« Waterboarding Ourselves | Main | Brokaw Update »

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Comments

Michael Snow

Not only is it a basket case, but, excuse the switch of metaphors, tho whole man-made global warming case is a house of cards.

How long can the medis suppress the facts that there is NO CONSENSE and that c02 does NOT drive climate change? So far they have done a remarkable job. Last year, and again this March, there was no news coverage of Internatonal Conference on Climate Change in NYC which included scientists from Harvard and MIT disputing the 'man-made climate change' thesis. SEE here for addresses by Richard Lindzen of MIT, Willie Soon of Harvard and other scientists. It also included Harrison Schmidt, Ph.D. (Apollo 17; he spoke at USD a few years ago).

People need to be informed with facts not fiction (i.e. computer models based on the whims of the programmers).
Here is an excellent video that includes scientists who WERE on the IPCC:

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758

It sets the record straight about Al Gore's fiction.

Michael Snow

Sorry, I neglected to put the link to the conference I referred to:

http://www.heartland.org/

Scroll down to 'keynote addresses.'...Willie Soon of Harvard, R. Lindzen, MIT, etc.

Brian

Is it just me or has everyone in America put national security on the back burner?
Yes, the only economically viable energy sources are fossil and nuclear but it takes 20 years to get a nuclear plant online and dependence on foreign oil is the number one threat to America. As I recall, one of the functions of the government that is specified in the constitution is national defense. Therefore, subsidizing massive solar farms in the Mojave should be a major function of the government.

Chris Harries

The word 'subsidy' is misplaced. If you take all their hidden costs into account then coal fired power is massively subsidised. Government assistance for solar and wind is an attempt to level the playing field.

After all, the ultimate cost of climate change is likely to run into trillions, so anything that can be done now to avert the worst is money well spent.

KB

Chris:

Assuming sufficiently high unpredictable costs avoided, a three mile high gingerbread man becomes worth building. Subsides for solar and wind level no playing fields. They just soak up billions in dollars that might go to useful purposes without providing any net benefit in energy or any net improvement in environmental indicators. That environmentalists support them is proof that the movement is detached from reality.

AS

Well first off renewable energy is not a bad thing if done correctly. The mass industrial-scale remote wind and solar farms that need even more remote transmission and result in eminant domain issues and degrade open spance and conservation lands is a flawed propsal that is being driven by many utility produces backed by big oil and coal $$. The key is to build smaller distributed energy close to urban centers and on roof tops. Countries like Germany and Sweden are putting 2000 Megawatts of rooftop soalr on line a year and sunny states like California have only put on less than 100MW. It is time to take a responsible and long term strategy to move towards greeing America's power supply and that involves effeciency and conservation, incentives, proper siting, and not repeating the mistakes of the past. It is critical that false and misguided messaging like 'paving the southwest with solar panels will save the planet form climate change' be replaced with more intelligent and forward thinking to begin a strategy that makes sense for the environment, our communtities and rate-payers and tax-payers.

Frazier

It is unfortunate that the media has framed the debate as green vs. green. The conversation should be centered around corporate greed vs. public welfare. Putting large scale renewables in the desert is a big dumb answer to a complex and dynamic problem. If the emphasis was directed towards local generation with rooftop solar, urban solar thermal parks on degraded lands, and a government led conservation effort, we would democratize American energy production, reduce conflict centered around transmission, and increase community involvement in a global problem by bringing the public into the conversation rather than giving foregone options to comment on and vote for. We should be thinking more about how to democratize national problems instead letting the fox guard the chicken coup. The wolf in green sheep's clothes is dripping oil.

We can't solve the problems we have created in society using the same channels of thought that got us here in the first place. The definition of stupidity is repeating a behavior that leads to a predictable negative outcome and expecting different results each repetition.

EW

It's supposed to be called "green" energy because it is efficient. In this scenario, the term "efficient" is best qualified by comparison to that which would be described by its opposite (inefficient). When such a comparison is made, then it is easy to see why the current proposal for solving our present fossil fuel/climate change problem has met with opposition from environmental organizations.

In the Mojave Desert, the most widely proposed method for generating electricity using the sun is collectively referred to as "thermal" technology. This method involves thousands of acres of mirrors used to concentrate sunlight to boil water. While its source (the sun) should provide energy for the next few billion years or so, it is a shame to see such an excellent resource used so inefficiently. We can't forget that part of the reason that we wouldn't consider coal or oil fired power plants as "green" is that they use energy from the sun that was absorbed and converted by a plant, the plant died, it sat underground for some a very long time, then we hauled it to the surface, burned it, took in a bunch of water, boiled it, then we built some turbines and spun them, and wow, finally we have some electricity. Remembering that at each link in the chain, energy is lost. This process is inefficient. Why are we taking that same source of energy (the sun) and trying to use it in the same inefficient way (solar thermal technology).

Photovoltaic technology is wildly promising. It can fit on your roof, it can fit in your yard, and it can even keep your car from melting in the sun while you are at the mall. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on "green" electricity generation, then why not spend it on a technology that is on an upward climb, and that doesn't waste time generating heat.

The fight here is not about the need or value of "green energy", it is about seeing things for what they really are. We should not be turning to large corporations, with unproven technology, looking to rent cheap government land, and catering to utility companies by building large plants in remote locations.

Efficiency means that the next generation of...well...generation, provides maximum electrical production with the minimum amount of wasted energy, and is guided by a desire for clean air and not by a desire to increase revenue. The public is being taken advantage of. The current state of affairs and most of the players at the table cannot be trusted with our money, our land, or our future.

The comments to this entry are closed.