Man Made Global Warming KOOKS

News and Info > Latest News


Price of Blue Sky wind energy will drop May 1



Supporting clean, renewable energy not only is easy, it soon will cost less.

Pacific Power chose Earth Day to announce that on May 1, it will reduce the price of Blue Sky renewable wind energy from $2.95 per 100 kilowatt-hour block to $1.95 in Oregon, Wyoming and Washington.

Pacific Power launched Blue Sky in 2000 to give customers a choice in how their energy is produced, and to allow them a part in creating demand for renewable energy resources. The program gives customers the opportunity to buy wind energy in 100-kilowatt-hour block increments, in addition to their regular monthly electric bill. More than 10,600 have signed up systemwide

"We’re hopeful that the new, lower price for Blue Sky will spur more signups," said Bill Edmonds, Pacific Power’s director of environmental policy. "We lowered Blue Sky’s price because of greater customer participation, improved technology and the reduced cost of acquiring renewable power."

Edmonds pointed out that Blue Sky purchases are made in addition to the renewables that Pacific Power already places into its system. "For example, we recently announced plans to add 1,400 megawatts of new wind and geothermal resources into our energy mix in the next 10 years," he said.

Due to increased customer participation in all the company’s renewable offerings, Pacific Power’s parent company, PacifiCorp, received national recognition for its renewable power efforts. Last February, the U.S. Dept. of Energy ranked PacifiCorp third in the nation for the number of customers signed up for renewable power, and sixth for the amount purchased. Today, PacifiCorp has more than 21,000 customers participating in renewable power options.



Price of Blue Sky wind energy will drop May 1
 
Really ... why do we ... as taxpayers and customers ... pay more for it? Areas where they use "green" energy pay higher prices for their electricity than those who use nuclear ... if it's so cheap then why are the customers getting gouged? You really do support putting all the wealth into a few hands, just only the hands you like.
 
Southern Maryland Headline News

By MEGAN MILLER

ROCKVILLE (March 11, 2009) -- For some Maryland utility customers, environmentally friendly wind-powered electricity is available at a lower cost than standard coal electricity, at least for now.

Clean Currents, a company offering wind electricity within Baltimore Gas & Electric and Pepco service areas, announced Wednesday that the cost of its "greener" electricity is now lower for some customers than the cost of standard stuff from the utilities.

"As far as I know, this is the first time you can sign up for wind power below utility rates in Maryland," said Gary Skulnik, the company's president and co-founder. Clean Currents buys its wind power from wind farms in several other states, including Texas.

Clean Currents' most competitive offerings are its 50 percent wind options, called Chesapeake Green. It's a half-and-half mixture of wind energy purchased from wind farms nationally and standard electricity from the regional grid. Clean Currents offers one year of Chesapeake Green to BGE customers for 11.1 cents per kilowatt hour, which includes the transmission fee.

The current rate for BGE's coal electricity is 11.81 cents per kilowatt hour, including the transmission fee.

CCAN - Wind Power Company Touts Better Deal Than Utilities
 
None of that matters Rocks ... that prove more that you are willing to let only companies you like charge more than their services are worth, why is it that areas with "green" energy pay higher electric bills? Answer the question, stop posting projections and production costs, it's only hurting your case.
 
Reading problem, KK? Note that the utility is signing people up for wind power at a cheaper rate than for coal power.

"Promises" ... seen those before ... like public transportation being cheaper ... you know here people were looking forward to that, now it's just as expensive and they "promised" to lower the price when gas prices went down ... only half our buses run on gas now, but now they charge more and are planning another fare hike ... yeah, "promises" from "green" morons never go through, so far every one of them has been broken ...
 
I don't think anyone says that CO2 is the only factor. Of course there are natural cycles affecting climate. Solar output and ocean cycles (el nino etc, or otherwise the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which cycles warm/cool every few decades and has recently entered a cooling phase) are two biggies.

Here is a "quick-n-dirty" graph plotting global temps (green) against sunspot activity (red) and the pacific decadal oscillation. It is *obvious* that natural cycles affect climate (duh) but it looks like the natural cycles cannot explain recent warming. carbon dioxide looks like a good bet for that.

temp_spots_with_pdo-500x375.gif


2008 December | Climate Skeptic

Feel free to diss the link, it is from a climate skeptic after all! :)
 
I don't think anyone says that CO2 is the only factor. Of course there are natural cycles affecting climate. Solar output and ocean cycles (el nino etc, or otherwise the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which cycles warm/cool every few decades and has recently entered a cooling phase) are two biggies.

Here is a "quick-n-dirty" graph plotting global temps (green) against sunspot activity (red) and the pacific decadal oscillation. It is *obvious* that natural cycles affect climate (duh) but it looks like the natural cycles cannot explain recent warming. carbon dioxide looks like a good bet for that.

temp_spots_with_pdo-500x375.gif


2008 December | Climate Skeptic

Feel free to diss the link, it is from a climate skeptic after all! :)

It does look like it ... until you look back even further. Then you see that there is a far less predictable nature to nature and climate. There are many times, before humanity even existed, in which the climate was even crazier than now. We just got lucky in our early stages of existence, seeing a very mild time in global weather. However, this current state of chaos is far less drastic than it has been in the past still.
 
I don't think anyone says that CO2 is the only factor. Of course there are natural cycles affecting climate. Solar output and ocean cycles (el nino etc, or otherwise the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which cycles warm/cool every few decades and has recently entered a cooling phase) are two biggies.

Here is a "quick-n-dirty" graph plotting global temps (green) against sunspot activity (red) and the pacific decadal oscillation. It is *obvious* that natural cycles affect climate (duh) but it looks like the natural cycles cannot explain recent warming. carbon dioxide looks like a good bet for that.

temp_spots_with_pdo-500x375.gif


2008 December | Climate Skeptic

Feel free to diss the link, it is from a climate skeptic after all! :)

It does look like it ... until you look back even further. Then you see that there is a far less predictable nature to nature and climate. There are many times, before humanity even existed, in which the climate was even crazier than now. We just got lucky in our early stages of existence, seeing a very mild time in global weather. However, this current state of chaos is far less drastic than it has been in the past still.

The idea is that natural cycles and climate are tied together, so "going back further" can't be easily analyzed in this same way (we don't have records of sunspot activity or the PDO for year 1300 for example). Granted climate has been wacky in the past but I was trying to make the point that CO2 may still be a significant contributing factor and I think this is born out by the recent cooling of the PDO, recent decrease in sunspots, and still mild increase in temps. In other words temps may be flattening out to a small extent, but they *should* be cooling dramatically if it is all down to natural cycles - and they aren't. When the natural cycles shift to warm phases again, watch out.

$0.02
 
I don't think anyone says that CO2 is the only factor. Of course there are natural cycles affecting climate. Solar output and ocean cycles (el nino etc, or otherwise the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which cycles warm/cool every few decades and has recently entered a cooling phase) are two biggies.

Here is a "quick-n-dirty" graph plotting global temps (green) against sunspot activity (red) and the pacific decadal oscillation. It is *obvious* that natural cycles affect climate (duh) but it looks like the natural cycles cannot explain recent warming. carbon dioxide looks like a good bet for that.

temp_spots_with_pdo-500x375.gif


2008 December | Climate Skeptic

Feel free to diss the link, it is from a climate skeptic after all! :)

It does look like it ... until you look back even further. Then you see that there is a far less predictable nature to nature and climate. There are many times, before humanity even existed, in which the climate was even crazier than now. We just got lucky in our early stages of existence, seeing a very mild time in global weather. However, this current state of chaos is far less drastic than it has been in the past still.

The idea is that natural cycles and climate are tied together, so "going back further" can't be easily analyzed in this same way (we don't have records of sunspot activity or the PDO for year 1300 for example). Granted climate has been wacky in the past but I was trying to make the point that CO2 may still be a significant contributing factor and I think this is born out by the recent cooling of the PDO, recent decrease in sunspots, and still mild increase in temps. In other words temps may be flattening out to a small extent, but they *should* be cooling dramatically if it is all down to natural cycles - and they aren't. When the natural cycles shift to warm phases again, watch out.

$0.02

This is where the science they use falls apart, it's coincidental. There is one natural organism that normally absorbs both heat and CO2 is large amounts, one that use to have natural cycles that were making the planet capable of supporting the other life forms, it would wane when the temperature got too low, and then increase when it got too high, to keep the weather patterns more temperate worldwide. But the same scientists that are crying about the weather being abnormal now also scared people into destroying most of this life form. Remember a long time ago, a scientist discovered that most of our oxygen came from the ocean, the seas were emitting more O2 than anywhere else on the planet. Then suddenly it stopped, because the algae that was "threatening" a few species of fish (extinction is another part of the natural cycle they like to ignore) and the increase in CO2 and solar radiation caused a massive increase in algaes growth. Well, out of fear the moronic environuts listened to the ones that were saying the algae was a threat to some fish, and they eradicated it, even today they still do, and yet fail to see the sudden increase (even though very small in comparison to the rest of the atmosphere) and the fact that the temperature is increasing (um increased radiation levels raises the temperature to) and jumped to yet another conclusion without even thinking about the possibility that they caused it by jumping to a conclusion earlier.

The reality is, if the algae had been left alone, it would have not only kept the CO2 levels down but would have absorbed more of the radiation that the water is now absorbing and turning into heat, thus we would have been cooler and had less CO2 at the same time. But they won't make this connection, because they really do not care. What they do care about is increasing profits for specific corporations at any cost, and the environuts swallow it out of fear and ignorance without even digging for the whole truth.

The sad fact, none of this would have happened if we had just laughed at them in the past. Another sad fact, I fell for it to.
 
Damn, Navy, I thought you at least do a little research about where the parts of the mills come from. I know up close and personal where the some of the parts come from, specifically the big round tube that supports the turbine. We roll the steel for a great many of them in the steel mill I work in.

Simple fact. Alternative energy is getting cheaper construct every day. Traditional is getting more expensive every day. Wind is already cheaper than coal, gas, or nuclear. Same for Geo-thermal. Solar is just a couple of years away from being cheapest of all. We have had batteries capable of suppling power for an urban vehicle, 100 miles on a charge, for 15 years. A vehicle ideally suited for this type of driving was driven off the market by GM and Chevron 15 years ago.

You nihilistic ninnies can squack and squall all you want, the alternatives are here. They are going to replace the traditional power sources, to the benefit of all but the big energy corperations. Get used to it.

Rocks, I'm not under any misguided impression as to where the vast majority of this so called "green technology" is produced. As a matter of fact I can provide you with the list if you wish and clog up the thread with it, I've posted it many times in other threads, but let me cite you just a few examples. The largest producer of solar panels is SHARP electronics and we all know there Sharp is based don't we? They are a japanese based company that produces these panels in China, Vietnam, Korea, and many other Asian nations. They are in partnership with BP at the moment to produce photo-cells for even larger arrays that produce more energy. Lithium-Ion batteries that are the basic tool that provides the hy- behind hybrid engine technology , the largest producer of those batteries is where? That would be in China which recently surpassed Japan in production . by a company called LG Chem Ltd. Japanense technology in these automobiles that our Govt. wishes everyone to purchase have the leargest portion of the market and own most of the current patents on this technology, including the technology that Ford used to produce it's hybrids. GM's vision with fuel cells while promising has been bypassed by Honda which has already released a fuel cell care as of this year. While I don't deny that some of this technology is produced here in this country. It is the environemntal lobby and those that are fooled by it that buy into this complete foolish notion that with the passage of this mistaken legislation that somehow all of the sudden all these world players in this technology will suddnely shift production to this country. In fact what will happen is they will increase production in their own nations because of labor costs and lack of environmental controls to provide these technologies to the American consumers as usual. If we as a nation wish to ever change this dynamic then we need to recognize that environmental legislation ends where American jobs are in jeopardy.
 
It does look like it ... until you look back even further. Then you see that there is a far less predictable nature to nature and climate. There are many times, before humanity even existed, in which the climate was even crazier than now. We just got lucky in our early stages of existence, seeing a very mild time in global weather. However, this current state of chaos is far less drastic than it has been in the past still.

The idea is that natural cycles and climate are tied together, so "going back further" can't be easily analyzed in this same way (we don't have records of sunspot activity or the PDO for year 1300 for example). Granted climate has been wacky in the past but I was trying to make the point that CO2 may still be a significant contributing factor and I think this is born out by the recent cooling of the PDO, recent decrease in sunspots, and still mild increase in temps. In other words temps may be flattening out to a small extent, but they *should* be cooling dramatically if it is all down to natural cycles - and they aren't. When the natural cycles shift to warm phases again, watch out.

$0.02

This is where the science they use falls apart, it's coincidental. There is one natural organism that normally absorbs both heat and CO2 is large amounts, one that use to have natural cycles that were making the planet capable of supporting the other life forms, it would wane when the temperature got too low, and then increase when it got too high, to keep the weather patterns more temperate worldwide. But the same scientists that are crying about the weather being abnormal now also scared people into destroying most of this life form. Remember a long time ago, a scientist discovered that most of our oxygen came from the ocean, the seas were emitting more O2 than anywhere else on the planet. Then suddenly it stopped, because the algae that was "threatening" a few species of fish (extinction is another part of the natural cycle they like to ignore) and the increase in CO2 and solar radiation caused a massive increase in algaes growth. Well, out of fear the moronic environuts listened to the ones that were saying the algae was a threat to some fish, and they eradicated it, even today they still do, and yet fail to see the sudden increase (even though very small in comparison to the rest of the atmosphere) and the fact that the temperature is increasing (um increased radiation levels raises the temperature to) and jumped to yet another conclusion without even thinking about the possibility that they caused it by jumping to a conclusion earlier.

The reality is, if the algae had been left alone, it would have not only kept the CO2 levels down but would have absorbed more of the radiation that the water is now absorbing and turning into heat, thus we would have been cooler and had less CO2 at the same time. But they won't make this connection, because they really do not care. What they do care about is increasing profits for specific corporations at any cost, and the environuts swallow it out of fear and ignorance without even digging for the whole truth.

The sad fact, none of this would have happened if we had just laughed at them in the past. Another sad fact, I fell for it to.

I am not familiar with where we eradicated algae, or even how we would be able to do that.
 
Here is the gist of this. Just like with healthcare, if ABC or NBC got a bunch of experts together and they debated in a town hall style forum, the global warming deniers would get whipped with facts.

So they don't ever do that. The insurance defenders and the GW deniers choose not to get together to debate fact vs. fiction.
 
Okay well enough of this man made global warming marketing stuff. All you who support this, here is a little something to keep you busy for a while at least something that can tear you away from Dr. Mann''s "hockey stick" graph for a little while. Just a thought though, I find it interesting that everytime the IPCC comes out with another report they keep dropping off prior years on their global warming report. The first IPCC report went back 10,000 years and based on claims from Dr. Mann of his look at Ice Core Samples they posted it in total. That was until two scientists from Harvard who had been working on Ice Core samples and supported by over 650 scientists from MIT to UAB showed that Dr. Mann's data was incorrect. Then as of the 4th IPCC report you have suddenly a reflection that only goes back to 1880. However, here is a list of scientists that dispute man made global warming that I have posted on here many times,

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]
Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[11]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[12]
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The idea is that natural cycles and climate are tied together, so "going back further" can't be easily analyzed in this same way (we don't have records of sunspot activity or the PDO for year 1300 for example). Granted climate has been wacky in the past but I was trying to make the point that CO2 may still be a significant contributing factor and I think this is born out by the recent cooling of the PDO, recent decrease in sunspots, and still mild increase in temps. In other words temps may be flattening out to a small extent, but they *should* be cooling dramatically if it is all down to natural cycles - and they aren't. When the natural cycles shift to warm phases again, watch out.

$0.02

This is where the science they use falls apart, it's coincidental. There is one natural organism that normally absorbs both heat and CO2 is large amounts, one that use to have natural cycles that were making the planet capable of supporting the other life forms, it would wane when the temperature got too low, and then increase when it got too high, to keep the weather patterns more temperate worldwide. But the same scientists that are crying about the weather being abnormal now also scared people into destroying most of this life form. Remember a long time ago, a scientist discovered that most of our oxygen came from the ocean, the seas were emitting more O2 than anywhere else on the planet. Then suddenly it stopped, because the algae that was "threatening" a few species of fish (extinction is another part of the natural cycle they like to ignore) and the increase in CO2 and solar radiation caused a massive increase in algaes growth. Well, out of fear the moronic environuts listened to the ones that were saying the algae was a threat to some fish, and they eradicated it, even today they still do, and yet fail to see the sudden increase (even though very small in comparison to the rest of the atmosphere) and the fact that the temperature is increasing (um increased radiation levels raises the temperature to) and jumped to yet another conclusion without even thinking about the possibility that they caused it by jumping to a conclusion earlier.

The reality is, if the algae had been left alone, it would have not only kept the CO2 levels down but would have absorbed more of the radiation that the water is now absorbing and turning into heat, thus we would have been cooler and had less CO2 at the same time. But they won't make this connection, because they really do not care. What they do care about is increasing profits for specific corporations at any cost, and the environuts swallow it out of fear and ignorance without even digging for the whole truth.

The sad fact, none of this would have happened if we had just laughed at them in the past. Another sad fact, I fell for it to.

I am not familiar with where we eradicated algae, or even how we would be able to do that.

How is easy, try gardening sometime and you will see how very easily. Where was everywhere, mainly ports and shallow water. When is about two decades ago, I remember I was really young. Since they did this, the results are:

1. Weather patterns continually grow "strangers".

2. CO2 has risen.

3. Red tides have become slightly more frequent (possibly unrelated but no less of a sound connection than a .04% atmosphere change causing increase in heat).

4. Scientists that are on secret Gore's corporate payrolls keep finding new false connections to scare people into buying only those products.
 
Here is the gist of this. Just like with healthcare, if ABC or NBC got a bunch of experts together and they debated in a town hall style forum, the global warming deniers would get whipped with facts.

So they don't ever do that. The insurance defenders and the GW deniers choose not to get together to debate fact vs. fiction.

You don't even read short posts when you disagree ... of course you would have no clues about the big picture ... just the propaganda you have in pamphlets.
 
It didn't take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama's agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked. [...]

This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.
NASA Warming Scientist Hansen Blasts Obama's 'Counterfeit' Climate Bill - Calls it 'a monstrous absurdity...less than worthless!' | Climate Depot

This from one of the people that worship at the alter of global warming as well.
 
It didn't take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama's agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked. [...]

This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.
NASA Warming Scientist Hansen Blasts Obama's 'Counterfeit' Climate Bill - Calls it 'a monstrous absurdity...less than worthless!' | Climate Depot

This from one of the people that worship at the alter of global warming as well.

This hits on something I have found rather hilarious. The Obama supporters who are environuts still don't see that even their own sources don't like Obama's environment plan. I am beginning to wonder if Gore's grasp of them is waning due to the economy on it's down slide. Perhaps he isn't able to keep the bribes up, we can only hope.
 
Here is the gist of this. Just like with healthcare, if ABC or NBC got a bunch of experts together and they debated in a town hall style forum, the global warming deniers would get whipped with facts.

So they don't ever do that. The insurance defenders and the GW deniers choose not to get together to debate fact vs. fiction.

You don't even read short posts when you disagree ... of course you would have no clues about the big picture ... just the propaganda you have in pamphlets.

Look who's talking. Even guys like Newt admit I'm right.

Where’s the Outrage? » Newt Gingrich admits that Global Warming exists

Let me explain short and simple for you. Going green is a must, but the corporations will fight as long as they can because it is going to cost them money to clean up. Two things they hate, regulations and more taxes.

Corporations aren't people. They don't care about health. They only care about profitability. You prove that you serve corporations over people.

Why I don't know. Do you own one? Probably they scared you into thinking that if we force them to clean up, it'll raise prices for you. Greedy and ignorant. They prey on people like you. Ignorant.
 

Forum List

Back
Top