I can change your mind about climate

Obama could make a significant contribution by signing an executive order to demand all Federal vehicles be flex-fuel with natural gas. This would spur the auto manufacturers to tool up for government contracts which would eventually bring the price of flex fuel cars within consumer reach while, at the same time, spur the infrastructure to deliver NG.

 

NO NO NO NO! The high priests of the AGW religion will never condone any scheme that doesn`t involve a massive cash transfer.

 

Christopher wyne is now calling the ETS a "floating carbon tax" and refers to Fudd as "Kevin Kardasshian"! Sour grapes and desperate politicking! This guy is another opposition fool!

 

It is necessary to make clean energy more affordable and accessible to everyone.

 

(((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))

Yep! There is the strawman right there in the second sentence - no need to read further folks

No-one is suggesting Solar meets 100% of demand

 

Now Killer Kev is taking aim at the car industry. I suppose there would be a certain type of mentality, who could be easily convinced that this is a brilliant anti carbon measure.

 

The point of the article and the math was to show the superiority of nuclear over solar, geothermal and wind. They simply cannot hold a candle to nuclear as a clean power source. Solar should stick to rooftops and the sides of existing buidlings. These solar farms that are starting to pop up all over the place are an incredibly inefficient use of land.

And yes there are people that are idiotic enough to actually think that will happen. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-power-the-world

 

I knew what you meant RBJ.

 

An article that STARTS with a lie is not worth reading - and that article started with a lie. Your article in Sci Am actually talks of a raft of measures not just Solar

 

So, what are you actually saying here BB. Are you saying that the source is wrong about solar, and that solar is a viable option? Or are you saying that you don`t want to talk about it because you don`t like the source?

 

Here is the text of the first two paragraphs of the article.

"Volkswagen’s massive Chattanooga manufacturing plant, home to such popular models as the Passat, was built to be as environmentally friendly as possible. All manner of energy-saving techniques were employed, and the plant remains the only automotive manufacturing facility to have been awarded Platinum certification by the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Part of what makes the plant so green is that it uses hydroelectric power as much as possible, but now a new form of clean energy is in the mix as well.

Volkswagen has now opened a new solar field which will provide 9.6 megawatts of direct current, about 12.5 percent of the plant’s total usage. The solar field goes far beyond any previous such endeavor. As the Washington Post reports. the 33-acre $28 million array is the largest solar field attached to an industrial plant in the world. It was built in a partnership with Silicon Ranch, which has a deal with Volkswagen to operate the array for the automaker."

Which part specifically is a lie?

You made a claim and I proved you wrong. The Sci Am article is to show you that some people are actually dumb enough or so mathematically challenged that they think renewables can run everything without conventional power sources. You made a statement that no one is saying green energy will power everything and I just proved you wrong.

Here is more from the IPCC which actually thinks that the world can run 80% with renewables. These and other people are completely clueless about how much energy is currently being used and will be used in the future and how much energy you can get from renewables vs conventionals. Nuclear, coal, petroleum etc are energy sources with high energy density. That means that per unit of mass they provide alot more power. Renewables like solar and wind are diffuse power sources with extremely low amounts of energy density. The irradiance power is only 250 watts per square meter and since the theoretical maximum of solar panels is 86% because of physics that means that at most solar panels will only get 200 watts per square meter of power and since most panels are in the 20% range we aren't even close to that. Wind is unreliable and chaotic, geothermal is highly locational and even if we tapped all of the geothermal in the entire country it would only provide 5% of our current energy needs. Renewables will NEVER power the majority of the worlds power.......period. And yet there are morons who actually think that it will happen. I am sorry if basic physics and math don't agree with their stupid blind ideology.

 

The professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University is either "mathematically challenged" or "dumb"? That's really your argument?

 

Did you read the article. I am not the only one who thinks his plan is bonkers. This is the defintion of instanity.

"Two weeks ago Jacobson and a larger team, including Delucchi, did it again. This time Jacobson showed in much finer detail how New York State’s residential, transportation, industrial, and heating and cooling sectors could all be powered by wind, water and sun, or “WWS,” as he calls it. His mix: 40 percent offshore wind (12,700 turbines), 10 percent onshore wind (4,020 turbines), 10 percent concentrated solar panels (387 power plants), 10 percent photovoltaic cells (828 facilities), 6 percent residential solar (five million rooftops), 12 percent government and commercial solar (500,000 rooftops), 5 percent geothermal (36 plants), 5.5 percent hydroelectric (6.6 large facilities), 1 percent tidal energy (2,600 turbines) and 0.5 percent wave energy (1,910 devices)."

Do you notice the huge problems with that plan?

 

Yes I read it. No it's not the "definition of insanity", no one in that article described it as "bonkers". "Plan"? More like "hypothetical", and no, but I suppose you're going to tell us?

Renewable energy will "never" produce the "majority" of the world's power? Never is an awfully long time.

 

For solar, wind and geothermal....yes it will NEVER happen. Geothermal is highly locational dependent and the entire geothermal reserve of the US is only 39000 MW which if utilized at 100% capacity would only provided 5% of the power.

The best you can do is this http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resea...nic-solar-cells-process-sunlight-as-plants-do

Those are organic solar cells being developed which are cheap and unlike regular solar panels don't require EER mining or hydrometallurgical mining for zinc etc both of which are mining practices that are bad for the environment. Unfortunately they are only at a couple percent efficient but I would love to see these on every house rooftop at some point. Even then they still won't produce enough power to the commercial sector which is where most of your power is used. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/

This is my biggest problem with solar pane currently, outside of the obvious lack of power generation per area of land compared to nuclear, is where the hell do people think that solar panel components come from? They come from here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

And the new ones made with zinc come from hydrometallurgical mining mentioned here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21573711

Your typical environmentalist doesn't know any of this because you typical environmentalist is an uneducated lazy moron who doesn't bother to do some basic research. They just want to sound self righteous and pat themselves on the back because they "care about the environment". Your typical environmentalist pushed ethanol which now most organizations have said was a mistake.....well guess what we are stuck running a fuel that has no business being used in low compression engines and the Formula 1 people were telling everyone that when the whole ethanol craze started. But no one wanted to listen because they all wanted to hop aboard the self righteous band wagon. They pushed for CFL bulbs when only 9,000 out of 19,000 municipalities nationwide even have a recycling program of any kind much less toxic materials and this was on 2011. http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/United_States_Recycling_Statistics And we now have massive amount of mercury pollutions because only a tiny percent of people recycle them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/business/la-fi-lightbulb-mercury-20110407

They should have waited till they established reliable nationwide recycling for mercury bulbs but instead we now have tens of millions of CFL bulbs that are now in our landfills leaking this crap. Does that (*)(*)(*)(*) me off, you bet it does. And who are the ones responsible for all this crap......the same self righteous (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that look at them selves in the mirror everyday and smile smugly because they "care about the environment".

Only now after decades of anti-nuclear ranting have some environmentalists finally seen the light and realized that nuclear is one of the cleanest and most potent forms of power generation there is. The new gen 3 and gen 4 reactors are even cheaper to build, more safe and produce more power and have a 1/3 increase in lifespan as well going form 40/80 to 60/120 years.

When thorium becomes the major method of generating nuclear power it will be even cleaner yet.

 

People may be underestimating geothermal energy. i am not talking so much about energy generation as energy saving. Just below the earth a constant temperature is kept year round. This can greatly reduce the energy it takes to heat and cool air. It will cost much less to cool air in hot areas and much less to heat air in cold areas. And when it comes to landfills solar panels can be placed on the land after the landfill is full.

I am not saying we will not need to generate energy in conventional ways but we can (with some thought) reduce the amount of energy that needs to be generated by conventional means.

I am also not against natural gas as motor fuel...but hydrogen would be better. I have looked into different ways to manufacture it at home. And that is one reason we will not go to hydrogen.

 

We'll be producing energy from fossil fuels for a long time to come, of course. But to say the "majority" of the world's power will "NEVER" come from renewables is just stupid. What so called "conventional" power will be around in 3 or 4 thousand years time I wonder? F-A at the rate we're going. So unless you're predicting the apocalypse, or the end of civilization, then we're going to have to use renewables for the "majority" of our power generation eventually.

As for the near future, at least the Germans have a target of 80% renewable energy by 2050, there's no reason that Australia couldn't have a similar target.

Yes I think hydrogen will be used in the future for heavy vehicles and machinery (container ships, road trains, etc). But ordinary domestic cars I think will just be electric.

 

There is no such thing as AGW its a scam devised by bankers to create a $2 trillion dollar market where once again they will have busts and booms when it suits them.

If anyone has done their research/homework they would have found that the computer simulated models in the IPCC's computers is the only evidence they have to tax us all the whole planet on the air we breath.

This evidence suggests that 10 to 12 klm's above the Earth (tropopause) around the equator there is a hot spot where manmade CO2 is accumulating and trapping heat in.

Instead of this heat escaping into space it forms this hot spot which in turn produces more water vapour and traps even more heat and the cycle keeps going around more manmade CO2 more water vapour, crykies if we dont stop it we will have a runaway green house effect and end up like venus, the planet that is.

Well emprical data (thousands of weather baloons) and satelitte data (temperature analysers) just cannot detect this hot spot, the only evidence they (IPCC) have on their computer models doesn't exist in the real world.

Not to mention the way the data is entered into the computers which really fail to approximate anything close to the real world, in other words sh!t in sh!t.

The IPCC, Al Gore/Goldman Sachs and all these other alarmist pigs that get millions for trying to find proof that climate change is real never ever tell you facts but rather try to scare the be-jesus out of us all.

Like for instance that 97% of the CO2 in our atmospohere comes from the ecosystems, you know the land, the sea, animals, humans breath out CO2.

Thats right all of humanity only produces 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.

The other 97% is natural and produced every year, if the sun catches a cold and sneezes our way, mans steady flow of 3% CO2 remains steady at 3%.

The other 97% that is natural has the potentional to double in size depending upon how much energy the sun sends our way.

They never tell you that if we took away all the trace gases like CO2, methane, ozone etc etc. that 95% of the greenhouse effect will be left on earth.

Thats because water vapour is the dominante greenhouse gas and its responsible for 95% of the warming we have here on Earth not CO2 which is a minor trace gas.

The other thing they dont tell you is that in our past history we have had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and guess what it never triggered a runaway greenhouse effect, life actually flourished when we had 20 times more CO2 in our atmopshere.

The blatant lie that CO2 emissions correlate with the Earth's temperature is a blatant lie, CO2 follows the Earth's temperature by a lag of about 800 years.

The fact that alarmists scientists want to hang other scientists (skeptics) who are not convinced of their theories just goes to show how politicized the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion really is, science doesn't work that, we still have people today trying to prove Newton and Einstein wrong but we dont call them herectics and ask for their death now do we.

Yes climate change is real is has been apart of the Earth since the Earth formed into a lava invested planet, climate change has always and will always happen, the Earths temperature is controlled by the SUN and everything else that takes place is because of the sun and cosmic rays from outer space.

Can anyone show where in our history climate change has stood still????......Now I'ld like to see that.

AGW is false no the seas aren't rising, no natural distaters are not from manmade CO2 emissions causing global warming its all part of the natural cycle of the Earth where we have hot periods and ice ages.

This religion is really sad, but sader still are the goody two shoes who think selling carbon credits on the stock exchange will some how clean up manmade pollution.

They are going to trade carbon credits for CO2 emissions in a $2 trillion dollars market where your superannuation and any other investments you make will find its way, then bang there will be booms and busts and some of us will loose everything, timing is the key i guess.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

1.....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

2.....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.
This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

3.....On a long time scale (NO), (millions of years)

 

Ive got no problem with that. The idea of producing most of the world's enegy via wind, solar and geothermal is just impossible. The math simply does not add up.

You can in fact put geothermal piping into pretty much any home that will keep the air at the same temperature unfortunately this doesn't actually generate any power. It would as you say though reduce heating and A/C costs which is a good thing. I love geothermal, there simply isn't enough to power at most 5% of the current power utilizing all 100% of available geothermal in the country. That percentage will only get smaller because power usage will increase with population growth.

Hydrogen seems pretty good when combined with a nuclear plant to separate the hydrogen which is pretty energy intensive. But if you are using nuclear you can afford to do it with minimal impact on the environment.

Solar is just limited by physics. The energy the earth receives from irradiance is only 250 watts per m^2. The theoretical limit for solar panels is 86% efficiency which means at most we will be able to get 200 watts and we are nowhere near even the 86%. The standard is around 20% or so now meaning we are getting a whopping 50 watts per m^2. That is a ridiculously small amount of energy you are receiving compared to nuclear. Then there is the problem of producing all the solar panels which require metals that are toxic and the mining process produces alot of pollution. But of course some people don't care if its happening out of their sight they just want to brag to their friends about how environmentally conscious they are which is why I have such a low opinion of the modern environmental movement. I do have some hope though after this movie was launched made by an environmental engineer. He crunches the numbers and lays out the facts. I highly recommend that everyone watch this. Our ecology club showed this at my campus and everyone liked it....even the environuts.

http://www.switchenergyproject.com/about/the-film

Wind's problems are obvious on its face. Its simply too unreliable.

 

And just how long do you expect Fissile Fuel to last? Forever?

 

Yep you found one fringe dwelling living a pipe dream and have extrapolated that to be indicative of the scientific community in general


STRAWMAN

 

I am still waiting for you to tell me what exactly was a lie in the article I posted about the Chattanooga plant. What was the lie that you said the article started with?

Is the IPCC a fringe nut living a pipe dream? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world

Their assertions are just as equally ignorant and yet they are constantly quoted by people as a source all the time. Is the IPCC now a "fringe" group. I will keep that in mind next time someone post something from them.

 

Thorium is the future to meet CO2 neutral base load power requirements short of putting a solar farm in space & beaming the energy back down to earth & the wheels are a turning.

Thorium reactors could soon power Indonesia, Chile
By Mark Halper | May 28, 2013, 5:55 AM PDT
And lots of good links.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/thorium-reactors-could-soon-power-indonesia-chile/20588

 

This is interesting. Thorium should be the future based on information I've seen. Who was it that planned to provide the planet with an endless supply of energy using thorium? It's an interesting story but can't think of the guys name.

 

Thanks for the link. I was unaware the Bill Gates was planning on investing that much money into Thorium. Bill Gates is anything but stupid and judging by how he operates his charities he doesn't throw good money after bad ideas..........except for maybe Window Vista and Windows Millenium.