UN calls for doubling renewable energy by 2030

Apr 21, 2012
Currently, renewable energy accounts for about 16 percent of world consumption
File picture shows workers assembling solar panels by hand at a factory in the eastern Chinese city of Wuxi. UN chief Ban Ki-moon made a call to double global consumption of renewable energy over the next two decades in order to ensure sustainable economic development.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon made a call to double global consumption of renewable energy over the next two decades in order to ensure sustainable economic development.

"It's possible if we show political leadership," Ban said about the goal that falls under a sustainable aiming to have universal access to power by 2030. Currently, accounts for about 16 percent of world consumption.

"We have to be very austere in using energy... We have to completely change our behavior, at home, at the office," the UN secretary-general added at an event hosted by the Center for Global Development think-tank in Washington.

About 1.3 billion people on Earth -- a fifth of the global population -- lacks access to electricity, while 2.7 billion do not have clean fuel to cook their food and heat their homes, relying instead on open fires or furnaces that burn coal, wood or animal waste.

"Energy is central to jobs, transport, water, sanitation... climate," Ban said after meeting with finance ministers from the G20 most powerful economies.

The United Nations is expecting some 120 heads of state and government to attend the Rio+20 meeting on sustainable development in Brazil in June, with a focus on developing a plan for implementation and action.

On Monday, the European Union vowed fresh funds Monday to help developing nations provide to 500 million people by 2030.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso pledged 50 million euros ($65 million) over two years for technical assistance and said EU nations would seek hundreds of millions of euros more to support investments in sustainable energy for developing countries.

Speaking at the Center for Global Development event, Danish Development Cooperation Minister Christian Friis Bach noted that fossil fuels received four to five times more subsidies worldwide than renewable energy.

The think-tank issued a report coinciding with the event saying the US government should play a key role in helping meet the UN targets.

"The United States is the logical country to lead an effort to address these problems, given the size of its venture capital and investment community, the prominence of its financial markets and exchanges, and its tradition of support for business-oriented agencies," it said in a statement.

Explore further: Future solar panels

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN chief launches sustainable energy initiative

Jan 16, 2012

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched on Monday an initiative designating 2012 as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All, with the aim of reaching its set goals by 2030.

IEA calls for scrapping $312 bln in fuel subsidies

Apr 06, 2011

The International Energy Agency is calling for 312 billion dollars in fuel subsidies to be scrapped in a bid to promote clean energy sources, according to a report presented in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday.

UN panel says retool world economy for sustainability

Jan 30, 2012

The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said Monday.

Energy, food security to dominate Rio+20: envoy

Oct 13, 2011

Boosting energy efficiency and renewables and providing food for a future world of eight billion will dominate next year's UN Rio+20 conference, the talks' co-coordinator said on Thursday.

China joins U.S. FutureGen project

Dec 16, 2006

China has joined the United States in the FutureGen International Partnership, a plan to develop clean-burning coal, the U.S. Department of Energy said Friday.

Recommended for you

Future solar panels

10 hours ago

Conventional photovoltaic technology uses large, heavy, opaque, dark silicon panels, but this could soon change. The IK4-Ikerlan research centre is working with the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country ...

Storing solar energy

Sep 01, 2014

A research project conducted by Leclanché S.A., the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Romande Energie and with the financial support of the Canton of Vaud could bring a real added value in ...

Scientists get set for simulated nuclear inspection

Sep 01, 2014

Some 40 scientists and technicians from around the world will descend on Jordan in November to take part in a simulated on-site inspection of a suspected nuclear test site on the banks of the Dead Sea.

User comments : 110

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gregor1
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 21, 2012
So maybe he wants more rainforest decimated to produce palm oil
ShotmanMaslo
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 21, 2012
Costly intermittent energy is the last thing developing nations need.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (42) Apr 21, 2012
Lucifer hates environmental sustainability for he works toward the demise of man and nature.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
Costly intermittent energy is the last thing developing nations need.
Yes Iran should be left alone to explore questions of nuclear options without Israeli and US meddling.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
"Costly intermittent energy is the last thing developing nations need." Agreed - let them keep running diesel generators - these are a much preferable option (sarcasm). http://www.bloomb...rgy.html If u can read shotman (unlikely) - take a look at the article. Power from solar is about 9 rupees a kwh, and power from state subsidized diesel is about 17 rupees.
NotParker
2.4 / 5 (18) Apr 21, 2012
Almost all of the 16% is hydro and burning wood and dung.

"Traditional biomass is defined by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as biomass consumption in the residential sector in developing countries and refers to the often-unsustainable use of wood, charcoal, agricultural residues, and animal dung for cooking and heating."

Why does the UN want poor people to burn more dung?

http://climatequo...al-dung/
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 21, 2012
More Coal!

"To make up for the lost nuclear power, which supplied 22% of Germanys electricity before the phaseout began, the country has increased its reliance on brown coal, a particularly high emitter of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and a major contributor to global warming. Brown coal now supplies 25% of Germanys electricity, up from 23% a year ago.

Previously a net exporter of electricity, Germany now imports as much electricity as it sells abroad. Removing so much German electricity from the market has benefited power companies in neighboring countries that rely heavily on coal and nuclear power, thereby undermining Germanys environmental goals and its nuclear safety concerns."

http://junkscienc...talists/
djr
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012
Why does the UN want poor people to burn more dung?

Why does NotParker keep regurgitating the same stories? Perhaps he has a political agenda - and is does not want to see the world move to clean renewable energy. Perhaps he wants to keep America addicted to oil and gas - and importing 11 million barrels of oil a day. I don't the U.N wants poor people to burn more dung - I think they want poor people to have access to clean renewable energy that will improve their lives.
Eikka
3 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012
fossil fuels received four to five times more subsidies worldwide than renewable energy.


They also produce at least four to five times more energy than many renewables that do get subsidies. Dollars per Joule is what matters, not the absolute amount of money spent on any form of energy. Great care has to be taken in which forms of energy to subsidize, so you don't end up paying billions for solar panels in Sweden or water wheels in West Sahara.

The industry is more than willing to sell you whatever you're willing to buy, whether or not it makes any sense at all, and producing bogus studies that promote e.g. wind power as a cheap alternative without mentioning all the external costs of it like purchasing and maintaining batteries or dealing with the internmittency on the grid level.
djr
2.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2012
" or dealing with the internmittency on the grid level." do u and NotParker have to keep regurgitating the same issues over and over. We have dealt with this issue. Intermittency is a problem - it is a technical problem that is being addressed by the engineers. There are plenty of studies out there that I have already referenced for you that indicate we can currently deal with 20 - 30% of power on the grid from wind and solar without any impact on cost or power availability. Storage techniques are being researched. Several promising storage systems look like they will be able to get the installed cost down to about $1 per watt. Keep watching wind and solar - the cost curves are coming down - progress is happening - just because you keep repeating nonsense that is debunked over and over - does not make it true.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (19) Apr 21, 2012
Why does the UN want poor people to burn more dung?

Why does NotParker keep regurgitating the same stories?


I read the article. It mentions dung (animal waste).

"About 1.3 billion people on Earth -- a fifth of the global population -- lacks access to electricity, while 2.7 billion do not have clean fuel to cook their food and heat their homes, relying instead on open fires or furnaces that burn coal, wood or animal waste."

NotParker
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 21, 2012
and is does not want to see the world move to clean renewable energy


Dung and wood are not clean. The UN should not consider them acceptable alternatives to reliable fossil fuels.

Hydro (as I've documented) is not clean.

And even the UK, which has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars on wind, is only get 1.46% of its electricity as of when I am writing this.

http://www.gridwa...r.co.uk/

.543GW out of 37.14GW demand
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
And even the UK, which has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars on wind, is only get 1.46% of its electricity" Taking one piece of data out of context to prove your point shows how little you understand. How does the cost of the wind they have installed compare to the cost of all the nukes, and coal, and gas installation they have to date? If it is 1.46% of their total cost - seems reasonable right. I could show you a neat article on wind ppa costs in Brazil that show "The price makes it the most cost-effective source of electricity in the country." http://www.andrad...ria=9329 So we can exchange articles all day. Point for me is that renewables are the future - you can stay back in the industrial revolution if you want.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 21, 2012
Taking one piece of data out of context ...


Why would it be out of context? I'm just pointing that hundreds of billions buys you nothing of consequence.

Down to 1% right now.

Imagine trying to rely on wind!!!

the data is available to download. What a disastrous waste of money.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 21, 2012
I could show you a neat article on wind ppa costs in Brazil that show ...


How much were the capital subsidies?

How reliable is wind. Most utilities will not pay much (if they have a choice) for spot unreliable power.

Eikka
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012
There are plenty of studies out there that I have already referenced for you that indicate we can currently deal with 20 - 30% of power on the grid from wind and solar without any impact on cost or power availability.


Yes, and those are mostly studies done in individual countries, where the idea is that you can keep using your neighbor's grid as a "virtual battery". With 20-30% actual wind/solar power penetration in the grid, the whole rest of the system would have to be geared into regulating the output, which means that 70-80% of your generating capacity would have to be fast peaking powerplants, like gas turbines.

Several promising storage systems look like they will be able to get the installed cost down to about $1 per watt.


What's more important is the price per watt-hour.

just because you keep repeating nonsense that is debunked over and over - does not make it true.


Equally well, just saying you've debunked something doesn't make it true.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 21, 2012
Costly intermittent energy is the last thing developing nations need.
Yes Iran should be left alone to explore questions of nuclear options without Israeli and US meddling.

Nuclear options like putting nuclear material on the tip of one of their missiles and killing the Jews?
Koch would like that.

access to clean renewable energy that will improve their lives.

At what cost? Maybe the first step for such access is to promote free markets and end their socialist tyrannies.
djr
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012
"just saying you've debunked something doesn't make it true." No - but debunking it does make it debunked. The problem is we can all find data to support our pre-conceived view points. That does not change reality - so I provide a like that shows that wind ppa's in Brazil are showing that wind is the cheapest form of energy. You and NotParker then hunt the web to pull some data out of context - and continue the argument for ever. For me - I will say again - the bottom line is that renewables are the future - and You luddites wish to remain in the victorian era of coal power - so be it - just watch the cost of solar over the next 20 years.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
"just saying you've debunked something doesn't make it true." No - but debunking it does make it debunked. The problem is we can all find data to support our pre-conceived view points. That does not change reality - so I provide a link that shows that wind ppa's in Brazil are showing that wind is the cheapest form of energy. http://www.andrad...ria=9329

You and NotParker then hunt the web to pull some data out of context - and continue the argument for ever. For me - I will say again - the bottom line is that renewables are the future - and You luddites wish to remain in the victorian era of coal power - so be it - just watch the cost of solar over the next 20 years.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 21, 2012
the bottom line is that renewables are the future

When they are economically viable.
Wishing it to happen won't make it so.
"Grandpa Gustafson: Well, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first. "
We are seeing what is getting filled first.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 21, 2012
You and NotParker then hunt the web to pull some data out of context


You mean actual data showing actual wind power generated in the UK is "out of context", but fantasies about wind are ok?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Wind is grotesquely expensive and unreliable. It need coal, gas, nuclear to back it up, so why bother squandering hundreds of billions on wind?

Wind in California ... 1200MW to ZERO in 8 hours.

http://www.caiso....tus.html
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012
"You mean actual data showing actual wind power generated in the UK is "out of context", but fantasies about wind are ok?" Translation - the report I can pull off the net is valid - but the one u can pull off the net is not. I already pointed out that quoting a % of power is out of context. To understand the data - you would need the cost of all the other sources of power. As you point out - there are subsidies in the power equations that make the data very hard to really understand. Sadly - I point out once again - renewables are the future. At least I am transparent about my agenda - I want to see progress. You hide behind distortions - but I understand that you are interested in holding us back in bankrupt ways of thinking. Watch the cost of solar over the next 20 years. As we have repeatedly discussed - I support nuclear - and a whole basket full of energy options - we will retire fossils.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 21, 2012
I want to see progress.

How much of your personal wealth to you have invested in this progress?
Or do you prefer to plunder other people's money for your interests?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Apr 22, 2012
Since UNEP has been working to reduce the use of dung as fuel, thinking people have to wonder why you would ask such a stupid question.

"Why does the UN want poor people to burn more dung?" - ParkerTard

Mental illness is the only explanation for your behavior.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
That is a very good question, and I would have absolutely no difficulty with answering such a question on a national ballot that determines the funding level of these programs.

The people should determine their involvement in all manner of government through a direct democratic process such as this.

"How much of your personal wealth to you have invested in this progress?" - RyggTard

Alas Libertarians/Randites are the enemies of Democracy.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
"Wind in California ... 1200MW to ZERO in 8 hours." - ParkerTard

And you fear that it is going to stay that way forever. You fear that you have lost the blessings of your wind God.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.....
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 22, 2012
ParkerTard is correct in this instance. CO2 emissions must be reduced as rapidly as possible so safe, working, nuclear plants should not be arbitrarily shut down, but shut down only when they can be replaced with mechanisms for producing energy without CO2 emissions.

"To make up for the lost nuclear power, which supplied 22% of Germanys electricity before the phaseout began, the country has increased its reliance on brown coal, a particularly high emitter of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and a major contributor to global warming." - ParkerTard

It is good to see ParkerTard having a change in mind when it comes to Climate Change. Perhaps he fell on his head and temporarily counteracted whatever it is that is causing his psychological problems.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Apr 22, 2012
Excrement? What do Libertarian/Randit's have to do with this?

"I read the article. It mentions dung (animal waste)." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard seems very concerned with Excrement. It is turning into a fecal fixation on his part.
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2012

For me - I will say again - the bottom line is that renewables are the future -
Sorry mate but renewables are the past. How do you think Europe lost most of it's forests, forests that only recovered when coal was brought online? The immediate future is gas and then maybe thorium. For a reasonable appraisal of the Moonunit's proposal read this
http://wattsupwit...k-plans/
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
"Sorry mate but renewables are the past." Time will tell right? I hope you are right about thorium, but I think politics may unfortunately impede that one. If you consider that Europe is on track to get 50% of their power from renewables by 2030 - http://www.energy...by-2030/ I think you may be on the wrong side of history by saying that renewables are the past. How many working thorium reactors are there in the world? Are you watching the cost curve on solar? This week a university in the UK announced they can cut the cost of silicon from $25 per kg, to $8 per kg. http://phys.org/n...con.html Other companies are developing production techniques to halve the cost of solar panels http://cleantechn...her-one/ Hang your hat with the luddites if you want!!!!
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2012
When a country de-industrializes as Germany is doing, and shipping energy intensive jobs to China while burning as much Brown Coal as it can, and importing as much electricity from countries that also use coal, I will laugh at the lying environmentalists who have worked so hard to pollute the earth.

Wind ...

1000MW to 200MW in 8 hours

http://www.caiso....tus.html

.89% of demand in the Uk ... and it only cost 100s of billions of pounds and put the country in a recession!

http://www.gridwa...r.co.uk/
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2012
Coal ... 42.2% of electricity in the UK right now ...

Every electric car in the UK is coal powered!

They could have spent their money on clean gas turbines for power, but noooooo! They had to squander 100s of billions and then rely on coal.

http://www.gridwa...r.co.uk/
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
"How much of your personal wealth to you have invested in this progress?" Well - I am not interested in plundering other peoples money - I am not sure what exactly you could mean by that. All fuels receive subsidies - if that is what you are getting at. I am in favor of the removal of all subsidies. I am signed up for 100% wind power here in Oklahoma - that costs me a few bucks more each month due to the low cost of natural gas - but that is fine with me. I will be buying an electric car, and solar panels for the house - they are still too expensive at this point - but creative minds are working hard on this issue (that is what happens in the kind of free society I enjoy) - so I think it will be just be a couple of years before I can afford them. Why do you have to turn everything in to such a political pissing match - instead of enjoying the amazing progress that is being made in this society that seems to me to be moving in the direction of more freedom, and more progress??????
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2012
I will be buying an electric car ... "


Fraudster.

An electric car gives off more CO2 than one that uses shale gas. - 46% of all US electricity comes from coal. Almost 20% from Hydro which the IPCC claims gives off more CO2 than a gas power plant.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
"An electric car gives off more CO2 than one that uses shale gas." Are you talking about a cng car? I would agree with your analysis at this point. Now - if you put a couple of KW's of solar panels on your house - that changes the equation dramatically. See my previous post - I am signed up for 100% wind power. As the percentage of renewables increases as we move forward - these numbers will change. Funny how people support freedom - until it is my freedom to choose renewable energy - then it is name calling time.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2012
I am signed up for 100% wind power.


So you are letting poor people subsidize your power usage. What a cruel hateful fraudster.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2012
Funny how people support freedom


Funny how environmentalist FORCE the poor to subsidize stupid reneables ... and then lie about how much electricity wind and solar actually produce.

They lump in hydro and dung burning and wood fires and imply to people that wind is a significant contributor.

Well wind contributes .... to massive bills that are FORCED on the poor.

80MW of wind power in California. 100s of billions squandered.

http://www.caiso....tus.html

If California had to rely on wind right this minutes it would need 500x more wind turbines than it has now. And power generated could still go to ZERO.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2012

If California had to rely on wind right this minutes it would need 500x more wind turbines than it has now. And power generated could still go to ZERO.


"In the US, we get a tenth of one percent of our energy from solar, half a percent from wind, and a third of a percent from geothermal. "

http://wattsupwit...re-61813
djr
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
So you are letting poor people subsidize your power usage. What a cruel hateful fraudster. Please give some references to this statement. I pay a surcharge for the privilege of sourcing 100% of my power from wind. That surcharge increases each time the cost of natural gas goes down. When OGE (Oklahoma utility) brings more wind on line - they offer the option to customers to sign up to source your power from wind - and pay the surcharge. They are always overwhelmed with customers signing up - and have to shut the offering down in a very short time frame. There is currently a tax credit on wind - as there is on all forms of energy. That subsidy is ending. Here is an interesting report for you - http://www.bnef.c...view/172 showing that in 2011, wind was costing 52 Euro per MWH vs 46 Euro for combined cycle gas turbine. By 2016 it will be at parity - pretty damn good for such young industry - and it is down hill from there. Why do keep saying such stupid shit????
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2012
So you are letting poor people subsidize your power usage. What a cruel hateful fraudster. Please give some references to this statement.


http://www.apscse...47_1.pdf

Ouch!

"During the summer, peak hours are 2 to 7 p.m. weekdays, and prices during those hours vary based on demand (see chart). Each day, youll receive advance notice of the next days peak priceby your choice of phone, text, email or all threeso you can manage your energy use"

http://www.ogepet...urs.aspx

Sounds like idiots are in charge.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2012
combined cycle gas turbine.


And, stupid person that you are, they have to still build the gas turbine power plant and keep it running as spinning resrve because Wind doesn't blow!!!

"Britain proposed on Thursday creating a market-wide power capacity backup system, run by network operator National Grid, to secure electricity supply at times of high demand and when output drops from intermittent sources like wind and"

http://junkscienc...-supply/
jerryd
not rated yet Apr 22, 2012

Most poorer peoples uses diesel which is far more costly than solar, wind.

What is needed for them is much more eff biomass stoves could cut wood burning 50-75% andsave the labor/time to collect the wood.

As for cost don't forget wind lasts 50 yrs in a good home size unit and PV for 20-30 yrs.

US electric costs are some of the lowest in the world and RE is now at perity here for home units. PV is now $1k/kwt retail and wind under $2k/kw at many places like sunelec.com

So yes RE can compete and if the full cost of oil, coal were in them instead of in our taxes, healthcare costs, etc RE would be by far cheaper.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2012
So yes RE can compete and if the full cost of oil, coal were in them instead of in our taxes, healthcare costs, etc RE would be by far cheaper.

Then you support ending ALL govt subsidies and promoting free markets?
But we see govts around the world nationalizing oil companies. Argentina is now doing just that.
Since so many govts own the oil companies, it should be quite easy for them to follow the UN mandate.
After all, govts know best.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
Ouch! Which is why I signed up to pay the surcharge - and many thousands of others in Oklahoma have signed up - so we are not asking poor people to subsidize our interest in wind energy. Oklahoma has some of the cheapest electricity costs in the world - and wind is part of that low cost electricity. I have a 2300 sq ft home - electric cooling - gas heat - and my monthly electric bill is approx $80 a month (averaged). No I don't ask poor people to subsidize my interest in wind power - I am very willing to pay a little extra to give the wind industry some space. You are not - that is fine - I just wish you would stop saying stupid shit on a science board - guess that may be too much to ask.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2012
No I don't ask poor people to subsidize my interest in wind power -

But you don't mind if they do.
Do you actively oppose all govt subsidy or not?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
"But you don't mind if they do." Yes I do - so stop putting words in mouth, it is ignorant. I purchase REC's that pay for the Oklahoma Wind Plants. Here is the web site if you are interested - http://www.oge.co...AQs.aspx
Do you actively oppose all govt subsidy or not? Yes - I oppose all gvt subsidies - including fossil fuels, and the military spending that is in large part to protect our oil interests around the world. I do believe gvt has a role in looking out for the interests of citizens - regulation of industries such as energy is necessary - we cannot afford any more Fukoshimas or Bohpals. I am an absolut minimalist in terms of gvt - I have worked for the gvt - and know how ineffective it is - including the military. I also understand how corrupt business can get - and someone has to watch out until we get rid of religion - and start working from a real code of morality - now u know what I think - in my own words - not yours....
djr
4 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
NotParker - this is from OGandE web site. "The first program was tied to our first wind farm located near Woodward, OK. Only those who were willing to sign-up for wind power received the benefits and/or the additional cost for this renewable energy source. Our Centennial Wind Farm has made it so all our customers benefit from wind power. Now, every kWh of wind power saves all OG&E customers money." Did you read the last sentence????
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2012
"The Centennial Wind Farm is one of the largest wind farms in Oklahoma. It can produce a total of 120 megawatts of power which is enough electricity to supply about 36,000 homes. The wind farm cost $200 million"

That is grossly overpriced for unreliable power.

I am so sad you have to plan ahead how much electricity you are going to use. Talk about living in the dark ages.

"State incentives such as the production tax credit and a 5 year property tax exemption for wind facilities
also make it easier for wind developers to locate here in the state."

There you go. Subsidies.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (22) Apr 22, 2012
Oops, I hit the 1 by accident djr. Not parker is the biggest ass I have ever seen as far as goofy sources and the proper place to state them. The perfect troll, every statement begging to be debunked, then on to the next one, on or off topic, it doesnt matter to him its just a game.

"Why do keep saying such stupid shit????"

Stupid shit says as stupid shit is.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2012
Oops, I hit the 1 by accident djr. Not parker is the biggest ass I have ever seen as far as goofy sources and the proper place to state them. The perfect troll, every statement begging to be debunked, then on to the next one, on or off topic, it doesnt matter to him its just a game.

"Why do keep saying such stupid shit????"

Stupid shit says as stupid shit is.


Can't come up with anything that contradicts me ....
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 23, 2012
Then you are going to have to build 200,000 nuclear power plants world wide, and another 20,000 for fuel processing.

"The immediate future is gas and then maybe thorium." - Gregor1

Good luck with that.
gregor1
2 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
In the 70's and 80's I was a green activist who marched in the street against nuclear power. Now the wheel has turned, and the 'green' movement is giving the nuclear industry a free kick with all this BS about CO2! I saw it coming which is why I deserted.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
@Eikka ...wind power as a cheap alternative without mentioning all the external costs of it like purchasing and maintaining batteries or dealing with the internmittency on the grid level.
The answer is simple. Excess electricity from offshore wind farms on windy days is used to run an air compressor, which fills large inflatable bags moored to the seafloor. Then, on calm days, the stored, compressed air can be tapped to drive turbines to produce energy. This is done with inflatable balloons lashed to the seafloor. http://www.youtub...p6CAvfGo
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
@No Parker When a country de-industrializes as Germany is doing, and shipping energy intensive jobs to China
China is ramping up 19th century manufacturing while the future is virtual. 3D printing will obsolete much manufacturing beginning with Chinese trinkets and working it's way through the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. The future is localized, robotized manufacturing with a profoundly greater stress on design and function.

Poor Parker is fixated on rear-view mirrors and dung.
No Parker Fraudster. An electric car gives off more CO2 than one that uses shale gas. - 46% of all US electricity comes from coal.
Glad you agree coal should be phased out.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 23, 2012
Then you were a fool.

"In the 70's and 80's I was a green activist who marched in the street against nuclear power." - Gregor1

"I saw it coming which is why I deserted." - Gregor1

And you remain a fool.
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
Thank you VD from you that's a complement
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 23, 2012
You are very welcome.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
"China is ramping up 19th century manufacturing while the future is virtual. 3D printing will obsolete much manufacturing beginning with Chinese trinkets and working it's way through the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. The future is localized, robotized manufacturing with a profoundly greater stress on design and function."

What does this even mean? Manufacturing by 3D printing, or even matter replicators would suddenly not be manufacturing? And why should it be localised, when economies of scale prefer centralised manufacturing?

Heavy energy intensive industry is the cornerstone of modern society. We just dont see it now, since we have outsourced much of it into cheap asian countries and pollute there instead of here. Out of sight, out of mind.

"future is virtual"

Not until practical mind uploading is a reality.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
Then you are going to have to build 200,000 nuclear power plants world wide, and another 20,000 for fuel processing.

"The immediate future is gas and then maybe thorium." - Gregor1

Good luck with that.


World energy consumption (total, including all transportation and heating, not just electricity) is about 20 TW. Assuming 1 GW nuclear power plants, you need 20 000 of them, not 200 000. Fuel breeding can be included in the power plant.

With small modular 330 MW reactors, its 60 000 reactors. I dont know how you came to 200 000 figure, its 10x off.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
What does this even mean? Manufacturing by 3D printing, or even matter replicators would suddenly not be manufacturing? And why should it be localised, when economies of scale prefer centralised manufacturing?
No, they would be automated much as a desktop printer now required a five man crew and a $100K press twenty years ago. Assembly, engineering and design will be the new skillset.
Heavy energy intensive industry is the cornerstone of modern society.
LOL that's out with the dinosaurs. Even Federal Express two decades ago realized a JOT (just in time) model of manufacturing was a transition to local, sustainable microlot production. Just now Fiat is building an assembly plant in Russia because of innumerable peculiarities, preferences and potentials of the Russian market. As computer power continues to grow so a centralized, energy-intensive model will decline. Russians display an avoidance response to commodity grade goods in general, budget permitting.
ShotmanMaslo
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
I fail to see why increased automation would somehow massively decrease the energy and resource requirements of manufacturing. Less people would be needed, but not much less energy or resources.

Heavy energy intensive industry is and will be the cornerstone of modern society. Somewhat decentralised heavy industry is still heavy industry with the same energy requirements.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
"Can't come up with anything that contradicts me ...." And that is clearly how u see the world NotParker. People come up with information that contradicts you all the time - you don't notice it because u r just playing a big game. There is an example on this thread of how you cherry picked some data to push ur political agenda - and u were called on it - and u will move on to the next thread and start the whole process over. http://phys.org/n...orn.html Pretty sad - except that obstructing progress for a political agenda is becoming an art here in the U.S. - and so we end up with probably the most shitty education system in the world - a poorly informed population - and the biggest military machine in the universe. I believe things are changing - and we will one day realize the potential of our intelligence - but we will have a lot of catch up to do.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2012
he future is virtual.

Does this mean we will all eventually become copper tops in the Matrix?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2012
someone has to watch out until we get rid of religion

And this 'someone' the the inefficient govt?
Sounds inconsistent.
How do you plan to get rid of religion?
God seems to agree with you about govt. Read 1 Samuel8:11-20.
And some believe God represents morality as documented in the Ten Commandments.
What kind of morality is djr talking about?
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2012
Heavy energy intensive industry is and will be the cornerstone of modern society.
LOL in 2006, 61 percent of world oil consumption used for transportation. Much of this is based upon formerly cheap energy that say, made imported garlic from China competitive with that grown in Salinas, CA. With the advent of localized manufacturing much of this wasted energy can be instead put toward residential enjoyment, slashing net national energy costs.
Somewhat decentralised heavy industry is still heavy industry with the same energy requirements.
Wrong. See above.
There is an example on this thread of how you cherry picked some data to push ur political agenda - and u were called on it - and u will move on to the next thread and start the whole process over.
Standard conservative debate style. When in doubt, change the subject! Instead of thinking, conservatives and lobbyists memorize talking points.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
dir: blah blah blah contradicted.

Me:

Ohio cooling at -0.75 deg F / dec since 1998

Minnesota cooling at -1.75 F / dec since 1998

Iowa cooling -1.81F / dec since 1998

US cooling -0.85 degF / Decade since 1998.

Cycles end ....

Notice Washington, Oregon and California cycle ended early - 1990

Oregon cooling -0.29 degF / Decade since 1990

California cooling -0.09 degF / Decade since 1990

djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
dir: blah blah blah contradicted. And so you make the point - but I understand you will never see it. The fact is the globe is warming. That is a fact. You can cherry pick some data point to suggest it is cooling. That is not true. But you can argue around and around and around - that up is down. What science is there behind stating that California cooling .09 degrees since 1990 demonstrates that the globe is not warming? But you will continue to argue around and around - like I say - it is a game for you and Rygg et al. The net consequence is that we do not progress as fast as we could as a species - why most of us here in the U.S. believe in a magic father in the sky - who wants the Patriots to win the super bowl. Sigh.....
djr
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2012
What kind of morality is djr talking about? If you are truly interested see -
http://www.maxmor...prn3.htm

Read 1 Samuel8:11-20. I was born and raised in an evangelical religious home - read the bible cover to cover plenty of times. No longer interested in your magic book - it is full of nonsense and contradictions - I am so much happier without all the guilt, and using principles of science and rationalism to understand the universe - which is why I read physorg - not to contradict every article published in order to push my political agenda.

ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2012
"LOL in 2006, 61 percent of world oil consumption used for transportation. Much of this is based upon formerly cheap energy that say, made imported garlic from China competitive with that grown in Salinas, CA. With the advent of localized manufacturing much of this wasted energy can be instead put toward residential enjoyment, slashing net national energy costs."

If the expenses from this increase in energy consumption outweighted the increase in effectiveness with centralised economies of scale, such centralised system would never arise. So they obviously dont. And they would not, assuming energy prices would not go up significantly.

Still, your point is that we would eliminate energy expenses in transportation, not that the manufacturing itself would get less energy intensive. So my point still stands, energy intensive heavy industry is and will be the cornerstone of modern civilisation. Whether centralised or localised does not change very much. Nothing would get "virtual".
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
it is full of nonsense and contradictions

Then you did not read those verses.
They say exactly same thing you do, a moral people do not need govt.

"EXTROPIAN PRINCIPLES"
Sounds like another religion.

Very dogmatic: "dogmas that cannot survive scientific or philosophical criticism"

Socialists used science to justify the murder of millions.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2012
The fact is the globe is warming


The LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 years.

Yes, when the LIA ended it warmed a little. The period from 1909 to 1944 warmed most in the 20th century.

Most scientists agree that warming before 1950 was natural since CO2 had not changed enough to cause warming of any significance.

Then it cooled some, then warmed some and is now cooling again.

It is microscopically warmer than 1942/1944. And Jan 2011 and 2012 were COLDER than Jan 1942/44.

If CO2 causes warming, why could it not sustain the 1998 peak?

Why have the last 4 years been so cold?

Satellite data says temperatures right now are the same as 1979-1988.

No change of significance in the last 30 years.

UAH is up .06C
RSS is down -.03C

http://www.climat...1979.gif
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2012
using principles of science and rationalism to understand the universe

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...whEwm.99
"
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2012
- I am so much happier without all the guilt, and using principles of science and rationalism to understand the universe - which is why I read physorg


With all its bias and attempts at making people feel guilty about destroying the planet?
djr
4 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature - I am not interested in solving the ultimate mystery of nature - whatever that may be. I am interested in understanding the workings of the universe I live in. Being that universe is some 16 billion light years across - I guess that will keep us busy for a while. Plenty of things to take my attention at this point. My main interest is in the issue of energy - and how we are going to power our world as we evolve and move beyond fossil fuels. We are learning to power ourselves in a sustainable manner - it is hard for me to understand the morals of those who would stand in the way of progress.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
"With all its bias and attempts at making people feel guilty about destroying the planet?" Serious question - if you disdain physorg so much - why don't you leave us alone? Are you so threatened by science that you have to spend your life attacking it?
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2012
Are you so threatened by science that you have to spend your life attacking it?


You seem to think Science is a cult where you never question the cult leader.

In reality, if the science was valid, it could stand up to criticism.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2012
Then you support ending ALL govt subsidies and promoting free markets?


For the most part free markets are just a childish fantasy. The electricity business is a natural monopoly and has massive externalities that will not be accounted for _at all_ without heavy handed regulation.

Some of these externalities we cannot even put a price on without some pretty arbritrary assumptions.

Governments are not infallible either. If voters are in favour of stupid things like installing half the worlds PV capacity in Germany, which gets less solar insolation than much of Alaska, then they may get their giant, expensive boondoggle.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
The electricity business is a natural monopoly

It's not natural. It is govt established and protected which inhibit the creation and motivation of decentralized systems.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
"With all its bias and attempts at making people feel guilty about destroying the planet?" Serious question - if you disdain physorg so much - why don't you leave us alone? Are you so threatened by science that you have to spend your life attacking it?

If your science is so 'sound' you should have no difficulties countering any 'attacks'.
But the process of science is supposed to be open and accepting of all critiques.
Historically this has not been true. Why is that?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
I am interested in understanding the workings of the universe I live in.

But as Planck noted you are a part of the universe. You are IN the universe and OF the universe.
How can you practice objective science when ALL is tainted by your POV.
All is heuristic as Billy Koen notes.
http://www.me.ute...ory.html

Can I assume you do understand the limits of science? If you don't understand this then your religion IS science. But you said you wanted to abolish ALL religion?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
it is hard for me to understand the morals of those who would stand in the way of progress.

It is simple. It is called 'self interest'.
If you truley want progress, build a better 'mouse trap' and PERSUADE other individuals it is in their self interest to buy it.
The link you provided earlier had a reference to Hayek. Maybe you should read up on him and economics. A 'scientific' study of 'progress' will show that free peoples operating in a free economy with a govt that protects property rights is the most efficient and quickest path to 'progress'.
Your only other alternative to 'progress' is govt imposed, aka socialism which has been demonstrated to lead to negative 'progress'.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
No longer interested in your magic book - it is full of nonsense and contradictions

Millions of others were and are interested. And many were the giants of modern science.
But djr knows better than Planck, Newton, Davies, William D. Phillips, ....
djr
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
But djr knows better than Planck, Newton, Davies, William D. Phillips, .... Smile - I don't make my choices in life based on the views of others - no matter how famous - I think for myself. I think I am in pretty good company - here is a list of scientists who are also athiests http://en.wikiped...chnology Some pretty famous names on that list too - Bohr, Feynman, Einstein, Eddison, Dirac etc. Are u going to become an atheist now - it would follow based on your logic of deference to famous names.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
"If you don't understand this then your religion IS science." Not how I see it at all. Let me give a couple of quick home definitions - Religion - the belief in stuff there is no evidence for. Science - rational thinking using evidence (reality).
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
I don't make my choices in life based on the views of others -

Of course you do. Or do you perform every experiment yourself not trusting the views of anyone?
Science results are the published views of others, peer reviewed by others. You can choose to believe them or you will have to perform every experiments yourself.
If you don't conduct every experiment yourself, then you must have faith in 'the others' that conduct and report their results.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...WvpDx.99
"
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2012
- here is a list of scientists who are also athiests

So what?
You asserted that one must attack religion to be a scientist.
Yet there ARE many scientists who practice religion are respected scientists.
What is so great about science is that one individual, one test case is sufficient to falsify a theory.

From another piece of useless fiction comes a quote that suggests much about djr and those that attack religion.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222230"
djr
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
You asserted that one must attack religion to be a scientist. Wow - you really are delusional - show me anywhere that I have said that one must attack religion to be a scientist. I agree that there are many scientists who are religious - I don't understand how they marry two totally different ways of thinking - but that is for them to live with.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
You asserted that one must attack religion to be a scientist. Wow - you really are delusional - show me anywhere that I have said that one must attack religion to be a scientist. I agree that there are many scientists who are religious - I don't understand how they marry two totally different ways of thinking - but that is for them to live with.


Previous quotes:
No longer interested in your magic book - it is full of nonsense and contradictions

and someone has to watch out until we get rid of religion -

I don't understand how they marry two totally different ways of thinking - but that is for them to live with.

Sounds like something an open minded scientist would be interested in researching.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 24, 2012
An assertion based on zero evidence, implying a problem that does not exist, and a solution that is not in any way prevented by the assumed problem, and finally ignoring the subsidies paid by government for the development of decentralized production, the very thing that RyggTard implies is desired.

"It is govt established and protected which inhibit the creation and motivation of decentralized systems." - RyggTard

Classic Libertarian/Randite non-thought.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.2 / 5 (36) Apr 24, 2012
We don't have any difficulty. Which is why over 98% of the worlds scientists reject your childish denialist claptrap.

"If your science is so 'sound' you should have no difficulties countering any 'attacks'." - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard, several hundred billion brain cells removed from having a clue.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 24, 2012
There are critiques and then there are lies.

As has been repatedly shown, you fall into the chronic liar camp.

"But the process of science is supposed to be open and accepting of all critiques." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 24, 2012
And here RyggTard claims that self interest is moral.

"It is simple. It is called 'self interest'." - RyggTard

Greed has never been moral, not even in criminal minds. But it is in the Libertarian mind where it is a special form of psychosis.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
Rygg - "Previous quotes:" Not one of those quotes supports the assertion that I said "one must attack religion to be a scientist." So - as vendi points out - you are a liar. The frustration for someone like me - is that you and NotParker make a game out of contradicting almost every article on this site that is trying to inform us of the situation regarding global warming, and alternative energy. Science is built on challenge - you have to know that. But when challenge becomes the constant heckling of research - that is designed to investigate reality - it is not serious and constructive challenge - it is childish game playing. I guess the big question is - after being proved a liar - why wont you leave us alone - and let science take it's course?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
Not one of those quotes supports the assertion that I said "one must attack religion to be a scientist."

2 plus 2=4
You attack religion, say it must be done away with, claim to support science and then, wonder how any scientists can be religious.

Science is built on challenge

Not according to AGWites. They are actively trying to have meteorologists fired for challenging their 'science'.

let science take it's course?

What course is that?

BTW, the 'heckling' is occurring among the ranks of scientists, but not widely promulgated by the gatekeeper journals. Do you suggest they shut up and get out of your way so your version of science can take its course?

- it is not serious and constructive challenge

By whose standards?
Of course the 'experts' don't want to be challenged. Obama is the epitome of the arrogant professor. He has a very thin skin when his theories are falsified.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
'TV meteorologists have worked for years to build respectability for their profession. What began as a glorified announcer position has morphed into a true scientific pursuit, with graduate degrees, a professional association, and standards for certification. That profession now faces a defining question: will TV meteorologists forecast the facts and help Americans understand the science and impacts of climate change, or will they stand on the side of denial, promoting the ignorance and inaction that threatens the future of our country and our world?"
http://forecastth...g/about/
Whoever these people are won't accept scientific challenge. Because the real issue is NOT science. It is political power.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2012
2 2=4 Just to make sure it is clear - you told a lie - you were called out on that lie - and now you fall back on stupid shit like 2 2 = 4. I would never say that in order to be a scientist, one must attack religion. There are many scientists who are attacking religion http://freethoughtblogs.com/ but your accusation was false - a lie. Yes - science is built on challenge. Look at the debate about string theory, or lnr. What is not OK - is sitting in your living room - taking pot shots at research - without being willing to get into the thick of things - and provide counter research. I agree that many things in this world are sadly about power. I see your need to attack every article on this site that mentions global warming as a part of a large reaction to science, by those afraid of change - perhaps I am wrong - it is often hard to get to the bottom of things. I don't see a global conspiracy of scientists - a see a conspiracy of the status quo - not wanting change.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
I would never say that in order to be a scientist, one must attack religion.


But you do attack religion, even though other scientists do not, because you claim it interferes with science. At least the what you perceive to be science.

afraid of change

It seems that the AGWites are the ones terrified of any change.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
"Rejecting the Christianity of their childhood, Muir, Leopold, Carson and Brower turned as adults to a secularized form of Calvinism in which reverence for the Earth became a disguised substitute for worship of God."
http://www.indepe...?id=3298

Sounds like many who post here.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (35) Apr 24, 2012
From RyggTard's Link...

"Robert H. Nelson is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the latest book, The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion vs. Environmental Religion in Contemporary America."

Inventing wars to foster fear seems to be the primary way Conservatives control the Conservative faithful.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (35) Apr 24, 2012
There are actions and there are consequences. The actions in this case are those causing the now obvious increase in the earth's temperature. The consequences will be mass death, both natural animal and plant life, and human life.

"It seems that the AGWites are the ones terrified of any change." - RyggTard

RyggTard will appreciate the need to liquidate denialism before it causes mass extinction.

Have your lists ready. The time to take action is fast approaching.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
Mass extermination then VD?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.1 / 5 (35) Apr 25, 2012
Selected extermination Gregor. The highest form of public service.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
I guess I'm for the gas chambers then?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Apr 25, 2012
What is your address?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Again, stating the obvious, AGWites are the ones terrified of any change.
Terrified enough to murder.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
Selected extermination Gregor. The highest form of public service.


If AGW was really a problem, Al Gore would have given up his private jet and 7 houses and given away his ill gotten loot.
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
http://www.youtub...DlxhNEHQ

Here you go rygtard/notparker etc.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08sDlxhNEHQ

Here you go rygtard/notparker etc.


What ice loss?

You did notice this was an animation ... not reality ... right?

kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
What ice loss?

You did notice this was an animation ... not reality ... right?


Are you stupid? the ice loss graph in the simulation is a satellite mapping of ice loss. The only animation in there was the ocean currents.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
What ice loss?

You did notice this was an animation ... not reality ... right?


Are you stupid? the ice loss graph in the simulation is a satellite mapping of ice loss. The only animation in there was the ocean currents.


Did you read the caption? The colors indicate the thickness of the ice shelf.

"The shelves are indicated by the rainbow color; red is thicker (greater than 550 meters), while blue is thinner (less than 200 meters)"

Idiot.

I shouldn't call you an idiot. Using alarming colors like red to con people is quite common in the AGW cult.

The animation is NOT a "satellite mapping of ice loss". It is implied the red is dangerous ice loss, bit in fact the red is the thickest ice shelves.