrafting is technically considered a form of solar power, the process of producing electricity is entirely different from what you’d find with at conventional solar farms. There are no photovoltaic cells or mirrors. In fact, running a solar tower is a comparatively low maintenance operation.
For a comprehensive understanding of how the technology works, think of it as a process that involves linking together three distinct, but effective technologies:
1. Greenhouse effect. At the base of the tower is a canopy comprised of glass panels, which air as it’s continually being heated by the sun’s rays. Think of it as a sprawling greenhouse where the temperature can get as high as 90 degrees Celsius.
2. Chimney effect. As a general rule of thumb, heat floats upwards due to the differences in air density between hot and cold air, a phenomenon known as convection. The greater this difference is, the greater the force of buoyancy. In this case, the temperature drops one degree for every 100 meters of elevation. Translation: Air differential within a 2,625-feet high tunnel is a lot of force.
3. Wind Power. As air pressure is sucked through the hollowed tower, it drives an array of 32 wind turbines installed inside the tower, hence producing energy.
There are numerous advantages to updraft technology compared to other forms of renewable energy. For instance, it works in any weather, any time of day and is clean as the dickens. (Read: no emissions and no dirty feedstock like coal)
The only aspects of the project that has proved to be challenging is finding the space and the colossal task of erecting the darn thing. EnviroMission estimates that it will cost $750 million dollars to bring the project to fruition, at which point the tower will be relied upon to provide energy for a bloc of 150,000 homes and continue to do so throughout a period of up to eighty years.
As this impressive a feat as this sounds, scaling up the technology to where it’s capable of electrify a city like Los Angeles would be a tall order. It would take about a dozen towers to meet the needs of the city’s nearly 4 million residents, according to Gizmag.
Recently, a few promising signs of progress has rendered such a reality slightly less daunting. The company has put up a working stack in Jinshawan, a region in Mongolia, where the system is generating 200-kilowatts of electricity and beyond that there are even plans to expand the technology to regions in Spain and Namibia.
Looks like someone is in trouble for putting out questionable data on polar bears dying as a result of global warming. It was his data that Al Gore used as factual in his movie.
APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement seven years ago was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
Whatever the outcome or the nature of the allegations, the investigation could fuel the ongoing fight between climate change activists and those who are skeptical of scientists' findings about global warming. The probe also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, could not speak directly to Monnett's case but said he believes the public has a right to be skeptical about scientific claims related to global warming.
Even if every scientist is objective, "what we're being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of claims about what's going to happen to the climate," he said, adding later: "If global warming really takes hold here in the next few years and bad things start to happen, then we can act. But right now, I think we should just be sitting on our hands, observing."
More polar bears are killed by Eskimos for their valuable organs, than by GW.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
They observed 4 floating polar bears and ASSUMED a lot. They could have been shot by whalers. Did they pick them up for a necropsy? Were the bears old and decrepit? This guy was probably happy to give his observation to Al Gore and company to get onto the AGW feeding trough. It must be a pretty serious charge for a government agency to do anything. Of course this is just the old Minerals Management bunch in new clothes. Will he get transferred and forgotten.
Wait - weren't you just a few months ago saying NASA is in on the "cult" ?
Maybe NASA has decided to come clean after being dumped on by this President. I don't know that the report is from NASA. It was information gleaned from NASA Satellite data. The report came from Forbes which has a little higher integrity rating than a rag like USA Today.
Your thinking is based on computer models using data tainted by politics and over zealous scientists. This was a scientific peer reviewed article on actual data. Not computer generated models.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
I was not gone, nor did not miss it. I looked at who wrote it and passed on commenting. It was mostly eco babble with a smattering of information. Alternative sources of energy prove one thing. "No Problem Money cannot overcome". Sadly it is our tax money being flushed down the toilet of pseudo science.
I have never pretended to not have an agenda or a bias. I adamantly believe in smaller less intrusive government. AGW is all about bigger more intrusive government. Little to do with saving the planet. That is just the way political terrorist get their way, by scaring the small minds, starting in grade school. By the time they graduate from college they believe whatever their elitist leaders tell them. Do your recall Pavlov? One method used is to muddy the waters with partial facts. That is what the whole UN IPCC Report was about. Sorry to say even some rather bright individuals have bought into it. And many seeing an opportunity to CASH in.
I am not that concerned about the Arctic Ice. Anyone that has worked up there knows it was once tropical. It is possible for that to happen again. Nothing man can do to stop or slow it down. One of my favorite trees were once growing in the Arctic. The Liquidambar styraciflua fossils are regularly found in the Arctic. Also known as Sweetgum. If it gets warmer we will just have to deal with it. Spend more energy on AC I suppose. You should be all set up with your solar panels to keep you cool. :shades:
No state in the union was safe from July's blistering heat wave, according to data from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center.
The horrible July heat wave, lasting weeks in some cities, the entire month in others, affected nearly 200 million people in the United States at some point. Preliminary data show that 2,712 high-temperature records were either tied or broken in July, compared with 1,444 last year, according to the NCDC. At least one weather station in all 50 states set or tied a daily high temperature record at some point during July.
Two weather stations tied for the hottest temperature recorded during July. The Blythe station in Riverside County, Calif., and the Gila Bend station in Maricopa County, Ariz., both hit 120 degrees Fahrenheit (48.9 degrees Celsius) in July.
Even Alaska recorded unusually sweaty temperatures. The temperature at the Northway weather station in Southeast Fairbanks County hit a record 97 F (36.1 C) on July 11.
Newark, N.J., set an all-time high at 108 F (42.2 C) on July 22, breaking the record of 105 F (40.6 C), set in 2001.
In Washington, D.C., Dulles International Airport saw its hottest July on record this year and recorded its highest July temperature of all time at 105 F (40.6 C), on July 22. That same day, water in the nearby Potomac River was the hottest ever recorded at 96 F (35.4 C) (records go back to only 1988), reported the Capital Weather Gang blog.
The city of Morehead, Minn., had the dubious distinction as the hottest place on Earth for a day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen of Climate Central, in an interview on National Public Radio. On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C). (The National Weather Service later said this reading could be an anomaly due to the local weather station's location in a very wet field, and not representative of the entire town.)
And this Winter it will be Cold, Cold, Cold. Hot and cold records are broken or tied every year somewhere. The people are hot right now because it is Summer. This Winter everyone will be freezing. It is called seasonal weather.
houdini1 says, " The people are hot right now because it is Summer. "
Actually, no. :shades:
People are EXTRA HOT because this is an EXTRA HOT summer.
Almost twice as many temperature records broken or tied this summer versus last summer.
Like I said - this doesn't NECESSARILY mean anything in the overall Global Climate scheme of things.
But a definitive correlation is as yet to be determined either way.
P.S. Sorry for the quick reply, but a short math session allowed me to determine that I won't be around in 10,000 years to reply - so I had better do it while I'm still here...
Whatever is causing this wonderful weather, I LIKE IT. This Summer and Last are the nicest I can ever remember. Today is a warm 91 degrees. Well below any kind of record temp. Hopefully we go back to our wonderful 80 degree Summer. Cooling off nicely in the evening to 70 degrees. It is almost like being in Hawaii. Now for debunking your posting from a rather DUBIOUS source.
The city of Morehead, Minn., had the dubious distinction as the hottest place on Earth for a day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen of Climate Central, in an interview on National Public Radio. On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C). (The National Weather Service later said this reading could be an anomaly due to the local weather station's location in a very wet field, and not representative of the entire town.)
First there is NO Morehead, MN. There is a Moorhead in MN. And according to the Weather Underground the temp on July 19th was 95.1 degrees with 1.29 inches of rain. There is NO NWS site at Moorhead. The closest is at the Fargo ND airport, which also reported 95 degrees for July 19th. Sounds like more lies, this time from PBS. You need to research the sources of your articles.
I don't plan to waste anymore time explaining the huge difference between broken record and tying a past record. But if you like to do research so much you should tabulate all the tied records back to the most frequent date in history. You might find there was a July with more records and tied records years ago.
Yes I was enjoying our lovely mild summer. I had to turn on the AC today as it only cooled to 71 over night, with high humidity from a thunder storm and rain yesterday. Though I did appreciate the quarter inch of rain on all my trees and plants. Life is tough. I have learned to cope. :shades:
"The temperature at the Northway weather station in Southeast Fairbanks County hit a record 97 F (36.1 C) on July 11."
There's not a single county in Alaska either. Maybe half the state is divided up into boroughs - the rest is just called the unorganized borough or a census area.
Whoever wrote the TechMedia article couldn't fact check their way out of a kraft paper bag.
Whoever wrote the TechMedia article couldn't fact check their way out of a kraft paper bag.
It makes finding the truth more and more difficult. Having a fancy website does not guarantee accuracy. 100 degree temps in Fairbanks area are not uncommon in the Summer. Record temps in the winter are equally possible.
The bottom line is we have a drought going on in OK and other places. What has the government done to fix it? Nothing, because there is no amount of money that can really fix it. Projecting with computers what will happen in 100 years and then giving money to some 3rd World dictator to resolve it is purely insanity. And that is what AGW is all about, insanity.
Gary says, "Projecting with computers what will happen in 100 years and then giving money to some 3rd World dictator to resolve it is purely insanity. "
Well, sure, THAT is.
But I think "that" is probably only about 1% of what the discussion of GW is about.
It's mostly, to me, RESEARCH. Find out what changes all our pollution is making to the atmosphere and find out what about that is good or is bad.
In the meantime, POLLUTE less. Move away from dirty coal. Take advantage of the free power the sun gives us. Use wind power wisely and in the right locations.
Your complaint is about the "worst 5%" of global warming alarmists, and does not apply to the the middle-ground people like me, of whom there are many.
Gee, they're pumping water to Vegas and SoCal as fast as they can. :P
With an issue as contentious as GW, both sides should strive for accuracy as much as possible. The fluff pieces in the general media are pretty pitiful and wind up confusing the real issues.
But I think "that" is probably only about 1% of what the discussion of GW is about.
Well that would make AGW pretty expensive. Hillary promised at Copenhagen $100 Billion per year to alleviate problems caused by AGW. So we should be spending $10 trillion per year on the problem by your calculations.
It's mostly, to me, RESEARCH.
If it was purely research it would not waste the $billions being wasted. My guess is 10% research and 90% snake oil sales by politicians like Al Gore. I know you would like to distance yourself for his influence. But he is still the Number one salesman for the AGW Cult. And AGW is a cult like following of people brainwashed with a few facts and a lot of guilt. That is how cult mentality works.
Especially in our schools. They are brainwashing the children. Telling them lies about polar bears dying as a result of mommy driving an SUV.
You got your illions mixed up. 1% of 100 Billion is 1 billion, not 10 trillion.
I'd be happy to spend only $1 billion a year on GW research and development of clean alternatives.
It's not a lie if you can't prove it wrong, Gary. We don't YET KNOW as to what effect man-generated CO2 is having on the polar bear's habitats, if any. Can't dismiss it until it's proven untrue.
Mom should be made to feel guilty if she's driving more vehicle than she needs. Everyone should pollute as little as possible and still have a vehicle that gets the job done. LOTS, LOTS of moms who "prefer" a large SUV could "make do" with a sedan.
As soon as I don't have to haul kids around, I'm going to something small and electric, or I might even try a couple of years SANS vehicle. I spend about $500 a month on car expenses, counting everything (maintenance, fuel, insurance, payment) and I could CERTAINLY find better ways to spend that money !!!
Gee, they're pumping water to Vegas and SoCal as fast as they can.
They should have listened to Wally Hickel back in the 1970s. He wanted to build a water line from Alaska to So California. Now the cost would be prohibitive. You would think a canal off of the Mississippi to places like OK would be feasible. Probably too expensive with today's labor costs.
No you have your calculations incorrect. You claimed the money tossed at 3rd world despots was only 1%. That figure that came out of Copenhagen to give to 3rd World countries to cope with AGW is $100,000,000,000 per YEAR. That would make the other 99% $9,900,000,000,000 as in $9.9 Trillion per year.
I doubt we spend more than $20 billion a year on climate research. Making the handouts to the 3rd World dictators the bulk of AGW waste. I would imagine our current House will end the foolishness that was promised by Hillary at Copenhagen. As with most AGW purveyors guilt is used to push the agenda.
Mom should be made to feel guilty if she's driving more vehicle than she needs.
That is where you and I part. I am right leaning on personal choice. You are far left on personal choice. Yet you have no problem driving a car that is far above what you need. You were quite happy with the Civic Hybrid. So why the GIGANTIC jump in size. :shades:
Gary what are you talking about? You know no one can accumulate $10 trillion per year to fight AGW......why even WASTE TIME discussing such a idiotic figure?
I already 'splained that to you about the move to the TCH from the HCH.......I went from a smaller AT-PZEV to a slightly more roomy AT-PZEV. My kids needed more back leg room as they were growing up. Not Maybach-level legroom, but 10-15 yr olds leg room.
More people should try that....drive the smallest car you can get away with owning....
Almost ALL Moms who "need" 7 seats can utilize a 22-24 MPG van instead of a 14-16 MPG Suburban and still do whatever they need to do.
You know no one can accumulate $10 trillion per year to fight AGW......why even WASTE TIME discussing such a idiotic figure?
I know that, but you are the one that claims the political waste to 3rd world countries is only an insignificant 1% of the picture. So here is what our friends in the AGW Cult consider realistic expenditures to mitigate AGW.
Investments of $ 515 billion per year needed to tackle climate change
Clean energy investments of $515 billion per year is needed between now and 2030 or carbon emissions will reach levels deemed unsustainable by scientists. That is at least the conclusion participants in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland make. Calling for global cooperation representatives and members of the World Economic Forum, Friday, issued a statement warning against complacency in the UN climate talks and urging the link of economy and climate agendas in 2009.
The World Economic Forum also reported that clean energy investment increased $110 billion between 2004 and 2008, from $30 billion to $140 billion, and that the investments diversified geographically. Developing countries attracted 23% of asset financing 2007, compared to 13% in 2004.
Let's see what is $550 billion a year over the next 20 years. If my calculation is correct that is $11 Trillion. More debt crisis looming over our kids.
Everyone knows those are just "pie in the sky" estimates
Not the UN or the Liberals that were running Congress until 2010.
Progress is being made.....clean energy is making inroads every year.....YEA !!!
That is your opinion. Sorry I cannot agree. I consider it one step forward and two steps backward. Think Ethanol and Millions given to US companies that take the money and go build Solar and Wind generator plants in China. That is not GOOD FOR THE USA. :sick:
So, you prefer spewing dirty coal power carcinogens into the air your grandkids breathe and will have to pay to cleanup?
Did you know that air emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants — the largest industry emitter of mercury, dioxins, acid gases, and arsenic and nickel and other heavy metals — are not subject to national regulations to protect human health and the environment? Moreover, this surprising lapse in federal protection of human health and the environment has existed for a decade.
Think the “Erin Brockovich carcinogen” is only found in the bleached-out landscape of Southern California?
Think again.
Hexavalent chromium is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants across the country—including We Energies’ Pleasant Prairie plant in Kenosha—according to a new report analyzing data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The report stated that the Pleasant Prairie plant’s coal ash contained 3,443 parts per billion (ppb) of chromium, which is 34.3 times above the federal drinking water standard and 172,150 times above a more stringent standard recently proposed in California.
Figures from the EPA have also identified two sites in Wisconsin that have chromium-contaminated groundwater from coal ash—the Dairyland Power Cooperative ash disposal pond in Cassville (an unlined pond) and the Lemberger Landfill (an unlined landfill) in Manitowoc County.
Federal regulators have stated that almost all of the chromium that leaches from coal ash is hexavalent chromium, a cancer-causing form of the heavy metal chromium.
See, the alternatives to CLEAN energy are not pretty, Amigo.
I prefer CLEANER, SOONER than waiting for "clean coal" plants to come online in 5-10 years.
Google Says: More Clean Energy Now or Fewer Jobs & Profits Later June 30th, 2011
Does pushing for cleaner energy kill jobs & growth? No, says Google (via Grist’s Stephen Lacey). In fact, waiting will cost us dearly: Google, a leader of innovation in the digital economy, says that without a private and public focus on innovation in renewables, storage, and electric vehicles, the cost of delaying the clean energy economy could be in the trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Using McKinsey’s macroeconomic tool for modeling energy costs, they found that by 2030, innovation in the modeled technologies alone could have a transformative impact on the US, adding over $155 billion per year in GDP and 1.1 million net jobs, while reducing household energy costs by $942 per year, oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year, and GHG emissions by 13% relative to BAU. By 2050, annual gains in GDP increase to $600 billion, net additional jobs to 3.9 million, and emissions reductions to 55%.
And if we don’t? Lacey summarizes Google’s findings: delaying this “innovation arms race” by as little as five years with inconsistent policy that slows private investment (a delay not unlikely in the U.S.) could result in $2.3-$3.2 trillion in unrealized GDP gains — costing the U.S. over a million new jobs and preventing the reduction of up to 28 gigatons of CO2.
So, you prefer spewing dirty coal power carcinogens into the air your grandkids breathe and will have to pay to cleanup?
That is an interesting statement even if it is false. I have spent 2 vacations in Southern Indiana. It is a big coal mining and electric producing area. I did not find the air as dirty as most CA and AZ cities. I have also spent time over by that gigantic coal plant on the Navajo reservation near 4 corners. Air is brilliant and clear.
Does pushing for cleaner energy kill jobs & growth? No, says Google (via Grist’s Stephen Lacey).
Looks to me as if they are full of you know what. Where are these jobs that clean energy and the stimulus was going to create? I can name several companies in CA that have been pushed out by the higher cost of energy due to idiocy by the Democrats in the CA legislature. Most went to TX where they use a little common sense. Something that is lacking with most environmental legislation. We have heard about all these jobs that clean energy will produce from the likes of Obama. Yet we continue to bleed them over to China. Lots of cheap talk, with little or NO job creation. I am not interested in links saying what is going to happen in that industry in some other country. That is called vaporware. It is the stuff used to extract money from entrepreneurs and our tax dollars.
California companies fleeing the Golden State
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.
And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.
Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting not to set up shop in California.
"There is a feeling that the state is not stable," Vranich said. "Sacramento can't get its act together...and that includes the governor, legislators and regulatory agencies that are running wild."
That includes CARB that has destroyed more than its share to date. Mandating alternatives and then blocking them from happening. Which results in fines for the power company which are just passed on to US the consumers. That included my favorite Swiss Bakery. They could no longer afford the electricity to keep their business going. Just sold all their equipment and closed up shop. grrrr :sick:
And you wonder why I am so negative toward Eco Nuts and pseudo environmental types.
Comments
ON THIS DATE, THIS TOWN HAS NOT EXPERIENCED A HOTTER DAY THAN TODAY.
Let's move on eh?
http://bit.ly/njcjbG
Chat guests represent Union of Concerned Scientists, National Automobile Dealers Association and Edmunds.com.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/nasa-researchers-antarctic-ice-loss-- at-least-10-gigatons-a-year-for-last-decade/17872?tag=nl.e660
NASA, researchers: Antarctic ice loss at least 10 gigatons a year for last decade
http://ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3562
The newly released REN21 Renewables 2011 Global Status Report shows that renewable energy hit a major milestone in 2010 by making up 25 percent of global energy capacity by the end of that year. Renewable sources supplied 20 percent of the energy consumed in 2010.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Total guvmint spending on solar power was less than $200 million in 2007.
The wars we are in cost exponentially more than we are spending on renewable energy.
Though the war in Iraq now costs about $120B a year, two authors (one a Nobel prize winner) estimates the total cost of this war exceeds 2 Trillion Dollars.
“Accrued liabilities for U.S. federal employees’ and veterans’ benefits now total $4.5 trillion. Indeed, our debt for veterans’ health and disability payments has risen by $228 billion in the past year alone The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the interest payments on the money borrowed to finance the Iraq war will total $264 billion to $308 billion.”
That $2,000,000,000,000? Well, that amount of money could’ve built solar thermal plants here that would have provided energy for 2/3rds of our nation’s energy demand.
Newer data, for 2009 year:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/25/news/international/china_energy_spending/index.h- tm
Worldwide the report said $162 billion was spent on renewable energy, down just 6.6% from the year before. That compares to a 19% drop in investment in the oil and gas industry, according to the report.
In 2010, Bloomberg New Energy Finance is expecting a 25% increase in renewable energy investments to $200 billion.
Asia, with economies that were less severely hit by the recession and easier access to money, saw a 37% increase in investments in 2009. In Europe and America's harder hit economies and tighter capital markets, investments dropped 16% and 33% respectively.
In relation to the size of its economy, Spain saw the largest investment, 0.71% of its gross domestic product went into clean energy. Spain was followed by the United Kingdom, China and Brazil. The United States ranked 11th.
P.S. You guys oughta "Facebook-ify" your pages and add a "Like" button. That way we can say "OK Thanks" for some info without making a post.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/2625-feet-solar-power-supertower-t- o-rise-over-arizona-video/7954?tag=nl.e660
You may have heard it before, but I’ll say it again: Solar power is about to become the next big thing.
Seriously, I mean it this time — and quite literally too. That’s because EnviroMission, an Australian-based firm, has recently set in motion plans to erect a massive 2,625-feet solar updraft tower at a site in Arizona that, when finished, should generate 200 megawatts of electricity. To get a good sense of the project’s epic scale, the structure is a mere 30 feet shorter than Dubai’s Burj Khalifa skycraper, the world’s tallest building, which is already more than twice the height of the empire state building.
And while solar updrafting is technically considered a form of solar power, the process of producing electricity is entirely different from what you’d find with at conventional solar farms. There are no photovoltaic cells or mirrors. In fact, running a solar tower is a comparatively low maintenance operation.
For a comprehensive understanding of how the technology works, think of it as a process that involves linking together three distinct, but effective technologies:
1. Greenhouse effect. At the base of the tower is a canopy comprised of glass panels, which air as it’s continually being heated by the sun’s rays. Think of it as a sprawling greenhouse where the temperature can get as high as 90 degrees Celsius.
2. Chimney effect. As a general rule of thumb, heat floats upwards due to the differences in air density between hot and cold air, a phenomenon known as convection. The greater this difference is, the greater the force of buoyancy. In this case, the temperature drops one degree for every 100 meters of elevation. Translation: Air differential within a 2,625-feet high tunnel is a lot of force.
3. Wind Power. As air pressure is sucked through the hollowed tower, it drives an array of 32 wind turbines installed inside the tower, hence producing energy.
There are numerous advantages to updraft technology compared to other forms of renewable energy. For instance, it works in any weather, any time of day and is clean as the dickens. (Read: no emissions and no dirty feedstock like coal)
The only aspects of the project that has proved to be challenging is finding the space and the colossal task of erecting the darn thing. EnviroMission estimates that it will cost $750 million dollars to bring the project to fruition, at which point the tower will be relied upon to provide energy for a bloc of 150,000 homes and continue to do so throughout a period of up to eighty years.
As this impressive a feat as this sounds, scaling up the technology to where it’s capable of electrify a city like Los Angeles would be a tall order. It would take about a dozen towers to meet the needs of the city’s nearly 4 million residents, according to Gizmag.
Recently, a few promising signs of progress has rendered such a reality slightly less daunting. The company has put up a working stack in Jinshawan, a region in Mongolia, where the system is generating 200-kilowatts of electricity and beyond that there are even plans to expand the technology to regions in Spain and Namibia.
APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement seven years ago was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.
Whatever the outcome or the nature of the allegations, the investigation could fuel the ongoing fight between climate change activists and those who are skeptical of scientists' findings about global warming. The probe also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, could not speak directly to Monnett's case but said he believes the public has a right to be skeptical about scientific claims related to global warming.
Even if every scientist is objective, "what we're being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of claims about what's going to happen to the climate," he said, adding later: "If global warming really takes hold here in the next few years and bad things start to happen, then we can act. But right now, I think we should just be sitting on our hands, observing."
More polar bears are killed by Eskimos for their valuable organs, than by GW.
He will probably be "exonerated" since lying to advance a cause where free money is involved is apparently OK.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in- -global-warming-alarmism/
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0fc7a5/10067#MSG10067
Now, NOW you "trust" their data after not trusting it when it did not meet your beliefs?
Maybe NASA has decided to come clean after being dumped on by this President. I don't know that the report is from NASA. It was information gleaned from NASA Satellite data. The report came from Forbes which has a little higher integrity rating than a rag like USA Today.
Your thinking is based on computer models using data tainted by politics and over zealous scientists. This was a scientific peer reviewed article on actual data. Not computer generated models.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
One man's "alarmism" is another man's "caution."
Forbes is considered a little conservatively-slanted. That's why you say they have a "higher integrity rating."
Again, preaching for things that have your own personal slant and against those which don't.
(agenda?)
I was not gone, nor did not miss it. I looked at who wrote it and passed on commenting. It was mostly eco babble with a smattering of information. Alternative sources of energy prove one thing. "No Problem Money cannot overcome". Sadly it is our tax money being flushed down the toilet of pseudo science.
About the arctic ice.
Lots of records broken or TIED.
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/50-states-set-july-hot-weather-records-1812/
No state in the union was safe from July's blistering heat wave, according to data from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center.
The horrible July heat wave, lasting weeks in some cities, the entire month in others, affected nearly 200 million people in the United States at some point. Preliminary data show that 2,712 high-temperature records were either tied or broken in July, compared with 1,444 last year, according to the NCDC. At least one weather station in all 50 states set or tied a daily high temperature record at some point during July.
Two weather stations tied for the hottest temperature recorded during July. The Blythe station in Riverside County, Calif., and the Gila Bend station in Maricopa County, Ariz., both hit 120 degrees Fahrenheit (48.9 degrees Celsius) in July.
Even Alaska recorded unusually sweaty temperatures. The temperature at the Northway weather station in Southeast Fairbanks County hit a record 97 F (36.1 C) on July 11.
Newark, N.J., set an all-time high at 108 F (42.2 C) on July 22, breaking the record of 105 F (40.6 C), set in 2001.
In Washington, D.C., Dulles International Airport saw its hottest July on record this year and recorded its highest July temperature of all time at 105 F (40.6 C), on July 22. That same day, water in the nearby Potomac River was the hottest ever recorded at 96 F (35.4 C) (records go back to only 1988), reported the Capital Weather Gang blog.
The city of Morehead, Minn., had the dubious distinction as the hottest place on Earth for a day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen of Climate Central, in an interview on National Public Radio. On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C). (The National Weather Service later said this reading could be an anomaly due to the local weather station's location in a very wet field, and not representative of the entire town.)
Get back to me in about 10,000 years.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Actually, no. :shades:
People are EXTRA HOT because this is an EXTRA HOT summer.
Almost twice as many temperature records broken or tied this summer versus last summer.
Like I said - this doesn't NECESSARILY mean anything in the overall Global Climate scheme of things.
But a definitive correlation is as yet to be determined either way.
P.S. Sorry for the quick reply, but a short math session allowed me to determine that I won't be around in 10,000 years to reply - so I had better do it while I'm still here...
The city of Morehead, Minn., had the dubious distinction as the hottest place on Earth for a day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen of Climate Central, in an interview on National Public Radio. On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C). (The National Weather Service later said this reading could be an anomaly due to the local weather station's location in a very wet field, and not representative of the entire town.)
First there is NO Morehead, MN. There is a Moorhead in MN. And according to the Weather Underground the temp on July 19th was 95.1 degrees with 1.29 inches of rain. There is NO NWS site at Moorhead. The closest is at the Fargo ND airport, which also reported 95 degrees for July 19th. Sounds like more lies, this time from PBS. You need to research the sources of your articles.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?62164-Minnesota-posts-highest-temperat- ure-on-the-planet-yesterday
However, 2745 records broken or tied nationwide in July has no dubiosity at all.
Glad you are enjoying your Slam Diego summers.
Yes I was enjoying our lovely mild summer. I had to turn on the AC today as it only cooled to 71 over night, with high humidity from a thunder storm and rain yesterday. Though I did appreciate the quarter inch of rain on all my trees and plants. Life is tough. I have learned to cope. :shades:
Neither do I. They are the same. They both mean:
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A HOTTER DAY AT THIS LOCATION ON THIS DATE...
I don't think anyone is saying YET that this was the HOTTEST JULY EVER, but it was certainly among the warmer ones.
"The temperature at the Northway weather station in Southeast Fairbanks County hit a record 97 F (36.1 C) on July 11."
There's not a single county in Alaska either. Maybe half the state is divided up into boroughs - the rest is just called the unorganized borough or a census area.
Whoever wrote the TechMedia article couldn't fact check their way out of a kraft paper bag.
It makes finding the truth more and more difficult. Having a fancy website does not guarantee accuracy. 100 degree temps in Fairbanks area are not uncommon in the Summer. Record temps in the winter are equally possible.
The bottom line is we have a drought going on in OK and other places. What has the government done to fix it? Nothing, because there is no amount of money that can really fix it. Projecting with computers what will happen in 100 years and then giving money to some 3rd World dictator to resolve it is purely insanity. And that is what AGW is all about, insanity.
Well, sure, THAT is.
But I think "that" is probably only about 1% of what the discussion of GW is about.
It's mostly, to me, RESEARCH. Find out what changes all our pollution is making to the atmosphere and find out what about that is good or is bad.
In the meantime, POLLUTE less. Move away from dirty coal. Take advantage of the free power the sun gives us. Use wind power wisely and in the right locations.
Your complaint is about the "worst 5%" of global warming alarmists, and does not apply to the the middle-ground people like me, of whom there are many.
Gee, they're pumping water to Vegas and SoCal as fast as they can. :P
With an issue as contentious as GW, both sides should strive for accuracy as much as possible. The fluff pieces in the general media are pretty pitiful and wind up confusing the real issues.
Well that would make AGW pretty expensive. Hillary promised at Copenhagen $100 Billion per year to alleviate problems caused by AGW. So we should be spending $10 trillion per year on the problem by your calculations.
It's mostly, to me, RESEARCH.
If it was purely research it would not waste the $billions being wasted. My guess is 10% research and 90% snake oil sales by politicians like Al Gore. I know you would like to distance yourself for his influence. But he is still the Number one salesman for the AGW Cult. And AGW is a cult like following of people brainwashed with a few facts and a lot of guilt. That is how cult mentality works.
Especially in our schools. They are brainwashing the children. Telling them lies about polar bears dying as a result of mommy driving an SUV.
I'd be happy to spend only $1 billion a year on GW research and development of clean alternatives.
It's not a lie if you can't prove it wrong, Gary. We don't YET KNOW as to what effect man-generated CO2 is having on the polar bear's habitats, if any. Can't dismiss it until it's proven untrue.
Mom should be made to feel guilty if she's driving more vehicle than she needs. Everyone should pollute as little as possible and still have a vehicle that gets the job done. LOTS, LOTS of moms who "prefer" a large SUV could "make do" with a sedan.
As soon as I don't have to haul kids around, I'm going to something small and electric, or I might even try a couple of years SANS vehicle. I spend about $500 a month on car expenses, counting everything (maintenance, fuel, insurance, payment) and I could CERTAINLY find better ways to spend that money !!!
They should have listened to Wally Hickel back in the 1970s. He wanted to build a water line from Alaska to So California. Now the cost would be prohibitive. You would think a canal off of the Mississippi to places like OK would be feasible. Probably too expensive with today's labor costs.
I doubt we spend more than $20 billion a year on climate research. Making the handouts to the 3rd World dictators the bulk of AGW waste. I would imagine our current House will end the foolishness that was promised by Hillary at Copenhagen. As with most AGW purveyors guilt is used to push the agenda.
Mom should be made to feel guilty if she's driving more vehicle than she needs.
That is where you and I part. I am right leaning on personal choice. You are far left on personal choice. Yet you have no problem driving a car that is far above what you need. You were quite happy with the Civic Hybrid. So why the GIGANTIC jump in size. :shades:
I already 'splained that to you about the move to the TCH from the HCH.......I went from a smaller AT-PZEV to a slightly more roomy AT-PZEV. My kids needed more back leg room as they were growing up. Not Maybach-level legroom, but 10-15 yr olds leg room.
More people should try that....drive the smallest car you can get away with owning....
Almost ALL Moms who "need" 7 seats can utilize a 22-24 MPG van instead of a 14-16 MPG Suburban and still do whatever they need to do.
P.S. I do miss that 48+ MPG however..... :shades:
I know that, but you are the one that claims the political waste to 3rd world countries is only an insignificant 1% of the picture. So here is what our friends in the AGW Cult consider realistic expenditures to mitigate AGW.
Investments of $ 515 billion per year needed to tackle climate change
Clean energy investments of $515 billion per year is needed between now and 2030 or carbon emissions will reach levels deemed unsustainable by scientists. That is at least the conclusion participants in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland make. Calling for global cooperation representatives and members of the World Economic Forum, Friday, issued a statement warning against complacency in the UN climate talks and urging the link of economy and climate agendas in 2009.
The World Economic Forum also reported that clean energy investment increased $110 billion between 2004 and 2008, from $30 billion to $140 billion, and that the investments diversified geographically. Developing countries attracted 23% of asset financing 2007, compared to 13% in 2004.
Let's see what is $550 billion a year over the next 20 years. If my calculation is correct that is $11 Trillion. More debt crisis looming over our kids.
Everyone knows those are just "pie in the sky" estimates.
No one can pay that.
No one WILL pay that.
It will continue to be reasonable expenditures for reasonable issues.....a majority of the time at least.
Progress is being made.....clean energy is making inroads every year.....YEA !!!
Not the UN or the Liberals that were running Congress until 2010.
Progress is being made.....clean energy is making inroads every year.....YEA !!!
That is your opinion. Sorry I cannot agree. I consider it one step forward and two steps backward. Think Ethanol and Millions given to US companies that take the money and go build Solar and Wind generator plants in China. That is not GOOD FOR THE USA. :sick:
Did you know that air emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants — the largest industry emitter of mercury, dioxins, acid gases, and arsenic and nickel and other heavy metals — are not subject to national regulations to protect human health and the environment? Moreover, this surprising lapse in federal protection of human health and the environment has existed for a decade.
Think the “Erin Brockovich carcinogen” is only found in the bleached-out landscape of Southern California?
Think again.
Hexavalent chromium is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants across the country—including We Energies’ Pleasant Prairie plant in Kenosha—according to a new report analyzing data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The report stated that the Pleasant Prairie plant’s coal ash contained 3,443 parts per billion (ppb) of chromium, which is 34.3 times above the federal drinking water standard and 172,150 times above a more stringent standard recently proposed in California.
Figures from the EPA have also identified two sites in Wisconsin that have chromium-contaminated groundwater from coal ash—the Dairyland Power Cooperative ash disposal pond in Cassville (an unlined pond) and the Lemberger Landfill (an unlined landfill) in Manitowoc County.
Federal regulators have stated that almost all of the chromium that leaches from coal ash is hexavalent chromium, a cancer-causing form of the heavy metal chromium.
See, the alternatives to CLEAN energy are not pretty, Amigo.
I prefer CLEANER, SOONER than waiting for "clean coal" plants to come online in 5-10 years.
http://rethinkecon.org/2011/06/30/google-says-more-clean-energy-now-or-fewer-job- - - s-profits-later/
Google Says: More Clean Energy Now or Fewer Jobs & Profits Later
June 30th, 2011
Does pushing for cleaner energy kill jobs & growth? No, says Google (via Grist’s Stephen Lacey). In fact, waiting will cost us dearly:
Google, a leader of innovation in the digital economy, says that without a private and public focus on innovation in renewables, storage, and electric vehicles, the cost of delaying the clean energy economy could be in the trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy.
Using McKinsey’s macroeconomic tool for modeling energy costs, they found that
by 2030, innovation in the modeled technologies alone could have a transformative impact on the US, adding over $155 billion per year in GDP and 1.1 million net jobs, while reducing household energy costs by $942 per year, oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year, and GHG emissions by 13% relative to BAU. By 2050, annual gains in GDP increase to $600 billion, net additional jobs to 3.9 million, and emissions reductions to 55%.
And if we don’t? Lacey summarizes Google’s findings:
delaying this “innovation arms race” by as little as five years with inconsistent policy that slows private investment (a delay not unlikely in the U.S.) could result in $2.3-$3.2 trillion in unrealized GDP gains — costing the U.S. over a million new jobs and preventing the reduction of up to 28 gigatons of CO2.
That is an interesting statement even if it is false. I have spent 2 vacations in Southern Indiana. It is a big coal mining and electric producing area. I did not find the air as dirty as most CA and AZ cities. I have also spent time over by that gigantic coal plant on the Navajo reservation near 4 corners. Air is brilliant and clear.
Does pushing for cleaner energy kill jobs & growth? No, says Google (via Grist’s Stephen Lacey).
Looks to me as if they are full of you know what. Where are these jobs that clean energy and the stimulus was going to create? I can name several companies in CA that have been pushed out by the higher cost of energy due to idiocy by the Democrats in the CA legislature. Most went to TX where they use a little common sense. Something that is lacking with most environmental legislation. We have heard about all these jobs that clean energy will produce from the likes of Obama. Yet we continue to bleed them over to China. Lots of cheap talk, with little or NO job creation. I am not interested in links saying what is going to happen in that industry in some other country. That is called vaporware. It is the stuff used to extract money from entrepreneurs and our tax dollars.
California companies fleeing the Golden State
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.
And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.
Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting not to set up shop in California.
"There is a feeling that the state is not stable," Vranich said. "Sacramento can't get its act together...and that includes the governor, legislators and regulatory agencies that are running wild."
That includes CARB that has destroyed more than its share to date. Mandating alternatives and then blocking them from happening. Which results in fines for the power company which are just passed on to US the consumers. That included my favorite Swiss Bakery. They could no longer afford the electricity to keep their business going. Just sold all their equipment and closed up shop. grrrr :sick:
And you wonder why I am so negative toward Eco Nuts and pseudo environmental types.