The Daily Freakout: Solar Energy

[Meister]

Really? And you are differant from Kookybill how?

Yes, really you silly ass, your willfull ignorance is astounding..

 

[skookerasbil]

Read about the fraudulent claims by the OPCC. The organization is a sham.........it consistently embelishes reports to raise the level of alarmism. The whole damn thing is a fcukking hoax and the true believers dont want anybody knowing about this and attack those who challenge the k00k assertions that are bogus.

Check this BS out..............

News analysis

NewsbookBias and the IPCC report

Accentuate the negative

Jul 5th 2010, 10:11 by The Economist online

FOR everyone else it was the glaciers: for the Dutch it was the flooding. Last January errors in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hit the headlines. The chapter on Asia in the report by the IPCC’s second working group, charged with looking at the impact of climate change and adapting to it, mistakenly claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. This contradicted some reasonably basic physics, had not been predicted by the glacier specialists in the first working group (which deals with the natural science of past and future climate change) and was unsupported by any evidence. There was a report from the 1990s which said something similar about all the world’s non-polar glaciers, but it gave the date as 2350. Then there was a crucial typo and some shoddy referencing. Nevertheless the IPCC’s chair, Rajendra Pachauri, had lashed out at people bringing the criticism up, accusing them of “voodoo science”. He then had to eat his words, and set up, with Ban Ki-moon, a panel to look into ways the IPCC might be improved.

Inspired by this to look for other errors, a journalist for a Dutch newspaper spotted that the chapter on Europe gave a figure for the area of the Netherlands below sea level that was much too large. The area at risk of flooding by the sea had been conflated with that at risk of flooding by the Rhine and the Meuse rivers. That the careful Dutch should have provided faulty information and not spotted it in the review process was an embarrassment to the then environment minister, Jacqueline Cramer; following a debate in parliament she called on the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), an independent body, to look at all the regional chapters in the working group II report and make sure they were up to snuff. This the PBL has now done; its report was published on July 5th.

The authors try hard to make clear that their findings do not undermine the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. And there is nothing in their report as egregious as the glaciers or as embarrassing as the Dutch sea level. But they did find a number of things to take issue with, most of which they thought minor but eight of which they classed as major; and their work seems to bring out a systemic tendency to stress negative effects over positive ones. This tendency can be defended. But a reading of the report suggests there may also be broader and potentialy more misleading bias. The PBL report chose as its main focus a table in the “Summary for Policy Makers” of the IPCC’s 2007 “Synthesis Report”, which brings together the results of working groups one, two and three (which deals with responses to climate change). Where did these bullet points actually come from, the PBL team asked, and how well supported were they?

The auditors found one new error which they deemed major: a statement about the frequency of turbulence in South African fishing waters which had been translated directly into a statement about the productivity of the fisheries. The IPCC has indicated it will produce an erratum for this, and for a number of other errors all concerned deemed minor. But the PBL also identified seven statements, which, while not errors, it thought were deserving of comment (for which read criticism).

Perhaps the most striking relates to Africa. The table in the summary for policy makers reads: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” The evidence on which this is based says only that yields during years in which there are droughts could be reduced by 50%. Furthermore, the relevant reference applies only for Morocco—and it cites as its source an earlier paper that the PBL says no one, including the IPCC authors, now seems able to find.




Bias and the IPCC report: Accentuate the negative | The Economist


And dont forget............there is absoltuely NOTHING that could ever, ever, ever change the minds of the true believers............all like little Al Gores.........attack the source as bogus at every turn and fail to answer the difficult questions. Its a perpetual hoax folks..............always has been.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uh, Kooky, what is the title of this thread?

 

[HUGGY]

He tries so hard. Has the concentration of a fruit fly..

How'd ya like to ride along with him on a cross country road trip?

My money says he gets lost ten times and loses his car keys..then his car. Has to take a train a hundred miles from start of trip..

 

[logical4u]

Solar energy is going to be a trillion dollar market and will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Chinese are poised to capture that market. We should not ignore it.

Then why are the Chinese currently building a power infrastructure of hydro, coal, and nuclear powered plants? Maybe the Chinese know when the sun goes down, people still want to use electricity (and there are not enough batteries in the country to support one city through an entire night). Spain did this; they invested BAM in solar energy, now they are going broke with not to much to show for it. Don't be a sucker. Until there are some real advancement made, coal and nuclear power in the least expensive and most efficient. If you want your energy bill to triple (or more), then support the non-leader in DC.

Just where do you get your information at? China is becoming the world leader in alternative energy.


Is this enough or do you need more? I pay attention to industry (where are GE's turbines going), I read other stuff besides Huffpo, and I know how to do a search. Why can't you find the same stuff?

Report: China trounces U.S. in clean energy - Mar. 25, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- China overtook the United States in renewable energy investments for the first time ever in 2009, attracting nearly twice as many dollars and becoming the world's largest market for clean energy projects.

Renewable energy investments in China - mostly wind farms - totaled $34.6 billion in 2009, according to report released Thursday by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In the United States, $18.6 billion was spent.


The report's authors stressed it was the stable, long-term policies put forth by the Chinese government and easier access to credit that attracted the money, and said the numbers do not bode well for America.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Entrance to a small coal mine in China.
A coal shipment underway in China.
An operating power plant in China.The People's Republic of China is the largest consumer of coal in the world,[1] and is about to become the largest user of coal-derived electricity, generating 1.95 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 68.7% of its electricity from coal as of 2006 (compared to 1.99 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 49% for the US).[2][3] Hydroelectric power supplied another 20.7% of China's electricity needs in 2006. With approximately 13 percent of the world's proven reserves, China has enough coal to sustain its economic growth for a century or more even though demand is currently outpacing production.[4] China's coal mining industry is the deadliest in the world and has the world's worst safety record[5] where an average of 13 people die every day in the coal pits, compared to 30 per year for coal power in the United States.[6] Coal production rose 8.1% in 2006 over the previous year, reaching 2.38 billion tons, and the nation's largest coal enterprises saw their profits exceed 67 billion yuan, or $8.75 billion.[7]


Concept:China's Coal Power Pollution
Through China's use of coal, it is the largest greenhouse gases emitter in the world. The negative pollution impacts from coal on China's farming could increase the demand for agricultural imports and hinder Chinese foodstuff exports. The energy demand from China's continued rapid industrialization augurs no end in sight to this trend, however this may create market opportunities for manufacturers of cleaner power generation equipment and vehicles.

China Nuclear Power | Chinese Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Power in China
(Updated 2 July 2010)

Mainland China has 11 nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, 23 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then why are the Chinese currently building a power infrastructure of hydro, coal, and nuclear powered plants? Maybe the Chinese know when the sun goes down, people still want to use electricity (and there are not enough batteries in the country to support one city through an entire night). Spain did this; they invested BAM in solar energy, now they are going broke with not to much to show for it. Don't be a sucker. Until there are some real advancement made, coal and nuclear power in the least expensive and most efficient. If you want your energy bill to triple (or more), then support the non-leader in DC.

Just where do you get your information at? China is becoming the world leader in alternative energy.


Is this enough or do you need more? I pay attention to industry (where are GE's turbines going), I read other stuff besides Huffpo, and I know how to do a search. Why can't you find the same stuff?

Report: China trounces U.S. in clean energy - Mar. 25, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- China overtook the United States in renewable energy investments for the first time ever in 2009, attracting nearly twice as many dollars and becoming the world's largest market for clean energy projects.

Renewable energy investments in China - mostly wind farms - totaled $34.6 billion in 2009, according to report released Thursday by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In the United States, $18.6 billion was spent.


The report's authors stressed it was the stable, long-term policies put forth by the Chinese government and easier access to credit that attracted the money, and said the numbers do not bode well for America.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Entrance to a small coal mine in China.
A coal shipment underway in China.
An operating power plant in China.The People's Republic of China is the largest consumer of coal in the world,[1] and is about to become the largest user of coal-derived electricity, generating 1.95 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 68.7% of its electricity from coal as of 2006 (compared to 1.99 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 49% for the US).[2][3] Hydroelectric power supplied another 20.7% of China's electricity needs in 2006. With approximately 13 percent of the world's proven reserves, China has enough coal to sustain its economic growth for a century or more even though demand is currently outpacing production.[4] China's coal mining industry is the deadliest in the world and has the world's worst safety record[5] where an average of 13 people die every day in the coal pits, compared to 30 per year for coal power in the United States.[6] Coal production rose 8.1% in 2006 over the previous year, reaching 2.38 billion tons, and the nation's largest coal enterprises saw their profits exceed 67 billion yuan, or $8.75 billion.[7]


Concept:China's Coal Power Pollution
Through China's use of coal, it is the largest greenhouse gases emitter in the world. The negative pollution impacts from coal on China's farming could increase the demand for agricultural imports and hinder Chinese foodstuff exports. The energy demand from China's continued rapid industrialization augurs no end in sight to this trend, however this may create market opportunities for manufacturers of cleaner power generation equipment and vehicles.

China Nuclear Power | Chinese Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Power in China
(Updated 2 July 2010)

Mainland China has 11 nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, 23 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

And that changes China's determination to also lead in alternatives in what way?

One can take the division rate of a bacterium and calculate how long it will take that bacterial colony to equal the weight of the planet. Assuming that China can continue this growth rate is just as realistic. When you come from the bottom, the speed of increase can be astounding for a while, but eventually, it ends. Japan is a prime example.

China will become a major player in all markets, but there is no way it can endlessly expand it's economy. And with that cessation of very rapid expansion will come a reintrenchment in types of energy used, and what effects the Chinese People will put up with.

 

[skookerasbil]

He tries so hard. Has the concentration of a fruit fly..

How'd ya like to ride along with him on a cross country road trip?

My money says he gets lost ten times and loses his car keys..then his car. Has to take a train a hundred miles from start of trip..

yeah but...........on the substance.....................

 

[KissMy]

Not a comparison Gracie. The Government is tasked to build roads Constitutionally.

The Government is trying to force something that is not economically feasible at this point regarding 'Green Energy'. Oil will be with us for the forseeable future. There's no getting around it.

And these 'Green Technologies will come about from the private sector as most invention does due to incentive, not because the Government forces it on the populace or else. That's just Government in thier control mode at the behest of thier whacko masters that hate this nation anyway.

The key is to drive the cost of wind & solar down without that stupid carbon cap & trade law that will only drive up the total cost of energy. It looks like we are at or near that threshold now. I will know more once I get mine installed. Just think of all the people with savings accounts earning less than 10% interest. If they all took that money & invested in their own wind or solar system it would pay them back more than that plus drive down cost for everyone fueling a sustainable recovery. If the payback period on this stuff is really 7 years then we are there.

Exactly. And that's what I meant by Incentive. it has to come from the private sector, and their willingness to adopt such things. It has happened many times in our history through private innovation, invention.

One notable transition was from horses and buggies to the automobile.

You are correct. The Government being in the way will make matters worse.

Now this is what I'm talking about.

Wind Energy--Too Much of a Good Thing

A surfeit of wind energy is pushing down the price of all electricity. The real time price of electricity in West Texas, where almost all generation is wind, was negative for 23% of April 2009. The negative prices spilled over to the rest of Texas for about 1% of the month. This may be the future of the electric industry, with negative prices for a substantial amount of time each month...

...Until recently the ERCOT procedure was to actually tell generators in the West market area to dump wind. The wind generators apparently were unhappy with the command and control attitude of ERCOT and sought an economic approach. The current ERCOT approach allows generators in the West market area to bid for access to the transmission lines connecting the West market area to the rest of ERCOT. At least that was effectively the situation for 23% of the time in April 2009. During 664 of the quarter hour periods in April 2009, the price for generation in the West market area was less than zero, with generators paying for the right to dump electricity into the grid. During 28 of those quarter hour periods the negative prices spilled over to other parts of ERCOT.