I want the Earf to be habitable and hospitable to humans and lesser animals for much longer than that.
You are not reading your own links. According to NASA there is NOTHING we can do to change this supposed warming trend. Even if we stopped ALL CO2 emissions today. The alleged affects of this GW will submerge the low lying areas of the world by 2100. If personal vehicles produce even half of the CO2 transportation is blamed for. That means 235 million vehicles in the USA are producing 7.5% of the GHG emissions attributed to the USA. If we all bought a Prius next year and sent 17 million SUVs to the dump we would only cut the US GHG production by less than a quarter of one percent. Then you have the problem of recycling 17 million vehicles. So we have a supposed problem that will not be resolved if we cut GHG totally from the planet. So how is a few hundred thousand hybrid car buyers going to make ANY impact on this problem? Not to mention the FACT that manufacturing batteries for hybrids carries its own pollution problems.
Then just for fun let us throw in the Chinese and Indian car buyers. The USA cuts back drastically on oil consumption to save the planet. The price of oil drops and every person in China and India can now afford to drive a car. Does not sound like there is a practical solution to this supposed problem. I will continue to use as little as possible without impacting the lifestyle I have worked hard to attain. I refuse to go out on our dangerous highways in a Yugo to satisfy a misguided green agenda.
They found it rains on average more between Tuesday and Thursday than from Saturday through Monday. The clearest day of the week was Saturday, with nearly twice the rainfall on the wettest day, Tuesday afternoon.
They should have conducted their study here in San Diego. Our rainy days have been on the weekends this year. Kind of throws a monkey wrench into their theory. Although it could be caused by the thousands of motorhomes and PU trucks with Toy Haulers, on the roads from Friday to Sunday. I see little difference recently in weekday to weekend traffic. It is all horrific.
then, GW must've started decades ago. Why might I say that? Well, the Titanic was motoring along towards the U.S. in April of 1915 and there was more ice floating in the north Atlantic than usual. Silly men running the Titanic didn't see anything unusual about it, even though several ships had wired them and told them that there was a lot more icebergs floating around than usual for this time of year(still not that far off from winter ice season in mid-April).
So, what does Captain Smith do, the same Captain Smith who was looking towards a comfortable retirement after getting to New York City, NY, on this very same inaugural trip of the Titanic oceanliner in mid-April of 1915? He says to light up more boilers down below, we're speeding up! All-right-teeeee-then! We'll speed up then!
What's my point? Point is that the earth continuously goes through these hotter and cooler periods all of the time. It's not from this new world order idea of GW! Apparently some of the northern Atlantic ice fell off in to the ocean a tad early in 1915. It might have been a bit warmer than usual in the spring of 1915. So what? Five years later than the Titanic's one voyage the weather trending may very well have been cooler...again. See where I'm going here?
Even if cars, trucks and buses aren't seriously contributing to GW very much the very idea of GW is not substantiated, at least not where it's obviously clear to the layman on the street. Or on the Internet on his computer. Need more clear convincing info. that GW is real. And, even though I won't say it's never gonna be real, this Al Gore vision of increased riches from the Internet he created...ohhh sorry...umm...had a part in creating...I mean this Al Gore vision of increased riches from scaring the daylights out of people who buy his DVD's on the subject...is just that. A "vision" of how some people can get rich off of the common working man. Just for fun. Just because they can. Can you just imagine how politicians might tweak this money-maker to their money-making advantage?
The big question is will winter of 07/08 go down as one of the coldest in the last 100 years? Iraq, China, Greece, Israel etc etc all with the first snow in decades. Heck last Thursday it snowed at my place close to San DIego. If we are experiencing Global Warming, it sure is acting strange. It will be interesting to see when the data is compiled for this winter if the chart shows a downturn in the overall temperature.
It is exactly this cold weather which causes more fossil fuels to be burnt. It is ridiculous to think the Earth is just the right temperature now for human comfort, when vast parts of the country get snow covered 5-6 months per year. It sounds to me like we're just emerging from an Ice Age. So if the data does show a warming trend I'm very thankful for it, though it won't come soon enough. When I retire, like many millions of other Americans I'll be moving south, so I can enjoy outdoor activities more than 5 months/year. Maybe Hawaii and I'll get a little runabout like a Smart car.
You can retire to Maui. Maybe join the Willie Nelson Commune. They generate their own solar electric and drive diesel cars on biodiesel produced on the Island. Grow most of their own food. I saw Woody Harrelson one of the group saying how close to a utopian lifestyle they live. If you research and pick your spot on the Islands you will not need AC or heat anytime of year. Go with catchment water and save a lot of money. My bit of heaven is not for sale..
So are you trying to de link the increased use of petroleum products during "cold weather events? If so, welcome to the no statistical link reality! :shades:
I think one thing that pro "global warming" siren sounders ignore is that the earth is in constant and inexorable CHANGE.
When there is global climate change, that does not eliminate unusual local weather events.
What is your point? If many places around the globe are getting snow for the first time in decades I would think it significant in a climate discussion. You may be right. Yet many in the GW movement are claiming hurricanes, tornados, floods and snow are caused by global warming. I find that hard to digest.
My point is that (how many times to I need to say it?) no matter what the WORLD CLIMATE TRENDS are doing, there will ALWAYS be unusual WEATHER events.
World Climate Trends and unusual weather are not linear and tied at the hip.
There is no world climate situation I know about or have ever heard about that would totally eliminate rain, snow, cold snaps, heat snaps, hail, etc., which are all WEATHER.
The overall point:
Regardless of the global weather temperature trend, whether it be UP like now or DOWN like it will be someday again, unusual WEATHER EVENTS will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS occur.
That is a great refution of the China article that Steve just posted. Why are the Chinese now blaming a few bad weather events on climate change?
And what about the Chinese position of "we didn't start GW, but we make sure we finish it, with our growing economy and industry".
If you're buying Chinese products then you are supporting the growth of the global automobile population - increasing the wealth of the people of China to buy scooters, Tatas, and Cherys. And to buy AC's, Refrigerators, and TV's.
1. I don't, cannot, and will not speak for the Chinese government. What they think is their own business.
2. If you are deadset against buying "Chinese products" then you had better quickly find a cave to live in. Because soon, if not already, it will be virtually impossible to find everything you need for a normal American life without using something made or assembled in China.
It is interesting how liberal doctrine (40 years ago) has shifted from wanting to implement policies of diebacks (systematical extermination of so called third world peoples) due to competition for natural and other resources, to now being almost the number one choice of WW manufacturing.
Indeed this was PRE internet and I doubt the liberal media will load up passed predictions that well missed the marks. :lemon:
Indeed the only thing really topical is the fact that those dire predictions did not come true, as the new "end of the world (due to global warming) will not come true.
Indeed to me the real utility of this nexus is one has to give lip service. It is the new methodology or way business has to be conducted. (aka higher costs)
To me it ranks up there with the TV preachers who say the end of the world is at hand (as an example, 0247 hours, on the third monday after offering collections.) They of course will be raptured up and tool around in the heavenly equivalent of MB 's, sans C02 emissions!? Ya gotta love the entertainment. :shades:
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.
Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis. The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.
The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.
If their theory is correct, you know the C02 advocates of global warming curiously are lacking in the attitude" when life gives you lemons, make lemonade principle". They really need a JFK siren call " aka we will send a man to the moon...." to make machines etc that consume C02 and in the best case yield so called useful byproducts such as oxygen.
There are some carbon sink kind of proposals around. Seeding the oceans with iron to stimulate blooms of phytoplankton for example. (link)
I think people are more comfortable with the idea of reducing the sources than they are with the fix it proposals, since they worry about unintended consequences.
Futurists see mankind populating the Moon and Mars in a few hundred years, and creating atmospheres on those planets. It is not that impossible to do this, you just need a sufficient energy source - it is quite easy to scrub and condense gases.
If you remember the movie Aliens, the colonists had built a large fusion generator that was creating an atmosphere to their specs. This idea is taken from actual NASA plans. It might take 50-100 years for a single fusion plant to do so on a body the size of the Moon. There is no reason that 100 years from now, we don't have 50 fusion plants on earth that could be used similarly to "custom-blend" our atmosphere to whatever mix of CO2, O2, and N2 we want. We first need the fusion-power as we'll never have enough energy from our current energy sources (just as the Wright Bros. weren't going to get into orbit!) .
Indeed the making of solar cells panels, wind (prop driven) turbines are prime examples.
Manufacture of solar cells, panels etc are not only NOT cost effective (compared to current methods- 2x min MORE per kilowatt hour) , but not environmentally friendly.
ENVIRONMENTALIST filed court orders to halt the use of (prop driven) wind turbines- ironically the very things advocated scantly, years before.
CA State environmental regulators and legislatures RAMMED the use of MTBE down the consumers and oil logistics system, "scientifically researched " to be "good for the environment" costing literally BILLLIONS of dollars. Only to not many years later, declare MTBE harmful to the environment AND take years to stop adding it to RUG to PUG. How totally bizarre is that?
Wait a second: did you just say that Solar Panels are not "environmentally friendly"?
That can't be what you meant to say. Must have been mis-typed.
And "wind farms" are good sound practice assuming you don't negatively interfere with other environmental processes. Any objections raised by environmental groups always have good, solid, sound reasoning behind it.
What is the first WORD of the sentence? You might be incredulous, but you might not know about what you speak.
Indeed if I went to get a permit where I live (golden triangle, Silicon Valley, CA) and if I did NOT hype (up aka lie) "ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SOLAR PANELS" and enlist the help of the CA state blue team, my permit would ROT in some unfriendly land fill.
Trust me, friends who own plants that prototype and/or do custom board applications,(nexus, that control solar panels?) practically have ALL the regulatory agencies living in their plants. The cost of compliance is literally astronomical.
If we stop relying on clean technology because the MANUFACTURING process is not clean, then we are just throwing our hands up and saying "forget all the clean power this device will produce in the future....it's too dirty to manufacture it !!!
Any objections raised by environmental groups always have good, solid, sound reasoning behind it
How about so-called environmental Senators that don't want to see them while sailing in their yachts? Kennedy added this little caveat to another bill and killed the project.
Self-proclaimed alternative energy proponent Sen. Ted Kennedy has strongly opposed an environmentally friendly "wind farm” off the coast of Massachusetts – and now it appears Kennedy will have his way.
A proposal before Congress would limit the construction of wind turbines and most likely doom plans for the Cape Wind Project, the nation’s first offshore wind farm.
"This is a dire moment for us,” declared Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind Associates spokesman, who said the proposal "would be totally fatal” for the project.
The Cape Wind Project would erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound and could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and nearby islands, which is now largely supplied by coal-fired plants.
forget all the clean power this device will produce in the future....it's too dirty to manufacture it !!!
That would be ludicrous.
That may be true to an extent. I posted an article here claiming that the clearing of land for planting crops for ethanol produced 93 times as much GHG as could be saved by the ethanol produced each year. That means it will take 93 years to mitigate the GHG produced by clearing land for planting crops for biofuels. Something to think about.
"Any objections raised by environmental groups always have good, solid, sound reasoning behind it
How about so-called environmental Senators that don't want to see them while sailing in their yachts? Kennedy added this little caveat to another bill and killed the project.
Self-proclaimed alternative energy proponent Sen. Ted Kennedy has strongly opposed an environmentally friendly "wind farm” off the coast of Massachusetts – and now it appears Kennedy will have his way.
A proposal before Congress would limit the construction of wind turbines and most likely doom plans for the Cape Wind Project, the nation’s first offshore wind farm.
"This is a dire moment for us,” declared Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind Associates spokesman, who said the proposal "would be totally fatal” for the project.
The Cape Wind Project would erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound and could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and nearby islands, which is now largely supplied by coal-fired plants. "
ruking1 says, "How about so-called environmental Senators that don't want to see them while sailing in their yachts? Kennedy added this little caveat to another bill and killed the project."
That's not environmentalists protesting. That's a NIMBY situation. Nothing new about that.
Well, as everything, there is a tipping point. Of course, it goes without saying that if the "net lifetime effect" of a clean energy solution is on the negative side, then producing it would be a mistake.
As per the MA/ MA Senator Kennedy, Nimbyism & Environmentalism are joined as congenital twins. You are right, NOTHING new bout that!?
Sort of like letting wolves loose in the wilds. Ranchers are looking to who is going to pay for the inevitable dead livestock. Practical and tolerant if you ask me. T/S say the eco types.Contrast this with the urbane eco types. But let a bobcat or mountain lion range in rich enclaves (poor ones for that matter) and guess who gets a bullet to the head if he/she has Fluffy (some might label the Fluffys PARISITES) for lunch.
A lot of people don't consider themselves environmentalists until something is proposed in their back yard.
I live along the buffer for a landfill. I like having the big empty behind my house, but I also pay attention to the test well results as they monitor the dump. Now, if they would just pipe the outgassing methane to my house, maybe I could convert the Subbie to run on it.
I see you have heard the joke about the difference between a democrat and republican... a democrat has yet to be mugged.
On one of the topical boards, I posted some links to the Berkeley CA landfills production and use and sale of yearly 40,000 gals (? not now sure of current production) of bio diesel from ongoing waste streams, which importantly would have had to have both a higher level and cost of EPA regulated waste disposal. The biggest impediement to its effective use was.... you guessed it... LOCAL GOVERNMENT !!???
Again not to drive home the point, but when given (lemons analogy) LOADS of methane, harvest and bottle the WASTE and yes among others.... run your SUBBIE!!?
When the government has to subsidize an alternative to the extent that PV cells are being subsidized in CA, there is a problem. I crunched them every which way and cannot see PV cells as a good alternative at this time. If they ever come down in price. If storage batteries ever come down in price along with all the electronics involved I might give it another go. To me with the rolling blackouts a few years ago, it would be nice to have a backup system. Well the systems they are installing do not give you any backup for when you lose power. Unless you put in a big string of batteries. You are not getting much for your PV dollars.
It's not perfect, no. It needs a good technological breakthrough to become completely affordable and completely viable for EveryMan.
But there are many people using solar as their only power for their homes. They might have to live frugally, power-wise, but they are doing a good thing for the Earf with their sacrifice.
I think that alone shows that the technology is viable. Maybe not CHEAP, but viable. The cost is coming down about 4% per year.
I just did a quick calculation. After about $16,000 in rebates a solar system for my home will cost me out of pocket $37,460. Two ways I look at it. I can put that money in a CD at todays best rate of 4.75% and get back $148 per month that will just about pay my electric bill on average. Or I can give the money to a solar installer and cut my electric bill down to nothing. Now for the average homeowner that does not have $37,460 in cash to install a system he will get a equity loan at about 7.5% interest. So he is saving $150 per month in electric bills but paying $347 per month for 15 years on his solar system. Most of which is only warrantied for 1 year. Those warranties on the solar panels have some restrictions and allowable degradation factors.
So if a person wants to feel green and throw an extra $200 month away to accomplish that feeling. I say go for it.
..."So he is saving $150 per month in electric bills but paying $347 per month for 15 years on his solar system. ...
So if a person wants to feel green and throw an extra $200 month away to accomplish that feeling. I say go for it. "...
Another way to put it, for those folks who think similarly to Larsh. The only thing that might make sense is putting solar panels on a rental property. So how many renters would be willing to pay $347 per month extra (over a like conventionally powered house) and be willing to pay a min of 2x the cost of power, per mo? Keep in mind this would be only B/E for the landlord! I predict a very short line of folks.
It also needs to be said that the utility (last I read) is bound by law to buy back electricity (sold back) by so called "small independent" generators @ RETAIL. rather than @wholesale. The concept (effect)is @wholesale is it would push beyond 30 years the economic payback period. As a comparison the rental property depreciation period is @ 27.5 years, per IRS regulation.
If I was building a house to sell in a upturn economy, solar power would be a good selling point. Most people do not realize it is not economical with the current price of solar systems. I will be real surprised if PVs ever go down in price. The systems today are 5 times more than they were in 1986. Some of that is the dollar. With several EU governments spending millions to subsidize PV installations it has run the price sky high. I think if you compared the price of Solar systems being installed prior to the current large subsidies, you would find very little benefit to the homeowner. Just another form of corporate welfare. Not much different than what the Feds are doing for ADM and VeraSun with the ethanol subsidies. All under the global warming blanket. Add GM to that corporate welfare role. GW pays big bucks to the people in the right place. The rest of US just pay the price.
The biggest obstacle now is shortage of raw materials to make PV cells.
Silicon Shortage Stalls Solar
As demand for clean energy continues to grow, the solar industry forecasts millions of photovoltaic systems will dot the landscape by the end of the decade. However, a severe shortage of the silicon used in the systems threatens to dampen solar's growth.
According to a recent solar-energy report from the nonprofit Energy Foundation, the U.S. solar industry could grow by more than $6 billion per year if the technology becomes cost-competitive with electricity from fossil-fuel sources.
I forgot one small detail. The Federal tax credit for installing solar is 30% of the cost of installation. If you are an individual homeowner it has a $2000 maximum. If you are a business there is no maximum. Add to that state incentives and it makes good sense for a business. Not so good for the individual.
As folks can probably deduce, a so called "PLUG IN" vehicle with so called off off the shelf technology has been a can do easy with ZERO emissions. The major problem is that vehicle gets off the fuel tax grid that the system wants it to remain!? So the truth be told with the specter of China having a passenger vehicle fleet the size of Europe and the USA COMBINED (240M+235.4M=) 475.4 M MORE vehicles: emissions in the WW scheme of things is really no big deal. Keep in mind China is letting these vehicles be built FAR looser emissions wise than either Europe or the US. :confuse:
GM swaps space on their roof for a guaranteed cheaper electric rate from the company that installs the panels. So the subsidy is indirect, and GM doesn't have to learn how to install or maintain the panels.
The payback period may get better now that oil is holding over $100 a bbl. But who would have predicted a sand shortage?
A solar panel on that Prius that sits outside all day may be a better investment.
I ran into a guy at Home Depot. He had a rack on his PU with a strange round box attached. Being the inquisitive type I asked what it was. It was a solar panel that rolls up via a big spring into that tube. He gets to the job. Parks in a way to catch the sun. Rolls out the solar panel and runs all his equipment. He told me the name of the company that makes the flexible solar panels and I cannot find it. Beats one of those gas gensets so many contractors use.
Comments
You are not reading your own links. According to NASA there is NOTHING we can do to change this supposed warming trend. Even if we stopped ALL CO2 emissions today. The alleged affects of this GW will submerge the low lying areas of the world by 2100. If personal vehicles produce even half of the CO2 transportation is blamed for. That means 235 million vehicles in the USA are producing 7.5% of the GHG emissions attributed to the USA. If we all bought a Prius next year and sent 17 million SUVs to the dump we would only cut the US GHG production by less than a quarter of one percent. Then you have the problem of recycling 17 million vehicles. So we have a supposed problem that will not be resolved if we cut GHG totally from the planet. So how is a few hundred thousand hybrid car buyers going to make ANY impact on this problem? Not to mention the FACT that manufacturing batteries for hybrids carries its own pollution problems.
Then just for fun let us throw in the Chinese and Indian car buyers. The USA cuts back drastically on oil consumption to save the planet. The price of oil drops and every person in China and India can now afford to drive a car. Does not sound like there is a practical solution to this supposed problem. I will continue to use as little as possible without impacting the lifestyle I have worked hard to attain. I refuse to go out on our dangerous highways in a Yugo to satisfy a misguided green agenda.
I'd take 2 mins before, given this current market.
Auto related but more weather than climate I suppose.
It Rains Less on Weekends (Yahoo Green)
They should have conducted their study here in San Diego. Our rainy days have been on the weekends this year. Kind of throws a monkey wrench into their theory. Although it could be caused by the thousands of motorhomes and PU trucks with Toy Haulers, on the roads from Friday to Sunday. I see little difference recently in weekday to weekend traffic. It is all horrific.
So, what does Captain Smith do, the same Captain Smith who was looking towards a comfortable retirement after getting to New York City, NY, on this very same inaugural trip of the Titanic oceanliner in mid-April of 1915? He says to light up more boilers down below, we're speeding up! All-right-teeeee-then! We'll speed up then!
What's my point? Point is that the earth continuously goes through these hotter and cooler periods all of the time. It's not from this new world order idea of GW! Apparently some of the northern Atlantic ice fell off in to the ocean a tad early in 1915. It might have been a bit warmer than usual in the spring of 1915. So what? Five years later than the Titanic's one voyage the weather trending may very well have been cooler...again. See where I'm going here?
Even if cars, trucks and buses aren't seriously contributing to GW very much the very idea of GW is not substantiated, at least not where it's obviously clear to the layman on the street. Or on the Internet on his computer. Need more clear convincing info. that GW is real. And, even though I won't say it's never gonna be real, this Al Gore vision of increased riches from the Internet he created...ohhh sorry...umm...had a part in creating...I mean this Al Gore vision of increased riches from scaring the daylights out of people who buy his DVD's on the subject...is just that. A "vision" of how some people can get rich off of the common working man. Just for fun. Just because they can. Can you just imagine how politicians might tweak this money-maker to their money-making advantage?
Gets ya to quivering, don't it?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
When I retire, like many millions of other Americans I'll be moving south, so I can enjoy outdoor activities more than 5 months/year. Maybe Hawaii and I'll get a little runabout like a Smart car.
Weather and Climate are different.
When there is global climate change, that does not eliminate unusual local weather events.
1949
1967
1979
Those years were
+.19
-.10
+.59
respectively, colder or warmer than the mean temperature in the USA since 1880.
The coldness of the "year" has no relation to a snow event.
I think one thing that pro "global warming" siren sounders ignore is that the earth is in constant and inexorable CHANGE.
What is your point? If many places around the globe are getting snow for the first time in decades I would think it significant in a climate discussion. You may be right. Yet many in the GW movement are claiming hurricanes, tornados, floods and snow are caused by global warming. I find that hard to digest.
China blames climate change for extreme weather (Reuters)
World Climate Trends and unusual weather are not linear and tied at the hip.
There is no world climate situation I know about or have ever heard about that would totally eliminate rain, snow, cold snaps, heat snaps, hail, etc., which are all WEATHER.
The overall point:
Regardless of the global weather temperature trend, whether it be UP like now or DOWN like it will be someday again, unusual WEATHER EVENTS will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS occur.
Is that clear enough?
And what about the Chinese position of "we didn't start GW, but we make sure we finish it, with our growing economy and industry".
If you're buying Chinese products then you are supporting the growth of the global automobile population - increasing the wealth of the people of China to buy scooters, Tatas, and Cherys. And to buy AC's, Refrigerators, and TV's.
1. I don't, cannot, and will not speak for the Chinese government. What they think is their own business.
2. If you are deadset against buying "Chinese products" then you had better quickly find a cave to live in. Because soon, if not already, it will be virtually impossible to find everything you need for a normal American life without using something made or assembled in China.
On second thought, maybe not - doesn't seem all that topical in here.
Indeed the only thing really topical is the fact that those dire predictions did not come true, as the new "end of the world (due to global warming) will not come true.
Indeed to me the real utility of this nexus is one has to give lip service. It is the new methodology or way business has to be conducted. (aka higher costs)
To me it ranks up there with the TV preachers who say the end of the world is at hand (as an example, 0247 hours, on the third monday after offering collections.) They of course will be raptured up and tool around in the heavenly equivalent of MB 's, sans C02 emissions!? Ya gotta love the entertainment. :shades:
Do you think this may just be a part of the cycle?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.
The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.
The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
I think people are more comfortable with the idea of reducing the sources than they are with the fix it proposals, since they worry about unintended consequences.
If you remember the movie Aliens, the colonists had built a large fusion generator that was creating an atmosphere to their specs. This idea is taken from actual NASA plans. It might take 50-100 years for a single fusion plant to do so on a body the size of the Moon. There is no reason that 100 years from now, we don't have 50 fusion plants on earth that could be used similarly to "custom-blend" our atmosphere to whatever mix of CO2, O2, and N2 we want. We first need the fusion-power as we'll never have enough energy from our current energy sources (just as the Wright Bros. weren't going to get into orbit!) .
Manufacture of solar cells, panels etc are not only NOT cost effective (compared to current methods- 2x min MORE per kilowatt hour) , but not environmentally friendly.
ENVIRONMENTALIST filed court orders to halt the use of (prop driven) wind turbines- ironically the very things advocated scantly, years before.
CA State environmental regulators and legislatures RAMMED the use of MTBE down the consumers and oil logistics system, "scientifically researched " to be "good for the environment" costing literally BILLLIONS of dollars. Only to not many years later, declare MTBE harmful to the environment AND take years to stop adding it to RUG to PUG. How totally bizarre is that?
That can't be what you meant to say. Must have been mis-typed.
And "wind farms" are good sound practice assuming you don't negatively interfere with other environmental processes. Any objections raised by environmental groups always have good, solid, sound reasoning behind it.
More on MTBE to follow.
Indeed if I went to get a permit where I live (golden triangle, Silicon Valley, CA) and if I did NOT hype (up aka lie) "ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SOLAR PANELS" and enlist the help of the CA state blue team, my permit would ROT in some unfriendly land fill.
Trust me, friends who own plants that prototype and/or do custom board applications,(nexus, that control solar panels?) practically have ALL the regulatory agencies living in their plants. The cost of compliance is literally astronomical.
If we stop relying on clean technology because the MANUFACTURING process is not clean, then we are just throwing our hands up and saying "forget all the clean power this device will produce in the future....it's too dirty to manufacture it !!!
That would be ludicrous.
How about so-called environmental Senators that don't want to see them while sailing in their yachts? Kennedy added this little caveat to another bill and killed the project.
Self-proclaimed alternative energy proponent Sen. Ted Kennedy has strongly opposed an environmentally friendly "wind farm” off the coast of Massachusetts – and now it appears Kennedy will have his way.
A proposal before Congress would limit the construction of wind turbines and most likely doom plans for the Cape Wind Project, the nation’s first offshore wind farm.
"This is a dire moment for us,” declared Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind Associates spokesman, who said the proposal "would be totally fatal” for the project.
The Cape Wind Project would erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound and could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and nearby islands, which is now largely supplied by coal-fired plants.
That would be ludicrous.
That may be true to an extent. I posted an article here claiming that the clearing of land for planting crops for ethanol produced 93 times as much GHG as could be saved by the ethanol produced each year. That means it will take 93 years to mitigate the GHG produced by clearing land for planting crops for biofuels. Something to think about.
How about so-called environmental Senators that don't want to see them while sailing in their yachts? Kennedy added this little caveat to another bill and killed the project.
Self-proclaimed alternative energy proponent Sen. Ted Kennedy has strongly opposed an environmentally friendly "wind farm” off the coast of Massachusetts – and now it appears Kennedy will have his way.
A proposal before Congress would limit the construction of wind turbines and most likely doom plans for the Cape Wind Project, the nation’s first offshore wind farm.
"This is a dire moment for us,” declared Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind Associates spokesman, who said the proposal "would be totally fatal” for the project.
The Cape Wind Project would erect 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound and could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and nearby islands, which is now largely supplied by coal-fired plants. "
Funny, BUT NOT so funny how it REALLY WORKS !!??
That's not environmentalists protesting. That's a NIMBY situation. Nothing new about that.
Biofuels are still up for debate.
Solar panels are NOT in that category.
Sort of like letting wolves loose in the wilds. Ranchers are looking to who is going to pay for the inevitable dead livestock. Practical and tolerant if you ask me. T/S say the eco types.Contrast this with the urbane eco types. But let a bobcat or mountain lion range in rich enclaves (poor ones for that matter) and guess who gets a bullet to the head if he/she has Fluffy (some might label the Fluffys PARISITES) for lunch.
I live along the buffer for a landfill. I like having the big empty behind my house, but I also pay attention to the test well results as they monitor the dump. Now, if they would just pipe the outgassing methane to my house, maybe I could convert the Subbie to run on it.
On one of the topical boards, I posted some links to the Berkeley CA landfills production and use and sale of yearly 40,000 gals (? not now sure of current production) of bio diesel from ongoing waste streams, which importantly would have had to have both a higher level and cost of EPA regulated waste disposal. The biggest impediement to its effective use was.... you guessed it... LOCAL GOVERNMENT !!???
Again not to drive home the point, but when given (lemons analogy) LOADS of methane, harvest and bottle the WASTE and yes among others.... run your SUBBIE!!?
But there are many people using solar as their only power for their homes. They might have to live frugally, power-wise, but they are doing a good thing for the Earf with their sacrifice.
I think that alone shows that the technology is viable. Maybe not CHEAP, but viable. The cost is coming down about 4% per year.
So if a person wants to feel green and throw an extra $200 month away to accomplish that feeling. I say go for it.
http://www.heliopower.com/calculator.php
So if a person wants to feel green and throw an extra $200 month away to accomplish that feeling. I say go for it. "...
Another way to put it, for those folks who think similarly to Larsh. The only thing that might make sense is putting solar panels on a rental property. So how many renters would be willing to pay $347 per month extra (over a like conventionally powered house) and be willing to pay a min of 2x the cost of power, per mo? Keep in mind this would be only B/E for the landlord! I predict a very short line of folks.
General Motors Adds More Solar Power
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p527/index.html
The biggest obstacle now is shortage of raw materials to make PV cells.
Silicon Shortage Stalls Solar
As demand for clean energy continues to grow, the solar industry forecasts millions of photovoltaic systems will dot the landscape by the end of the decade. However, a severe shortage of the silicon used in the systems threatens to dampen solar's growth.
According to a recent solar-energy report from the nonprofit Energy Foundation, the U.S. solar industry could grow by more than $6 billion per year if the technology becomes cost-competitive with electricity from fossil-fuel sources.
GM swaps space on their roof for a guaranteed cheaper electric rate from the company that installs the panels. So the subsidy is indirect, and GM doesn't have to learn how to install or maintain the panels.
The payback period may get better now that oil is holding over $100 a bbl. But who would have predicted a sand shortage?
A solar panel on that Prius that sits outside all day may be a better investment.