Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 73 of 357 (776311)
01-11-2016 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Jon
01-11-2016 2:01 PM


Reality sucks for those that don't accept it.
As I said, you have your biases and I have mine
You still haven't dealt with the fact that increased overall well-being proves the benefits from fossil fuels outweigh their costs.
Curiously I see the pending extinction events and whole-sale destruction of ecosystems to be way more costly to life in general and human life in particular than the temporary benefits that have been rung from fossil fuels.
As for droughts in the ME, you're forgetting that drought has always been a problem with history offering plenty of examples of droughts far more severe than what the ME is now facing - many at great loss of life and livelihood.
Pathetic. Obviously you did NOT look into the evidence, but are just another denialist apologist for the fossil fuel industry.
Global warming helped trigger Syria's civil war | Mashable
quote:
Manmade global warming helped spark the brutal civil war in Syria by doubling to tripling the odds that a crippling drought in the Fertile Crescent would occur shortly before the fighting broke out, according to a groundbreaking new study published on March 2.
The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to attribute the drought in Syria in large part to global warming.
In doing so, it provides powerful evidence backing up the Pentagon and intelligence community’s assessments that climate change is likely to play the role of a threat multiplier in coming decades, pushing countries that are already vulnerable to upheaval over the edge and into open conflict.
How Global Warming Helped Cause the Syrian War | WIRED
quote:
The bloody conflict in Syriawhich enters its fifth year this monthhas killed almost 200,000 people, created 3.2 million refugees, and given rise to the murderous extremist group known as the Islamic State. The roots of the civil war extend deep into Syria’s political and socioeconomic structures. But another cause turns out to be global warming.
When violence erupted in Syria during the Arab Spring in 2011, the country had been mired in a three-year droughtits worst in recorded history. Government agricultural policies had led to an overreliance on rain, so desperate farmers had to turn to well waterand they ended up sucking most of the country’s groundwater reserves dry. What happened next upended the country. A lot of these farmers picked up their families, abandoned their villages, and went en masse to urban areas, says Colin Kelley, a climate scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara and author of a new paper on the conflict. Add 1.5 million refugees fleeing the US-led invasion of Iraq, and the population of Syrian cities grew by 50 percent between 2002 and 2010. The influx led to illegal settlements, rampant unemployment, and inequality. But the government hardly did anything in response (corruption didn’t help, nor did the fact that the hardest-hit areas were populated by Kurdish minorities, who have long been discriminated against and ignored). Soon, frustrations boiled over.
The drought didn’t cause the violenceit just made Syria susceptible. But what’s more important here is that the drought, Kelley found, was severe likely because of human-caused global warming. It’s behind the drop in precipitation researchers have seen since 1930, the beginning of the data record. The researchers compared two climate models of the region: one that included the warming effects of greenhouse gases and one that didn’t. They found that in the model with global warming, severe, multiyear droughts like the one that preceded the Syrian uprising were two to three times more common than in the other model. A statistical analysis of the data also showed that the long-term trends of rising temperatures and drier climate make droughts more likely and severe. ...
Syria's civil war 'linked to global warming'
quote:
Syria's civil war 'linked to global warming'
Syria may have fallen into its vicious civil war due, in part, to a drought caused by climate change in what scientists say is strongest connection between violence and human-caused climate change
The conflict that has torn Syria apart can be traced, in part, to a record drought worsened by global warming, a new study claims.
In what scientists say is one of the most detailed and strongest connections between violence and human-caused climate change, researchers from Columbia University and the University of California Santa Barbara trace the effects of Syria's drought from the collapse of farming, to the migration of 1.5 million farmers to the cities, and then to poverty and civil unrest.
Syria's drought started in 2007 and continued until at least 2010 - and perhaps longer. Weather records are more difficult to get in wartime.
"There are various things going on, but you're talking about 1.5 million people migrating from the rural north to the cities," said climate scientist Richard Seager at Columbia, a co-author of the study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "It was a contributing factor to the social unravelling that occurred that eventually led to the civil war."
That's the top 3 returns on Syria global warming search.
So yes it is drought of unusual proportions as I said before that resulted in the social turmoil leading to the civil war.
Advanced, first-world societies have not successfully dealt with droughts by trying to keep the planet cool but by burning large amounts of fossil fuels taking steps to minimize their impact on human life.
What did they do out west to alleviate their drought? Nothing. Then they spent a lot of time energy and tax dollars fighting the fires that raged in the tinder dry area -- another hidden cost?
Fossil fuels or not there will always be droughts. It's just that with fossil fuels we can at least survive them.
Bull*hockey*pucks. Your logic stinks.
Conditions are getting worse and worse, and more and more extreme effects are being realized every year. The ability to deal with them gets increasingly difficult, and the reliance on cozy brain dead patronizing live in the past statements do not really deal with the situation.
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 69 by Jon, posted 01-11-2016 2:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Jon, posted 01-11-2016 10:52 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 101 of 357 (776672)
01-18-2016 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jon
01-11-2016 10:52 PM


Re: Reality sucks for those that don't accept it.
You're missing my point.
And you're missing mine.
There will always be droughts, man made or otherwise. ...
The point is that the changes in climate result in more extremes: bigger storms and bigger droughts. The one in Syria was the worst on record, and the aquifer was pumped dry.
... Cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy has been the best way to mitigate their effects - not stopping our civilizations dead in their tracks.
You can't magically create water to 'alleviate a drought'. What you can do is use cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy to grow food elsewhere, and use that same cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy to transport that food where the drought is so it doesn't turn into a famine - as droughts always have before humans started using fossil fuels to provide themselves with cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy.
And that didn't help Syria, where their civilization collapsed when the farms collapsed from the drought. The only way plentiful energy has mitigated the effects are (1) the military conflicts throwing megatons of plentiful energy at each other, fighting over dry land, and (2) the refugee crisis in Europe, moving millions of refugees thousands of miles to try living in another country.
And so far, only fossil fuels have been shown capable of providing this cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy. I've opened numerous doors for you and others to walk through and show your evidence that renewables could instead provide this cheap, reliable, and plentiful energy. Yet not once has any effort been made to demonstrate this.
The evidence is there. I think LamarkNewAge has done a good job presenting it. When you have utilities installing solar power rather than new gas or coal fired plants, that is because the return on investment is better, and this is happening across the planet, even in Arabian countries. The tar sands are closing because they are more expensive. Coal is shutting down because it is more expensive.
I WANT CLEAN, LOW-COST, LESS-RISKY ENERGY! But I also want energy that is affordable, reliable, and in good supply because that is what makes my life so damn good and will continue to make all of our lives so damn good.
Until then I'm going to stick my money where the energy is.
Then get a solar array and invest in the future of energy. Panels today are more efficient and cheaper than they were last year, and this trend will continue. I expect my panels to be obsolete in 5 to 10 years as progress continues to improve.
But you don't have to take my word for it: get a quote.
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 76 by Jon, posted 01-11-2016 10:52 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 01-18-2016 1:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 01-20-2016 6:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 102 of 357 (776675)
01-18-2016 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jon
01-12-2016 12:17 PM


Re: What's stopping Texas? Politics.
It's not just about finding instances where it's cheaper. It's about showinging that it's scalable. That's what my inquiries into your claims about Maryland meeting all its energy needs with just a few square miles of solar panels have been getting at.
Now you are moving the goalposts. You asked for evidence that it is cheaper, and it appears that you accept the information you have been given, so now you want to know how to make it work on a larger scale.
The easy way to scale it is to create large areas dedicated to solar (or wind, etc), but is that really what is the best way -- to just replace coal and gas plants with solar plants?
Or is the best way to put solar panels near where the energy is consumed and cut down on the cost of transmission while also making the grid a web that balances supply and demand locally?
For instance I have not had an electric bill since August because energy is flowing to and from my place depending on usage, when before it all came over the grid.
My town has a lot of buildings that could also have solar panels installed and have the same net zero production of electricity, and the electrical use by the town is almost entirely during the peak daytime usage, when solar is producing its peak output.
A new production company in town is putting panels on their roof for the same reasons. Look at the rooftop wastelands of malls, and the parking areas that could have solar panel covered parking.
What you want to do for most efficient distribution of energy is have the energy produced near where it is used, and that means integrating it into the urban landscape and NOT in large distant installations. Solar allows this in a way that fossil fuels can never compete with.
But that takes a political effort, and one we are seeing with grass roots usage of solar.
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 84 by Jon, posted 01-12-2016 12:17 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by xongsmith, posted 01-18-2016 1:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 105 by Jon, posted 01-18-2016 1:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 118 of 357 (776815)
01-20-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
01-09-2016 10:18 AM


It's Official: 2015 was Earth's hottest year on record
2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say
quote:
Last year was the Earth’s warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA said Wednesday.
It’s been clear for quite some time that 2015 would steal the distinction of the hottest year from 2014, with 10 out of the 12 months last year being the warmest respective months on record and those records go back 136 years.
While it wasn’t necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th-century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.
This was aided by a December that looked and felt more like a March or April for much of the Northern Hemisphere, where traditional winter holidays had weather that was neither traditional nor winter-like.
In fact, December became the first month to ever reach 2 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the globe. In the United States, December was both the warmest and the wettest on record no other month has ever held both distinctions for the country.
... The biggest culprit was a major El Nio, which has joined 1997-1998 as the strongest El Nio ever observed. ...
El Nio years tend to be warmer than non-El Nio years (neutral or La Nia years). El Nio was a major driver of the heat this year, but certainly not the only factor. The change also was largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere, a NASA press release said. This is evident in that recent neutral or even La Nia years have been hotter than previous strong El Nios.
... many climate scientists and weather forecasters are already saying 2016 could push the chart-topping temperature climb even higher, with El Nio lingering into spring and the continued influence from man-made climate change.
The odds would certainly favor that, as 15 of the top 16 warmest years have occurred since 2000 (1998 being the lone pre-21st century year on the list). The last time we had a year become the coldest on record was 1911.
That last bit should be the nail on the denial coffin, but we can expect Inhofe to bring in a snowball from this weekend's storm ...
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 50 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2016 10:18 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-21-2016 10:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 120 of 357 (776907)
01-22-2016 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by LamarkNewAge
01-21-2016 10:37 PM


Re: It's Official: 2015 was Earth's hottest year on record
(Actually home energy prices won't much drop - despite oil falling from $145 per-barrel a year ago to $27 today - BECAUSE our plants don't use middle eastern oil DUE TO UNRELIABLE PRICING!)
And because there is little pressure to reduce rates. Solar and wind are available but require higher initial investment than continuing to pay utilities, and most people take the 'lazy' do nothing path.
I am now another month with $0 electric bill, and my meter is holding steady at net usage since installation well below zero. But these are supposed to be the tough months with low winter sun and short days. I lost 2 days to snow on the panels, and we are expecting a big storm this weekend (with storm surge on top of lunar high tide, could be a lot of flooding and wind damage). One advantage of having the array at ground level is that you can clean the panels easily: I have some smaller panels going to batteries that I clean and set to optimum angles.
But my installation is scale-able: certainly my neighbors can put up a similar installation. If every new house were required to be net zero utility cost it would substantially reduce grid peak usage, and it would be a small fraction of the cost of a new house. Similar was done with low volume toilets to save on water utility usage.
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 119 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-21-2016 10:37 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 123 of 357 (776915)
01-22-2016 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jon
01-22-2016 1:36 PM


or in reality ...
Well I guess we now know everything we need to know about RAZD's position: people who can't afford a $20,000 solar installation (or even the homes to put it on) are just 'lazy'.
Corrections
(1) it's the 'lazy' do nothing approach to your bills -- let them keep billing you more and more ...
(2) my installation costs me $10,000.00 and
(3) all the solar companies offer loans to pay for them, where payments are less than the utility bills, and when paid off you still get the full benefit.
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 121 by Jon, posted 01-22-2016 1:36 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Theodoric, posted 01-22-2016 4:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 357 (777008)
01-24-2016 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2016 4:43 PM


Re: Water gets most of the "global warming"
But the issue of acidity & extinct ocean life comes about from carbon alone, I think.
Correct.
quote:
Ocean acidification
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30—40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs[8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and disrupt the provision of many goods and services associated with the ocean.[9]
Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.
Other chemical reactions are triggered which result in a net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available. This makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[10] Ongoing acidification of the oceans threatens food chains connected with the oceans.[11][12] As members of the InterAcademy Panel, 105 science academies have issued a statement on ocean acidification recommending that by 2050, global CO2 emissions be reduced by at least 50% compared to the 1990 level.[13]
Ocean acidification has been called the "evil twin of global warming"[14][15][16][17][18] and "the other CO2 problem".[15][17][19]
When shellfish can't make strong shells whole ecosystems will collapse.
The same acidification process also effects fresh water systems -- lakes and streams -- and their ecologies.

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 132 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2016 4:43 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 155 of 357 (777137)
01-26-2016 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
01-26-2016 11:07 AM


Re: Manhattan
... I'd be more impressed by the scalability of solar power if somebody actually did the math and showed how much solar power NYC could actually generate. ...
It's hard to generate solar power in a canyon, so really what you have are high rooftops and upper floors available -- maybe 1/4 of the ground acreage. Using area between buildings would cause more shade and blocked sun unless done with window panels -- basically sling a roof between buildings and maybe create something like a dome structure ...
But I think a more viable alternative is to use wind power between buildings, vertical turbines. These could be made like giant works of art ... see art turbine
Another vision is
I'm sure that the NY artists could rise to the challenge to create mobile sculptures that generate energy ... like a permanent "Macy's Xmas Parade" ...
But if you are interested in solar power, airports are great places to have solar farms as the area around the runways needs to be open space with clear viewlines. You could also have coverings over highways and rail lines with panels on top, and part of the energy could be stored locally to light the highways at nights.
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.
That alone is worth pursuing.
Enjoy
ps -- for those following my personal experience with solar, I have already generated more power in January than I did in all of December (days getting longer again), and I still have energy in the bank ... so I expect to have a sizable surplus by the time I finish my first year on solar. Of course I also plan to replace gas for hot water and radiant floor heat with an electric water heater this summer, and that should take more electricity while saving on gas bills (I expect to save ~$1400.00 per year in combined gas and electric utility bills).

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 151 by ringo, posted 01-26-2016 11:07 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 01-27-2016 2:18 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 181 of 357 (777241)
01-27-2016 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ringo
01-27-2016 2:18 PM


Re: Manhattan
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.
see Message 171
How long did it take to build the electrical grid for fossil fuels.
When people started playing with electricity with kites and leyden jars, did they question if it could be scalable?
If you want an idea of the projects going on around the world see
https://solarthermalmagazine.com
(They are on facebook too)
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 174 by ringo, posted 01-27-2016 2:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 01-28-2016 10:50 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 199 of 357 (777331)
01-29-2016 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by NosyNed
01-28-2016 5:48 PM


Re: How do we know?
It doesn't matter how much it takes. We know, from past times in earth's history that burning all of it is too much.
This reminds me of the joke:
Man asks woman, "would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman replies, "yes"
Man asks, "would you sleep with me for $50?"
Woman replies, "No way, what do you take me for, a prostitute???"
Man says, "we've already established that, we are just negotiating the price."
Somewhere between burning all the remaining fossil fuel and melting all the ice, and leaving the fossil fuels in the ground and stopping the ice melting is where we will end up -- we are just negotiating what that level of melting is acceptable.
One of the problems I have is that long before all the ice is melted there will be irreversible changes to the entire earth ecosystem network, the acidification of lakes, rivers, bays and oceans and the loss of basal food chain organisms.
Throwing energy at these problems won't solve them.

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 196 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2016 5:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 200 of 357 (777332)
01-29-2016 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Jon
01-28-2016 8:47 PM


Re: How do we know?
If that requires fossil fuels, that requires fossil fuels. But maybe someone in this thread will be able to show us how it can happen without them.
and if fossil fuels are the problem causing destruction of the web of life to such an extent that it prevents making "sure the future generations inherit a world with less sickness, more food, and the best possible quality of life we can give them" ?
It will take a concerted, committed social and scientific effort around the world to develop alternative energies to the level needed and to reduce wasteful use of the energy we do use.
Electric vehicles don't reduce the use of energy, they are just a way of using the energy in a portable format, just as fossil fuel vehicles are a portable format for using energy. But cutting down the amount used is possible with (electric) mass transit, more efficient vehicles and more use of bicycles and pedestrian systems. Things as simple as changing lightbulbs to LEDs everywhere.
Creating usable energy near where it is used with wind and solar cuts down on transmission losses from grid distribution, and is most effective when peak production meets peak demand -- such as daytime office work.
Technology transformed the world in my grandfather's lifetime from a horse and buggy agrarian society to sending men to the moon, partly from just building new technologies and partly from a specific dedication to a goal, and that is what we need to invoke.
It's not going to happen by sitting back and waiting for someone to do it for you/us.
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 197 by Jon, posted 01-28-2016 8:47 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Jon, posted 01-29-2016 12:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 212 of 357 (777400)
01-30-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2016 10:10 PM


What can we do, how can we do it?
It isn't exactly a "mission to the moon" to up the current wind turbine and solar panel quantity by a factor of 10.
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 motivation
There 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.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : d

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 206 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 10:10 PM LamarkNewAge 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