2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

[ Please, no replies to this message in this thread. If you'd like to participate in the discussion at the Did Jesus teach reincarnation? thread then please post over there. --Admin ]The Oxford Dictionary is very conservative. It forcefully argues Mark was written in the 60s AD.I quoted an evangelical conservative commentary that said that Jesus did not "necessarily" mean that John was a reincarnation of Elijah even though the plain text said so.The Gospel of Matthew and Mark (and frankly Luke) say Jesus taught reincarnation.See my quote of Jesus right at the top of the OP in my link.The text backs me up clown.
EvC Forum: Did Jesus teach reincarnation?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Add moderator request to post in the proper thread.

Exactly: the technology already exists to make, install and connect solar and wind generation to the grid. What it takes is money upfront and motivation. Motivation can come through state and federal programs as can investment, but that takes political motivationThere is a lot of real estate available: electrical transmission corridors and interstate highway corridors for example. The advantage of linear installations is that they also act as transmission lines. Putting wind and solar along interstate medians meas that lighting (LED) could be provided increasing the safety of the highways even during blackouts.Our town is currently negotiating use of and electrical transmission corridor for a bike and pedestrian path, and installing solar and wind along the corridor would also provide lighting for that use.The key is integration with redundant local connections to provide alternative power during power outages as well as during peak use times.I wouldn't expect an overnight transition from fossil fuels to alternative renewable energy, but a steady program to reach set goals in 5, 10 15 years is a doable program.This can also be enhanced by shutting down new fracking, new pipelines, etc.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : d

And then there was the suppression of information\methods that were against corporate profit systems ... see Tesla system for free broadcast energy. Perhaps some of that can be revisited. What would make it a blind alley would be something that would negate, or render obsolete, current installations. I don't see this happening as what I see is more of a dispersed generation of power integrated with the current grid to transform it into more of an interconnected web where electrical energy can travel either direction over different sections.Maybe Tesla broadcast energy would render the grid obsolete, but not the generation points. What is scalability other than just increasing the size amount of array of solar panels. If they are modular (which they are) then there is theoretically infinite scalability, limited only by transmission and connection to the grid\end users (at which point it is like any power plant).One has only to look at large installations by power companies to see that they are scaling the installation to their demand for new power. Some of them are massive. It becomes a matter of real estate occupied, and that is where residential roof-top installations excel -- less than half (say 40%) of my roof-top is covered with panels and my house occupies ~25% of my lot, so ~10% of my land area is all that is necessary to provide 100%+ of my electrical needs ... without restricting the living area of the lot at all.Enjoy

And yet curiously, in those underdeveloped societies today the installation of solar (in india and in africa) is the best way to bring electrical technology to the people, because they don't need transmission lines or expensive to operate noisy generators, so the standard of living is improving there. The same applies to rural US and Canada where land is available and powerlines are scarce.Frankly, we don't need big cities to provide intelligent solutions to problems -- university towns do as well a metropolitan ones. It is. We just don't know how fast it is going to happen. So far the predictions have been either on target or underestimated the changes. I am. But I am also angry and hopeful. Angry at the institution of denial and the interference by corporations with even discussing the problem. Hopeful that things will change, that obstructionist denial republicans will be replaced by rational representatives, and that significant programs can be implemented. Well, I don't think it will happen overnight, but it could happen in 10 years if a dedicated program was initiated to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy and reduced demand via higher efficiency.I think we are on the cusp, and that continuing to plan on fossil fuels will only cause a larger more deadly end result.Enjoy.

But that's a lie, RAZD. Just another slick selling gimmick.Kenya has more solar systems per capita than anywhere else.And look at them: they're Kenya.And as for India, they get over half their electricity from coal - U.S. is at about 40%. It's not sunshine lifting India from poverty, it is, as it has been with every country that's developed its economy, the always-on, cheap, reliable, and scalable energy of fossil fuels.If renewable energy can be relied upon to fuel economic growth, the Indians certainly haven't found a way to do it. Well, if we're talking about Africa that's not saying much. The continent is so poor that you can improve living standards there just by giving people a cow.Looking at countries like Kenya and contrasting them with countries like China the reality is so obvious you have to be willfully blind to miss it: Renewable energy is not the miracle cure for third-world poverty it is continually advertised to be; societies are rising out of poverty on the smoke and ash of their fossil-fueled fires, not on the hot-air of renewable energy. The nice thing is that there are no corporations here. We can have an open discussion about renewable energy; you can set down some data on how various places might be able to meet their energy needs with just renewables and we can critique the numbers.No censorship. This is your opportunity to prove your case. What might that program look like and how would it meet the energy needs of 21st century humanity?Again, now's your chance to show us the numbers. Higher efficiency does not reduce demand. In fact, just the opposite: Jevon's Paradox.

The problem is: How many square miles of panels is that? Again... that's why I used Manhattan as an example. I have my doubts that the Empire State Building can produce all of its own power.

The problem of scaling solar power is similar to the problem of scaling Godzilla. The power output increases by area whereas the density of power usage increases by volume. That's exactly my point. What works in low-density suburbia will not necessarily work in high-density urbia.

That's a good question.But since nobody here is going to actually do it, at the very least we could try talking about it.And that involves you bringing it some evidence on how this wind-solar miracle of yours would work. It isn't?Are you sure? Have you run the numbers? Done the math?If you haven't, how can you be so certain of the feasibility?And if you have run the numbers, why the hell won't you just present them here?

Since I'm feeling more and more like I won't be able to rely on LNA to ever return to his claim that it "would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the en[i]tre state [of Maryland]" and present some evidence for it, I figured I'd bring a little in to the mix to help add some reality to the brain-fuck fantasy he's been trying to sell us...First, I'm going to restrict my focus to electricity, since dealing with all the energy used by the state of Maryland would be a difficult thing to do, since it isn't all easily or agreeably converted to electricity measurement units. Also, in every place where I fudge the numbers to save time and make things easier, I fudge them in LNA's favor.Now let's begin. California's 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm was said able to generate 1,100,000 Mwh of electricity per year. (I can't find any recent numbers on what it's actually generating, so we're just going to go ahead and believe the hype and assume it's lived up to expectations.)It covers an area of 9.5 sq miles. (This is all available on Wikipedia: Topaz Solar Farm)Maryland's electricity consumption was 61,000,000 Mwh in 2013 (Electricity Consumption by State, 2013 (pdf) - I don't know where these numbers come from, but it was difficult finding consumption numbers as opposed to generation numbers so I went with what I could find and rounded down 'cause I'm a nice guy)Finally, based on this map the sun power in Maryland is about 75% what it is where the Topaz farm sits.So there's the numbers, now for the math:First, we will figure out how much Topaz could generate per year in Maryland by multiplying its annual Mwh output by 0.75: 1,100,000 x 0.75 = 825,000 MwhSecond, we see how many Topaz's it will take to generate the electricity needs of Maryland:61,000,000 / 825,000 = 73Finally, how much space that will require:9.5 x 73 = 693.5 sq milesSo that's how much space Maryland would have to cover in solar panels alone to generate all its energy from solar. Yes, Maryland has about 9,500 sq miles of land, but it's also only 250 miles at its longest. Also, real space requirements would increase due to need for energy storage systems and updated distribution. In any event, there is just no way to see this as 'a few square miles'.But since I don't stop once I get going, let me just quote ol' Ron and say: But wait, there's more!The Topaz system utilizes thin CdTe PV panels. Tellurium is rare on Earth. Ninety-three (93) metric tons of tellurium produces one 'gigawatt worth' of solar panel - that's the smoothest I could word that (Wikipedia again: Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics).The Topaz system can provide only 1/73 Maryland's power, so once we figure out how much tellurium is sitting in Topaz, we can just multiply it by 73 to get what we would need for a comparable Maryland system.As a 550 MW (.55 GW) system, Topaz contains about 51 metric tons of tellurium. If we multiply that number by 73, we see that building a Topaz system capable of powering Maryland would require 3700 metric tons of tellurium. Now I want to quote the Wikipedia article about CdTe panels directly here, because the effect of seeing the numbers together is quite something:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics:

​

Only a small amount [of tellurium], estimated to be about 800 metric tons per year, is available.

---

So not only is it impossible to solar power Maryland with a few square miles of panels; even if we wanted to cover 693 sq miles of the state in panels, it would take over four times the entire world's yearly supply of tellurium to do it - ignoring the fact that we don't actually produce anywhere near that amount of tellurium (which would bring the number close to 25 times as much). But wait, there's more!As a percentage of actual reserves, that usage represents 15% of total proven reserves (Tellurium (pdf)). And that will power just 2% of the U.S. population. Scaling this up for the country would require not only over 7 times the amount of tellurium known to exist on the entire planet, but also covering 34,000 sq miles in solar panels made from non-existent materials. That's nearly the size of Indiana.I think at this point it's safe to say that in terms of solar's power to fuel the world: Ain't. Happenin'.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Doing a bit of research of my own, (my curiosity got the best of me!) I found that there are other materials with which to produce solar panels and that the cost is dropping.I wouldn't give up on solar just yet. Which Thin Film Solar Technology is the Best?The article states:

quote:

---

So far Cadmium telluride is the first and only thin film photovoltaic technology to surpass crystalline silicon PV in price per watt of peak power, but this price advantage seems to be eroding as price of raw silicon has decreased and Chinese manufacturers increase their production of multi-crystalline panels.

​

There are some concerns about the future of Camium Telluride based panels, specifically the very limited availability of Telluride and increased concern in Europe about long-term toxic affects of Cadmium.

---

OK, look at coal. The cost includes the cost to run the coal trains, the cost to clean the atmosphere with scrubbers, the support of an entire Appalachian industry, etc etc.Looks to me like solar is getting cheaper---and with proper technological advances, will eventually be as cost effective as the fossil fuels.

Volume of what, ringo? What parameter raised to the third power correlates to the observed/expected/predicted increase in energy usage? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I chose the Topaz plant because it is supposedly the largest in the world, thus minimizing any errors introduced in scaling it up - which are probably still many.But if you have an alternative proposal, feel free to lay it out on the table so we can examine and critique it.I'd be delighted to see this work out in "a few square miles".

The square-cube law applies in general to scaling. A building twice the length, width and height of a house will accommodate (approximately) eight times as many people as a house and will require (approximately) eight times as much energy while having only four times the area for solar collectors.

Yes, but that is a bad model for how we Han dle growth. A closer model is a combination of either doubling the number of buildings or increasing the height of buildings as the population grows. If area is a limited resource, what is gained by doubling the length and width of any given building? Also consider that we don't have to have a building in order to have a solar array. Finally, some places, like say Manhattan are places where we might model pop density as you suggest, but that model does not match other places.I understand that you are trying to point out the limitation imposed by the surface area needed to capture sunlight, but your analysis is not correct. The problem is really that per capita energy usage is approx. flat, (to first order) but surface area is limited.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We're not talking about handling growth. We're talking about converting from one energy source to another. What I'm saying is that (self-contained) solar energy doesn't seem to scale well to large buildings. I'm only talking about the "some places" where the model does apply (which includes a large proportion of the earth's population). I'm asking if solar is a practical solution in those places. The answer seems to be "no".