Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by hunter

0
0

Is this the project you are referring to?
Southern California Homes – Sierra SunTower will produce 5 MW of electricity powering up to 4,000 homes.
Job Creation – The project created over 250 construction jobs and 21 permanent jobs.
Local Community – Sierra SunTower provides a new local tax base, as well as direct and indirect economic benefits during development, construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gases – 5 MW of clean solar power generation will offset more than 7,000 tons of CO2 each year.
Clean and Reliable – Efficient and clean solar power is reliably available during peak demand.

Environmental Facts
The 5 MW output of Sierra SunTower will reduce CO2 emissions by 7,000 tons per year. For perspective, Sierra SunTower’s annual impact is equivalent to:

Planting 5,265 acres of trees
Removing 1,368 automobiles from the road
Saving 650,000 gallons of gasoline
http://esolar.com/our_projects/


Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by Tom

0
0

That would make it another PNS ‘truth’. Right. Bart.

Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by John Warner

0
0

I am afraid that as a sceptic with limited time to keep following the issue, my need for efficient choices and to use my time best puts two black marks against this article straight away:

Firstly the title: :Climate change and moral judgement”. As someone trained in physics the term, “climate change” (a vague, much misused and now propagandist term, formerly a 4.5 billion year natural phenomenon) instead of “anthrpogenic global warming” indicates bias or lack of clarity or political correctness in place of fact or ignorance.

Secondly my training teaches me that science is fact based and moral judgment (other than in the case of biological or weapons based research topics etc) only comes once there is some reasonably established science. In fact making moral judgments first is the antithesis of true science. So I have not reached the stage where any moral judgement is anything more than a scientifcally dangerous source of subjectiviism and bias.

So thanks for the invitation but I will not be reading the article.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by NW

0
0

Nox and Sox and Fox in Box.

Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Bart R

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by R. Gates

0
0

Pockreguy said:

“The conflation of big tobacco with big oil is absurd on its face”

_____
Yes, you are right. Big oil is far more powerful, so it’s a bit like comparing a firefly to a 2000 watt bulb, but both have at times relied on very generous government welfare to keep themselves profitable.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

0
0

lolwot, “That doesn’t mean they are offering “fantasy predictions”, more like warnings.” Warnings without verifiable certainty are just scary stories. There is a pretty good track record for the scary story telling crowd. The probability of adverse health impact to exposure to less than 100 millirem per year of radiation is not only uncertain by may be beneficial. The EPA set the Yucca mountain standards at 15 millirem per year for the next 10,000 years out of concern for public welfare?

Manipulation statistics for political purposes is an art form much like dramatic prose. So the same politically motivated agency applies standards to Coal than cannot be met by biofuel under the pretext of public health and safety concerns.

Now, because of the fear of warming, the EPA will get some pressure from liberal supporters to reduce radiation limits because nuclear is now less likely to be danger it was once thought to be by the warm and fuzzy liberal scientists that use linear non threshold modeling to “prove” how dangerous exposure to low doses of radiation could be.

So “warnings” from some sectors would be laughable if they were not so expensive.

Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by MattStat/MatthewRMarler


Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by timg56

0
0

R Gates,

This “skeptic” most certainly has a horse in the race. Several of them. They go by the name of tax dollars and energy bills.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by sunshinehours1

0
0

Why do you humiliate yourself with claims about big oil funding opposition to the AGW cult’s scare stories?

Show us you have one functioning brain cell.

Who gets the most funding and who funds which side?

How much are you paid by big green?

How much is Joshua paid?

Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

0
0
Bart R: <i>Solar takes a lot of land, </i> So does hydropower. I read (hence, salt required now) that PV panels covering an area equal to the area of Lake Mead would generate more electricity than the dynamos in Hoover Dam. And, on the whole, more reliably.

Comment on Climate change cartoons by Josh

0
0

And very kind of you too!

Lovely work here and in the pdf – some brilliant and clever visuals, and the workshops looked fun. I might, of course, draw things slightly differently but I wholeheartedly approve of using illustration, cartoons and visuals – they don’t just entertain or communicate they get people talking, asking questions and hopefully finding answers ;-)

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by R. Gates

0
0

One thing, and one thing only made them take down those signs…the possibility of a mass defections from their upcoming conference, which would have turned it into a non-conference. They will of course do as much damage control now as they can, claiming it was all meant to be a test, blah blah blah. But the end result is that their happy little conference is preserved and they now only have so suffer some severe behind-the-scenes tongue lashing by their speakers and sponsors. A lesson learned and this too will pass and their ability to continue as a lobbying and “outreach” (i.e. propaganda) organization will be intact…

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by sunshinehours1

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by timg56

0
0

R Gates,

This is so much bs. The fact that I have a “horse in the race”, to use your terminology, has no bearing on what I believe or not believe with regard to global warming. What bearing it does have is to make me want to be sure that when I fork over my dollars, it is for valid reasons. I don’t deny anything. I simply ask for evidence. And when it isn’t forthcoming, I say bs.

I know better than to buy miracle cures from snake oil salesmen or to send money to Nigerian “bankers” holding millions of dollars for me.


Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by kakatoa

0
0

Dave,

The output (kwh’s) from many of the large utility scale PV facilities that you have seen in the news of late is headed to PG&E via 20 to 25 year, must take, PPA’s. I can get you a few specifics if you like. I don’t think the 9400 kwh I generate from my little PV system a year are counted in the total.

You can imagine why a CPUC board member would say the following in regards to the RPS strategy we FORCED upon PG&E- “It just worries me that if we sign too many of these contracts, it’s going to make the program look bad just when it’s being successful,” and “Mike Florio, however, voted against the agreement. He said the possibility of steep electricity rate hikes triggered by renewable contracts keeps him awake at night.” from this source-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/23/MNLV1M1CET.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1elvov450

Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

0
0
Johana: <i>“Assuming that the gas-fired plant managed an 85% capacity factor and a 30-yr plant lifetime, the initial capital expenditure would work out to $0.004/kWh… </i> but the initial capital produces no electricity. For that you need ongoing purchases of natural gas, which may be cheap now but can't be counted on to remain cheap for the next 30 years. <i> Here in Texas, Austin Energy has agreed to a long-term purchase agreement to pay $10 million a year for 25 years, for the electricity generated by the Webberville Solar Farm. That works out to more than 15 cents per kWh.”</i> What is the cost for peak power generation? It surely is not the "average" cost in your neighborhood. <i>I just can’t understand how any rational person could support these boondoggles </i> 1. You are ignoring some of the current information, such as the costs of generating peak power in your area by other methods and the uncertainty of future natural gas costs. 2. Continued investment in the boondoggles is driving down the overall costs of electricity from alternatives, and will continue to do so. Solyndra was a Big Mistake, as was foretold by accountants; but it is not the whole story of government investment.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by timg56

0
0

Brandon,

I am impressed by your attention to detail and love it. You are working your way onto my heroes list. Maybe not as high as Brandon Roy and Cal Ripken Jr, but on it none the less.

Comment on Week in review 5/4/12 by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

Well, let’s see. Since they seem to be triple selected for agreement with AGW, by self-selection, because many are in universities, and because the folks themselves seem to select AGW supporters, I’d think that the agreement among them would tend to be greater than I’d think

How’d I do?

w.

Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by Peter Lang

0
0

Rob Starkey @ May 5, 2012 at 11:57 pm

You said:

the poorest countries have any plans for widespread electricity generation and distribution regardless of the source of the power generation.

I agree that the case as it stands now. But we can look at history to get an idea of what is going to happen over the coming half century or so.

The authoritative sources project that it is the developing countries that will produce most of the emissions over the decades ahead – especially the countries that are poorest now but will also go through the stages of development that the developed countries have already gone through. The poorest and the developing will progress through the stages of development just as UK and parts of Europe did centuries ago, then USA, then other countries we now called the developed countries (e.g. Germany and Japan after WW II), and more recently Korea after the Korean war, China and India and other Asian and South American nations over the past 50 years or so. There is still most of Africa and many other poor countries to go through this development. It is inevitable; it will happen.

I am not arguing that the poorest countries are where we necessarily need to place our primary focus on getting nuclear to be low cost. I am just saying that they are important in deciding out long term strategy.

What we do to remove the impediments to low cost nuclear in the developed countries will assist the whole world to cut CO2 emissions. Conversely, applying CO2 taxes and Cap and Trade schemes may make a difference to emissions in the developed countries but will have little impact on global emissions. The developing countries will not disadvantage themselves – and nor should they – so they will continue to build the least cost electricity generation available to them. Furthermore, the higher cost of electricity in the developed countries will be a factor contributing to moving industry from the developed countries to the developing countries. So much of the emissions avoided in the developed countries will be emitted in the developing countries instead.

In short, most of the emissions growth will come from the poor and developing countries over the decades ahead – UNLESS, they have an energy option that is cheaper than fossil fuels.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images