SunPower came and looked over my electric bills and my home and admitted unless the rates went up radically I could not justify going solar at this time. Their lease is weird in the fact you pay $13k for the lease. Which you can buy out after 7 years. Or you pay $26k up front and get a 30% tax credit. He was not sure if AMT would keep you from claiming the tax credit. I will wait until they get more efficient. He also said because of my neighbors trees I would be better off with the panels on the West end, and would need more panels. With an average $92 per month there is really no way solar makes sense.
That cartoon is more of an attack on "solar energy" than it is on "don't give huge loans to solar panel manufacturers who are going to waste the money then fold."
The loan program is the problem - not solar energy technology itself.
The Puna Geothermal Venture is run by Ormat Technologies and is located in the Mt. Kilauea East Rift zone. The plant has five wells that bring up 650-degree geothermal fluids to the surface where the steam is separated out and used to drive generators. The plant also captures waste heat from the primary circuit with fluid pentane to increase power output and efficiency.
The plant is currently contracted to provide 30 MW of electricity to Hawaii Electric and Light through 2030, but is looking to add another 8 MW of capacity soon, as well as building new reservoirs off the coast of Maui and near Mt. Hualalai to expand its electricity coverage across the islands.
They could easily get FAR more from that source I'd bet...
I have toured that plant in the Puna district. Very interesting. The problem is the superstitious Hawaiians have blocked further development of thermal. It could easily supply all the electric for the Big Island of Hawaii. Some Hawaiians claim it will make the volcano god Pele mad. Here is the status of the resource to date:
Pele's Dilemma: The Future of Geothemal in Hawai`i (October 6, 2010) Davianna Pōmaikaʻʻi McGregor: "The interplay of many dynamic primal natural elements in Puna make it one of the most sacred areas in all of Hawai`i. ...Pelehonuamea practitioners believe that the waters of the Puna district are sacred to Kane and that the steam generated by the heart of Pelehonuamea is sacred to her."
The Energy Department hasn’t let the failure of former star Solyndra — not even an FBI raid on the company — prevent the agency from backing another solar firm it believes could slash the cost of solar and keep the U.S competitive. The DOE finalized Thursday a $150 million loan guarantee for 1366 Technologies, a silicon wafer maker that says it can reduce solar energy costs by 50 percent.
The news follows a flurry of federal funding announcements, a trend that’s likely to continue as the DOE scrambles to finalize loan guarantees before the clean energy program ends in a few weeks.
1366 Technologies received a conditional commitment for the DOE-backed loan guarantee in June. The company will use the loan guarantee — essentially debt backed by the government — to build a manufacturing project capable of producing between 700 and 1,000 megawatts of silicon-based wafers annually. Phase one of the project will be located in Lexington, Massachusetts and is expected to fund 70 permanent and 50 construction jobs, the DOE said in a release Thursday.
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.
A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."
Let's see - that's $150M jobs to create a maximum of 120 jobs, or $1.25M/job.
As I heard a few people say today - if these companies that are getting these loans look so promising, then there should be private investment $ flowing to them. Banks are looking for good ideas to invest the cash they are sitting on, at basically 0% interest. Banks don't make $ unless they loan it. So if a company can't get bank or other private loans, then they mustn't be too promising or well organized.
So what we have is a bunch of lifetime bureaucrats, with little to no business savvy, ordered to push $ to a group of companies who don't look too good to the standard business processes. It's like me or you taking wads of cash down to the nearest rehab center, and trying to decide who will take our $ and use it best.
Nothing like wasting money trying to solve a problem which may not actually exist, or be very, very minor.
The real sick part is we keep guaranteeing these Green loans. We are on the hook for HUNDREDS of ethanol plants around the USA. No investor in his right mind would invest in Ethanol, Wind or Solar. That is why T Boone backed out on those wind farms. I am sure he was getting loan guarantees until Obama found out he only supports Republicans. When all these alternates fail to deliver our current debt will likely jump a bunch.
The good doctor has been a "dissenter" since at least 2007, the same year the APS said humans were affecting global warming. The quy isn't a quitter at least - guess he spent the last 4 years trying to change his fellow member's minds. (IBTimes)
Sea ice is crucial for polar bears and walruses, Overland said. Sea ice also reflects the sun's heat, so when the ice melts Earth retains more warmth, Overland said.
I don't know about that. They do fine in the zoo here. Probably safer for them than being shot by Eskimos. You know so they can sell walrus tusks and Polar Bear gall bladders to the Asians.
As for the dissenter. He does not say there is no GW. He does not believe the evidence pinning it on man is in "incontrovertible". And if it is man causing GW, the gain in standard of living was worth the added stress to the planet.
Why is is so difficult to comprehend that this is a common occurrence? The earth temperature ebbs and flows with millennia. The Thames river was an ice rink in the past. Why didn't the temp rise tremendously, and "scientists" freak out, after the cessation of WWII, when the most rapid industrialization in history occurred and there were no Governmental regulations, not to mention Worldly regulations regarding "emissions"??? I'm old enough to remember the Time magazine (when it was relevant) cover about the coming ice age! Follow the $$... Interesting to know that it all started with Margaret Thatcher: http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm Fascinating!
Like the good Dr said. 8/10ths of a degree Kelvin rise over 150 years ain't bad. The advancements we have made were worth the cost in climate change if there truly is any caused by man. Going back to the caves is not a reasonable option. Letting the elitist pigs like Al Gore spew more carbon than a small town, then preach at the rest of US is unacceptable. If guilt is based on carbon footprint, Gore should be executed for crimes to the planet.
Air quality is currently a subsidy for the wealthy
Ever since a good friend of mine noted a few years back ago that improving air quality is a subsidy for the wealthy I have pondered long and hard on it. I truly believe it be the case. My speech in DC at the 15th Annual Washington Energy Policy Conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the National Capital Area Chapter of the United States Association for Energy Economics (NCAC-USAEE) focused on this particular issue. The recent article I found online acknowledges this concept as well.
Let me stress that I am in no way saying that clean air is only for the wealthy, but where the poor are concerned, air pollution in the US is way down the list. Bigger priorities include nutrition, education, jobs, housing, etc. One supporting argument is the realization that present- day SO2 emissions in the US are lower than they were in 1920.
And on another front I find it particulary ironic that C02 (an an insult to elementary intelligence) long an element of the periodic table, is now labeled a pollutant. What's next, 02??
I find it further ironic that there could be too much of it produced. I might be wrong, but does anybody else see the ridiculousness of the (ill)logic in that taken to its conclusion? Are we to expect a newsflash that the plant kingdom is in danger of overdosing? Wait a minute, CNN is probably trolling and now in contact with Mr. Bore...
You can carry that clean air perspective a bit futher and say that clean air is necessary for nutrition (can't grow your crops too well in smog), education (kids with asthma miss a lot of school), etc.
I think what he's really saying is that you have to enjoy a certain standard of wealth in order to be able to afford to protect your health. If you're fighting for your next meal, you don't care much about being green.
Yeah, a lot of us see how ridiculous it is to call CO2 a pollutant, probably a majority of people see it that way. I am rather sure that water vapor will be the next pollutant we have to wipe out.
I think that is exactly what he is saying. With 46 million Americans below the poverty level and getting worse, we should step back and take a look. I understand your desire to have pristine air. I too like being able to breath deep. Something I could not do as a teen living in So CA, without chest pains. However, with every new regulation we lose more jobs. Why would companies try to manufacture here with all the stringent regulations, when they can go to China and set up a factory in weeks not years? Not to mention the other restrictions in hiring Americans, like high labor, HC, workman's comp etc etc. In San Diego County now you have to have an environmental impact study and permits, before you have a family gathering in the park. What price are we willing to pay for an absolute pristine environment?
What makes you think that? I can see if it negatively impacts the business community. In our case it stopped several fireworks displays & concerts in the park this year. Both shot down by environmental impact considerations. Most regulations come from the Cities, Counties, State and Federal agencies. In CA it is OSHA and CARB that determine most of the regulations. Maybe you have an example.
Groups lobbying to get exemption from regulation get more press, but many time an industry will write a reg to impede new competition. For a somewhat topical example, look at auto dealers and the regs they put into place to keep curb-stoners from selling cars unless they have a permanent place of business. The same regs conveniently deter the manufacturers and Walmart from direct sales too. All in the name of "safety" or "consumer protection".
Your fireworks example is probably more of a wildfire concern.
Actually they claimed the fireworks cause pollution. Fire hazard has eliminated personal fireworks. At least legally. So now people shoot off guns like in the middle East.
I agree that Big business will get regulations passed to squash competition. However it still has to go through some government agency. So I hold the guy with the pen responsible. Bribes and pork are the symbols of what our governments have become. Time to vote out all incumbents.
And who runs the government. Me? You? Exxon? Even if I get something to the person drafting the regulation, the pol heading up the agency will manage to send the draft back down for some tweaking.
Saw 30,000 Northern Gannets this last trip btw. Quite a few sandhill cranes are hanging out here back home, waiting to flock up and fly south I guess.
It wasn't just the USA that sizzled to one of its warmest summers ever — the entire Northern Hemisphere also sweltered through its fifth-warmest summer since records began 132 years ago, federal scientists at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., reported Thursday.
This was the 26th consecutive above-average Northern Hemisphere summer, according to the data center. Climatologists define summer as the months of June, July and August. The climate center is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The winter in the Southern Hemisphere was also warmer-than-average, marking the 43rd consecutive above-average winter south of the equator.
Anyone failing to agree 26/43 years above average in a row is not an indicative trend is failing to see the forest for the burning, bark-beetle eaten, drought-withered trees.....
(dang that was a GOOD line !!! ) :shades: :shades: :shades:
Did you see that part about "The winter in the Southern Hemisphere was also warmer-than-average, marking the 43rd consecutive above-average winter south of the equator. "
All that snow means nothing if the winter still averaged warmer-than-normal....
Don't forget the warming is less than 1 degree over the last 150 years. I agree with the good Dr. That is insignificant. And still no absolute proof that man is even a fraction of the cause. By the way we had one of the coolest summers on record in So CA.
You can blame it on Pacific Ocean, which is about 95% of the equation.
Also, he said that La Niña, which cools the surface of the eastern Pacific Ocean, tends to cause some land areas to warm, including parts of Asia.
It can only be considered "insignificant" if there are no "significant" effects.
In this case, there ARE significant effects:
Hotter than normal summers. Longer and more severe droughts. Arctic ice at record-low levels.
So "the good Dr." can pipe on all he wants, and unless it's his own hot air melting that ice and causing these droughts and record summer heat, then it's something else at work.
You know it is bad when the Democrats start to question what Obama wants to throw at alternative energy ventures.
The Obama administration is in a race against the clock to close by month’s end more than a dozen renewable-energy loan guarantees totaling $9 billion. Of that, just over $3 billion would come directly from the federal government’s coffers.
At a House hearing Wednesday, there was bipartisan concern about risking more taxpayer dollars on renewable energy projects that ultimately fail. While Republicans’ rhetoric was more heated, Democrats agreed it is a critical issue.
“Taxpayers have over $500 million at risk as a result of Solyndra’s bankruptcy,” said House Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif. “We need to understand what happened and how we can avoid future losses.”
No comment on the cold Winter in the Northern Hemisphere 2010/11?
Bringing all their vast knowledge, expertise, and "models" to bear, NOAA had predicted a mild Winter in the N.H. last year. Turned out to be just the opposite. With all that brainpower at work how could they be so wrong? I thought those models were infallible.
Good point. With all their fancy technology the NWS cannot predict what the weather will be like tomorrow. And they want US to believe they can predict what it will be in a 100 years. ROFLMAO
And that is hotter summers and more severe droughts and less ice in the arctic.
So What? Been dandy here. Great rain last winter. Reservoirs all full. Makes me want to drive the heck out of my Sequoia. Oh I just did my part to make the weather better.
Remember this famous speech from then-Senator Obama -- the one from 2008, in which he declared that his election would cause the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal?
As it turns out, this is one of the few promises Obama has kept. Or at least, the oceans have kept it for him. Over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano has the details:
Earlier this month, the European Space Agency's Envisat monitoring, global sea level revealed a “two year long decline [in sea level] was continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.”
In August 2011, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.” See: NASA: 'Global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer'
The global drop in sea level followed NASA's announcement that sea level around the U.S. was declining in February 2011.
Most surprising, despite the fact that Obama only said he would only “slow” the rise of the oceans, his presidency has presided over what some scientists are terming an “historic decline" in global sea levels. Obama appears to have underestimated his own powers to alter sea level.
I think that Al Gore and the warmers (sounds like a rock band) will say that it has been so hot, and evaporation is so strong, it is drawing all the water into outer space.
I think he already signed up with AlGore (and the) Rhythms. Say that fast. :shades:
Durn it Gary, you just burned another 15 minutes of my life getting me off reading about sea levels and temperatures two miles down. Interesting comments in this Inconvenient Skeptic blog.
Been reading Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything and he's got an interesting chapter about how little we know about the oceans. I think he's on the AGW side though.
The more we think we know about how it all works, the less we really know. The real problem is when it left the realm of science and became a political football. When totally unscientific minds like Al Gore get Nobel prizes for a subject as complex as Climate Change, you know the whole thing is screwed up. My position has always been of peer reviewing of the layman's take on AGW.
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record low—not quite. But the actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979, when satellite records began, and there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age.
That Arctic sea ice is disappearing has been known for decades. The underlying cause is believed by all but a handful of climatologists to be global warming brought about by greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet the rate the ice is vanishing confounds these climatologists’ models. These predict that if the level of carbon dioxide, methane and so on in the atmosphere continues to rise, then the Arctic Ocean will be free of floating summer ice by the end of the century. At current rates of shrinkage, by contrast, this looks likely to happen some time between 2020 and 2050.
The reason is that Arctic air is warming twice as fast as the atmosphere as a whole. Some of the causes of this are understood, but some are not. The darkness of land and water compared with the reflectiveness of snow and ice means that when the latter melt to reveal the former, the area exposed absorbs more heat from the sun and reflects less of it back into space. The result is a feedback loop that accelerates local warming. Such feedback, though, does not completely explain what is happening. Hence the search for other things that might assist the ice’s rapid disappearance.
All that melting snow and ice and the oceans still go down. Another AGW theory shot full of holes.
Studies are not the problem. It is tying the results of the studies to political motives. When honest peer reviews are allowed. And dissenting scientists are not kept out of the debate. Then I would not be opposed to spending tax dollars on research. Now, NO way Jose. :shades:
The Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon kicked off today in Washington on the National Mall, under inauspiciously dark rainy skies. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is quoted as saying, "The Solar Decathlon collegiate teams are showing how clean energy products and efficient building design can help families and businesses reduce energy use and save money.
Chu has reason to be hopeful that the competition pays off: The Department of Energy gives a $100,000 grant to each team just to participate in the Solar Decathlon, in addition to all the other costs of hosting and producing the competition. (Some of the other costs are offset by the myriad sponsors--from Lowe's to Pepco.)
One element of the competition is to be able to build affordable green energy housing.
Finally, Villegas conceded the price tag came to about $450,000, "which is just parts" since CCNY students did all the labor. Another student from the same team, Yinery Baez, also a fifth year architecture student, said that $500,000 is a more accurate figure, but that they believe the price could be dropped to about $300,000 if it were ever to be mass produced.
So here we have an alternative energy home that has a material cost of about $700 per sq foot. Foreclosed homes in my area are selling with the land for under $100 per sq ft. You can build a McMansion type home for about $200 per sq foot. And that does not have a Murphy bed in the master bedroom. The article reminds me of my first time at Disneyland in the 1950s. They had this home of the future. 50+ years later I don't see a lot of improvement in homes. Other than windows and and insulation. Appliances use close to the same energy. Only now we depend even more on gas and electricity powered gadgets. I see the current solar home, as borrowing from our children's future to save a few shekels today.
This sounds like car racing or concept cars - manufacturers often spend a lot of money trying stuff out. Often something sticks and makes it to production mode. Not cheap initially, but the payback on the back-end makes it worth doing.
I have another 400 sq. ft. of R-38 sitting in the spare room upstairs just waiting to get to the attic. Sigh....
Comments
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The loan program is the problem - not solar energy technology itself.
http://ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3587
The Puna Geothermal Venture is run by Ormat Technologies and is located in the Mt. Kilauea East Rift zone. The plant has five wells that bring up 650-degree geothermal fluids to the surface where the steam is separated out and used to drive generators. The plant also captures waste heat from the primary circuit with fluid pentane to increase power output and efficiency.
The plant is currently contracted to provide 30 MW of electricity to Hawaii Electric and Light through 2030, but is looking to add another 8 MW of capacity soon, as well as building new reservoirs off the coast of Maui and near Mt. Hualalai to expand its electricity coverage across the islands.
They could easily get FAR more from that source I'd bet...
Pele's Dilemma: The Future of Geothemal in Hawai`i (October 6, 2010)
Davianna Pōmaikaʻʻi McGregor: "The interplay of many dynamic primal natural elements in Puna make it one of the most sacred areas in all of Hawai`i. ...Pelehonuamea practitioners believe that the waters of the Puna district are sacred to Kane and that the steam generated by the heart of Pelehonuamea is sacred to her."
http://transforminghawaii.blogspot.com/2011/02/peles-dilemma-future-of-geothemal- -in.html
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/feds-bet-1366-technologies-ca- n-slash-solar-costs/8608?tag=nl.e660
The Energy Department hasn’t let the failure of former star Solyndra — not even an FBI raid on the company — prevent the agency from backing another solar firm it believes could slash the cost of solar and keep the U.S competitive. The DOE finalized Thursday a $150 million loan guarantee for 1366 Technologies, a silicon wafer maker that says it can reduce solar energy costs by 50 percent.
The news follows a flurry of federal funding announcements, a trend that’s likely to continue as the DOE scrambles to finalize loan guarantees before the clean energy program ends in a few weeks.
1366 Technologies received a conditional commitment for the DOE-backed loan guarantee in June. The company will use the loan guarantee — essentially debt backed by the government — to build a manufacturing project capable of producing between 700 and 1,000 megawatts of silicon-based wafers annually. Phase one of the project will be located in Lexington, Massachusetts and is expected to fund 70 permanent and 50 construction jobs, the DOE said in a release Thursday.
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.
A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."
link title
As I heard a few people say today - if these companies that are getting these loans look so promising, then there should be private investment $ flowing to them. Banks are looking for good ideas to invest the cash they are sitting on, at basically 0% interest. Banks don't make $ unless they loan it. So if a company can't get bank or other private loans, then they mustn't be too promising or well organized.
So what we have is a bunch of lifetime bureaucrats, with little to no business savvy, ordered to push $ to a group of companies who don't look too good to the standard business processes. It's like me or you taking wads of cash down to the nearest rehab center, and trying to decide who will take our $ and use it best.
Nothing like wasting money trying to solve a problem which may not actually exist, or be very, very minor.
In other news, from your good morning newspaper, Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level (ADN)
I don't know about that. They do fine in the zoo here. Probably safer for them than being shot by Eskimos. You know so they can sell walrus tusks and Polar Bear gall bladders to the Asians.
As for the dissenter. He does not say there is no GW. He does not believe the evidence pinning it on man is in "incontrovertible". And if it is man causing GW, the gain in standard of living was worth the added stress to the planet.
Why didn't the temp rise tremendously, and "scientists" freak out, after the cessation of WWII, when the most rapid industrialization in history occurred and there were no Governmental regulations, not to mention Worldly regulations regarding "emissions"??? I'm old enough to remember the Time magazine (when it was relevant) cover about the coming ice age!
Follow the $$...
Interesting to know that it all started with Margaret Thatcher:
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Fascinating!
Changes over millennia, vs changes in the last 100 years.
Ever since a good friend of mine noted a few years back ago that improving air quality is a subsidy for the wealthy I have pondered long and hard on it. I truly believe it be the case. My speech in DC at the 15th Annual Washington Energy Policy Conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the National Capital Area Chapter of the United States Association for Energy Economics (NCAC-USAEE) focused on this particular issue. The recent article I found online acknowledges this concept as well.
Let me stress that I am in no way saying that clean air is only for the wealthy, but where the poor are concerned, air pollution in the US is way down the list. Bigger priorities include nutrition, education, jobs, housing, etc. One supporting argument is the realization that present- day SO2 emissions in the US are lower than they were in 1920.
http://epis.com/market_insights/?p=2152
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/rnk/Newsletter/Spring_2010/winter_climate_summary.html
And on another front I find it particulary ironic that C02 (an an insult to elementary intelligence) long an element of the periodic table, is now labeled a pollutant. What's next, 02??
I find it further ironic that there could be too much of it produced. I might be wrong, but does anybody else see the ridiculousness of the (ill)logic in that taken to its conclusion? Are we to expect a newsflash that the plant kingdom is in danger of overdosing?
Wait a minute, CNN is probably trolling and now in contact with Mr. Bore...
I think what he's really saying is that you have to enjoy a certain standard of wealth in order to be able to afford to protect your health. If you're fighting for your next meal, you don't care much about being green.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That's right, the good ol' US Chamber of Commerce and their member companies.
US Chamber of Commerce - Regulatory Affairs
Groups lobbying to get exemption from regulation get more press, but many time an industry will write a reg to impede new competition. For a somewhat topical example, look at auto dealers and the regs they put into place to keep curb-stoners from selling cars unless they have a permanent place of business. The same regs conveniently deter the manufacturers and Walmart from direct sales too. All in the name of "safety" or "consumer protection".
Your fireworks example is probably more of a wildfire concern.
I agree that Big business will get regulations passed to squash competition. However it still has to go through some government agency. So I hold the guy with the pen responsible. Bribes and pork are the symbols of what our governments have become. Time to vote out all incumbents.
PS
I joined Audubon again about a year ago.
Saw 30,000 Northern Gannets this last trip btw. Quite a few sandhill cranes are hanging out here back home, waiting to flock up and fly south I guess.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2011-09-15/hot-summer-record/50419- - - 070/1
It wasn't just the USA that sizzled to one of its warmest summers ever — the entire Northern Hemisphere also sweltered through its fifth-warmest summer since records began 132 years ago, federal scientists at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., reported Thursday.
This was the 26th consecutive above-average Northern Hemisphere summer, according to the data center. Climatologists define summer as the months of June, July and August. The climate center is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The winter in the Southern Hemisphere was also warmer-than-average, marking the 43rd consecutive above-average winter south of the equator.
Anyone failing to agree 26/43 years above average in a row is not an indicative trend is failing to see the forest for the burning, bark-beetle eaten, drought-withered trees.....
(dang that was a GOOD line !!! ) :shades: :shades: :shades:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Did you see that part about "The winter in the Southern Hemisphere was also warmer-than-average, marking the 43rd consecutive above-average winter south of the equator. "
All that snow means nothing if the winter still averaged warmer-than-normal....
You can blame it on Pacific Ocean, which is about 95% of the equation.
Also, he said that La Niña, which cools the surface of the eastern Pacific Ocean, tends to cause some land areas to warm, including parts of Asia.
In this case, there ARE significant effects:
Hotter than normal summers.
Longer and more severe droughts.
Arctic ice at record-low levels.
So "the good Dr." can pipe on all he wants, and unless it's his own hot air melting that ice and causing these droughts and record summer heat, then it's something else at work.
The Obama administration is in a race against the clock to close by month’s end more than a dozen renewable-energy loan guarantees totaling $9 billion. Of that, just over $3 billion would come directly from the federal government’s coffers.
At a House hearing Wednesday, there was bipartisan concern about risking more taxpayer dollars on renewable energy projects that ultimately fail. While Republicans’ rhetoric was more heated, Democrats agreed it is a critical issue.
“Taxpayers have over $500 million at risk as a result of Solyndra’s bankruptcy,” said House Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif. “We need to understand what happened and how we can avoid future losses.”
http://nationaljournal.com/energy/government-races-to-close-billions-in-renewabl- e-energy-loan-guarantees-20110915
Bringing all their vast knowledge, expertise, and "models" to bear, NOAA had predicted a mild Winter in the N.H. last year. Turned out to be just the opposite. With all that brainpower at work how could they be so wrong? I thought those models were infallible.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Gosh, I can answer that one, maybe I should run for office. They should invest in clean coal, nuclear, and nat. gas.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
It's ain't.
But we don't need "PREDICTIONS" to see what is happening right now, today.
And that is hotter summers and more severe droughts and less ice in the arctic.
So What? Been dandy here. Great rain last winter. Reservoirs all full. Makes me want to drive the heck out of my Sequoia. Oh I just did my part to make the weather better.
Remember this famous speech from then-Senator Obama -- the one from 2008, in which he declared that his election would cause the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal?
As it turns out, this is one of the few promises Obama has kept. Or at least, the oceans have kept it for him. Over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano has the details:
Earlier this month, the European Space Agency's Envisat monitoring, global sea level revealed a “two year long decline [in sea level] was continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.”
In August 2011, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.” See: NASA: 'Global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer'
The global drop in sea level followed NASA's announcement that sea level around the U.S. was declining in February 2011.
Most surprising, despite the fact that Obama only said he would only “slow” the rise of the oceans, his presidency has presided over what some scientists are terming an “historic decline" in global sea levels. Obama appears to have underestimated his own powers to alter sea level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-dro- - p-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html
I guess that means if the globe is warming it does not cause the ocean to rise.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Durn it Gary, you just burned another 15 minutes of my life getting me off reading about sea levels and temperatures two miles down. Interesting comments in this Inconvenient Skeptic blog.
Been reading Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything and he's got an interesting chapter about how little we know about the oceans. I think he's on the AGW side though.
Lot of the mapping is classified for the subs though.
"The more we think we know about how it all works, the less we really know."
And that's EXACTLY WHY we must continue to fund studies. We need to know MORE.
And to keep the "science" involved in the discussion, I offer this:
http://www.economist.com/node/21530079
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record low—not quite. But the actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979, when satellite records began, and there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age.
That Arctic sea ice is disappearing has been known for decades. The underlying cause is believed by all but a handful of climatologists to be global warming brought about by greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet the rate the ice is vanishing confounds these climatologists’ models. These predict that if the level of carbon dioxide, methane and so on in the atmosphere continues to rise, then the Arctic Ocean will be free of floating summer ice by the end of the century. At current rates of shrinkage, by contrast, this looks likely to happen some time between 2020 and 2050.
The reason is that Arctic air is warming twice as fast as the atmosphere as a whole. Some of the causes of this are understood, but some are not. The darkness of land and water compared with the reflectiveness of snow and ice means that when the latter melt to reveal the former, the area exposed absorbs more heat from the sun and reflects less of it back into space. The result is a feedback loop that accelerates local warming. Such feedback, though, does not completely explain what is happening. Hence the search for other things that might assist the ice’s rapid disappearance.
Studies are not the problem. It is tying the results of the studies to political motives. When honest peer reviews are allowed. And dissenting scientists are not kept out of the debate. Then I would not be opposed to spending tax dollars on research. Now, NO way Jose. :shades:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Chu has reason to be hopeful that the competition pays off: The Department of Energy gives a $100,000 grant to each team just to participate in the Solar Decathlon, in addition to all the other costs of hosting and producing the competition. (Some of the other costs are offset by the myriad sponsors--from Lowe's to Pepco.)
One element of the competition is to be able to build affordable green energy housing.
Finally, Villegas conceded the price tag came to about $450,000, "which is just parts" since CCNY students did all the labor. Another student from the same team, Yinery Baez, also a fifth year architecture student, said that $500,000 is a more accurate figure, but that they believe the price could be dropped to about $300,000 if it were ever to be mass produced.
link title
So here we have an alternative energy home that has a material cost of about $700 per sq foot. Foreclosed homes in my area are selling with the land for under $100 per sq ft. You can build a McMansion type home for about $200 per sq foot. And that does not have a Murphy bed in the master bedroom. The article reminds me of my first time at Disneyland in the 1950s. They had this home of the future. 50+ years later I don't see a lot of improvement in homes. Other than windows and and insulation. Appliances use close to the same energy. Only now we depend even more on gas and electricity powered gadgets. I see the current solar home, as borrowing from our children's future to save a few shekels today.
I have another 400 sq. ft. of R-38 sitting in the spare room upstairs just waiting to get to the attic. Sigh....