The solar articles are fascinating. I have solar power as a supplement to hydro and nasty old fossil fuels. I like solar because once it is installed it is basically free power. I suspect that’s why a lot of people like it. The issue is always the initial installation costs. It would take more years than I will likely have left to recover the full costs of a total solar system and the problem of battery storage of energy for cloudy periods and short winter hours are currently insurmountable. Still I like solar.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by tumbleweedstumbling
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by oldfossil
Bangladesh building another New Orleans? Yeah that should work.
↧
Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by ordvic
Thanks for the charts. It helps people like me who don’t know much. I appreciate your web site as well. I have learned a lot from it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
The only thing that keeps policy in check is that there is no credible energy alternatives being presented […]
Actually, solar PV is a very “credible energy alternative”. The problem is that it won’t become a mature competitor for another decade or so. Basically, wait and the problem will solve itself.
Natural gas has filled the gap for coal but that wont be a satisfactory solution.
Why not? In a couple decades it will probably be replaced by gas produced from solar power and ambient CO2. At that point, it will be “carbon-neutral” (actually, “fossil-carbon-neutral”), while preserving the current investments in transport, storage, and generation.
And that’s not to mention the likely availability of sea-floor methane hydrate (from the clathrate), which could well also be “carbon-neutral”, if it’s mined by replacing it with CO2 extracted from ambient sources.
The most likely ambient source being sea-water at the surface immediately above the methane extraction operation, minimizing the need for transporting the CO2.
Until people and politicians realize the only true solution, at least in the short term, is nuclear, as Hansen came to find out, public policy will just be more feel good wastes of money.
As long as “public policy” consists in throwing money at the problem without caring where it goes (except into the pockets of cronies), you may be right.
But there are policy options that would cost little, and have a good chance of being beneficial. I’ve mentioned such before, but here’s one (don’t have time to chase links): a country such as the US could offer “land grants” of sea-floor methane hydrate mining rights in territorial waters contingent on the use of ambient CO2 replacement technology, and demonstrating a “good faith” effort to develop such technology prior to its becoming cost-effective.
This would be a powerful incentive for companies currently depending on fracking (which we know will run out) to step up to the plate and pay for the R&D, knowing that, once developed, those mining rights would become enormously more valuable.
I could go on, but not right now.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Maybe this will avoid moderation.
A silly comment by ordvic on many levels.
Support or reject specific policy suggestions as making sense or not. There is no unified “skeptic” position- nor does there need to be.
“Now if you believe that CO2 is not a problem and that fossil fuel will last forever”
What is a problem in your view? Fossil fuels have benefits and harms. They will not last forever.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
I disagree on both counts. Public skepticism has remained relatively constant for over a decade or two. EPA has yet to even produce a final climate rule for coal fired power so that wheel has yet to even spin, much less pick a winner. There is no possibility of climate legislation. I would say skeptics are doing pretty well, all things considered. I see no loss in any of this, just a good fight.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
I think there is a unified skeptic position, including lukewarmers, namely that CAGW is not a basis for policy.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
Hard to argue with that. I was mainly thinking of policy pursued by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Although Bush seemed to push alternatives more as a ruse that a real alternative to fossil fuels. Yes, skeptics remain the same but last I checked public opinion polls show AGW as steadily rising.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
Rod, I appreciate your comments and don’t mind the silly characterization and would not wish moderation. My comments were not necessarily my view, however unformed that may be. I was talking about my perception of the current political situation. Now that may be wrong but it is as I see it. If I am silly perhaps so politics?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason
tumbleweed
Are you using it on your RV or is it located on a house? If the latter, roughly how many annual hours of sun do you get in your location?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
David, I would agree with that statement but is it drowned out? If you look at the Letter sent by Jerry Brown to Ben Carson in the next thread you’ll see a mindless dissertation. But I see Jerry Brown as the winner. Ben Carson got ‘Trumped’ (as in Donald) by the Moonbeam.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman
WUWT also has a post on Jerry Brown vs Dr . Ben Carson. There are two comments by “mike” that are pretty good:
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David L. Hagen
<b>Statesmanship vs Bureaucracy's Dead Hand </b>
<a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/09/10/Indian-exceptionalism-and-realistic-responses-to-climate-change.aspx#.VfD6p-kdsdg.twitter" rel="nofollow">Samir Saran raises a strategic challenge</a> facing the world: the grinding dead hand of bureaucracy and how to overcome it by wise stewardship:
<blockquote>The 'house always wins' is a golden Las Vegas adage with a lesson for global politics too: unless we see strong political leadership of the kind being displayed by Prime Minister Modi and President Obama, the house – in this case national officialdom(s) and <b>global bureaucrats</b> – will prevail again. They <b>will construct a new world order with words, commas and full stops, where nothing</b>, not even the climate, <b>can ever change</b>.</blockquote>
After achieving its initial laudatory legislative goal of cleaner air, the US EPA is now grinding onwards causing astronomically higher costs with negligible benefit. Where are the Statesmen/women to restore sanity and perspective such as raised by <a href="http://www.lomborg.com" rel="nofollow">Bjorn Lomborg </a>and the <a href="http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publications" rel="nofollow">Copenhagen Consensus?</a>
(PS Despite Saran's compliments, of all global leaders I find Obama to be a radical activist with the least understanding of climate and energy, nor having the wisdom needed.)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
AK, We have discussed this before. I’m about half way between you and Peter Lang on this. I am very pro solar, but it is limited. Many areas outside of the southwest are just not good for solar. Even people going solar end up losing on the investment. Solar is limited. Now you have a very good idea for solar conversion to gas and mining methane. But I have no idea if that is practical? I find it very interesting but will it come off the shelf? OTOH Molten Salt Nuclear reactors are very close to realization.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
See March of Dimes..
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph
Obama to be a radical activist
He hasn’t done anything that hasn’t been in the Democratic party platform for a while. I think he is far from radical and even more moderate than many Democrats in a number of areas.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by tumbleweedstumbling
Up until April this year it was exclusively on our RV. (All details here https://fulltimetumbleweed.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/adding-solar-power-to-our-rig/). It is wonderful for the RV giving us a lot more freedom. In April we settled down a bit and bought a house in Manitoba which is just below the 51st parallel. Summers are no issue at all for solar. We get sunshine from 4:00am to 11:00pm in June. December is much more problematic. Sunshine is only from about 9:00am to 4:00pm in Dec. Our power is hydro and there is little to no encouragement for us to add solar. No subsidies, no tax breaks. There are also substantial fees for “engineering consultation” and complicated approvals processes if you want to be integrated into the hydro system and the utility just tells you outright it simply won’t pay to add solar. For now, we are taking the RV south for the winter solving the winter problem. Once we can no longer get health insurance to go south (or the Canadian dollar keeps up its free fall) and we have to stay here winters I suspect we will move to a combination of running some things on solar and supplementing heating with wood burning which is feasible in a small rural area when you also own 152 acres of partially wooded land nearby to cut wood on as we do. I don’t think we ever go completely off grid.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
I should not have limited that to the SW. Montana, for instance, gets plenty of sunshine.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason
Ben Carson is described over here as a socialist. Is that a US-lite socialist or a Euro type one?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph
socialist
He is a conservative, Tony. I am not sure how someone could say he is a socialist.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
