Solving the Climate Crisis Is Clearly Too Hard, So Here Comes The Climate Adaptation Industry
It’s difficult to resist the instinct to feel utterly hopeless and cynical about the climate crisis. We’re in it now, and a frustrating lack of political will mixed with public apathy or denial has completely stymied what should’ve otherwise happened years ago: an effort of the magnitude of the Apollo mission to find affordable, clean, renewable energy sources while rapidly killing off entrenched yet archaic polluters. But we’re not a prevention nation. We’re a self-indulgent one. We’d rather continue our bad habits while finding ways to ease the side effects.
For example, rather than eating right and exercising, while supporting efforts to improve our food supply, we’d rather pop a few Lipitor to reduce our cholesterol, or a Nexium to reduce the acid reflex. Modern living, at least in the United States, now orbits around nearsightedly addressing discomforting symptoms, but very seldom do we make the effort to tackle the root causes of our discomfort. Why? Because it’s too hard, and we want what we want whenever we want it. Let us eat crappy foods and over-indulge — we’ll just take a pill to make sure it doesn’t kill us. Problem solved!
So it will be with the climate crisis.
In spite of the Environmental Protection Agency’s historic and necessary, yet too-little-too-late proposal to cut carbon emissions by 2050, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the primary method by which America will deal with the effects of the climate crisis is to figure out ways to comfortably live with it, rather than making any sort of sacrifice to engage in the hard work of solving it.
Regarding that EPA rule, the goal is to reduce carbon emissions by just 30 percent below 2005 levels — by the year 2050. While it’s a bolder step than we’ve seen recently, and we should take whatever we can get, it’s just a drop in a very large and increasingly warm bucket. Even still, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican congressional leadership are already crapping their cages over the rule, while K Street lobbyists are likely beating down doors in order to weaken it. And does anyone seriously believe there will be enough public enthusiasm to either strengthen the rule or to prevent deniers and the fossil fuel industry from carving out loopholes the size of your head? Once again, call me Debbie Downer, but no. No way. It’s too much effort, the science is too complicated for a lot of people (take a guess who) and, to be frank, it appears as if the fate of Sgt. Bergdahl is of greater importance this week than the EPA’s announcement.
So, again, what’ll happen in the absence of any significant action on the climate crisis? Rather than foregoing our big cars, wasteful home energy habits (which accounts for 10 percent of carbon emissions), our gluttonous consumption of beef and other corporate agricultural products (also accounts for 10 percent of all carbon emissions) or our resistance to new public transportation infrastructure spending, Americans will likely embrace other more convenient, hassle-free solutions.
–It’s called the “climate change adaptation industry,” and a research firm called Environmental Business International (EBI) predicts it will reach profits in the tens-of-billions annually…. READ MORE
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
172 responses to Solving the Climate Crisis Is Clearly Too Hard, So Here Comes The Climate Adaptation Industry
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Lochnar June 6th, 2014 at 19:58
One of the biggest hurdles is public perception of alternate power sources.
Greenies tout solar and wind but they have a very poor power density of about 10 watts a square meter and require installation in locations that are accessible for servicing. During the construction phase they destroy the micro ecosystems that will not recover because of the roads and access ways needed.
Nuclear energy is really the source that can reverse the trend but people are afraid of it – because of the relatively few accidents we have had. Even fusion is nuclear power and has “radiation” issues that need to be dealt with. However the tech is still in its infancy.
There are saver nuclear fission designs that have already been proven in concept prototypes and only require a few years of development to solve a few hurdles for production power plants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlpeJEKmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
mea_mark June 6th, 2014 at 20:09
With advances in solar technology like this http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/06/low-cost-concentrating-solar-power-gets-1-mil-boost/ why bother with messing with toxic stuff at all? The future sources of energy will be clean and reliable. The technology is getting there fast enough. We don’t need to be creating toxic pollutants that are difficult and unsafe to store for hundreds or thousands of years. 10 watts a square meter is old info and doesn’t apply in the sun belt whatsoever at all.
The Lochnar June 6th, 2014 at 20:43
Those are 10% better than PV and suffer from the same negatives such as not using all the energy the sun puts out and weather, location, time of day etc. Also they destroy ecosystems as well and can not be installed where there are dust or sand storms.
Their power density it far too low.
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/02/power-density-wheat-from-chaff/#more-24152
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
The Lochnar June 6th, 2014 at 21:36
The 10 watts per square meter is the world wide average taking everything onto account – day/night – weather – sun angle – pollution – seasons. it means if you cover the planet – 10 watts per square meter is all you can hope for.
mea_mark June 7th, 2014 at 08:39
That info is out of date, and who care’s about how much energy solar panels can produce in arctic regions. !0 watts per square meter is a worthless figure that does not apply to real working conditions. You are bordering on being considered spam.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 18:12
mea_mark – Please read the section (Pg 12) talking about the power density and how the article qualified the figure using real life systems currently in operation as well as researched statistics of amount of power the sun provides.
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
If it’s out of date please provide more current info. Solar panels have not changed much since the article so in my view it’s not out of date.
We used 143,851 terawatt/hours of energy in 2008. This is all power sources, including hydrocarbons used in transportation, converted to electricity. You do the math and figure out how many square kilometers of panel needs to be installed to replace what we used in 2008.
Below is a modern solar panel spec. Using the 310 Wp panels can you tell me how many panels one would need assuming one can get full output for 8 hours to power a 1000 watt heater for 24 hours? How many square meters would that be?
http://www.astronergy.com/attch/product/20130913_CHSM6612P_with_50mm_frame.pdf
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 18:24
And below the PV section of article (Pg 13) they talk about CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) which fairs only slightly better than PV.
The Lochnar June 6th, 2014 at 19:58
One of the biggest hurdles is public perception of alternate power sources.
Greenies tout solar and wind but they have a very poor power density of about 10 watts a square meter and require installation in locations that are accessible for servicing. During the construction phase they destroy the micro ecosystems that will not recover because of the roads and access ways needed.
Nuclear energy is really the source that can reverse the trend but people are afraid of it – because of the relatively few accidents we have had. Even fusion is nuclear power and has “radiation” issues that need to be dealt with. However the tech is still in its infancy.
There are saver nuclear fission designs that have already been proven in concept prototypes and only require a few years of development to solve a few hurdles for production power plants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlpeJEKmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
mea_mark June 6th, 2014 at 20:09
With advances in solar technology like this http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/06/low-cost-concentrating-solar-power-gets-1-mil-boost/ why bother with messing with toxic stuff at all? The future sources of energy will be clean and reliable. The technology is getting there fast enough. We don’t need to be creating toxic pollutants that are difficult and unsafe to store for hundreds or thousands of years. 10 watts a square meter is old info and doesn’t apply in the sun belt whatsoever at all.
The Lochnar June 6th, 2014 at 20:43
Those are 10% better than PV and suffer from the same negatives such as not using all the energy the sun puts out and weather, location, time of day etc. Also they destroy ecosystems as well and can not be installed where there are dust or sand storms.
Their power density it far too low.
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/02/power-density-wheat-from-chaff/#more-24152
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
The Lochnar June 6th, 2014 at 21:36
The 10 watts per square meter is the world wide average taking everything onto account – day/night – weather – sun angle – pollution – seasons. it means if you cover the planet – 10 watts per square meter is all you can hope for.
If you remove all but the sun belt you get more per average area used but people do not all live in the sun belt and those who don’t live there need much more power for heating / clothes cleaning etc – depending on seasons.
The amount that the sun belt can provide is simply not enough to replace fossil fuels – not even close.
mea_mark June 7th, 2014 at 08:39
That info is out of date, and who care’s about how much energy solar panels can produce in arctic regions. !0 watts per square meter is a worthless figure that does not apply to real working conditions. You are bordering on being considered spam.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 18:12
mea_mark – Please read the section (Pg 12) talking about the power density and how the article qualified the figure using real life systems currently in operation as well as researched statistics of amount of power the sun provides.
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
If it’s out of date please provide more current info. Solar panels have not changed much since the article so in my view it’s not out of date.
We used 143,851 terawatt/hours of energy in 2008. This is all power sources, including hydrocarbons used in transportation, converted to electricity. You do the math and figure out how many square kilometers of panel needs to be installed to replace what we used in 2008.
Below is a modern solar panel spec. Using the 310 Wp panels can you tell me how many panels one would need assuming one can get full output for 8 hours to power a 1000 watt heater for 24 hours? How many square meters would that be?
http://www.astronergy.com/attch/product/20130913_CHSM6612P_with_50mm_frame.pdf
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 18:24
And below the PV section of article (Pg 13) they talk about CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) which fairs only slightly better than PV.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:02
Luckily we’ve got clean renewable daylight generating power 6 hours after sundown and that now delivers far more efficient Supercritical Steam replacing fossil fuels! CSIRO Solar Thermal Plant Sets World Record with most efficient Solar-Generated Supercritical Steam. http://inhabitat.com/csiro-sets-world-record-with-solar-generated-supercritical-steam-for-power-plants/ AZ 280 MeagaWatt per hour solar plant achieves six hours of power after sun goes down! http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 19:09
Now how do we get Lochnar to understand this? My link above from clean technica didn’t seem to stick in his head. All he cares about is producing energy with LFTR.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:17
‘A solar & wind powered turbine in the hand today, is worth more than all of the non-existent LFTR’s forever!’ The Lochnar/Benner has been schooled that LFTR’s require rare and deadliest 15% plutonium/uranium fuel mixtures just to achieve critical mass. His reply? ‘Oh! That’s just for startup…’ Yeah riiigghhht!
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 19:21
He seems kinda slow, i went through this whole discussion with him before. He gives me the exact same info as last time, that I refuted and explained how things should be done.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:30
We should express this as an equation: A)-Today’s 401.3 CO2 grows by +2.5 PPM annually and must drop below 350 PPM or we’re toast because 40% of today’s CO2 remains in our atmosphere for 1000 years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
B) The greenhouse gas methane now being released from melting permafrost is 30-50 times more heat trapping over 50 years. A+B= All solutions “commercially available today” must be applied NOW, not later.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:58
Solar and wind will not provide enough is my point. It’s was proven to work at LLNL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Current_projects
Obewon June 10th, 2014 at 13:18
Your own pro-thorium link nails you as a pro-poison uranium-232 breeder & debunks your claims ‘enriched uranium/plutonium is only needed for startup/isn’t polluting radiation/gamma rays’ : Specific disadvantages of thorium nuclear power:[27]
1.Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive reprocessing. The feasibility of reprocessing is still open.[28]
2.Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work is first required, requiring business and government support.[18] According to a 2012 report by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, about using thorium fuel with existing water-cooled reactors, it would “require too great an investment and provide no clear payoff,” noting that “from the utilities’ point of view, the only legitimate driver capable of motivating pursuit of thorium is economics.”[29]
3.There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods.[18]
4.Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel.[30]
Their are plenty of reasons why nobody uses Thorium to produce commercial power today unlike growing 15%-18% renewable energy power e.g. ‘25% global power via solar by 20150’, etc.
A) ?-Is thorium what you previously claimed is ‘your friends secret power producer under NDA/Non Disclosure’? B) What specifically is ‘that secret power claim based upon’ Rossi?
The Lochnar June 10th, 2014 at 20:22
Sure – It’s not perfect as I have stated but it is way safer for many reasons and the numbers on alternates don’t show they are a viable solution. This is my point – we have very few options for carbon free energy.
As you said we need something real soon and the accidents we have had are primarily a result of dated designs that should have been replaced or upgraded.
I only care to debate the failure of alternates and don’t care how bad you think nuclear power is. The risk is outweighed by the urgency.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:01
I really do wish solar and wind could provide enough but it not possible and am not a fan of nuclear but I’m a realist. The improvement to solar and wind would have to be 100 times that of today,
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:03
So a personal attack? Slow? Let’s see how technical you truly are? Answer my math riddles.
You have not refuted anything with cites.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:31
Obewon – yes used for start up as you say. So? Yeah right ? What does that mean?
Why is Germany firing up more coal plants?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:36
“We went through this whole discussion with The Lochnar before. He gives us the exact same info as last time”-mea_mark.
After exceeding 20% renewable energy by 2020-Achieved in 2011 -Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74% Of Domestic Power Needs From Renewable Energy, MAY 13, 2014 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:35
As I said they fair only slightly better than PV. I guess you didn’t read page 13 from the article.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:39
I care about things that work, where the number add up and is doable in the near future. At 10 watts per square meter you would have to cover an area 2 times that of the USA.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:35
Thats all peanuts compared to the 143,851 terawatt/hours we gobbled up on 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:47
That one 3/4 of a Terrawatt single plant facility is already being rolledout globally. PS> Here’s 500 Terrawatts created in 10 billionths of a second for $20.00 in seawater h2 fused with h3, following a mere $5 B investment plus 10 years to build. “National Ignition Facility makes history with record 500 terawatt shot” https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Jul/NR-12-07-01.html “Thats all peanuts”-Lochnar doesn’t know that all US Nuclear energy today = 15% as augmented by 15% to 18% renewable energy today that is replacing coal & other fossil fuels.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:19
It would be cool if they can figure out fuel delivery and plasma containment. There are ideas but none have been designed and tested as they are still on drawing boards with a lot of empties spots that need filling in.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:02
Luckily we’ve got clean renewable daylight generating power 6 hours after sundown and that now delivers far more efficient Supercritical Steam replacing fossil fuels! CSIRO Solar Thermal Plant Sets World Record with most efficient Solar-Generated Supercritical Steam. http://inhabitat.com/csiro-sets-world-record-with-solar-generated-supercritical-steam-for-power-plants/ AZ 280 MeagaWatt per hour solar plant achieves six hours of power after sun goes down! http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html With the addition of Solana, APS will have 750 megawatts of solar power on its system by the end of the year, enough to serve 185,000 Arizona customers.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 19:09
Now how do we get Lochnar to understand this? My link above from clean technica didn’t seem to stick in his head. All he cares about is producing energy with LFTR.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:17
‘A solar & wind powered turbine in the hand today, is worth more than all of the non-existent LFTR’s forever!’ The Lochnar/Benner has been schooled that LFTR’s require rare and deadliest 15% plutonium/uranium fuel mixtures just to achieve critical mass. His reply? ‘Oh! That’s just for startup…’ Yeah riiigghhht!
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 19:21
He seems kinda slow, I went through this whole discussion with him before. He gives me the exact same info as last time, that I refuted and explained how things should be done.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:30
We should express this as an equation: A)-Today’s 401.3 CO2 grows by +2.5 PPM annually and must drop below 350 PPM or we’re toast because 40% of today’s CO2 remains in our atmosphere for 1000 years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
B) The greenhouse gas methane now being released from melting permafrost is 30-50 times more heat trapping over 50 years. A+B= All solutions “commercially available today” must be applied NOW, not later.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:58
Solar and wind will not provide enough is my point.
Thorium was proven to work at Oak Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Current_projects
Obewon June 10th, 2014 at 13:18
Your own pro-thorium link nails you as a pro-poison uranium-232, U-233 breeder & debunks your claims ‘enriched uranium/plutonium is only needed for startup & isn’t polluting radiation or gamma ray producing’: (#4) Specific disadvantages of thorium nuclear power:[27] U-232 68.9 year half-life vs Thorium produced “U-233 half-life of 159,200 years!” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium
-A) ?-Is thorium what you previously claimed is ‘your friends secret power producer under NDA/Non Disclosure’? B) What specifically is ‘that secret power claim based upon’ Rossi?
#1.Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive (Greenhouse gas producing) reprocessing. The feasibility of reprocessing is still open.[28]
#2.Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work is first required, requiring business and government support.[18] According to a 2012 report by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, about using thorium fuel with existing water-cooled reactors, it would “require too great an investment and provide no clear payoff,” noting that “from the utilities’ point of view, the only legitimate driver capable of motivating pursuit of thorium is economics.”[29]
#3.There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and (Greenhouse gas producing) reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods.[18]
#4.Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel.[30]
Their are plenty of reasons why nobody uses Thorium to produce commercial power today unlike growing 15%-18% clean renewable energy power e.g. ‘25% global power via solar by 20150’, etc.
The Lochnar June 10th, 2014 at 20:22
Sure – It’s not perfect as I have stated but it is way safer for many reasons and the numbers on alternates don’t show they are a viable solution. This is my point – we have very few options for carbon free energy.
As you said we need something real soon and the accidents we have had are primarily a result of dated designs that should have been replaced or upgraded.
I only care to debate the failure of alternates and don’t care how bad you think nuclear power is. The risk is outweighed by the urgency.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:01
I really do wish solar and wind could provide enough but it not possible and am not a fan of nuclear but I’m a realist. The improvement to solar and wind would have to be 100 times that of today,
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:03
So a personal attack? Slow? Let’s see how technical you truly are? Answer my math riddles.
You have not refuted anything with cites.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:31
Obewon – yes used for start up as you say. So? Yeah right ? What does that mean?
Why is Germany firing up more coal plants?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:36
“We went through this whole discussion with The Lochnar before. He gives us the exact same info as last time”-mea_mark.
After exceeding 20% renewable energy by 2020-Achieved in 2011 -Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74% Of Domestic Power Needs From Renewable Energy, MAY 13, 2014 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:35
As I said they fair only slightly better than PV. I guess you didn’t read page 13 from the article.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:39
I care about things that work, where the number add up and is doable in the near future. At 10 watts per square meter you would have to cover an area 2 times that of the USA.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:35
Thats all peanuts compared to the 143,851 terawatt/hours we gobbled up in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 19:47
That one 3/4 of a Terrawatt single plant facility is already being rolledout globally. PS> Here’s 500 Terrawatts created in 10 billionths of a second for $20.00 in seawater h2 fused with h3, following a mere $5 B investment plus 10 years to build. “National Ignition Facility makes history with record 500 terawatt shot” https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Jul/NR-12-07-01.html “Thats all peanuts”-Lochnar doesn’t know that all US Nuclear energy today = 15% as augmented by 15% to 18% renewable energy & Alternative fuels coming online today http://www.eia.gov/renewable/ Replacing coal & other fossil fuels is kidstuff. http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=renewable_home-basics EIA Hydroelectric power by state. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5750
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:19
It would be cool if they can figure out fuel delivery and plasma containment. There are ideas but none have been designed and tested as they are still on drawing boards with a lot of empty spots that need filling in.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:52
So can anyone here riddle me this.
Below is a modern solar panel spec. Using the 310 Wp panels can anyone here tell me how many panels one would need assuming one can get full output for 8 hours to power a 1000 watt heater for 24 hours? How many square meters would that be?
Of course you will only get the 310 Wp for about an hour at the equator, at high noon and a few weeks around the equinox twice a year.
http://www.astronergy.com/attch/product/20130913_CHSM6612P_with_50mm_frame.pdf
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:08
Who cares about solar panels so much. They are great for homeowners and are a stepping stone to the future. They are not the future, quit obsessing on them. Did you read the link I provided or the ones Obewon provided about concentrated solar power and storing it in a calcium solution?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:17
I want to see if anyone here is capable of doing the relatively simple math needed to separate consumer hype from the reality. Are you able to mea_mark?
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:30
I am able to. The question is, do I want to waste the time? Why should I do math problems for something not involved in the discussion when I have other things to do. I pointed out solar panels are old tech. Concentrating and storing energy are the keys to the next step.
Advances in battery are also important, see this http://www.sustainableinnov.com/sustainable-innovations-takes-part-in-breakthrough-organic-flow-battery-technology/ lots of links there to explore. Clean energy is the way of the future, until we build space ships, maybe then we will need LFTR.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:16
The math problem can be bashed out on a calculator in less than 30 seconds if you do it all the time. If you need to think a bit maybe 2 minutes. You will not spend 2 minutes to prove you are able ?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:10
Less than 100 miles by 100 miles of solar produces more than all US electricity consumed. So how are you gonna get Koch Oil to dump dirty coal? A: New EPA regulations just unveiled last week!
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:14
That’s another discussion that I’m not here to address. Why are making the discussion more complicated Obewon?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:32
I’d use four distributed fields of 100, ten megawatt per hour G.E. hybrid wind turbines 100 miles apart delivering a minimum of 1 TW total from each direction North, East, West & South 100% of the time! http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514331/wind-turbines-battery-included-can-keep-power-supplies-stable/
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:52
That’s peak power, not sustained.
Page 14
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:54
Wind ends up only 1/10th the density.
Page 17
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:15
I gave him all that info last time and he ignored it. I had a graph that showed land space needed to produce electricity for every country world wide using solar, and that was with old tech.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:26
He doesn’t like simplified solutions providing 90% of US Energy today!
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:38
I think he is so fixated on LFTR he ignores all our links. He doesn’t counter back about solar concentration or parabolic mirrors.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:48
I am aware of CSP systems but you can not show that they can provide enough power. Only 10watts per square meter densisity does not cut it.
Still no answers to my real life math questions?
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:58
You are not reading the links, the info is there.
And for your info. I am busy. I have many stories and articles that I am following and moderating between multiple web sites.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:09
Run … Forest … Run
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:49
How about answering my simple math question. Prove you are more than a google hack.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:03
Lets see that detail because it would be easy to drop in current tech specs if the data is complete..
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:01
I hope you realize that most household energy is in heating, cooling, cooking, laundry, transportation. Should we be switching those to electricity? You are only looking at current electricity usage. Tell me, Obewon or mea_mark, how many of those solar panels one would need charge the new electric Nissan?
Are any of you able to calculate that? Use the same criteria as the 1000 watt question but replace it with what the Nissan needs.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:06
Why use electricity to make hot water when you can make it more directly from sun and store it. It is stupid to do it that way. You are missing the big picture. Use what works best for any given situation and location. Drop the one solution for all situations scenario. It is impractical and dumb.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:12
Where do you store it?
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:18
I store mine in an electric hot water heater that I leave turned off until needed. I turn it on sometimes during the winter months or during long cloudy spells other times. It hardly ever runs. It is back up and great storage. For real electrical storage see http://www.sustainableinnov.co… which you probably ignored. Not available yet but looks very promising and economical. Should even be available to homeowners also, not just commercially.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:05
That link is broken. I ignore nothing, especially the math. If there is no real figures I can not do much with it and chaulk it up to consumer hype.
mea_mark June 10th, 2014 at 12:43
http://www.sustainableinnov.com/sustainable-innovations-takes-part-in-breakthrough-organic-flow-battery-technology/
The Lochnar June 10th, 2014 at 21:48
Still have not answer my questions regarding this 30 gallons you speak of.
How are you heating the water directly from the sun? Describe the components or link me to something that is similar. You said all home made. Plans?
“30 gallons, that is all I need. No exchanger just run in hot water at bottom of tank from solar and take from top of tank. Waste water that has cooled when refilling gets used in garden. All home made for cheap. Has paid for itself so many times over I can’t keep track, going on over 10 years now.
The Lochnar June 10th, 2014 at 02:28
How are you heating the water directly from the sun? Describe the components or link me to something that is similar.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:36
30 gallons, that is all I need. No exchanger just run in hot water at bottom of tank from solar and take from top of tank. Waste water that has cooled when refilling gets used in garden. All home made for cheap. Has paid for itself so many times over I can’t keep track, going on over 10 years now.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:01
How do you transfer the heat from the Sun to your Tank?
What about my family? And want about home heating? Cooking?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:48
Simple use these 4-SHARP Solar Panels 1000 Watts 4 X 250W On Grid / Off Grid Solar Cells 1KW Solar Kit by Sharp. Price:$925.00 + $283.49 shipping Note: Not eligible for Amazon Prime. http://www.amazon.com/SHARP-Solar-Panels-Watts-Cells/dp/B00BBJUFHC (Solar city leases for a 10 year break-even, you keep all year #11 through year #30 income & resell surplus power to utilities:) http://www.solarcity.com/residential/affordable-solar-lease
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:08
You can barely heat 500 square feet with 1000 watts where I live. Electric heaters are very efficient actually.
And you got that wrong Obewon. You did not factor time into the equation. You’re getting there. Try again.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:21
You live in Vancouver B.C., Canada correct? Move!
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:27
Nothing like the simple solution.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:42
I can see Lochnar househunting in NY, AZ, TX or FL jumping up and down saying ‘how can these 100% renewable energy powered homes be possible!!’ “Can Long Island meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable energy? In short: Yes!” http://www.renewableenergylongisland.org/100percent.cfm
100% Renewable? One Danish Island Experiments with Clean Power-SciAm. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/samso-attempts-100-percent-renewable-power/
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:49
I am going to call it a night, been fun. If you didn’t check it out already you should look into http://www.sustainableinnov.co… it is interesting. Hopefully lochnar will look at something besides what he wants to look at. I am not counting on it though.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:21
Thx Mark it’s always my pleasure to read & post with you. Now who do I bill for my Soros bonus. Just kidding:)
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:31
Still can’t do the math to prove you actually understand energy?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:38
Sorry Lochnar we didn’t take you seriously because of your outdated technology and extreme northern location.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:59
Extreme northern location? What are you referring to?
Still not going to do the math to prove you actually have the understanding?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:48
Taking the shotgun approach to debate is not effective.
I have looked at the links and it’s not about looking at more consumer hype wordage and people trying to sell you stuff.
It’s about the math and what’s actually true. It’s about design calculations I have made so many times using the best energy data I can find. Numbers do not lie.
I would in a pinch setup solar since I – unlike you 2 apparently – understand the technology at a level needed.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:34
How about you ? Still can’t do the math to prove you actually understand energy? You actually will need to think to refute my claim instead of talking to deflect.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 23:39
Most of those still use hydrocarbons from fossil fuels. Renewables umbrella hydrocarbons such as bio-fuels which still spew CO2
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:28
I live near Vancouver, It gets colder where I actually live.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:58
Ok, Go googler and was aware of it but you actually need to try it. Type in 1234 for the house number and pick the first one that pops up. The words do not tell the story. The math however does and it’s simple high school math so practically any one can see for themselves.
The optimal is 40 MJ average daily, which works out to 2.8 KwH assuming a 25% efficiency (10MJ), which is overly optimistic. So how long can you run a 1000 watt heater on 2.8 KwH?
Have you even seen the battery and a converter system you need for high energy storage? I’m not even going to get into that unless you are all up for it.
Also has anyone checked how much they weigh? I would have to re-enforce my roof and deal with snow. And what about when I’m not home to get the snow off?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:23
Not going to correct your calculation error Obewon? I think you are out of your league because you can not make the simplest of calculations to understand my point, which is based on real math using real world scenarios. If we are to get rid of fossil fuels except in some usages like trains, ships and other mass transport systems that are mobile we will need a lot more than solar or any flavor or wind can provide.
Why don’t you find non-consumer hype data to refute the claims in article about power density?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:47
I spent less than a few microseconds & I’m more interested in better cost efficient and newer technologies like the spincell & 10 MW hybrid wind turbines.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:25
I like the idea of using Fresnel Lenses, especially if you have to use solar panels out side the sunbelt.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:28
Great point Mark! We can sell Fresnel Lenses solar concentrators to heat Lochnar’s igloo!
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:10
What a juvenile statement, but that’s you MO when you have nothing left.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:31
It’s a joke! Lighten up Benner.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:38
I know – and someone always finds me …
You end up never being serious about your posts when you have nothing to refute my claim that solar and wind are not enough if we are to get rid of almost all hydrocarbons.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:43
Ending most fossil fuel use depends greatly on continuing to decimate the Greedy Oil Party and the longevity of their Koch oil bros patrons IMO.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:54
Again, and I agree, that’s not relevant to what I’m talking about. You bringing those issues to the discussion doesn’t do you any favors.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:09
It’s not a good idea to overheat your panels. Taking a lense which focuses an “area” to a smaller area doesn’t change anything with power density. A fresnel lense is one of the less efficient lense systems as well. CSP is a lense system and it yields no better output
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:18
Silicon performs with greater efficiency at higher temps, plus mirror-concentrated molten salt storage for off-peak power 6 hours after sundown:)
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 19:52
So can anyone here riddle me this.
Below is a modern solar panel spec. Using the 310 Wp panels can anyone here tell me how many panels one would need assuming one can get full output for 8 hours to power a 1000 watt heater for 24 hours? How many square meters would that be?
Of course you will only get the 310 Wp for about an hour at the equator, at high noon and a few weeks around the equinox twice a year.
http://www.astronergy.com/attch/product/20130913_CHSM6612P_with_50mm_frame.pdf
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:08
Who cares about solar panels so much. They are great for homeowners and are a stepping stone to the future. They are not the future, quit obsessing on them. Did you read the link I provided or the ones Obewon provided about concentrated solar power and storing it in a calcium solution?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:17
I want to see if anyone here is capable of doing the relatively simple math needed to separate consumer hype from the reality. Are you able to mea_mark?
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:30
I am able to. The question is, do I want to waste the time? Why should I do math problems for something not involved in the discussion when I have other things to do. I pointed out solar panels are old tech. Concentrating and storing energy are the keys to the next step.
Advances in battery are also important, see this http://www.sustainableinnov.com/sustainable-innovations-takes-part-in-breakthrough-organic-flow-battery-technology/ lots of links there to explore. Clean energy is the way of the future, until we build space ships, maybe then we will need LFTR.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:16
The math problem can be bashed out on a calculator in less than 30 seconds if you do it all the time. If you need to think a bit maybe 2 minutes. You will not spend 2 minutes to prove you are able ?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:10
Less than 100 miles by 100 miles of solar produces more than all US electricity consumed.-DOE 2003. So how are you gonna get Koch Oil to dump dirty coal? A: New EPA regulations just unveiled last week! “Solar electricity tops 25% of global electricity generation by 2050”-true!
Myth vs reality “In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 M acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.” http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/24/myths-and-facts-about-solar-energy/192364 100% Renewable is simple by booting GOP big oil climate deniers who are allergic to clean renewable “Solar distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles.”
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:14
That’s another discussion that I’m not here to address. Why are making the discussion more complicated Obewon?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:32
I’d use four distributed fields of 100, ten megawatt per hour G.E. hybrid wind turbines 100 miles apart delivering a minimum of 1-4 TW per hour total from all directions North, East, West & South 100% of the time! http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514331/wind-turbines-battery-included-can-keep-power-supplies-stable/
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:52
That’s peak power, not sustained.
Page 14
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:54
Wind ends up only 1/10th the density.
Page 17
http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:15
I gave him all that info last time and he ignored it. I had a graph that showed land space needed to produce electricity for every country world wide using solar, and that was with old tech.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:26
He doesn’t like simplified solutions providing 90% of US Energy today!
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:38
I think he is so fixated on LFTR he ignores all our links. He doesn’t counter back about solar concentration or parabolic mirrors.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:48
I am aware of CSP systems but you can not show that they can provide enough power. Only 10watts per square meter density does not cut it.
Still no answers to my real life math questions?
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 20:58
You are not reading the links, the info is there.
And for your info. I am busy. I have many stories and articles that I am following and moderating between multiple web sites.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:09
Run … Forest … Run
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 20:49
How about answering my simple math question. Prove you are more than a google hack.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:03
Lets see that detail because it would be easy to drop in current tech specs if the data is complete..
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:01
I hope you realize that most household energy is in heating, cooling, cooking, laundry, transportation. Should we be switching those to electricity? You are only looking at current electricity usage. Tell me, Obewon or mea_mark, how many of those solar panels one would need charge the new electric Nissan?
Are any of you able to calculate that? Use the same criteria as the 1000 watt question but replace it with what the Nissan needs.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:06
Why use electricity to make hot water when you can make it more directly from sun and store it. It is stupid to do it that way. You are missing the big picture. Use what works best for any given situation and location. Drop the one solution for all situations scenario. It is impractical and dumb.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:12
Where do you store it? How much storage? How many exchangers?
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:18
I store mine in an electric hot water heater that I leave turned off until needed. I turn it on sometimes during the winter months or during long cloudy spells other times. It hardly ever runs. It is back up and great storage. For real electrical storage see http://www.sustainableinnov.com/sustainable-innovations-takes-part-in-breakthrough-organic-flow-battery-technology/ which you probably ignored. Not available yet but looks very promising and economical. Should even be available to homeowners also, not just commercially.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:05
That link is broken. I ignore nothing, especially the math. If there is no real figures I can not do much with it and chaulk it up to consumer hype.
mea_mark June 10th, 2014 at 12:43
http://www.sustainableinnov.com/sustainable-innovations-takes-part-in-breakthrough-organic-flow-battery-technology/
The Lochnar June 10th, 2014 at 21:48
Still have not answer my questions regarding this 30 gallons you speak of.
How are you heating the water directly from the sun? Describe the components or link me to something that is similar. You said all home made. Plans?
“30 gallons, that is all I need. No exchanger just run in hot water at bottom of tank from solar and take from top of tank. Waste water that has cooled when refilling gets used in garden. All home made for cheap. Has paid for itself so many times over I can’t keep track, going on over 10 years now.
The Lochnar June 10th, 2014 at 02:28
How are you heating the water directly from the sun? Describe the components or link me to something that is similar.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:36
30 gallons, that is all I need. No exchanger just run in hot water at bottom of tank from solar and take from top of tank. Waste water that has cooled when refilling gets used in garden. All home made for cheap. Has paid for itself so many times over I can’t keep track, going on over 10 years now.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:01
How do you transfer the heat from the Sun to your Tank?
What about my family? And want about home heating? Cooking?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 20:48
Simple use 4+ SHARP Solar Panels for each 1000 Watts required =12+ X 250W On Grid (Reverse Metering for constant power without batteries) / Off Grid Solar Cells 1KW Solar Kit by Sharp. Price:$925.00 + $283.49 shipping Note: Not eligible for Amazon Prime. http://www.amazon.com/SHARP-Solar-Panels-Watts-Cells/dp/B00BBJUFHC (Solar city leases for a 10 year break-even, you keep all year #11 through year #30 income & resell surplus power to utilities:) http://www.solarcity.com/residential/affordable-solar-lease However most anyone would buy a much more efficient “Heater” because entire homes use 1000 watts when home via LED lighting, etc. BTW New applications have appeared in solar energy, where Fresnel lenses can concentrate sunlight (with a ratio of almost 500:1) onto solar cells generating +400% greater peak performance. Here are two examples: 1. Solar Panels Receive (4 X) Big Boost From Micro-Machined Fresnel Lenses. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/12/solar-panels-receive-big-boost-micro-machined-fresnel-lenses-research-shows/ 2. V3Solar Spin Cell = 8 Cents/kWh (Now independently validated http://v3solar.com/technology-2/ ) CleanTechnica Exclusive http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/24/v3solar-spin-cell-cones-cheap-solar/
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:08
You can barely heat 500 square feet with 1000 watts where I live. Electric heaters are very efficient actually.
And you got that wrong Obewon. You did not factor time into the equation. You’re getting there. Try again.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:21
You live in Vancouver B.C., Canada correct? Move or study up: Researchers find solar savings for North Vancouver home owners-February 4, 2011. http://news.ubc.ca/2011/02/04/mapping-the-power-of-sunshine-2/
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:27
Nothing like the simple solution.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:42
I can see Lochnar househunting in NY, AZ, TX or FL jumping up and down saying ‘how can these 100% renewable energy powered homes be possible!!’ “Can Long Island meet 100% of its electricity needs from renewable energy? In short: Yes!” http://www.renewableenergylongisland.org/100percent.cfm
100% Renewable? One Danish Island Experiments with Clean Power-SciAm. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/samso-attempts-100-percent-renewable-power/
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:49
I am going to call it a night, been fun. If you didn’t check it out already you should look into http://www.sustainableinnov.com/sustainable-innovations-takes-part-in-breakthrough-organic-flow-battery-technology/ it is interesting. Hopefully lochnar will look at something besides what he wants to look at. I am not counting on it though.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:21
Thx Mark it’s always my pleasure to read & post with you. Now who do I bill for my Soros bonus. Just kidding:)
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:31
Still can’t do the math to prove you actually understand energy?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:38
Sorry Lochnar we didn’t take you seriously because of your insistence upon using outdated technology in an extreme northern location. ‘Overthrust hardening.’
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:59
Extreme northern location? What are you referring to?
Still not going to do the math to prove you actually have the understanding?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:48
Taking the shotgun approach to debate is not effective.
I have looked at the links and it’s not about looking at more consumer hype wordage and people trying to sell you stuff.
It’s about the math and what’s actually true. It’s about design calculations I have made so many times using the best energy data I can find. Numbers do not lie.
I would in a pinch setup solar since I – unlike you 2 apparently – understand the technology at a level needed.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:34
How about you ? Still can’t do the math to prove you actually understand energy? You actually will need to think to refute my claim instead of talking to deflect.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 23:39
Most of those still use hydrocarbons from fossil fuels. Renewables umbrella hydrocarbons such as bio-fuels which still spew CO2
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:28
I live near Vancouver, It gets colder where I actually live.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:58
Ok, Go googler and was aware of it but you actually need to try it. Type in 1234 for the house number and pick the first one that pops up. The words do not tell the story. The math however does and it’s simple high school math so practically any one can see for themselves.
The optimal is 40 MJ average daily, which works out to 2.8 KwH assuming a 25% efficiency (10MJ), which is overly optimistic. So how long can you run a 1000 watt heater on 2.8 KwH?
Have you even seen the battery and a converter system you need for high energy storage? I’m not even going to get into that unless you are all up for it.
Also has anyone checked how much they weigh? I would have to re-enforce my roof and deal with snow. And what about when I’m not home to get the snow off?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:23
Not going to correct your calculation error Obewon? I think you are out of your league because you can not make the simplest of calculations to understand my point, which is based on real math using real world scenarios. If we are to get rid of fossil fuels except in some usages like trains, ships and other mass transport systems that are mobile we will need a lot more than solar or any flavor or wind can provide.
Why don’t you find non-consumer hype data to refute the claims in article about power density?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:47
I spent less than a few microseconds & I’m more interested in better cost efficient and newer technologies like the spincell & 10 MW hybrid wind turbines.
mea_mark June 9th, 2014 at 21:25
I like the idea of using Fresnel Lenses, especially if you have to use solar panels out side the sunbelt.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:28
Great point Mark! We can sell Fresnel Lenses solar concentrators to heat Lochnar’s igloo!
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:10
What a juvenile statement, but that’s you MO when you have nothing left.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:31
It’s a joke! Lighten up Benner.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:38
I know – and someone always finds me …
You end up never being serious about your posts when you have nothing to refute my claim that solar and wind are not enough if we are to get rid of almost all hydrocarbons.
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:43
Ending most fossil fuel use depends greatly on continuing to decimate the Greedy Oil Party and the longevity of their Koch oil bros patrons IMO.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:54
Again, and I agree, that’s not relevant to what I’m talking about. You bringing those issues to the discussion doesn’t do you any favors.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:09
It’s not a good idea to overheat your panels. Taking a lense which focuses an “area” to a smaller area doesn’t change anything with power density. A fresnel lense is one of the less efficient lense systems as well. CSP is a lense system and it yields no better output
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:18
Silicon performs with greater efficiency at higher temps, plus mirror-concentrated molten salt storage for off-peak power 6 hours after sundown:)
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:26
Why if Germany has all these solar panels are they starting new brown coal plants?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/steag-starts-germany-s-first-coal-fired-power-plant-in-8-years.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/12/30/germanys-energy-goes-kaput-threatening-economic-stability/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/germany-to-open-four-more-coal-power-stations-this-year/
And more miscalculation that seems to be rampant when emotion takes over.
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:45
Are you emotional because we exceeded your power requirements, while providing 24/7 redundancy?
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:25
So you are Ok with them firing up more brown coal plants?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:29
I think it’s overblown RWNJ b/s by renewable energy haters deriding Germany’s realized 74% domestic energy generation. As EU’s number one economy, Germany will continue to throw away older technology by bringing online more renewable energy.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:52
I thought that until i looked researched it and it’s a fact Germany is bringing at least 4 plants on line. The 74% you read about is an instantaneous peak for I believe maybe an hour. It’s not sustained at all so those numbers are very misleading.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:27
Paul Gipe is an author, advocate, and renewable energy industry analyst.
The wind works guy selling his flavor of cool-aid.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 21:26
Why if Germany has all these solar panels are they starting new brown coal plants?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/steag-starts-germany-s-first-coal-fired-power-plant-in-8-years.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/12/30/germanys-energy-goes-kaput-threatening-economic-stability/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/germany-to-open-four-more-coal-power-stations-this-year/
And more miscalculation that seems to be rampant when emotion takes over.
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 21:45
You seem emotional because we exceeded your power requirements, while providing 24/7 redundancy via greater technical breakthrough Fresnel Lenses 4 times peak-performance generation and the V3Solar Spin Cell minimum +25% greater output/cost = 8 Cents/kWh.
From the last time you went down this path, you learned Germany is mothballing & “phasing out” it’s newest 1980 built reactors post-Fukishima, and then you had a meltdown! (Germany sells excess power to it’s neighboring countries via a teeny tiny percentage of coal. Most of what you previously “claimed” were proposals from Germany’s far right cons, that are likely going nowhere.) RWNJ George Monbiot Spreading False Information About Germany! Debunking Common Myths About Nuclear & (Loughner’s) Coal Power In Germany.-Feb 2013. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/debunking-common-myths-about-nuclear-coal-power-in-germany-this-time-repeated-by-the-guardian/ Here are 2014 updates with other sources actually in Germany:) Debunking Myths about Germany’s EEG http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=368
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:25
So you are Ok with them firing up more brown coal plants?
Obewon June 9th, 2014 at 22:29
I think it’s overblown RWNJ b/s by renewable energy haters deriding Germany’s realized 74% domestic energy generation. As EU’s number one economy, Germany will continue to throw away older technology by bringing online more renewable energy.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:52
I thought that until i looked researched it and it’s a fact Germany is bringing at least 4 plants on line. The 74% you read about is an instantaneous peak for I believe maybe an hour. It’s not sustained at all so those numbers are very misleading.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 22:27
Paul Gipe is an author, advocate, and renewable energy industry analyst.
The wind works guy selling his flavor of cool-aid. No science credentials at all. I do not expect you 2 to have credentials if you can answer the simple math problem that is directly related to the topic – how much power things actually use and how much things can produce.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 23:19
“I spent less than a few microseconds” says Obewon to a simple math question posed to see if he really understands energy and energy calculations.
He got it wrong which is what one would expect if one only applied that much effort.
True understanding takes effort.
As the article says – Solving things is too hard. It’s apparent that many who claim to be advocates for the green movement are just as apathetic as deniers or greedy liars by shying away from or ignoring the science and maths – even when it’s at a high school level.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 23:19
“I spent less than a few microseconds” says Obewon to a simple math question posed to see if he really understands energy and energy calculations.
He got it wrong which is what one would expect if one only applied that much effort.
True understanding takes effort.
As the article says – Solving things is too hard. It’s apparent that many who claim to be advocates for the green movement are just as apathetic as deniers or greedy liars by shying away from or ignoring the science and maths – even when it’s at a high school level.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 23:35
From the claimed authority …
http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-resources/heat-and-pv
“for regions like the southwestern United States, which receive upwards of 6.0 kilowatt hours of sun per square meter daily,”
That is not the amount a panel can collect. You can ex[expect 15 to 20% of that – or a paltry 900 to 1200 watt hours. So how long can you run the proverbial 1000 watt heater with that daily amount?
Again the misleading claims that lay people glom on to.
There are many more but it’s best to focus on one truth or lie at a time.
The Lochnar June 9th, 2014 at 23:35
From the claimed authority …
http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-resources/heat-and-pv
“for regions like the southwestern United States, which receive upwards of 6.0 kilowatt hours of sun per square meter daily,”
That is not the amount a panel can collect. You can expect 15 to 20% of that – or a paltry 900 to 1200 watt hours. So how long can you run the proverbial 1000 watt heater with that daily amount?
Again the misleading claims that lay people glom on to.
There are many more but it’s best to focus on one truth or lie at a time.