Engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert US to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050

June 9, 2015 by Bjorn Carey, Stanford University
Stanford Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and other researchers have calculated how to meet each state's new power demands using only the renewable energies – wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tiny amounts of tidal and wave – available to each state. Credit: Vaclav Volrab/Shutterstock

One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the world's entire energy infrastructure to run on clean, renewable energy.

This is a daunting challenge. But now, in a new study, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and colleagues, including U.C. Berkeley researcher Mark Delucchi, are the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both and the ways we currently consume , but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.

"The main barriers are social, political and getting industries to change. One way to overcome the barriers is to inform people about what is possible," said Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. "By showing that it's technologically and economically possible, this study could reduce the barriers to a large scale transformation."

The study is published in the online edition of Energy and Environmental Sciences. An interactive map summarizing the plans for each state is available at www.thesolutionsproject.org .

Jacobson and his colleagues started by taking a close look at the current energy demands of each state, and how those demands would change under business-as-usual conditions by the year 2050. To create a full picture of energy use in each state, they examined energy usage in four sectors: residential, commercial, industrial and transportation.

For each sector, they then analyzed the current amount and source of the fuel consumed – coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables – and calculated the fuel demands if all fuel usage were replaced with electricity. This is a significantly challenging step – it assumes that all the cars on the road become electric, and that homes and industry convert to fully electrified heating and cooling systems. But Jacobson said that their calculations were based on integrating existing technology, and the energy savings would be significant.

"When we did this across all 50 states, we saw a 39 percent reduction in total end-use power demand by the year 2050," Jacobson said. "About 6 percentage points of that is gained through efficiency improvements to infrastructure, but the bulk is the result of replacing current sources and uses of combustion energy with electricity."

The next step involved figuring out how to power the new electric grid. The researchers focused on meeting each state's new power demands using only the renewable energies – wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tiny amounts of tidal and wave – available to each state.

They analyzed each state's sun exposure, and how many south-facing, non-shaded rooftops could accommodate solar panels. They developed and consulted wind maps and determined whether local offshore wind turbines were an option. Geothermal energy was available at a reasonable cost for only 13 states. The plan calls for virtually no new hydroelectric dams, but does account for energy gains from improving the efficiency of existing dams.

The report lays out individual roadmaps for each state to achieve an 80 percent transition by 2030, and a full conversion by 2050. Jacobson said that several are already on their way. Washington state, for instance, could make the switch to full renewables relatively quickly, thanks to the fact that more than 70 percent of its current electricity comes from existing hydroelectric sources. That translates to about 35 percent of the state's all-purpose power if Washington were 100-percent electrified; wind and solar could fill most of the remainder.

Iowa and South Dakota are also well-positioned, as they already generate nearly 30 percent of their electricity from wind power. California, which was the focus of Jacobson's second single-state roadmap to renewables after New York, has already adopted some of his group's suggestions and has a plan to be 60 percent electrified by renewables by 2030.

The plan calls for no more than 0.5 percent of any state's land to be covered in solar panels or wind turbines. The upfront cost of the changes would be significant, but wind and sunlight are free. So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production.

"When you account for the health and climate costs – as well as the rising price of fossil fuels – wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems," Jacobson said. "A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions from the United States. There is very little downside to a conversion, at least based on this science."

Jacobson said that if the conversion is followed exactly as his plan outlines, the reduction of in the U.S. could prevent the deaths of approximately 63,000 Americans who die from air pollution-related causes each year. It would also eliminate U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases produced from fossil fuel, which would otherwise cost the world $3.3 trillion a year by 2050.

Explore further: Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy

More information: "100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States": web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/ja … es/I/USStatesWWS.pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Pushing lithium ion batteries to the next performance level

December 13, 2018

Conventional lithium ion batteries, such as those widely used in smartphones and notebooks, have reached performance limits. Materials chemist Freddy Kleitz from the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Vienna and international ...

Uber filed paperwork for IPO: report

December 8, 2018

Ride-share company Uber quietly filed paperwork this week for its initial public offering, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.

148 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
2 / 5 (29) Jun 09, 2015
if the conversion is followed exactly as his plan outlines, the reduction of air pollution in the U.S. could prevent the deaths of approximately 63,000 Americans ..


Far more people have died historically from totalitarian government central planning, the basis on which liberal progressivism must operate.

In a free and market driven economy, the only way to scale alternatives is if they are actually better than CO2 based energy, so that the masses Desire and seek them out on the basis of individualism and egoism.

.... renewable energies – wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric...


The fact that no mention is made of nuclear power, demonstrates that in the mind of a liberal 'progressive', nuclear is threat only because it is in competition with government based solutions. The notion that the entire country could in principal operate on windmills and solar panels, but yet it's not possible to make nuclear safer, is a fraud of first order.
Sigh
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2015
In a free and market driven economy, the only way to scale alternatives is if they are actually better than CO2 based energy, so that the masses Desire and seek them out on the basis of individualism and egoism.
Have I missed you arguing against fossil fuel subsidies? And I would have thought you would be all in favour of such more localised power sources.

The fact that no mention is made of nuclear power, demonstrates that in the mind of a liberal 'progressive', nuclear is threat only because it is in competition with government based solutions.
To a libertarian, all centralised power should be suspect, whether government or private. Nuclear power needs, at present, expensive and large scale installations which centralise control. Why does that not worry you? Just look at people who want to live off grid, more independently, in the long term. I have read of them using solar, wind and micro hydro, but never nuclear. Why would that be?
MR166
2.1 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2015
"One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the world's entire energy infrastructure to run on clean, renewable energy."

I see massive government subsidies since no one will be able to afford this new energy. We will become the biggest welfare state on earth.

How can so many supposedly educated professionals in the US be in favor of the mass destruction of personal freedoms and the institution of yet more governmental controls?
MR166
2.1 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2015
When the whole system of renewable power and energy storage is economically feasible and cost effective there will be no need for government mandates. We are not there yet and making fossil fuels more expensive will not make 24/7 renewable power any more cost effective.

I don't want to hear about fossil fuel subsidies unless the paper is written by a real tax accountant and the "subsidies" are compared to the tax law as applied to all companies.

Also don't tell me about increased medical costs unless you are willing to total the benefits fossil fuels have provided mankind.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2015
...but yet it's not possible to make nuclear safer...
In this case, all the already installed wind farms should be decommissioned if environmentalists think any kind of nuclear stuffs is unsafe and causes cancer. Wind turbines utilize rare-earth ores that contain natural traces of uranium (4.270 MeV) and thorium (4.081 MeV) that emit radioactive particles to the environment.
Eikka
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2015
I've no doubt that these scenarios could become true by 2050.

I've also no doubt that the people who made them aren't alive then to see them come to, because reducing the total energy demand of the society by an average of 39% is not something you can achieve with efficiency measures alone. There's no such thing as energy you don't need - it's all got some use, so any savings go somewhere else.

So It comes from scaling back the society rather than pushing it forwards in infrastructure and technology. For example, we've got 60,000 bridges that need rebuilding, that would be left to rot if the society stats scaling back and reducing resource use rather than increase it.

So it comes from reducing the people themselves.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2015
When the whole system of renewable power and energy storage is economically feasible and cost effective there will be no need for government mandates.

All forms of power production have been heavily subsidized during their introduction (and all the 'conventional' ones are still heavily subsidized after all those years)

Especially things which cannot be easily measured in dollars need to be mandated (e.g. fresh air, fresh water, protection from flooding or drought, ... )
While reducing the impact in these areas isn't of interest to the industry that causes these problems they *are* costs that these industries cause and that society has to bear.

Since the industry refuses to pay do the cleanup (or pay for others to do it) it is only good and proper to make them not cause these problems.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2015
All forms of power production have been heavily subsidized during their introduction (and all the 'conventional' ones are still heavily subsidized after all those years)


Some more than others, though.

The difference is in whether the subsidy is greater than the value of the energy. When the cost is less than, it's not actually called a subsidy but an investment, seeing that in reality it costs you nothing because you get more value back than you put in.

Most renewable energy sources are -subsidized- because they return you with less value than you put in, because the indirect energy and resource cost of generating the economic activity to pay the subsidy actually negates the energy gain.

Eikka
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2015
A simple way to realize what the indirect cost of e.g. a wind turbine is, is to make the thought experiment of "How would you build a wind turbine with wind energy?"

What would be the necessary steps to convert the electricity into the fuels and chemicals and processes that would enable you to build the wind turbine with the energy it provides. Would that balance be more or less than unity?

A wind turbine as such is expected to produce ~100 times the direct energy input of building it, but to convert said energy to things like synthetic diesel fuel to operate a mining truck has great losses in efficiency so the ratio starts to drop very quickly once you being to analyze it.

It's a meaningful comparison because, suppose you use biodiesel to power the mining truck to avoid the conversion - well then some other activity that needs diesel fuel goes without and the price of diesel goes up. Then diesel is again substituted with more expensive fuels with higher resource impacts.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
Well we have articles like these, that show that it can work
http://phys.org/n...ble.html

Some more than others, though.

Yep. Nuclear got subsidized with more than 70 (seventy!) cents per kWh during its run up. And that's not even counting the subsidies it's currently getting (qnd will be getting for the thousands of years of storing the gunk. You don't really believe these companies will be around for that long to pay for that, do you?).
Renewables aren't even getting 10% of that (and are already outsripping nuclear).

The many (hidden) subsidies for oil and coal are just farcical.
Eikka
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2015
Nuclear got subsidized with more than 70 (seventy!) cents per kWh during its run up.


Got any references for that?

And that's not even counting the subsidies it's currently getting


In the US, renewable power is getting 22 times more subsidies per share of output compared to nuclear power.

The thing to notice about things like wind power is, that it costs somewhere between $50-80/MWh only because it's been built using primary energy that costs $15-35/MWh in the form of coal, gas and oil. The kiln that burns the lime for the concrete for the foundations doesn't run on grid system price electricity - it runs on the cheapest gas it can buy.

So the price of its output is greater than the cost of its input. If you were to loop the output back to the input, guess what would happen?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2015
One of the reasons that I am critical of the whole green agenda is that they chronically are unable to tell the WHOLE truth. Their "truth" is always slanted to make their position appear to be more reasonable. The government subsidies issue is a prime example of this problem.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 09, 2015
"But Jacobson said that their calculations were based on integrating existing technology, and the energy savings would be significant."
-------------------------------------

Every day we see more and more developments in Alternative Energy and more coal and nuke plants shutting down. Amazing!!

And Noums assertion that we do not understand nuclear power is exactly backwards. Let's have a discussion, shall we?

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2015
All forms of power production have been heavily subsidized during their introduction [....] Renewables aren't even getting 10% of that


The point of subsidies was never to choose the form of energy production, as in central planning, but rather it was to assist the present energy source industry maintain resonable costs to the consumer. Renewables receive low subsidies simply because they are not yet a major source of energy, and it is not the job of government to decide the energy source, especially with regard to present economic realities.

Liberals have made new nuclear plants nearly impossible via regulations.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (20) Jun 09, 2015
It was not "regulations" which caused the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Why don't you go help? They REALLY need it. It looks like it will be 200 years to cleanup, not 40. I wonder what the cost of those kWh produced will end up costing?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2015
Willie gave me a one, but he did not do it from Fukushima.

Willie, . . this is your Big Chance!! Go there and show us yourself how safe it is!!

This is it!!

Why are you still here?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2015
..disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
No one died from Fukushima radiation.
If you think that radiation is dangerous and produces cancer, just remember that almost all installed wind farms use rare-earth metals that contain uranium and thorium, and emit radioactive particles (4.270 MeV).
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2015
WillieWard claims
Wind turbines utilize rare-earth ores that contain natural traces of uranium (4.270 MeV) and thorium (4.081 MeV) that emit radioactive particles to the environment
Any Evidence for your claim especially so any comparative data re emissions from nuclear power & waste management systems.

IIRC the 'particles' you unscientifically blurt are Alphas, ie He-4 which dissipate energy immediately within ~ inch in air ie SHORT lasting. U & Th inside the magnets can't release He

Australia has sizable Thorium in beach sand along our western coast, its safe to be there as the Thorium is also an alpha emitter, don't eat it !

Evidence WillieWard ? along with comparative assessment AND how does it compare with the emissions of radiation from all fossil fuels ?

Besides rare earth magnets are enclosed/plated with chrome and/or nickel thus any Alpha 'particles' are not released & in any case lose energy immediately.

What a Willie :/
gkam
2.6 / 5 (20) Jun 09, 2015
Is Willie REALLY unaware the fuels most responsible for radionuclides in our air is coal?
gkam
2.4 / 5 (19) Jun 09, 2015
Why does Willie not count the unbelievable amount of high-level intensely-radioactive nuclear waste, of which we have thousands of tons, and cannot find a way to keep for long?

What are you going to do with it, Willie?

Why do you want to make more? Ever work with this technology?
WillieWard
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2015
Any Evidence for your claim especially so any comparative data re emissions from nuclear power & waste management systems.
IIRC the 'particles' you unscientifically blurt are Alphas, ie He-4..
"even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life", according to nuclear-phobics.

According to Eng. George Kamburoff, self-declared expert in Chernobyl and Fukushima:
"..an alpha emitter, and if inhaled can bombard sensitive lung tissue with 5.4 MeV particles, causing cancer."
".. you cannot approach without getting a lethal dose of radiation."
"Every atom is subject to decay and the expulsion of a 5.4 MeV particle, capable of tissue damage."
"..because they are radioactive and exothermic"
"..fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer"
"..radioactive waste is all one thing that contaminates everything it touches"
"Meanwhile, let's send our nuclear waste to those who think they can make it safe"

Thereby the wind farms should be decommissioned.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2015
I had to undo the ignore function to see what Willie was posting.

Does he not understand the tiny amounts of radioactive substances in wind turbines are encapsulated and not available to Humans?

Now, let's talk about the intensely-radioactive Nuclear Waste, which Willie wants to ignore.
ForFreeMinds
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
"we saw a 39 percent reduction in total end-use power demand by the year 2050 ... About 6 percentage points of that is gained through efficiency improvements to infrastructure, but the bulk is the result of replacing current sources and uses of combustion energy with electricity."

Reducing power use is wishful thinking. Certainly improvements in technology will result in some efficiency improvements.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2015
"Reducing power use is wishful thinking."
-----------------------------------

In the 1980's, we had no power to drive California due to pollution laws and two terms of Reagan, which had no infrastructure improvements. Jerry Brown saved us with the PUC making the utilities in the state get our "new" power by reducing the waste in the facilities of our customers. Mine saved about 20% on their power bills, with little or no investment of money by them.

I suggest you learn from those who have already done it. You may not find that in wiki.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
Sorry, I offer a correction when I said
IIRC the 'particles' you unscientifically blurt are Alphas, ie He-4 which dissipate energy immediately within ~ inch in air ie SHORT lasting. U & Th inside the magnets can't release He.
I meant to say "...can't release Alphas with energy." at the end of the above sentence.

Because any Alphas from U or Th half-life decay within the magnets immedieatley lose their energy by collisions and then diffuse out through grain boundaries & defects being released as gas which is NOT radioactive.

So, to clarify the terms of reference re my earlier post to the Willieward, Alphas covered & easily, the only others left are:-

1. Beta emitters
2. Gamma emissions
3. Fission products incl neutrons

The Willieward, ANY evidence that ANY of the magnetic materials you claim emit naughty 'particles' have ANY radiation products comparable with conventionally tolerated background radiation & how does it compare with nuclear emissions, coal/oil ?
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
Does he not understand the tiny amounts of radioactive substances in wind turbines are encapsulated and not available to Humans?


I think the point is, what is done with the millons of tons of uranium and thorium containing minerals that are left over after the rare-earths have been extracted for use in the renewables industries in magnets and semiconductors, batteries, etc.

These are literally nuclear waste, in piles high as mountains, that are mounting up as the demand for special alloys and materials grow. They're the same problem as the piles of radioactive fly ash left over from burning coal.

WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Does he not understand the tiny amounts of radioactive substances in wind turbines are encapsulated and not available to Humans?
Two sets of standards:
- wind farms occupying several acres, having traces of radioactive uranium and thorium within thin fuselages, are safe; while
- nuclear power plants with thick radiation shielding/protection, and disposal in deep geological strata, are unsafe.
How much hypocrisy.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2015
ForFreeMinds claims
Reducing power use is wishful thinking
No, history proves you Wrong !

Steam engines from 19th century consumed immense amounts of coal as their efficiency was between 7 & 12%, last century we graduated to diesels, better at around 26% (some 29%), gas turbines reach even better at 45% but expensive, though getting cheaper now we can print many more metallic parts & also consuming far less KWHrs than conventional fabrication techniques :-)

Electric motors re electric cars etc better than 70% efficient with wider torque speed ranges so less lost through gearboxes/bearings too - some electric motors in large industrial apps reach 95% efficiency. Again fabrication improving & costing less $ & less KWHrs to make

ForFreeMinds almost got there
Certainly improvements in technology will result in some efficiency improvements
Still several to come, we have gone from ~ 10% to something ~ 95% in space of just over 100yrs = 'some' :-)

Physics !
MR166
1.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Considering the total efficiency of a internal combustion vehicle electric vehicles should be able to improve upon those numbers provided better batteries are produced. H2 vehicles cannot do this unless we develop a more energy efficient way to produce, transport and compress it. IC engine fuels produced by electricity are the worst of all choices unless the real costs including energy return on energy invested of renewables comes WAY down. Bio-fuels are a form of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They just deplete soil that will be needed for food crops in the future.

I believe that fossil fuels need to be preserved for applications for which there is no apparent substitute. Large farm tractors, mining equipment, steel mills, airplanes, ships and long haul trucking being on the top of the list.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
I had to undo the ignore function to see what Willie was posting.


A child closes their eyes thinking all the bad things in the world dissapear - the adult opens their eyes, looks at the world, and sees that they do.

MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Well what do you know Mike I gave you a 5 for that last post. I hope that you did not fail to notice that the vast majority of these efficiency improvements happened as a result of free enterprise and no government regulations were needed.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka states
I think the point is, what is done with the millons of tons of uranium and thorium containing minerals that are left over after the rare-earths have been extracted for use in the renewables industries in magnets and semiconductors, batteries
Fair question, radionuclides there before releasing 'particles' & are weak re absorption in air. Main issue, its much easier to manage than high level (beta/gamma) re fission. Spent U238 used (alpha emitter) as 50Kg or so pucks as ballast in tails of some aircraft eg 747.

Makes sense to contain in gastight bag collect Helium output :-)

Eikka claims
These are literally nuclear waste, in piles high as mountains, that are mounting up as the demand for special alloys and materials grow. They're the same problem as the piles of radioactive fly ash left over from burning coal
No. Not same, Evidence its mountains of U & Th or mountains that contain how much precisely U & Th ?

Bark scaring again Eikka, tut tut
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
Because any Alphas from U or Th half-life decay within the magnets immedieatley lose their energy by collisions and then diffuse out through grain boundaries & defects being released as gas which is NOT radioactive.
That is the point, not all radioactivity is unsafe, and nuclear power is, in some degree, safe as renewable, fewer fatalities per gigawatt generated.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 09, 2015
MR 166, not having been in the field,is apparently unaware it was government which made us do it in California, after Capitalism failed us. We got new technologies subsidized by Uncle Sam.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
I don't want to hear about fossil fuel subsidies
@Mr
why not?
US oil is still heavily subsidized ... you should see the prices elsewhere

http://worldnews....mad?lite

a petrol station in Berlin, Germany on March 30 [2012- similar to today- see link below]. The price for "super" at 1.71 euro per liter is approximately $8.56 a gallon
now consider this: 3.79 liters per gallon

in fact, here is a real eye-opener:
average prices $$ to LITER overseas

http://data.world....SGAS.CD

but this is what American service members pay for the SAME fuel at subsidized US fuel stations on base (it is also similar to what US folk pay)

http://www.afneur...ult.aspx

those are up to date sites
you can see that a US tourist/German will pay 3+ times more for fuel than we

& likely YOU pay more than I do ($2.18 Gal today- prices WAY UP for summer)
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
MR166 lamented
Well what do you know Mike I gave you a 5 for that last post
well tah but, fine not my thing, I vote up if Physics is spot on or addresses hypocrisy etc. I see the Willie do the vengeful vote pattern cause he is irritated re challenges to vague claims...(mostly)...Others care, not my thing :-)

MR166 claims
I hope that you did not fail to notice that the vast majority of these efficiency improvements happened as a result of free enterprise and no government regulations were needed
Be careful here, you complain I went into politics when I didnt re most recent etc...

Regulations have their place, eg seat belts saving lives & immense suffering from so many injuries etc

Eg Catalytic converters, can now have coffee at side of road in cities (couldn't in 1970's) & not cough etc, AND no lead ie ULP.. List goes on. Efficiency improvements are nobrainer commercially as its a compelling part of net present costing. Take a closer look MR166, details !
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
No, history proves you Wrong !


Sadi Carnot proves history wrong. You can't go beyond 100% efficient, and getting even close is subject to diminishing returns. Every step at halving the distance is twice as hard as the one before it, and after a point it becomes meaningless to try because you only gain a marginal improvement.

In this sense, improvement eventually means going backwards. If your gas turbine goes from 50% efficient to 75% efficient at twice the cost, then you're losing because you only get 1½ for the price of two of the old kind.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Also don't tell me about increased medical costs unless you are willing to total the benefits fossil fuels have provided mankind
@mr166
aww, conspiracy again? and you were actually starting to make a quasi-decent argument

what good is past benefit when measured against future threats?
that is LITERALLY like saying:
"Since person A who never goes to the doctor has never seen a BAD medical evaluation, it is OK for them to continue their lifelong habit of smoking 4 packs of unfiltered cigarette's a day"

we know from scientific research the problems of smoking, AND we are still finding out threats, problems, and other NEW data about the problems of chronic smoking

the situation is exactly the same WRT your position on AGW

the evidence is there proving you wrong - but you figure sticking your head in the sand will make it all go away
gkam
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka, money is not the sole criterion for making all decisions.
Eikka
5 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
No. Not same, Evidence its mountains of U & Th or mountains that contain how much precisely U & Th ?


Indeed. Legally they're not the same, but if the mine tailings had been carted through a nuclear power station before being dumped into piles, they'd count as nuclear waste as per nuclear safety standards on radiation. There's a curious double standard with the radioactivity levels.

There are actual mountains of thorium left over from rare earths processing, and they are a nuisance because they're leaking toxic and radioactive materials:

See for example:
http://articles.c...e-earths

The Rare Earths Facility in West Chicago not only was a major employer in its heyday, but also became the site of a large mound of discarded radioactive waste that locals called Mount Thorium.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2015
WillieWard stupidly claims & its easy to show him WRONG
Two sets of standards
You will need to prove that & elaborate, read on McDuff

WillieWard claims
- wind farms occupying several acres, having traces of radioactive uranium and thorium within thin fuselages, are safe;
What 'thin fuselages' ?

Until now you said said magnets, now claim 'thin fuselages' are made from expensive 'rare earth's are you completely ignorant, biased, unable to check, heard of google, electrical manufacture etc ?
shakes head ! Its Steel/Fibreglass/Aluminum etc

WillieWard went on
while
- nuclear power plants with thick radiation shielding/protection, and disposal in deep geological strata, are unsafe
Prove just how reliable & risk free are these strata & especially so as the high level waste continues to fission release radioactive gasses all the way along ?

It seems the WillieWard you haven't apprised yourself of the whole waste cycle & mix - FFS !

What a Willie :/
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
"@Mr
why not?
US oil is still heavily subsidized ... you should see the prices elsewhere"

You are a true progressive Capt.

Lack of high government taxes equals a subsidy in your convoluted world.
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka, money is not the sole criterion for making all decisions.


That's like saying "inches aren't the sole criterion". Well you have to ask, what are you trying to decide? If it's a suit you're buying, the inches must be right or it just won't suit you.

Indeed. Money isn't the criterion - it's a metric by which you measure whether your criteria actually have any chance to be fulfilled.

Insisting on buying one for the price of two is just going to hinder you in actually getting to your ends.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka mutters
Sadi Carnot proves history wrong
Keh ?, never touched on it, never claimed it, are you smoking or drinking, you misread/misinterpreted ?

Eikka says
You can't go beyond 100% efficient, and getting even close is subject to diminishing returns. Every step at halving the distance is twice as hard as the one before it, and after a point it becomes meaningless to try because you only gain a marginal improvement
Yes re 100%.

Not necessarily re diminishing returns, depends, manufacturing costs dropping, ability to contain complexity easing, getting more efficiency doesnt have same tangent of diminishing curve, in less than 9 years when I was manager at a electronics supplier for CNCs for Pressbrakes, DC backgauge motors went from ~70% to 90% Eff at LOWER cost circa late 1980's.

Eikka, off beam again, just like your comment re arcs & ignoring V=Ldi/dt some time ago re sparks but, hey never mind as Science communication isnt your strong point ;-)
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2015
Prove just how reliable & risk free are these strata & especially so as the high level waste continues to fission release radioactive gasses all the way along ?


Prove that the radioactive elements can't be released if/when a wind turbine catches fire for example.

The point of that trolling is, that with people like gkam there's obvious double standards. They're in far greater danger - yet far less afraid of - of getting exposed to radioactive materials from the Americum in their smoke detectors than nuclear waste sealed by several hundred feet of melted rock and 5 miles of concrete in a deep borehole.

Eikka
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka mutters


Stop with that condescending bullshit and comment like adults. With your weak grasp of grammar and lack of coherency, you should be the one described as muttering anyhow.

Keh ?, never touched on it, never claimed it, are you smoking or drinking, you misread/misinterpreted ?


You were implying that the better just keeps on getting better, when in reality we're fairly close to the best already.

Not necessarily re diminishing returns, depends, manufacturing costs dropping


Diminishing returns -always- gets you in the end. Take the 95% efficient electric motor for example. How much would you pay to make it 97% efficient? Would it make a meaningful difference?

, just like your comment re arcs & ignoring V=Ldi/dt some time ago re sparks


Care to elaborate?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
WillieWard with pattern of unscientific rant says
"even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life", according to nuclear-phobics
Of course, they are like bullets, any bullet breaks things, the analogy & paradigm avoiding exposure is valid it NOT phobia - you Dill !

WillieWard says
. if inhaled can bombard sensitive lung tissue with 5.4 MeV particles, causing cancer."
NB "If", SO don't inhale incl soil, beach sand, coal & its ash etc, its obvious its background radiation - you Dill !

WillieWard claims but misses context/sources
".. you cannot approach without getting a lethal dose of radiation."
"Every atom is subject to decay and the expulsion of a 5.4 MeV particle, capable of tissue damage."
"..because they are radioactive and exothermic"
"..fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer"
...
He-4 emitters already there, smart to extract the useful ie Nd & contain (heavier) waste easily to collect He - doh !

Anything better please ?
gkam
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 09, 2015
"Diminishing returns -always- gets you in the end. Take the 95% efficient electric motor for example. How much would you pay to make it 97% efficient? Would it make a meaningful difference?"
-----------------------------------

Thank you for that display. Have you ANY idea what we would pay for that 2%? Look up how much we really did pay for that development, back in the 20th Century. You can start with Energy Efficient motors.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka again
Stop with that condescending bullshit and comment like adults
IWasn't on the money, like a tired old man lamenting losses over a beer

Eikka claims
You were implying that the better just keeps on getting better, when in reality we're fairly close to the best already
No. I didn't, you've found reason to confront, should have taken it at face value. Nothing I said implied 100% possible !

Eikka claims
Diminishing returns -always- gets you in the end
Prove it, clarify 'the end' Eikka mutters, depends on period ?

Eikka asked
Take the 95% efficient electric motor.. How much would you pay to make it 97% efficient? Would it make a meaningful difference?
Depends, for a 60MW & given advances, competition each yr I'd keep an eye on state of art, when it reached a comparative net present cost I'd take it, others doing same.

Eikka
"V=Ldi/dt some time ago re sparks" Care to elaborate?
IIRC, post re sparks gaps was tangential, recall link ?
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
For renewable's convenience, always there are two weights and two measures:
Prove just how reliable & risk free are these strata & especially so as the high level waste continues to fission release radioactive gasses all the way along ?
---
NB "If", SO don't inhale incl soil, beach sand, coal & its ash etc, its obvious its background radiation - you Dill !
---
He-4 emitters already there, smart to extract the useful ie Nd & contain (heavier) waste easily to collect He - doh !
Well, the statistics tell us the truth "death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04" and nuclear has killed far much less birds than coal and renewables, nuclear is far more ecologically friendly per unit of energy generated.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Thank you for that display. Have you ANY idea what we would pay for that 2%? Look up how much we really did pay for that development, back in the 20th Century. You can start with Energy Efficient motors.


Yes. I do have some idea.

Many existing factories could upgrade their slightly inefficient small (<2 kW) AC induction motors for more efficient BLDC motors, but the 5% reduction in energy use won't pay for the cost of the upgrade.

If you were building a new factory from scratch, then it would be a different matter to design them in from the start.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
Ah, the law of "Diminishing Returns" has to be just as important in the greater scheme of things as E=MC2!!! This must be a universal disease in the developed progressive world. If a little is good a lot has to be better.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Prove it, clarify 'the end' Eikka mutters, depends on period ?


Look. You admit that getting to 100% is impossible. There's never such thing as a perfectly efficient engine for example, so there must be some thing that prevents you from getting to it - like the cost of developing of building that engine - which results from the laws of physics simply being unbreakable.

So at some point you'd have to sell the shirt off your back to get that tiny little bit more efficiency, and it's just won't make any practical sense to spend more effort on something than you gain from it.

This should be self-evident.

If you're already at 95% then all you can gain is the 5% more - no matter how much you pay - and you will have to pay everything you got - and it's not worth the price.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka with a silly probabilistic tangential satirical question
Prove that the radioactive elements can't be released if/when a wind turbine catches fire for example
I'm sure some can, the magnets are pretty hardy up there in the wind, besides they are predominantly alpha emitters - ie short distance. Magnets need to fracture significantly, have asked the Willieward for comparative data re coal, oil etc nothing yet.

Eikka look at "Balance of Probabilities" you seem NOT to want to extend there, perhaps compare the whole cycle from ground to magnets vs coal from ground to air & ash etc

Eikka claims
...Americum in their smoke detectors..- An alpha emitter, very small & well contained
Comparative risk & balance of probability.

Eikka claims
..than nuclear waste sealed by several hundred feet of melted rock and 5 miles of concrete in a deep borehole
Keh ? Do you seriously claim high level waste around for decades is NOW all buried so very well ?
Eikka
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
IIRC, post re sparks gaps was tangential, recall link ?


I have no idea what you're talking about. Could have been anything.

Care to re-iterate the problem?

Keh ? Do you seriously claim high level waste around for decades is NOW all buried so very well ?


Well, next year it will be, when they open up the borehole trials for Hanford site disposal.

The point isn't what has been done, but what they're proposing to do, and how people like gkam dismiss the entire idea because it isn't absolutely 100% secure - as if it had to be.

Comparative risk & balance of probability.


That was the point. One can inhale Americum from a broken smoke detector with much greater probability than they would inhale nuclear waste from a deep borehole disposal site - especially when they live nowhere near the site, yet people are absolutely hysterical about the borehole and forget the smoke detector.

Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka mutters
Look. You admit that getting to 100% is impossible
now now be genuine I NEVER claimed otherwise. Is your memory failing, we have spoken yrs before & know I'm an electronic engineer of 30+yrs, you retort as if you imagine I'm completely naive

Eikka educatess
There's never such thing as a perfectly efficient engine for example, so there must be some thing that prevents you from getting to it - like the cost of developing of building that engine - which results from the laws of physics simply being unbreakable
sure, others take note.

Eikka states
So at some point you'd have to sell the shirt off your back to get that tiny little bit more efficiency, and it's just won't make any practical sense to spend more effort on something than you gain from it
You don't have to, you plan ahead - doh. I can only interpret you're addressing me but surely educating all those that somehow believe what you imagine I meant not what I said, off your soap box.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka says
I have no idea what you're talking about. Could have been anything.
Care to re-iterate the problem?
I'll find link via site specific google, not long ago, iirc your explanation bothered me as often you do try to be complete but that time the phraseology was a obtuse & ambiguous, more later

Eikka states
Well, next year it will be, when they open up the borehole trials for Hanford site disposal
Well maybe, this is one site, there are needs worldwide, waste management re transport alone is a huge issue, a point is your style Eikka "appears" to propagandize & confront, already background radiation everywhere - bulk of ~2% rise since start of industrial revolution primarily due to nuclear weapons, disasters, coal, oil etc & NOT from moving existing radionuclides around by extracting Nd by any means ie. Not 'on the money' in terms as you scaremonger re missing comparative assessment & thus paint a false notion of risk

& Williwards 'fuselage' is wrong
AGreatWhopper
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
How much of this (http://www.thegua...e-years) is phys.org taking to not delete comments on the climate/energy articles that are routinely deleted in the forums?
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
Look guys it is self evident that everything that man does kills something. We are a part of the natural process and no different from it. Thus, from a human centric point of view, nothing is bad unless it kills more people than it saves. If you cannot prove that beyond a "Reasonable Doubt" a particular technology lowers our chance of survival then economics IE the ability to feed ones family rules.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
..all buried so very well...
Where do you think radioactive elements, and fission fuels come from? And where geothermal energy come from?
Answer: Earth's core radioactive decay.
http://phys.org/n...ore.html
http://physicswor...ths-heat
http://en.wikiped...gradient
http://www.scient...core-so/
Then deep geological disposal for nuclear waste, no problem.
Eikka
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
now now be genuine I NEVER claimed otherwise

Nor do I imply.
you retort as if you imagine I'm completely naive

I've found that smart people can be very dumb - intelligence isn't evenly distributed even within one person, and people set in their ways of thinking can become extremely absurd because they only apply their thinking to a small set of matters and just wing the rest.

So I chose to remind you what was already mutually accepted, just to make absolutely sure.

You don't have to, you plan ahead


Plan ahead to what?

What you were originally saying is that history proves things get better. We went from steam engines to jet turbines, inefficient motors to efficient ones, but you forgot to mention that there's only a finite amount you can improve before you hit diminishing returns, beyond which you start losing.

The point of the Sadi Carnot comment was, that thermodynamics is a bitch. You can't win, and you can't even get even.
Eikka
5 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2015
bulk of ~2% rise since start of industrial revolution primarily due to nuclear weapons, disasters, coal, oil etc & NOT from moving existing radionuclides around by extracting Nd by any means ie. Not 'on the money' in terms as you scaremonger re missing comparative assessment & thus paint a false notion of risk


You're comparing two different things.

The thorium mountains are primarily a local problem. They don't significantly contribute to the global rise in background radiation levels in that capacity.

But they are problems nevertheless, and the whole issue here is the double standard of anti-nuclear folk who ignore the existence of these problems while pointing out very similiar problems with nuclear power, and presenting them as complete deal-breakers.

Well they got piles and leaking piles of toxic radioactive sludge of their own, and have no apparent hurry to do anything about them. It's like watching an alcoholic demand a drunk man to sober up.
gblaze41
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2015
So it comes from reducing the people themselves.


Exactly, any form of conservation over time isn't sustainable, ie.
and the ways we currently consume energy,

Which really means less population. The truly sad part is any civilization that is not expanding is collapsing, there is no way to keep it at a 'steady state'.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.


This is concerning. They're talking about changing behavior, and changing what is already in palce (possibly re: what we have built that requires power?) My understanding of "green power sources is that they're not powerful enough to power cities.

I wonder if the way we consume energy will be changed to the point that we won't get energy whenever we need/want it.

This looks like another "strip the rich to get to parity with the insect eaters" article.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
Yup Eikka, it does just not matter if the environmental/economical consequences of a politically correct energy source happens to be greater than the benefits. BTW politically correct in this case should be interpreted as "Politically Connected"!!!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
You are a true progressive Capt.
Lack of high government taxes equals a subsidy in your convoluted world.
@mr
really?
so you are saying our oil/gas is NOT subsidized in the US?

http://priceofoil...bsidies/

first off, energy pre- and post- tax subsidies are up globally and that specifically includes oil (and we ARE part of the globe, to boot)

http://www.imf.or...5105.pdf

put your head back in the sand...
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
Everyone just shut up and get it done, you don't have a choice.
It's not up to you to destroy as much of the biosphere as needed, and these are the same people who have the audacity to call liberals entitled.
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
Who is destroying the biosphere?
MalleusConspiratori
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
Humans. The feckless bit is the only people that are willing to do what it takes to cull them is the deniers! Their plan- do nothing- for reducing population looks the best hope around.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2015
Capt. please don't make me equate the differences between the consumer price of gas in Europe and the US to anything other than taxes. World crude prices are for the most part the same and refining costs have nothing to do with tax subsidies. Yes there is a little difference between WTI crude and Brent crude but that has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with transportation costs.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a factor that is needed in order to force energy policy change and destruction of economies justifiably) that humans are destroying the biosphere.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2015
@Willie:
Then deep geological disposal for nuclear waste, no problem.


But that *is* the problem, really. Look, I personally think Nuclear is a great option, trading in CO2 problems now for waste disposal problems later... until you actually get out of the "idealistic" nuclear scenario where you can just dig a deep hole in the ground and you have to deal with people who aren't necessarily rational. You have to buy land from private people or a state. You have to get permissions to drill and bury it. NIMBY all over the place.

So the reality of nuclear power PLUS human irresponsibilities means we end up having poorly secured/unsecured nuclear waste sites with poor waste management and possibly huge amounts of damage.

So... I'm on the fence about just how realistic it is to actually move towards a nuclear infrastructure.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2015
It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a factor that is needed in order to force energy policy change and destruction of economies justifiably) that humans are destroying the biosphere.


Aside from people being paid to shout "nuh-uh" really loudly on TV to old people watching ... certain cable news channels ... it really has been. "Reasonable doubts" about climate change are all pretty well resolved. What doubts remain are either unreasonable, or the precise specific changes that will occur in locations around the planet (which still needs more research time and effort)
denglish
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a factor that is needed in order to force energy policy change and destruction of economies justifiably) that humans are destroying the biosphere.


Aside from people being paid to shout "nuh-uh" really loudly on TV to old people watching ... certain cable news channels ... it really has been. "Reasonable doubts" about climate change are all pretty well resolved. What doubts remain are either unreasonable, or the precise specific changes that will occur in locations around the planet (which still needs more research time and effort)

Is that why CO2 rises lag behind temperature? If CO2 was the cause of temperature rising, shouldn't it be in front?

One of many items; I am far to busy to argue it over and over again.

AGW is still far from settled, and the science is not even remotely close enough to accuracy to justify taxing citizens and destroying successful economies.
NiteSkyGerl
Jun 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2015
You have to buy land from private people or a state. You have to get permissions to drill and bury it. NIMBY all over the place.


I think you're erring on the opposite side. If places like WIPP already exist, and deep borehole disposal would be both safer and take up less land because of the reduced safety zones (nobody's going to dig it up), I don't see why you'd have those issues. It could probably fit on some plot of land already owned by the nuclear industry.

The borehole disposal really does have a very small footprint on the surface, and technically you could even build on top of it - if you aren't too scared.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2015
It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (a factor that is needed in order to force energy policy change and destruction of economies justifiably) that humans are destroying the biosphere.
@d
only to those who refuse to see the evidence

to any other person willing to observe the empirical evidence and follow it to it's conclusions, there is ample evidence that we are polluting our biosphere and causing AGW...
but all of that is actual observed, measured and validated scientific studies, so i can understand why you are ignoring it

Capt. please don't make me equate
@MR
you are the one inferring that US gas/oil is not subsidized
shavera
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
denglish: for someone "far too busy to argue it over and over again" you're on here an awful lot arguing it over and over again.

But if you want to play these stupid games once more, CO2 has lagged temp. in the prehistoric past because of feedback effects (increased temp -> increased CO2). In the present day, CO2 rose faster than temperature, an inversion of the historical trend. If anything this is even greater proof of its anthropogenic nature. (humans -> increased CO2 instead of the normal cycles)

https://www.skept...ture.htm
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2015
One of many items; I am far to busy to argue it over and over again
@d
you are not too busy to keep repeating the debunked argument ... so why not address it with actual science?

or is it because you are still not able to address or recognize the studies which explain or demonstrate out knowledge WRT the subject?

AGW is still far from settled, and the science is not even remotely close enough to accuracy to justify taxing citizens and destroying successful economies
repeating a politically and conspiratorial motivated LIE is not going to suddenly make it come true

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://phys.org/n...lls.html
shavera
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
Eikka, I really don't think it matters what the facts are in the discussion. The public has been too panicked for too long about nuclear power to take it seriously as an option. Chernobyl and TMI froze our nuclear program at its developmental state in the mid-late 20th century. Fukushima demonstrated that old reactor designs are potentially dangerous, reinforcing public opinion about the sector as a whole, but not informing them that newer designs could be safer.

So the public largely sees it as a NIMBY issue, facts be damned.

This, in turn, leads to poor management and storage of the wastes, leading to a vicious cycle of damage to the prospects of the industry, unjustified by relevant facts.

Humans are, as is remarkably obvious in any conversation about climate change, fundamentally non-rational actors. We shouldn't try to make policy pretending they are.
denglish
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
Replying to the one before that idiot Denglish.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect. Thank you for making it clear.

so why not address it with actual science?

Because it is not my specialty. I will rely on the experts; from both sides. Until they both agree: I will resent being taxed. I will resent being told that the success my forefathers brought to my society is evil. I will resent being told that I need to follow the example set by third-world and corruption > infrastructure nations.

repeating a politically and conspiratorial motivated LIE is not going to suddenly make it come true


You're right. Here's my money, here's my energy, here's my economy, and here's my children's future. Perhaps they will like the taste of insects more than I.

AGW is still far from settled, and the science is not even remotely close enough to accuracy to justify taxing citizens and destroying successful economies

shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
I will rely on the experts; from both sides.

What other side? How many need to agree before you "believe"? If I pay you $100k would you publicly change your beliefs and advocate for the other side? $1M? $100M? If I have a vested interest in making sure my existing technology and the wealth it's already generated continues to generate wealth in the future, mightn't it be a prudent investment to pay some scientists to publicly disagree? I mean... since we require complete 100% agreement on the subject for it to be reality, right?

And what happens if AGW DOES destroy successful economies? What happens if in your children's future, they have to make due with less than you have because you wanted to maintain your current standard of living? What if AGW does do what the more moderate proponents say it will, and dramatically reduce quality of life? Or is that all someone else's problem?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
"@MR
you are the one inferring that US gas/oil is not subsidized"

Capt. Just 1 hour ago you were claiming that US fossil energy prices were lower due to subsidies and I refuted that based on world oil prices. Now you are claiming that I am not correct. Would you please prove your assertion.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
"And what happens if AGW DOES destroy successful economies?" And what happens if a megaton meteorite does strike the earth? And what happens if we are invaded by space aliens? Yes quantum mechanics does prove that water can freeze at 100C but I am not about to ruin my life in order to insure against this possibility.

shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
The problem with insurance is that it requires you to sacrifice short term for long term benefits. That's a problem humans just aren't good at doing. But when an overwhelming number of experts say a thing is going to happen, and the only people who say it isn't going to happen are paid by industries that would stand to lose from it... well I think I'd rather err on the side of the experts' opinions. Experts from around the world in different cultures and economies, different backgrounds and motivations... all coming to the same conclusion.

Humans are causing the Earth to be warmer than it would have been without human activity. That additional warmth will cause local climates to shift. The rate at which the climates are changing is faster than the historical patterns that allowed for slower evolutionary/adaptive processes to occur. It may not be that every location is negatively impacted, but the net cost/benefit is probably greater cost than benefit.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
"But when an overwhelming number of experts say a thing is going to happen,"

Ah, the 97%!
Good for you this shows a lot of independent thinking!
shavera
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
>>Not 100% of scientists agree
AGW isn't happening

>>Scientists overwhelmingly agree
Must be a conspiracy to prevent outside thinkers from voicing opinions.

What _would_ it take to convince a denier?
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2015
What _would_ it take to convince a denier?


1. That the earth does not experience climate change as a result of being a living thing.

2. That predictions driving awful policy decisions are actually reputable, or result in proof via observation:
http://www.euanme...2013.png

3. That there is no reason to believe intellectual dishonesty is being employed:
http://wattsupwit...-go-bad/

4. That when countries start to figure out what is happening and refuse to particiapte, they aren't shunned (a very basic argument tactic):
http://wattsupwit...-policy/

5. That the AGW crowd agree to meet the Scientific community head-to-head in order to settle this once and for all.

6. That policy decisions and resulting profits look more to the center than left or right.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2015
shavera
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
Denglish, point by point

1. Why would you even believe that is not possible. There's no a priori law that says a living thing can't drive climate on the planet. Fossil fuels are carbon of millions of years of plants that were sequestered in rocks, released all at once into the atmosphere (in geologic terms).

2. The measurements in that graph are known to be inconsistent with other measurements. It's cherry picked data. Only select the data that supports your arguments. Even still, both sets of data show clear warming trends within the overall margins of error of the models

3. What proof could ever exist that there is absolutely zero "intellectual dishonesty"?

4. This is a politics issue. It doesn't actually say one way or another what's happening.

5. Wut? The scientific community has met many many many times "to settle this once and for all" It's called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They've published many times.

(cont.)
shavera
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
6. Shouldn't the policy reflect the best policy to improve the situation? Personally, I think environmental regulation is fundamentally *about* private property and ownership. If I own some property, it shouldn't be damaged by how you choose to produce your energy. The only way I can protect my property from the damage you wish to cause it through negligent energy production is to limit how you produce energy. Whose private property rights are most important? How you produce energy? Or the damages caused by that energy production to my property? How do we scale this beyond individuals to broad society (since no individual is producing their own power)?
denglish
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2015
Good response shavera. In formulating the response, you see how politically charged it is.

We all want a clean earth.

As long as we can't agree on the facts, then the Left Elite should not be profiting from the Earth experiencing climate change.
denglish
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2015
How about this?
https://www.faceb...;theater

Move On .org.

Wasn't that started by (or who's poster child was) that lady that shat on her son's military duty after he died performing it?

A red blooded American will never see them as legit.

Some scientists believe the earth is only 7,000 years old. Until they all agree - I will not have an opinion. Really???

If one side is wrecking the other's well-being as a result, then yes, I think you ought to have an opinion on it. If huge profits aren't being made, and economies aren't being destroyed, then its probably a non issue.

Ah, politics in what is supposed to be settled science! Who knew! Ok...here's my money...take my job too (thanks for the food stamps)!
george23
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
The public health costs do not include the cost of global warming to society; they denote only the health costs due to soot, etc.

So disagreeing with anthropogenic global warming doesn't really undermine the plan; it is primarily viable because the operating costs of renewables are better than the alternatives.
denglish
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2015
So Shavera's response is politically charged - but yours is not? Really????

Nope, never said that. Of course mine is politically charged; this is a political issue.

Disagreeing with AGW doesn't have any chance of undermining the plan; the ship has sailed. We do have a chance though...more countries may open their eyes like Australia has done lately, and the force of weight may shift. A conservative president in the USA will help loads. I am hopeful.

Operating costs of renewables are better than alternatives, but I challenge anyone to show a central or even networked renewable power plant(s) capable of sustaining cities.

There is hope...Elon Musk is talking about rolling out batteries for each house. This will be really neat, if viable.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
How about this?
https://www.faceb...;theater
Nature is on the top of CO2 polluters, then cover all wildlife's habitats with solar panels and wind blades to prevent plants and animals from emitting carbon dioxide.
"Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural.."
http://en.wikiped...mosphere
http://notrickszo...IOx.dpbs
dedereu
not rated yet Jun 10, 2015
It is simpler, and efficient to use sun heat lost in summer on all our roofs which can be stored underground simply and easily to heat freely our houses in winter, like it is working since 2007 at Drale Landing Solar Community and some other rare communities on earth :
http://www.dlsc.ca
This solar geothermy coupling solar concentrated heat with a geothermal natural store can suppress all CO2, all pollutions due to heating and cooling on earth, simply collecting sun heat sotred from summer to winter !!!
The same can be made using concentrated heat at 300°C stored underground from summer to winter to make electricity by a method of solar geothermy coupling solar concentrated heat with a geothermal natural store, whch gives free perpetual electricity with no CO2, no pollution, no risk.
All the necessary energy can be obtained freely with this simple method from the sun on our roofs !!
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
"@Mr
why not?
US oil is still heavily subsidized ... you should see the prices elsewhere

http://worldnews....mad?lite"

So oil is heavily subsidized eh Capt.? Is it still "subsidized" when you consider there are about 50 cents in taxes on each gallon of gas sold?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
Also, Oil companies as a group are one of the biggest private employers in the nation and one of the highest taxpayers. If you want to talk about subsidized companies talk about Apple, talk about GE and most of all talk about the BANKS!!!!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2015
denglish
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
There are plenty of examples - available on google. Here is just a couple

http://www.triple...-energy/

My experience with this kind of exchange - is that the other person immediately turns around and says - 'well that does not count because.....'


Yep. 42,000 is not a city.

Also...wood chips? Not renewable at the pace needed...even if it could affect a city; not to mention...wouldn't that be devastating to our forests? Human DE-forestation is clearly possible, so no.

The other link had one of those pop-ups that you can't get past without doing what they want...revealing...but, no.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
denglish
Nope, never said that. Of course mine is politically charged


Then why accuse others of formulating politically charged responses? Seems to me that you and MR166 consistently politicize this issue - and then accuse others of doing exactly that.

Good response shavera. In formulating the response, you see how politically charged it is

"It" was a pro-noun for the topic.

Didn't you say you were a trained communicator? C'mon man... or is it one of those internet deals that Stumpy does?

For the last time; it is impossible to not politicize a political issue.
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
It is simpler, and efficient to use sun heat lost in summer on all our roofs which can be stored underground simply and easily to heat freely our houses in winter,

Yes.

The problem is, the citizenry is independent. Big government does not get as rich as they can, the dependent class is not grown, and the New World Government does not break down successful economies to the level of insect eaters.

I'm hopeful that it will gain traction, but I'm afraid it will be quashed by those whose agendas are not met by it.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2015
Conservatives:

Government is not a business.

Selfishness and greed are not virtues.

You are not independent.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
http://thinkprogr...ewables/

Nice article. Thanks.

I like these parts:
This reliance on renewables has prompted the country to lower electricity rates by 12 percent. ICE predicts that rates will continue to drop for Costa Rican customers in the second quarter of the year.

and
Part of the reason why Costa Rica can devote so much funding to environmental issues is that the country abolished its military in 1948, allowing it to divert funds that would have gone towards defense needs to the environment, healthcare, and education.


What a novel idea: Education and environment instead of bombs and guns. And putting money into the wallets of people at the same time.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
I think we can discuss the science - separate from the politics.

We can't; because we don't agree on facts.

That is why clarification is highly encouraged.

You're right. I should have been more clear. I wrote that response poorly.

So you don't have a Master's in Community Counseling?

Well - you proved my point about immediately responding with a reason why 'that' example does not count.


If you expect it all the time, you may be doing something wrong.

If I showed you a country of almost 5 million people who are running 100 percent renewable - http://thinkprogr...ewables/ - you would still do the same thing.


Why should I? Good for Costa Rica! Heavy rainfall (something the western US shouldn't count on) seems to have helped them. Also, Costa Rica is not a first world nation.

So yes, we could roll the US back the 1930s.

How about this: I challenge you to show a system of "re-newable" energy capable of supplying California's needs.
denglish
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
Part of the reason why Costa Rica can devote so much funding to environmental issues is that the country abolished its military in 1948, allowing it to divert funds that would have gone towards defense needs to the environment, healthcare, and education.

What a novel idea: Education and environment instead of bombs and guns. And putting money into the wallets of people at the same time.

Its easy to abolish your military when you have no standing in the world.

Suggesting that a 1st rate world power can abolish its military without running the great risk of evil filling the void is not naive...it is stupid.

The idealism sure feels good in our brain. Abolish the Imperialists! Facts regarding who educates, protects, and helps the most people (the United States) are forgotten as we call for a geo-political world that we would be the first targets of.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2015
"How about this: I challenge you to show a system of "re-newable" energy capable of supplying California's needs."
-------------------------------------

How about this: I challenge you to show us how to use Filthy Fuels to power California without pollution and the need for buying the fuel.
denglish
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
"How about this: I challenge you to show a system of "re-newable" energy capable of supplying California's needs."
-------------------------------------

How about this: I challenge you to show us how to use Filthy Fuels to power California without pollution and the need for buying the fuel.

Huh?

What is a filthy fuel? Is this a pejorative (and hence un-thought out) term for fossil fuels or nuclear energy? Or is "filthy fuel" a term for the only (presently) known means of powering 1st world nations?

Perhaps filthy fuel is a by-product of eating insects:

http://spectator....-warming

Why should the people who find, gather and supply fuel not be paid by the consumers?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2015
"Why should the people who find, gather and supply fuel not be paid by the consumers?"
---------------------------------------

What a silly question. Why not build systems which do not need fuel? Those same folk who destroy stuff for fuel can now maintain those systems in safety.
denglish
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2015
Why not build systems which do not need fuel?


There is no such thing.

Fuel: Fuels are any materials that store potential energy in forms that can be practicably released and used for work or as heat energy.

Already told you that.

Stop telling people stuff. Your stories are getting crossed. Pro tip: Big Boys don't brag. They don't need to.

Move the goal posts when you are shown to be wrong.

Not wrong in the context of my point. You should get your money back on your comms education. I found it for you:

denglish:
Operating costs of renewables are better than alternatives, but I challenge anyone to show a central or even networked renewable power plant(s) capable of sustaining cities.


Not towns, not third world nations, not insect eaters. First World cities that, not ironically, will be the pioneers of re-newables. Why? Because they have an infrastructure. One that needs to be powered by the best that we have at the moment.
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
No they are not.

I'm not going to waste any more characters on your apparent need to gain internet credibility by creating a real-life persona.

Burlington is the largest city in Vermont.

If you think 42,000 is a city, you have not done much traveling.

I find it ironic that you consider using wood to power cities worthy of example...given your concern for the Earth.

Yes. When I said city, I meant a third world, low population, small infrastructure, with a negligible industry. You know, the ones that sustain a national or world economy, and are under the most violent AGW attacks. /sarcasm

I disagree - I think that reasonable people

Stopped there. Politicizing in the first sentence is not a good way to start an argument stating that material positions of a belief are not political.

I see that there is a great deal of agreement on the facts of the climate - within the science community.

You refuse to consider contrary positions.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
Its easy to abolish your military when you have no standing in the world.

The US could abolish its army tomorrow and no one would care. No. One.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2015
denglish is starting to confuse who said what, conflating my comments with those of green.
He is some character with an opinion. Its base is unknown.

Mine is based on education and experience, and contradicts his.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
The US could abolish its army tomorrow and no one would care. No. One.

Believing that makes you a sheep. You don't know it now, but you will: you are very thankful that sheepdogs exist.

That does not change the reality that there is a high degree of agreement on the science of the climate - within the science community.

Creating intellectually dishonest qualifiers is the root of the political attack. There are plenty of scientists that are showing that there is not enough evidence of AGW to create the chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating.

Please show where I did that.


I think that reasonable people...


I think it is the idealogues...


look at the recent evolution thread

Science and faith are mutually exclusive.

Watt's Up With That being referenced is only the website. What is being presented is the other side's scientific findings. A bit of the AGW dogma revealed, and AGW lunatic argument is thrown in for good reason.

denglish
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
denglish is starting to confuse who said what, conflating my comments with those of green.
He is some character with an opinion. Its base is unknown.

You need to read closer. I am combining the same apples in the same baskets. Or do you need specific posts in order to tell the difference between what you say and what others say? Let me know; I'll indulge your need.

Now...tell us more about energy systems that don't need fuel.

Mine is based on education and experience, and contradicts his

What is it with the AGW crowd needing to create credibility through the creation of a real-life persona? Don't you guys get how transparent that mind-set is?

gkam
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2015
We are showing you we have already been through all your arguments, and have disproven them. What is the basis for your "opinion"? I gave mine.

Energy systems which to not need fuel include PV and wind, as long as you do not re-define "fuel". No commodities are required for these sources, the energy is harvested from natural cycles.

With PV and wind, and perhaps tidal or wave energy harvesting, there is no need for fuel, and no pollution.

You are just arguing.
denglish
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
What is the basis for your "opinion"? I gave mine.

What are you talking about? Are you reading the posts?

Energy systems which to not need fuel include PV and wind, as long as you do not re-define "fuel". No commodities are required for these sources, the energy is harvested from natural cycles.

With PV and wind, and perhaps tidal or wave energy harvesting, there is no need for fuel, and no pollution.

You are on the verge of word salad, but I think I know what you're trying to say.

So... no-one needs to gather these materials, and no-one needs to convert it to usable energy, right? Wrong? Oh ok, and so no-one should pay those people for the collection and conversion?

I'll remind you of what you said:

...and the need for buying the fuel


Regardless, none of what you mentioned can sustain a significant economy.

You are just arguing.

Who isn't.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2015
"Regardless, none of what you mentioned can sustain a significant economy."
---------------------------------------

It is happening even faster than I imagined decades ago when with the power company.

Stand on the sidelines with the rest of the doubters and watch it.
denglish
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
"Regardless, none of what you mentioned can sustain a significant economy."
---------------------------------------

It is happening even faster than I imagined decades ago when with the power company.

Stand on the sidelines with the rest of the doubters and watch it.

Nope, not political...not an ounce of emotion in any of this.

Of course progress towards better energy solutions is being made. Only a fool would not want it to succeed.

There is not enough evidence of AGW to create the chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
With PV and wind ... no pollution.
lithium
radioactive rare-earth metals
trichlorosilane
silicon tetrachloride
hydrogen fluoride
sulfuric acid
sodium hydroxide
phosphine gas
arsine gas and other arsenic chemicals
lead
http://www.solari...mer.html
http://articles.c...e-earths

"Mining, refining, and recycling of rare earths have serious environmental consequences if not properly managed. A particular hazard is mildly radioactive slurry tailings resulting from the common occurrence of thorium and uranium in rare earth element ores. Additionally, toxic acids are required during the refining process."
http://en.wikiped...erations

Mine is based on education and experience, and contradicts his.
pathological fibber.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
I think phys.org just owned every one of the AGW settled science folks:

The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate


http://phys.org/n...ate.html

The article couldn't possibly have done it on purpose, because it then turns to the predictions of yet...another...study.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2015
Because it is not my specialty
@deng
if you know enough physics to read astrophysics and go from point a to b logically and aren't conned by things like the eu, etc, then you know enough of physics to comprehend the same in climate science
so that is no excuse
I will rely on the experts; from both sides
so... 97% of the experts show evidence that refutes the 3% who claim AGW isn't real
but you cling to the 3%??? even when proven corrupt ?? (although you argue against corruption)

how is that relying upon the experts?

plus, your arguments are NOT from the experts, but from the politics and conspiracy!

you just debunked yourself!
I will resent being taxed
so do i, and most other people
You're right
no, the science is
AGW is still far from settled
and again, repeating a LIE doesn't make it any more true unless you are trying to brainwash or self hypnosis

See shavera's post too
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2015
I had to undo the ignore function to see what Willie was posting.


A child closes their eyes thinking all the bad things in the world dissapear - the adult opens their eyes, looks at the world, and sees that they do.

Yeah gkam is a coward isnt he? Most afraid of facts which prove him wrong and willfully ignorant.

But then george is too much of a egomaniac not to read everything thats posted about him. He only pretends to ignore the posts which make him look like an idiot.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2015
@Mr
i really wish you would learn to read before trolling

you said
I don't want to hear about fossil fuel subsidies
TCS said
US oil is still heavily subsidized ... you should see the prices
you:
Lack of high government taxes equals a subsidy in your convoluted world
TCS:
so you are saying our oil/gas is NOT subsidized ...energy pre- and post- tax subsidies are up globally and that specifically includes oil
you:
Capt. please don't make me equate ...
TCS:
you are the one inferring ...not subsidized
so then you post
Capt. Just 1 hour ago you were claiming that US fossil energy prices were lower due to subsidies and I refuted that based on world oil prices. Now you are claiming that I am not correct. Would you please prove your assertion
so
*I* brought up the WORLD price issue, not you - and never once do i say you are not correct about world subsidies
i only said US pays less per gallon than EU and most countries

PROOF ENOUGH?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2015
Its easy to abolish your military when you have no standing in the world.

The US could abolish its army tomorrow and no one would care. No. One.
Well maybe not for the first few weeks. But when iran gets nukes and israel attacks them, and a nuclear exchange results, and a nuclear-armed caliphate emerges from the rubble which then sets its sights on europe as the saracens and the mongols had done not so very long ago, you guys will be lamenting the demise of the only power great enough to ensure victory.

And you will be lamenting the fact, as a mushroom cloud signals the presence of yet another firestorm in dresden, that there was no one who had the foresight and the resolve to destroy this enemy before it could leave its homeland.

But resolve and foresight are left at the gates of eurodisney because theyre not very much fun are they?

One should not be having to work while on eternal vacation.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
I think phys.org just owned every one of the AGW settled science folks:
@d
nope: try reading for content next time... or finishing off the sentence even

first of all: there is a great deal we already KNOW that is not under debate...
these are the things which YOU are continuing to debate as though it were not demonstrated or validated

TWO- the consequences ARE under debate - and not ONE person with scientific literacy has ever said otherwise
some of THAT is even being observed, though, as the models which have been used are being validated now with observation/measurement (regardless of what you want to cry about)

THREE- that article is an ARTICLE... not a study
and until the DOI link is fixed, we can't state that the article is valid in it's assumption written

Learn some science
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2015
What is being presented is the other side's scientific findings
@d
no, it isn't
if the other side had a valid scientific argument, there would be a study and reputable journal link in your argument, NOT a link to WUWT
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
I think we can discuss the science - separate from the politics

We can't; because we don't agree on facts
@deng
for once, you are absolutely correct

for starters, facts should be able to be validated, & should be repeatable

A "fact" should be provable through various means other than the original source and verifiable through evidence
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)

https://en.wikipe...iki/Fact

HOWEVER
your posts usually produce what is referred to as "unsubstantiated conjecture", or "opinion"

Those things are highly subjective and validation is not possible. you might as well just state that it is IMHO or a feeling

The only person this is a fact to is someone who doesn't require evidence for proof, or someone with such a strong political, religious or delusional background that simply repeating the statement solidifies it as fact in their head.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015
So oil is heavily subsidized eh Capt.?
@mr
still ignoring the facts?
Yes, US oil is still heavily subsidized - and taxes on it are typically for road construction, etc (including some LOCAL taxes, btw)
ignoring facts now?
trying to be like deng?

42,000 is not a city
@d
depends on where you are
although i've been in some whoppers, the term is still loosely defined:
A city is a large and permanent human settlement. Although there is no agreement on how a city is distinguished from a town in general English language meanings, many cities have a particular administrative, legal, or historical status based on local law.

https://en.wikipe...iki/City

the legal definition is more like: An incorporated municipality in the United States with definite boundaries and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the state

to some rural folk, 42,000 IS a city... and if it is incorporated, then legally it IS a city
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
"@mr
still ignoring the facts?
Yes, US oil is still heavily subsidized - and taxes on it are typically for road construction, etc (including some LOCAL taxes, btw)
ignoring facts now?
trying to be like deng?"

I see Capt. OH WHAT AN IDIOT I AM!!!! Here I always thought that roads were a necessary part of a functioning society. But you have enlightened me, roads are only necessary in order to sell gasoline and thus the oil companies should pay for them. After all that is only fair!!!
gkam
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2015
166, your silly semantic games are neither funny or logical, . . nor appreciated.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2015
I see Capt. OH WHAT AN IDIOT I AM!!!!
@MR
acknowledgement that you have a problem is the first step - now that you are out of the denial stage, you can improve!

Good for you

the rest of that:
tl;dr
trolling and baiting anyway
OdinsAcolyte
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2015
Solving a problem that does not exist.
Impressive.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2015
Many of us started working on these issues decades ago, with alternative energy projects and studies. Warning the rest of America was not easy, since we only had a small voice against the Big Business megaphone, screaming into a Megawatt-powered loudspeaker.

Some here, usually those not in the business of dealing with this issue have different and erroneous concepts of our plight, having been propagandized by Big Oil. Many take their stand for political reasons, hating the actual professionals in this field who tell them what they do not want to hear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2015
Many of us started working on these issues decades ago, with alternative energy projects and studies. Warning the rest of America was not easy, since we only had a small voice against the Big Business megaphone
Yes, especially small as you were at the most a temp who lost a dozen jobs or so over the course of what must have been a pretty sad career.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2015
With these plans, drawn up by professionals, the critics have less and less about which to complain. Interestingly, they do not have many of the technologies included here which will also be used, the energy harvesting, some of the undeveloped sources, the new integrations for synergy.

For example, the million dairy cattle in the San Joaquin Valley can make dairies producers of power and energy, and run it on pollution which is now contaminating the air and water.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2015
With these plans, drawn up by professionals, the critics have less and less about which to complain. Interestingly, they do not have many of the technologies included here which will also be used, the energy harvesting, some of the undeveloped sources, the new integrations for synergy.

For example, the million dairy cattle in the San Joaquin Valley can make dairies producers of power and energy, and run it on pollution which is now contaminating the air and water.
-And do you believe this will have as significant an impact as their dried manure (which you mistakenly insist is called volatile solids) which is a MAJOR polluter of the 'high atmosphere' of the central valley?

Because, of course. its not.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
OdinsAcolyte FAILs as the paid flunky is IGNORANT of Physics claims
Solving a problem that does not exist.
Impressive.
Idiot, paid plebe, selling his integrity is ignorant of:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

and
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Why oh why is it the anti-AGW propagandist show them selves up as immensely uneducated ALL the time, were they the same robots who claimed smoking was safe

Read up on radiation from coal OdinsAcolyte - the Dill !

Coal
http://en.wikiped...on#Other

10,000 deaths per year from coal
http://en.wikiped...mination

http://en.wikiped...niferous

4th paragraph re radiation
http://en.wikiped...out#Coal

...
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2015
Here is a test for Willie: We have about 1,000,000 dairy cattle in the Valley. Each set of seven cows produce sufficient manure to power the dairy needs plus the energy requirements of an entire household.

If each household has 3.2 people in it, how many folk can get their clean power from this source, which eliminates pollution at the same time?
WillieWard
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2015
.. cattle in the Valley. Each set of seven cows produce sufficient manure to power the dairy needs plus the energy requirements .. can get their clean power from this source, which eliminates pollution at the same time
By classifying something as clean or dirty is, in most of the times, a mere psychological prejudgment.
Is manure clean or dirty? Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, etc.
Biofuel from biomass is clean. Isn't it just because biofuel is clear as water while "fossilized biofuel" (oil and coal) is black/dark?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2015
I can't see Willie's post. Did he get the number right?
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
So it comes from reducing the people themselves.


Not happening. The U.S. population is one of the fastest growing, even though the birth rate keeps dropping, because of both legal and illegal immigration. The population is set for a nearly 40% increase by 2050.

People in the U.S. can afford to pay tax. If you can buy $300 football tickets, you can pay more tax. If you are in the 200k club or higher, you can pay a hell of a lot more tax.

Government controlled infrastructure is inherently cheaper than corporate energy infrastructure, because government employees and appointees don't make $13 million per year the way corporate CEO does, they make about 100k per year. So you can staff scores of government energy companies for the price of one corporate CEO vampire-parasite. Coporate CEO makes a 100 times more money per year than a US senator. That has got to stop, and those wasted monies need to be recaptured and invested in public infrastructure.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
Better a moral communist than a hedonistic capitalist.
Timray
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
never happen, Global Smarming ranks at bottom of electorate's concern so electing politicians is not a reality....we can see worldwide a the engineers join the liberal mind set and never take into return to coal by China, Japan, Australia, Africa and India....you can tell China is very concerned about sea levels rising as they build islands....lol...the UN has no valid authority on the issue as their report fail as do Al Gores prediction and besides engineers, some, fail to take in costs to the poor, the high taxes that will follow....President Obama has been a miserable failure with his Carbo Campaign..overall....will never happen....and besides....government is a miserable failure and the Crony Capitalism of renewable energy proves it
Timray
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
try this one....everyone cannot afford $300 tickets to a ball game, the vast majority for example....
http://www.forbes...ysteria/

Global Warming is hardly settled science
http://www.global.../5403284

this may be news to some engineers who are really more liberal mouth pieces
http://blogs.natu...ada.html
gkam
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
Timmy, I went to your locations and found this:
"In 2009, the IEA published a road map calling for 100 large CCS projects by 2020, but in July 2013, with projects failing to materialize, it downgraded that to just 30. And even that is ambitious.

Still, one has to start somewhere. Around a dozen projects are already storing carbon dioxide at the million-tonne scale, mostly extracted from natural-gas processing plants, and the Saskatchewan ribbon-cutting today marks the first time that a commercial, grid-connected coal plant has adopted the technology. A newly built advanced coal plant in Kemper County, Mississippi, designed to store 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, was to open this year but has been delayed to 2015."

Wiki says:
Several major publications have noted what they deem poor economics of the project, among them The Economist,[31] The Financial Times,[32] The MIT Technology Review,[33] and The New York Times.[34]
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2015


"Once operational, the Kemper Project will be a first-of-its-kind electricity plant to employ gasification and carbon capture technologies at this scale.[2]

The station is scheduled to open in the first half of 2016, more than two years behind schedule, at a cost of $6.1 billion, making Kemper one of the most expensive power plants per kilowatt in the United States.[3][4]"

----------------------------------------------

$6,100,000,000, . . for a little 582-Megawatt generation plant??

And the CO2 they "save" is going to flush out more oil, to make more emissions.

But it is okay, because somebody is making money.

The facility at Saskatchewan will raise the power bills by 15% according to some and up to 80% according to others..

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.