Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 357 (777164)
01-26-2016 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by AZPaul3
01-26-2016 7:08 PM


Re: 216 feet
... to accomplish the same thing.
But will it?
Where's your evidence that it will? It's what I've been asking about for most of this thread and asked about for a good portion of the thread on fusion.
Do you know how many serious replies I got? How many attempts to present the math? How many folks stepped up to demonstrate the real-world feasibility of renewables to replace fossil fuels?
Exactly zero.
Maybe you care to change that? Or maybe you just care to bitch and proselytize?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2016 7:08 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-27-2016 7:57 AM Jon has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 167 of 357 (777165)
01-26-2016 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Jon
01-26-2016 9:21 PM


Irrational
Exactly what is irrational about fearing that we might continue as we are right now?
I for one think that (for now) nuclear is absolutely essential. But there is no reason to make it the only solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 9:21 PM Jon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10045
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 168 of 357 (777166)
01-26-2016 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Jon
01-26-2016 9:21 PM


Re: 216 feet
That's not what I was referring to as an "irrational fear". For a hint see the subtitle of this post, your post, and the one you replied to.
For me, an irrational fear is one that is not based known mechanisms. I guess we just differ on what is and isn't irrational.
Indeed. It's just unfortunate no one here is advocating such real alternatives to fossil fuels.
Indeed, it is. At times, it is hard to separate the movement to replace fossil fuels from the Green movement which fights to stop nuclear power. It seems to be a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Well. France's production is below the U.S.
That's the thing with looking at small countries - it's easy to distort the reality of the situation with large percentages of rather small wholes.
It is a step though.
France's production as a percentage of total power output is well above the US. About 75% of France's electrical power comes from nuclear.
"In 2004, fission energy made up the largest share of France's energy consumption at 39%. Looking purely at electricity, though, 407 TWh (75%) out of the country's total production of 541 TWh of electricity was from fission-electric power stations, the highest percentage in the world."
Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia
I see no reason why this wouldn't scale with population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 9:21 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 01-27-2016 7:51 AM Taq has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 357 (777181)
01-27-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Taq
01-26-2016 10:04 PM


Re: 216 feet
A fear is irrational if the things feared are unlikely.
We know the mechanisms that create killer clowns. Yet we also recognize a fear of clowns to be irrational.
France's production as a percentage of total power output is well above the US.
Like I said, the problem with percentages and all...
Whether it's scalable or not I don't know. I also don't know if we'd just find somewhere else to burn all the coal if we stopped sticking it in power plants. History tells me we probably would...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 01-26-2016 10:04 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2016 3:12 PM Jon has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2329
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 170 of 357 (777182)
01-27-2016 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Jon
01-26-2016 9:50 PM


Jon ignores evidence.
quote:
Do you know how many serious replies I got? How many attempts to present the math? How many folks stepped up to demonstrate the real-world feasibility of renewables to replace fossil fuels?
Exactly zero.
I linked to a Stanford study of just such a plan offered in New York. (it didn't require automobiles to be electric though)
The technology is there.
Common sense suggests that solar can be scaled above what is the present deployment.
This is an easy quantification and it isn't "quantum physics" lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 9:50 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2016 10:46 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 172 by Jon, posted 01-27-2016 12:26 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 171 of 357 (777197)
01-27-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by LamarkNewAge
01-27-2016 7:57 AM


Re: Jon ignores evidence.
The technology is there.
Common sense suggests that solar can be scaled above what is the present deployment.
One of the problems I find with talking about "scalability" is that we are comparing a ~10 year old industry (since solar became sufficiently cost effective) to a ~200 year old industry. A better comparison is with coal and oil in their first 10 years of use, and whether solar can provide that level of service. It can and more.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-27-2016 7:57 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 357 (777202)
01-27-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by LamarkNewAge
01-27-2016 7:57 AM


Re: Jon ignores evidence.
If you're talking about the report I think you're talking about, then you still haven't produced anything.
Where's the numbers? Where's the data?
How about you try again?
Give us the link. Describe what it is. Quote some relevant portions. Show how they support your position.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-27-2016 7:57 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 12:42 AM Jon has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 173 of 357 (777206)
01-27-2016 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Theodoric
01-22-2016 4:46 PM


Re: or in reality ...
In certain parts of the country they may. In states where there is little state support the costs are not so easily absorbed. ...
When I run the numbers without state support it is still worth my investment. But I look at the cost as an investment where the return is a dividend I can spend -- it's part of my retirement "portfolio" to provide a steady income from my investments, and I am getting a higher rate of return from solar than from other investments (up to 6% in today's market for stable less risky investments).
... There is no way I can borrow 30k for an installation ...
That sounds like a large investment. We ran the numbers for my Dad's all electric house in Woods Hole MA, where the winter bills were over $1,000.00 and the installation there was $30,000.00 and it still came out ahead. That installation was huge. (I have details if you are interested).
Again, I "borrowed" from my retirement funds to create a steady income (converting all my retirement investments from growth to income now that I am retired).
... and have a payment that is less than what I save from my electric bill. ...
What's your interest rate? What do the installation companies offer there?
... I have run the #'s many ways, it just does not make financial sense in northern Wisconsin. Even if I paid cash for the system my return is not high enough to justify the expense.
Another option is DYI by starting small and adding to the system over time. I started with a small $35 panel that I use to power a 12 vdc bilge pump in my sump -- we have a high water table and a full basement, the sump is running constantly, so doing this paid for itself rather quickly. I keep the old AC pump as backup.
I also replaced all light bulbs with LEDs. My gas and electric bills were in the low end of neighborhood use (combined utility company periodically issues reports of how you compare), so my usage was down.
If nothing else, costs are coming down, so keep an eye on it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Theodoric, posted 01-22-2016 4:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 174 of 357 (777208)
01-27-2016 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by RAZD
01-26-2016 3:30 PM


Re: Manhattan
RAZD writes:
One thing that I see going on is that these alternative energy sources are transforming the way we think about energy distribution, looking for aesthetic solutions not just a bunch of towers and electrical lines.
My issue is with people who just say, "It's scalable," without demonstrating that it is. I accept that solar could be a significant contributor to NYC's energy needs/usage but I can't help but think it's being oversold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2016 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by xongsmith, posted 01-27-2016 3:15 PM ringo has replied
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2016 11:13 PM ringo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 175 of 357 (777215)
01-27-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jon
01-27-2016 7:51 AM


Re: 216 feet
A fear is irrational if the things feared are unlikely.
But are they unlikely? Let me present you once again with a question that a wise man once asked:
How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?
If you don't know, if you don't have exact figures, then how can you imply that we should take no action?
C'mon, let's see your precise data, let's see your unquestionably correct climate models.
Where's the numbers? Where's the data?
Good question. Produce the numbers and the data.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 01-27-2016 7:51 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 01-27-2016 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2587
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 176 of 357 (777217)
01-27-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ringo
01-27-2016 2:18 PM


Re: Manhattan
Ringo writes:
My issue is with people who just say, "It's scalable," without demonstrating that it is.
I guess I must be ignorant. What the hell is "scalable"?
The quick hipshot answer is easy: Just make more panels.
Maybe the problematic word should be "storage"???

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 01-27-2016 2:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 01-27-2016 3:29 PM xongsmith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 177 of 357 (777219)
01-27-2016 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by xongsmith
01-27-2016 3:15 PM


Re: Manhattan
xongsmith writes:
I guess I must be ignorant. What the hell is "scalable"?
The quick hipshot answer is easy: Just make more panels.
Which is why I asked about Manhattan. How do you scale up from six panels on one hippy-dippy house to x panels in a city of ten million?
xongsmith writes:
Maybe the problematic word should be "storage"???
And how big would the battery be to prepare for a rainy day?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by xongsmith, posted 01-27-2016 3:15 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by xongsmith, posted 01-28-2016 1:32 PM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 357 (777237)
01-27-2016 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
01-27-2016 3:12 PM


Re: 216 feet
But are they unlikely?
Yes.
... how can you imply that we should take no action?
Where have I either said or implied that we should "take no action"?
Produce the numbers and the data.
You mean do the research for someone else's argument?
No thanks.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2016 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2016 11:07 PM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 179 of 357 (777239)
01-27-2016 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Theodoric
01-22-2016 4:46 PM


... on financing
SOLARCITY CREATES $160 MILLION FINANCING FACILITY FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PROJECTS
quote:
... The financing allows SolarCity to recycle capital to continue growth and will make it possible for SolarCity to continue offering power generated by solar energy systems to customers for less than they pay for utility bills at the time the customer contracts are signed.
Something to look into?
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Theodoric, posted 01-22-2016 4:46 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2016 9:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 357 (777240)
01-27-2016 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
01-27-2016 9:21 PM


Re: 216 feet
Yes.
Where's the numbers? Where's the data?
Where have I either said or implied that we should "take no action"?
In your posts. If you did not mean to imply that, do please tell us what action you think should be taken.
You mean do the research for someone else's argument?
No, for yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 01-27-2016 9:21 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024