Renewables key in race against climate change clock

Camels walk on the road near the Ashegoda wind farm in Ethiopia's northern Tigray region
Camels walk on the road near the Ashegoda wind farm in Ethiopia's northern Tigray region

Any plausible game plan for capping the rise of Earth's surface temperature depends on replacing fossil fuels with energy sources that generate little or no carbon pollution.

That means renewables, especially solar and wind, both of which face fewer constraints to growth than more established : a river can be dammed only so many times, and nuclear remains expensive and controversial.

But humanity has dithered for so long in the fight against global warming, experts say, that the window of opportunity for decarbonising the global economy fast enough to avoid devastating climate change is barely ajar.

"The cost and difficulty of mitigating greenhouse gases increases every year, time is of the essence," Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said in a special IEA report on and released earlier this year.

The world's nations -– gathering in Paris in a month to ink the first-ever universal climate pact—have set a target of limiting to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

Cross that red line, scientists say, and there will, almost literally, be hell to pay.

Science also tells us that, if we are to respect the 2 C limit, future greenhouse gas emissions cannot exceed a total "budget" of about 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Carbon-cutting pledges from nearly 150 nations, unveiled on Friday, put us on track for a 3 C world.

This is a vast improvement on doing nothing. But even this unprecedented effort would use up three quarters of that carbon budget by 2030, leaving very little margin for closing the remaining gap.

That's where the transition from to renewables comes in.

"The economics have been shifting on both sides of the equation," said Alden Meyer, a veteran climate specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. "The least-cost global strategy is to rapidly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and switch into the clean-energy economy."

Scaling up quickly

US President Barack Obama speaks with Commander Col Ronald Jolly as he tours a solar array at Hill Air Force Base in Utah
US President Barack Obama speaks with Commander Col Ronald Jolly as he tours a solar array at Hill Air Force Base in Utah

Energy production accounts for two-thirds of global , and thus transformation of this sector is crucial, he and other experts said.

"Decarbonising energy is probably the quickest way to decarbonise the world," Adnan Amin, director general of the International Renewable Energies Agency, told AFP.

The question, however, is whether solar, wind and other clean energy options can scale up quickly enough.

According the UN climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), low-carbon energy must account for at least 80 percent of global electricity production by 2050 to have a better-than-even chance of staying under the 2 C threshold.

The good news is that renewables are expanding rapidly and attracting investment.

Nearly half of all new installed power generation capacity in 2014 was in renewables—37 percent wind, a third solar and a quarter hydro, according to the IEA.

Investment in the sector totalled more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in the same year, an 8.5 percent increase over 2013.

"Capital markets have already begun to shift away from dirty technology to clean technology," Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told journalists Friday in releasing an analysis of national emissions-reduction pledges.

Confounding predictions only a decade ago, the cost of solar and wind energy has plummeted.

Future greenhouse gas emissions cannot exceed a total "budget" of about 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, scienc
Future greenhouse gas emissions cannot exceed a total "budget" of about 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, science shows

"Generating electricity from renewables is cost competitive on the grid or beating most conventional sources" is some areas, said Amin.

Fossil fuels highly subsidised

In poor countries, this holds out the possibility of skipping past the fossil fuel stage of development, much in the way some regions went from no phones to cell phones.

"I think India" – where 300 million people are without electricity – "is realising that it may be easier and more cost effective for them to provide sustainable energy services to hundreds of millions of villagers through a decentralised renewable-based strategy," said Meyer. "They and other countries are poised to leapfrog the fossil fuel age."

India has invested massively in clean energy, and pledged to install 175 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2022.

The question is whether solar, wind and other clean energy options can scale up quickly enough to combat climate change
The question is whether solar, wind and other clean energy options can scale up quickly enough to combat climate change

But renewables only account for about 20 percent of global electricity generation, and three-quarters of that is hydro. Of total energy consumption -– overwhelmingly dominated by coal, oil and gas –- less than five percent comes from clean technology, excluding nuclear.

The transition towards a low-carbon economy is also hampered by fossil fuel subsidies totalling more than half-a-trillion dollars every year, four times the amount allocated for renewables.

India has invested massively in clean energy, and vows to install 175 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2022
India has invested massively in clean energy, and vows to install 175 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2022

Which is why, experts say, the Paris climate summit, which starts at the end of this month, is so crucial.

"COP21" -– the Paris climate summit -– "needs to give a global and long-term signal to the world economy that is relevant to investors," said Martin Kaiser, a climate analyst from Greenpeace.


Explore further

Fuel savings can pay for green energy shift

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Renewables key in race against climate change clock (2015, November 1) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-renewables-key-climate-clock.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
705 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 01, 2015
Talk about dithering. Where are the reports that the Rossi results have been replicated many times.
I suspect that the staff of phyorg put Rossi's results up as a spoof, something to giggle about. And it has blown up in their faces. And now we have a lot of self censoring going on. I'll bet that Cold Fusion is not a popular topic at the water fountain.
Of cause this obdurate attitude pervades the entire scientific community with a few shining exceptions.
Your precious egos are going to cost us the planet. It is no laughing matter.
http://www.lenr-f...-systems

Nov 01, 2015
Seriously, Rossi? Replicated in peer reviewed science journals? Don't be absurd.

Scammers do not get peer-reviewed in science journals. They don't even explain their designs or the principles behind those designs in science journals.

Re: the article, the IPCC 1000 gigaton CO2 emissions 'budget' is derived from models which do not properly consider feedback in the form of arctic methane and CO2 emissions from melting permafrost and methane clathrates. The models *can't* consider these extra sources of carbon release, since there just isn't enough data yet to feed into the models. This uncertainty poses risk that the effects of 1000 more gigatons of carbon emissions may be severely underestimated by the IPCC.

Feedback effects may end up being more significant than the human emissions which kickstarted them.

Dug
Nov 01, 2015
Even if renewable scale as projected, it won't be enough to offset the 66-75% unsustainable population we have and that is still growing. More problematic - we have no economic solution to be able to discontinue growth - even if we could (China's new Two Childolicy attests to that). Worse, as critical resource scarcity grows, the economics of neither fossil fuels or renewables allow for the cost increases of sourcing and processing those critical resources - especially for food production. One way or another we will end up back at sustainable populations levels - if we have a population at all.

Nov 01, 2015
From the article
But renewables only account for about 20 percent of global electricity generation, and three-quarters of that is hydro.

Amazing. It's impressive that renewables have made it to 20% given all of the push back from the AGW deniers! Look at what the rightwing nuts of the Congressional Science, Space and Technology Committee are trying to do to NOAA.gov. I never though I would live through another Salem witch hunt, but here is the congress of the USA doing it, to NOAA!

So, it's up to us to by the Chevy Volts, the Prius's, Tesla's, Leaf's and install solar panels everywhere to make up for what this Rightwing fights against. The Rightwing fights against your energy independence.


Nov 01, 2015
Egleton says
Talk about dithering. Where are the reports that the Rossi results have been replicated many times
Oh..kay...

Any, at least one with a proper definitive calorimetric experimental procedure - please ?

Having seen so called proof test setup on Rossi's video of glowing module & only vague interpretation of power flow via unclear temp. measurements, one wonders why in the hell they (Rossi etc) just cannot or do they refuse (?) to implement a straightforward properly definitive thermally managed procedure ?

Why, its not hard, not expensive, its 2nd year uni Physics, why NOT done ?

Egleton claims
And now we have a lot of self censoring going on
Really ?

Rossi failed to implement PROPER scientific procedures AND more, uni reports are clearly subject to simplified 'direction' by Rossi et al.

Please note: The uni's reports don't advise best technique for definitive outcome, they are in difficult position obviously ie paid to appear as simpletons :-(

Nov 02, 2015
We're ALL GONNA DIE !!!

Nov 02, 2015
We're ALL GONNA DIE !!!

Yeah, but it's how you go out that makes the difference. Do you want the Rightwing to dictate to you, that you can't have solar panels supplying the grid with homemade solar energy?! Do you want the rightwing to roadblock actions that can end our dependence on fossil fuels. Let the energy tech enovate! We have stop the combustion of fossil fuels to not become a victim of our own folly and burn up into a nice crunchy crisp.

Nov 02, 2015
We're ALL GONNA DIE !!!
i plan on living forever...
so far, so good!

Nov 02, 2015
This is just crap. We are NEVER going to be able to make ANY of these goals with present or near term supposedly "green" energies. The studies on these "green" energies are not so wonderful as they are made out to be. The energy density of wind and solar is just too low and the technology is too inefficient and unreliable. It comes down to simple physics which way too many climate scientists, Greenpeace activists, and all-around "I'll believe anything people" either failed or didn't take in college. The answer lies in nuclear power. Thorium reactors and nuclear fusion. It is the only source with a high enough density to make a real impact. These "green energies" can be used in limited, special circumstances but until there is a real answer to the storage problem they are useless on the mass scale.

Nov 02, 2015
This is just crap.
Thorium reactors
etc. Nope. 1366 W/m2 of solar energy falls on each square meter of Earth. The largest source of energy is the Sun. Name a thorium reactor that even comes close. Nuclear is just a CO2 clean localized stop gap to the ultimate energy source, SOLAR!

Nov 02, 2015
phprof claims
This is just crap
Your crap is immensely ignorant !

Eg Record solar in Australia, even to the point coal fired plant shut down, others reduced capacity

phprof claims
We are NEVER going to be able to make ANY of these goals with present or near term supposedly "green" energies
Prove it !

OR offer ANY rationale as to why it 'might' be the case ?

Heard of solar cells, they're on many homes in Europe, Australia & also USA

Heard of http://www.solarcity.com ?

Heard of "Tesla Powerwall" ?

Heard of Australian equivalent http://redflow.com ?

phprof claims
The studies on these "green" energies are not so wonderful..
Prove it !

phprof claims
The energy density of wind and solar is just too low and the technology is too inefficient and unreliable
Dimwit, its comparative cost when all factors are taken into account

phprof, tell us about 'simple physics' showing fossil fuels & nuclear pump out radiation, yes phprof fossil fuels too !

Nov 02, 2015
There is an alternative. If we dont prevent global warming we just have to accept that we will have a smaller population. This can be planned or it will be by famine , war , flooding and disease.

Nov 02, 2015
I would like to remind everyone that the scientific method is a child of the Enlightenment.

The enlightened person says "I know nothing of the subject. Let me find out. "

The unenlightened dogmatic fool knows the answer to every issue and his views are so ossified that he only seeks out confirmation.

It is against this yardstick that you should measure the comments against cold fusion.

Nov 02, 2015
Egleton said
I would like to remind everyone that the scientific method is a child of the Enlightenment
So, tell us of that peculiar child -> parent relationship ?

Egleton claims
The enlightened person says "I know nothing of the subject. Let me find out. "
No, often the curious with integrity who states it

The educated who is free of emotional attachment & has actually gone to the trouble to learn essentials of Physics & Maths AND learned value of the "Scientific Method" notices the human condition; claim & counter claims, then puts his detective hat on & finds: The details, The deceit, the propaganda so instead focuses on method - where is it Egleton ?

Egleton mutters
The unenlightened dogmatic fool knows the answer to every issue and his views are so ossified that he only seeks out confirmation. It is against this yardstick that you should measure the comments against cold fusion
Waffle !

Where is the definitive experimental method Egleton ?

Nov 02, 2015
This is a totally non issue, the whole issue of climate change!

The reasoning is not even whether climate change is real! OF COURSE we are heavily affecting the climate right now! That much is only a debate because of the crooked scientists every corporation that benefits from oil and coal and natural gas pay to make a debate to stall time for more profits until the inevitable end.

The next layer of non-issue comes from the fact that the entire oil and energy crisis is totally manufactured. We already have the technology and capability to pretty much immediately replace all coal with clean and sustainable energy from either or a combination of solar, wind, water or geothermal power and there is also absolutely no reason to ever buy a petrol car ever again with the advent of superior electric vehicles already on the market from Tesla and purposely held back from all others again to strangle the last bit of profit.

All nations and industry already know that oil is dead...

Nov 02, 2015
There is an alternative. If we dont prevent global warming we just have to accept that we will have a smaller population. This can be planned or it will be by famine , war , flooding and disease.

Not in the timeframe that is left. And notice all the problems that the one-child policy in China brought about (to the point where they have had to drop it. Now imagine if a country with less totalitarian regime would try a stunt like that. It wouldn't even get started)

Nov 02, 2015
... Not because it's running out, but because it is already obsolete. It's purely because of the capitalist system that technology is held back (no economic debate intended but this is just a pure fact about monetarism).

Then brings the third layer of confusion an non-issue... Even if we immediately tomorrow went totally clean and completely eliminated all fossil fuels and polluting energy sources at every level.. It would have hardly ANY noticable effect on our footprint!!

THIS fact is kept down by even GREENIE parties because they don't have easy answers to this one!! And it is our animal agriculture and meat industry which accounts for MOST of all our polluting energy from methane emissions from their bloody asses!

This is from plant agri too but that can easily be replaced by more efficient vertical farming. In vitro meat, an emergent technology will probably be the most important contribution, and the only one difficult to sell to the world!!

Nov 02, 2015
To the notion some people are posting that even if we stop right now it may be too late, that is preposterous!

Let's even extend that analogy to the agriculture I just wrote about, which is actually necessary because without it the entire fossil fuel bit is really negligible anyhow- then if we stop damaging the environment in this way relatively quickly from now there can be no doubt that the planet will be able to heal itself in similarly short order. The Earth has recovered from frigging massive impacts and supervolcanoes for christ sake and thrived!

All we would have done in an educated opinion really is slightly delayed the next glacial period most likely by what, a few hundred years maybe? A second in geological time!

Nov 02, 2015
there can be no doubt that the planet will be able to heal itself in similarly short order.

And you base this assertion on...what exactly?

Note that I'm not saying we're already doomed, but your argument seems to be missing all the cards on the bottom player.

The Earth has recovered from frigging massive impacts and supervolcanoes for christ sake and thrived!

But the critters on the planet haven't. And we are oneof those critters. What matters (to us) is that humanity survives - not that the planet survives in just any shape.

a few hundred years maybe?

You are aware of such things as runaway effects? The planet can only 'heal' itself from an effect if there is a counterforce acting. Much like in a nuclear reactor - once you get it started (and once you run out of moderator substance) that#s it. A wasteland remains and nature will have to start from scratch.

Nov 02, 2015
Howhot2, The 20% renewable figure includes hydro and biomass. Adjust for those 2 and solar and wind are a drop in the global electricity bucket.

The idea that one can effectively run civilization on power sources that cannot be controlled and are not well synchronized with demand is naive.

A simple example is Germany. German electricity production peaks in the winter when winds are weak and solar power non-existent. This is why Germany just opened the biggest coal power plant in Europe's history. It also explains why German per capita CO2 emissions are so much higher than countries relying heavily on nuclear power (France, Sweden, and Switzerland).

Nov 02, 2015
Let me add, Howhot2, solar power plants are averaging only 9% utilization in Southern Europe. The economics of solar power depend on utilization rates and I suspect the claims that solar power is competitive are using exaggerated utilization rates and above market pricing. As for the 9% figure, it comes from the annual report of Europe's second largest power producer, ENEL.


Nov 02, 2015
@anti-alias, I don't know who you are or your motivation for your post- it's tough to tell these days. But to entertain you, firstly sure the extinction events were fantastic but those "critters" did not have one ounce of our technology. Again, I would propose that our species and civilisation is now so resourceful and tenacious that should any such events happen again, we would find many ways to survive and even thrive.

AS to the Earth healing itself- if you actually compare the scale of the atmosphere to the crap we are doing, it's kind of like a room with a few puffs of smoke that needs to be cleared by merely opening a window.

Your looking for a paper proof with data I gather and that's beyond the scope of the comments section but rest assured it would be far easier to generate some real data in line with the Earth being able to quickly recover that it is the generate hoax data that the Earth will be in death throes for ages over what we have done as is currently done.

Nov 02, 2015
You asked me also about runaway effect, of course I am aware. But if you are implying we are close to tipping the scales to a future "Venus" effect or something then that is sensationalist rubbish straight out of Green PEace. Even to produce dreadful Hypercanes for example, the oceans would need to be raised FAR in advance (15 degrees on average celsius) of what could be extrapolated even if the current economic system allowed the fossil fuel and agriculture game to play right out until it was more profitable for the alternatives (which inevitably can only be another couple decades at most, and in the case of electric cars, only really a decade) without social intervention. The whole idea is junk science, trust me, it's a non-issue and I say that not because I do not care, I say that because these problems are ALREADY solved, they are just temporarily held back in the pursuit of last ditch profits, just like the cigarette companies achieved.

Nov 02, 2015
As I eluded to already, the most difficult hurdle is the refinement of the emergent technology of and convince the public to swallow in-vitro meat! As unrelated as that sounds at first, all other issues, clean, renewable energy and plant agriculture- are a matter now purely of politics and the economic system, NOT of technical science.

Nov 02, 2015
Greenonions, virtually all renewable power is subsidized. You claim it is competitive. The subsidies suggest otherwise. The European approach gives power generated by wind turbines or solar panels retail tariffs way above what other sources of energy get.

Show me the utilization rates assumed. I have not seen that put in print.

Second of all, it is disingenous to claim solar power is competitive when it can only power a tiny fraction of each year. An Italian solar panel only produces power 9% of each year. That is not a do-itself project. Those are large scale solar farms in Italy and Spain owned and designed by major energy producers.

Do you want access to electricity 9% of each year or 100% of each year.

Nov 02, 2015
By the way, the article you cite does not answer my question. What are the utilization rates assumed when analyst claim solar power, available only 9% of each year, is competitive with other forms of energy?

And I assure that no one relies exclusively or primarily on solar power. Not possible. Sun falls every evening. In the best scenario you will get 8 hours a day in summer and no one has come close to that. And in the winter, early spring and late autumn, you get virtually nothing.

Nov 02, 2015
But to entertain you, firstly sure the extinction events were fantastic but those "critters" did not have one ounce of our technology.

Sure. But when you get right down to it food is grown on land and fish are harvested from the sea - already at barely sutainable (some say unsustainable levels)...and that is WITH full application of technology. People are already forced to migrate in large numbers to avoid starvation because of lack of water. No amount of miracle technology is going to conjur up enough water when warming sets in. We're really talking orders of magnitude here that our current technology cannot compensate for (and I#m saying that as someone who loves tech).

if you actually compare the scale of the atmosphere to the crap we are doing, it's kind of like a room with a few puffs of smoke

If you look at the actual numbers (ppm rise of CO2 for example) it really isn't.

Nov 02, 2015
Your looking for a paper proof with data I gather and that's beyond the scope of the comments section but rest assured it would be far easier to generate some real data in line with the Earth being able to quickly recover that it is the generate hoax data that the Earth will be in death throes for ages over what we have done as is currently done.

Show your data. the data for climate change is all there.

In the end: can you afford to take the chance on your (non-existent) dataa vs. rigorous and decade (almost century) spanning climate science? It'd be foolish in the extreme. better safe than sorry when we're dealing with Earth. We haven't got a second one..

(Heck, even if warming were a hoax everybody'd still win big-time if we'd use the opportunity to switch over to renewables. Less wars for dwindling resources. Cleaner water/air. Cheap energy for even the poorest without monopolies. What's not to like?)

Nov 02, 2015
The one rational thing in this article... something needs to be done about petroleum subsidies. In an industry making healthy profits that just seems ridiculous. Even the playing field and let the free market dictate direction.

Nov 02, 2015
"The transition towards a low-carbon economy is also hampered by fossil fuel subsidies totalling more than half-a-trillion dollars every year, four times the amount allocated for renewables."
----------------------------------------

No to mention the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and their stooges they own in Congress.

And nuclear power is the actual creation of Big Brother.

Power to The People! Alternative power WE own.

Nov 02, 2015
- I did not claim that warming was a hoax- I am in the warming is REAL camp. My argument was that if we stopped right now the Earth could easily and quickly normalise itself. And further, even if we continued until fossil fuel profits dried up, we would still be able to mend rather easily. I'm going to try and source this issue because I feel these scare tactics are damaging and represent an enormous waste of scientific inquiry which could be redirected to more relevant issues- like maybe SOLVING problems insted of creating them.

- I have absolutely no problem with your last statement- I think it's utterly insane we are still using fossil fuels but it is easy to see why, such problems are built right into our current social system. The only way to really change it is a radical economic and social restructuring to value such things as "technical efficieny" rather than "market efficiency".

Nov 02, 2015
On your previous post, you are dead wrong on all counts. First of all the tehnology to feed ourselves and maintain adequate fresh water for all agricultural/industrial and personal uses absolutely exists already and enhancing rapidly, even for a situation involving an event which devastates conventional crops, poisons the water etc. A combination of desalination and purification plants, strategically dotted along the coasts of the world and rivers and lakes can provide many times the fresh water the planet needs. Likewise with food, I already alluded to the fact that traditional farming which you are thinking of is dead in light of vertical farming methods etc which could operate regardless of widespread environmental damage.

The most important folley you made is your claim that technology is being full employed. That's the main fallcy. IT is the structure of the money/market system itself which guarantees that technology is purposely held back from being applied.

Nov 02, 2015
Again, all these are political and economic problems, not technical ones. The "profit" motive guarantees that things will continue on their merry way. Take the Nissan Leaf for example and other major car companies which produce an electric car. Tesla a small startup produces a car by far better than any of the big ones with better performance than any gas car, yet the established richer companies do not. Why? Because it doesn't make sense for them to make a better electric car than their gas cars as that will cut their own throats and knock out all the sales of their gas cars. They maintain their little concept vehicle ready for the inevitable change but until they are forced to they will hold back such tech and milk profits from that which is already established. This behaviour is true for everything across the board.

Nov 02, 2015
No to mention the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and their stooges they own in Congress
All run by psychopaths no doubt. Time for you all to go.

Nov 03, 2015
This business about renewable sources being more expensive than the fossil fuel alternatives is already fading in an absolute sense right now as things are but again, the only reason there is a need to "subsidise" renewables to make them more competitive with fossils at this present time is because the technology is held back!

Right now, it is technically possible to totally replace all electrical power consumption in the world wwith renewables at not such a monumental cost that would pay for itself in less than a decade and then, free power!!

Any talk of renewables being more expensive than fossil energy in this day and age is handwavium when looked at seriously.

Nov 03, 2015
First of all the tehnology to feed ourselves and maintain adequate fresh water for all agricultural/industrial and personal uses absolutely exists already and enhancing rapidly,

Yes they exist, but we would need them now at orders of magnitude greater availability than we have them (not in 10 years). All these technologies don't come for free - neither in money nor in power (neither of which is availabel in the places that need them most).

E.g. look at stuff like desalination plants. Look at countries that have built them and then look at how little of the actual need for water they supply (and that is just drinking water. Irrigation uses a LOT more).

Tech is good, but we need to stay realistic as to the economy/feasibility of using it within the timelines allotted. We need to focus on the stuff that will give the most long-term effect with the least effort, first (which is a switchover from the fossil fuel economy to renewables).

Nov 04, 2015
"The more you feed the more they breed" malthus

Nov 04, 2015
Next, otto will be quoting Himmler.

Nov 04, 2015
Next, otto will be quoting Himmler.


Skippy, do you have any idea who otto-Skippy was quoting? And the context of the quote you? glam-Skippy, you are dumber than a cypress stump.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. Of the time you thought the Captain-Skippy told you something NAZI like too when all he told you was to think about what you read before making the comment on it. (He told you, "Do you understand it now?") If a stupid Cajun goober was smart enough to know what both of them were talking about, how stupid does that make you, eh?

Nov 05, 2015
Here is a good plan to decarbonize America.

That is the topic here, how to use renewables, not personal silliness.

http://www.utilit.../408669/

I invite the "cajun goober", as he calls himself, to comment on the graphs in the reference above.

Nov 05, 2015
I invite the "cajun goober", as he calls himself, to comment on the graphs in the reference above.


Well thank you for the invitation Cher. I was hoping to get an invitation so I could make my comments.

I am all for cleaning up the environments. Especially anything that cuts gas drilling. That is the one top of my list, then oil, then coal, and then nuclear. But it seems to me that we might need the nuclear stuffs so we can get away from the gas and the oil, so I will give them a pass until you can get enough windmills working to take care of that too.

Nov 05, 2015
That is the topic here, how to use renewables, not personal silliness.


Well golly gee Cher, why it is that you can say,,,

Next, otto will be quoting Himmler.


,,,,, and I can not answer your silly personal silliness with some of my own?

At least I understood that otto-Skippy's comment was exactly on the topic, and your comment was exactly off the topic. (And you wonder why nobody takes any of sloganeering seriously. Psst, it's because you claim different rules for others while you are breaking those same rules with every postum.)

Nov 05, 2015
Oh yeah, that reminds me. Of the time you thought the Captain-Skippy told you something NAZI like too
Goobers = Untermenschen

"The psychopath does not think that they have any psychological or emotional problems, and they see no reason to change their behavior to conform to standards with which they do not agree. They are well-satisfied with themselves and their inner landscape. They see nothing wrong with they way they think or act, and they never look back with regret or forward with concern. They perceive themselves as SUPERIOR BEINGS in a hostile world..."

-And some, like george IMO, can only achieve this gran·dil·o·quent self-perception by ignoring a HUGE amount of evidence.

Nov 05, 2015
Yes, yes, we see your attempt to get help, otto, but as we said before, this is not the forum.

Go to a psych site. you cannot seem to stop bringing up your psychopathy. If you had served instead of hidden, you could get help from the VA. But stay-at-home "patriots" have to do it themselves on Obamacare. Good thing they did not let the conservatives stop it. It could save you from yourself and your afflictions.

Meanwhile those of us with educations and experience in renewables have better ideas than those of you who only offer silly personal attacks.

Nov 06, 2015
Meanwhile those of us with educations and experience in renewables
But evidence that you yourself have presented tells us you dont have either of these.

For example you didnt know that nitrogen oxides are more than one thing.

A formal education in environmental mgt would have taught you this.

But youve presented solid proof that you dont have this, even while claiming that you do.

What else about your past have you made up?
you cannot seem to stop bringing up your psychopathy
-Because, IMO, you cant stop exhibiting symptoms of it.

Ive drawn many parallels between your behavior here and the descriptions of professionals.

Surely you can identify with at least a few of them?

Nov 06, 2015
For instance:

"Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

"And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools."

-Youre certainly selfish and lazy, asking others to do your research for you. Annd your serial lying and fact-forging is certainly irresponsible and immoral.

And you love to tell others that you think theyre all goobers/gullible fools.

Eh? Any bells or whistles george?

"He does bizarre and self-destructive things because consequences that would fill the ordinary man with shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment simply do not affect the psychopath at all."

Nov 06, 2015
How come your behavior here fits the description of a psychopath SO WELL?
http://www.cassio...path.htm

Nov 07, 2015
Seems many AGW deniers arbitrarily follow business & Still refuse to get base education in essential proven (for >100 yrs) underlying Physics of heat

Instead some arbitrarily track perceptions of major business groups & although there's key evidence a major business accept Science advice Eg Rothschild divesting
http://www.thegua...e-change

But, below an overall critical mass perception as yet. Bloomberg group is perceived as a leader coalescing input from many commercial organisations, here is their view on AGW
http://www.bloomb...e-world/

Of course essentials of greenhouse gas properties is heat (Infra Red) retention
https://en.wikipe...transfer
leads to
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
& which lifts H2O re
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

Can ANY denier refute the core Physics, anywhere - at all ?

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