Before people get giddy over the Climate Summit :-)

[Old Rocks]

LOL. No one takes AGW seriously, eh? That is the reason for the meeting in Paris? A subject that no one takes seriously?

No one takes me seriously? Why should they, I am just a poster on a hyper-Conservative internet board, same as you. The differance is that I back up my opinions with articles written for peer reviewed scientific journals, while you back up yours with the opinions of an obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[Iceweasel]

Our present President did not leave the man that masterminded the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil alive for seven years. He promised in his campaign for the Presidency that if he was elected, Bin Laden would die. Bin Laden is dead.

Our present President did not preside over the biggest economic debacle since the First Great Republican Depression. Instead, in seven years he presided over an economy that moved from over 10% unemployment to one with 5% unemployment. And the DOW moved from an anemic 6500 to around 17,500. I am sure the GOP longs for the good ol' days of January 2009.

Our present President is not regarded by leaders foreign and domestic as an utter dunce, as the man put in office by the GOP was.

And our present President is taking a leadership position on the very important issue of AGW. If that torques your jaws, great. See you on election day, Nov16.

Bush was a mastermind that outwitted the Dems, like Hillary, to vote for the war? Good to know!

Bush was responsible for all the irresponsible spending? What do you call a 19 trillion dollar debt?

Bush was an utter dunce that outwitted Democrats and scores of countries to go to war that he masterminded?

Showing up to a meaningless global circle jerk is how you define taking leadership?

LOL.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because none of these 'new reactor technologies' exist yet. When they are hardware actually putting out electricity, then I will look at the cost of installation, and output, and judge whether they are for real. Remember, when I was in school, we were told by these same kind of experts that nuclear would be absolutely failsafe, and produce electricity too cheap to meter.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why choose the most expensive and dangerous way? Vulnerable to terrorism and natural disasters. We have more than enough power by using wind, solar, and geothermal. Not only less expensive, but less vulnerable to natural or manmade disasters.

You can back that up, of course?

 

[Iceweasel]

Because none of these 'new reactor technologies' exist yet. When they are hardware actually putting out electricity, then I will look at the cost of installation, and output, and judge whether they are for real. Remember, when I was in school, we were told by these same kind of experts that nuclear would be absolutely failsafe, and produce electricity too cheap to meter.

But you believe in all the green technology that doesn't exist yet. It's almost as if you were brainwashed.

 

[Old Rocks]

These climate summits are political theater at it best or worst

If we were serious about cutting emissions we would be taking on a challenge akin to that proposed by JFK in regards to the moon

If we had a real leader he would throw down the guantlet and declare that we will have an emission free electric grid in 20 years

And how do we do that?

Simple

NUCLEAR POWER

But we don't have that do we?

We have nothing but rhetoric spewing selfie taking morons in power

Why choose the most expensive and dangerous way? Vulnerable to terrorism and natural disasters. We have more than enough power by using wind, solar, and geothermal. Not only less expensive, but less vulnerable to natural or manmade disasters.

Why are you deliberately ignorant of new reactor technology that will not only use spent fuel from our outdated reactors but that are inherently safer and are modular and less expensive than our outdated reactors that can be buried underground and only need refueling every 2-3 decades and can supply enough emission free power to cover all our needs and instead of wind which at best only produces 30% of its nominal output or solar that only works less than half the time where both will eat up acres and acres of land?

Wind not only works, it spreads the the producer dollar around. Much cheaper to install per kilowatt actual output than even dirty coal, certainly a lot cheaper than nuclear. And solar is perfect for rooftop installation in urban areas. Many thousands of square miles of rooftop in shopping centers, warehouses, and manufacturing buildings. And a distributed grid would be far more robust and less vulnerable to disaster than our present grid.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why choose the most expensive and dangerous way? Vulnerable to terrorism and natural disasters. We have more than enough power by using wind, solar, and geothermal. Not only less expensive, but less vulnerable to natural or manmade disasters.

You can back that up, of course?

Wind is cheap and solar is getting cheaper - Fortune

When it comes to electricity, it’s all about the cost. A new report shows how clean energy electricity is becoming mainstream.

Electricity generated by large wind farms is now cheap enough in many places around the world to compete effectively with electricity generated by coal and natural gas.

At the same time, solar panel farms aren’t quite low cost enough to be as competitive with fossil fuels as wind energy is. Still, the cost of electricity generated by solar panels has also come down significantly this year.

These are the findings of a new report from Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance research unit, which looks at the costs of electricity from various sources of energy around the world for the second half of 2015. The report focuses on the overall cost of electricity—from generation, to upfront investment, to the cost of financing—called the “levelised cost electricity,” or LCOE.


The cost of new dirty coal, not the kind with all the scrubbers, that is much more expensive, is over 6 cents per kw. They are installing a 1.2 Gw solar installation near Austen, Texas, for under 4 cents a kw.

Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

The city's utility, Austin Energy, just released new data on developer bids for PV projects as part of a 600-megawatt procurement. The numbers show how far solar prices have come down over the last year -- and will continue to drop.

According to Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy's vice president of resource planning, the utility received offers for 7,976 megawatts of projects after issuing a request for bids in April. Out of those bids, 1,295 megawatts of projects were priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

"The technology is getting better and the prices are decreasing with time," said Shalabi during a presentation in front of the Austin city council last week.

Shalabi displayed the chart below showing an "exponentially declining curve" for PV projects in Texas.

"If you continue the curve, you can see that if the cost points continue along this sort of exponentially declining curve. We expect to see prices out in the future that are possibly below $20 a megawatt-hour," he said.

• 

• 

• http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/flying-robots-the-future-solar-data-farmers-of-america

 

[Old Rocks]

Because none of these 'new reactor technologies' exist yet. When they are hardware actually putting out electricity, then I will look at the cost of installation, and output, and judge whether they are for real. Remember, when I was in school, we were told by these same kind of experts that nuclear would be absolutely failsafe, and produce electricity too cheap to meter.

But you believe in all the green technology that doesn't exist yet. It's almost as if you were brainwashed.

What the hell are you talking about, you silly ass? Every major nation and many of the minor ones are producing solar panels and wind mills. And here in the US we have two huge factories producing grid scale batteries. The technology not only exists, it is being installed as we post.

 

[Skull Pilot]

These climate summits are political theater at it best or worst

If we were serious about cutting emissions we would be taking on a challenge akin to that proposed by JFK in regards to the moon

If we had a real leader he would throw down the guantlet and declare that we will have an emission free electric grid in 20 years

And how do we do that?

Simple

NUCLEAR POWER

But we don't have that do we?

We have nothing but rhetoric spewing selfie taking morons in power

Why choose the most expensive and dangerous way? Vulnerable to terrorism and natural disasters. We have more than enough power by using wind, solar, and geothermal. Not only less expensive, but less vulnerable to natural or manmade disasters.

Why are you deliberately ignorant of new reactor technology that will not only use spent fuel from our outdated reactors but that are inherently safer and are modular and less expensive than our outdated reactors that can be buried underground and only need refueling every 2-3 decades and can supply enough emission free power to cover all our needs and instead of wind which at best only produces 30% of its nominal output or solar that only works less than half the time where both will eat up acres and acres of land?

Wind not only works, it spreads the the producer dollar around. Much cheaper to install per kilowatt actual output than even dirty coal, certainly a lot cheaper than nuclear. And solar is perfect for rooftop installation in urban areas. Many thousands of square miles of rooftop in shopping centers, warehouses, and manufacturing buildings. And a distributed grid would be far more robust and less vulnerable to disaster than our present grid.

And both of those have to be supplemented with fossil fuel in order to meet our needs

Face it the only way to have an emission free grid is to embrace nuclear

We will never reach more than 25-30% of our needs at best with solar and wind and in reality as experience has shown us with the real numbers from large wind producing endeavors it will be much less

 

[Old Rocks]

Iowa Wind Energy Association

IWEA Projects Over 10,000 MW of Wind Energy

MidAmerican Energy's recent announcement of another 1,050 MW of wind projects and the Rock Island Clean Line High Voltage DC project to carry 4,000 MW of wind energy to east coast markets will result in over 10,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity. This should occur by 2017 which is well ahead of IWEA's goal of 10,000 MW by 2020!

IWEA


Capital Invested in Iowa Wind Projects
Over $9.8 billion dollars of capital has been invested in Iowa's wind farms and manufacturing facilities. Another $8 to $10 billion dollars will likely be invested in the next 3 to 5 years!



IWEA


Wind Farms Save Water
Generating wind energy requires virtually no water. The water consumption savings from from wind projects in Iowa total more than 3.2 billion gallons of water per year.



AWEA


Environmental Benefits of Wind Power
Iowa's wind power installations will avoid over 8.7million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. This is equivalent to taking 1,550,000 cars off the road!

AWEA


Wind Energy Benefits Dickinson County
Dickinson County in NW Iowa has 97 wind turbines. During the current tax collection cycle, $443,470 is being collected from these turbines to distribute to county, school districts, the area community college, hospital, etc. For the 1-2012 valuation, $10,862,000 additional valuation was gained from the turbines, with a similar amount to be added in the next 4 assessment years (2013-2016). When these turbines are at full (30%) assessment they will contribute $80,978,800 to the county tax base.


Wind Energy Benefits Pocahontas County
A total of 216 wind turbines have been constructed in Pocahontas County. In the most recent year, the turbines contributed $23.5 million in additional assessed value. When all turbines are at full taxable value, they will contribute an estimated total of $189 million to the total county tax base. Tax assessments for the wind turbines comprise 9% of the total county tax base currently and is likely to increase as the newer turbines reach full assessed valuation. The county has received over $3 million dollars in tax revenue from these wind turbines during the past 3 years. The wind turbines have increased tax receipts to the county and to some local school district budgets and some residents have actually seen their tax bill decrease as a reult of the expanded tax base! - IWEA


Iowan's Support Wind Energy
According to a recent poll of Iowan's attitudes regarding wind energy by Public Opinion Strategies, 85% of Iowan's view wind energy favorably, more so than any other generation source. Further, when asked "which type of energy source would you prefer for Iowa" 51% of Iowan's said wind energy, more than any other source as well!


Iowa's Total Wind Resource
75% of Iowa is suitable for wind energy development with an estimated total wind resource of 570,000 megawatts

Wind already provides over 25% of the energy used in Iowa. Wind, alone, can easily do that for the whole of the US. Combined with solar and geothermal, there is no reason that 100% of US energy on the grid cannot be wind, solar, and geothermal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Iowa Wind Energy Association

IWEA Projects Over 10,000 MW of Wind Energy

MidAmerican Energy's recent announcement of another 1,050 MW of wind projects and the Rock Island Clean Line High Voltage DC project to carry 4,000 MW of wind energy to east coast markets will result in over 10,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity. This should occur by 2017 which is well ahead of IWEA's goal of 10,000 MW by 2020!

IWEA


Capital Invested in Iowa Wind Projects
Over $9.8 billion dollars of capital has been invested in Iowa's wind farms and manufacturing facilities. Another $8 to $10 billion dollars will likely be invested in the next 3 to 5 years!



IWEA


Wind Farms Save Water
Generating wind energy requires virtually no water. The water consumption savings from from wind projects in Iowa total more than 3.2 billion gallons of water per year.



AWEA


Environmental Benefits of Wind Power
Iowa's wind power installations will avoid over 8.7million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. This is equivalent to taking 1,550,000 cars off the road!

AWEA


Wind Energy Benefits Dickinson County
Dickinson County in NW Iowa has 97 wind turbines. During the current tax collection cycle, $443,470 is being collected from these turbines to distribute to county, school districts, the area community college, hospital, etc. For the 1-2012 valuation, $10,862,000 additional valuation was gained from the turbines, with a similar amount to be added in the next 4 assessment years (2013-2016). When these turbines are at full (30%) assessment they will contribute $80,978,800 to the county tax base.


Wind Energy Benefits Pocahontas County
A total of 216 wind turbines have been constructed in Pocahontas County. In the most recent year, the turbines contributed $23.5 million in additional assessed value. When all turbines are at full taxable value, they will contribute an estimated total of $189 million to the total county tax base. Tax assessments for the wind turbines comprise 9% of the total county tax base currently and is likely to increase as the newer turbines reach full assessed valuation. The county has received over $3 million dollars in tax revenue from these wind turbines during the past 3 years. The wind turbines have increased tax receipts to the county and to some local school district budgets and some residents have actually seen their tax bill decrease as a reult of the expanded tax base! - IWEA


Iowan's Support Wind Energy
According to a recent poll of Iowan's attitudes regarding wind energy by Public Opinion Strategies, 85% of Iowan's view wind energy favorably, more so than any other generation source. Further, when asked "which type of energy source would you prefer for Iowa" 51% of Iowan's said wind energy, more than any other source as well!


Iowa's Total Wind Resource
75% of Iowa is suitable for wind energy development with an estimated total wind resource of 570,000 megawatts

Wind already provides over 25% of the energy used in Iowa. Wind, alone, can easily do that for the whole of the US. Combined with solar and geothermal, there is no reason that 100% of US energy on the grid cannot be wind, solar, and geothermal.

You're still trying to use installed or nominal capacity when the real world numbers for wind are at best 30% of rated capacity

And tell me what you mean by geothermal are you talking greenland style geo thermal that requires a high level of volcanic activity or the more mundane GT where the ground is used as a heat source or heat sink?

The former is unrealistic in the lower 48 and the latter relies on electricity that must be available when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing

And do you really want 75% of a state to be covered with windmills when a few molten salt reactors could provide the same electricity 24/7 and be buried out of sight

And you keep sighting cost here but you are not basing your costs figures for nuclear on the new technology are you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Because none of these 'new reactor technologies' exist yet. When they are hardware actually putting out electricity, then I will look at the cost of installation, and output, and judge whether they are for real. Remember, when I was in school, we were told by these same kind of experts that nuclear would be absolutely failsafe, and produce electricity too cheap to meter.

But you believe in all the green technology that doesn't exist yet. It's almost as if you were brainwashed.

What the hell are you talking about, you silly ass? Every major nation and many of the minor ones are producing solar panels and wind mills. And here in the US we have two huge factories producing grid scale batteries. The technology not only exists, it is being installed as we post.

We had them for a while but they don't compete and probably never will compete with nuclear power. France was 70% powered by nuclear last I heard, not wind or solar.

 

[PredFan]

Oh yes.....that's another talking point for progressives.( and this is the only thing this bozo ever posts in here )


That's been a real effective campaign too!!

It's all your obnoxious ass deserves. It shocks me that people try to engage you seriously about anything.

You and your kind are the ones that no one takes seriously.

^ He says in the thread about 195 countries and their leaders holding a summit to take this seriously.

Not Climate Change retard, it's YOU that no one takes seriously.

In addition to your other mental insufficiencies, you are functionally illiterate too? Tough break pal.

Oh you big ******* idiot I guess you shouldn't have typed "your kind." Please post some more emoji's and shitty edited MS piant photos so you can be taken seriously like skooker.

Moron, I never post emojis retard, that was YOUR emoji. How ******* stupid are you really? Ignorant and illiterate, like I said, that's a tough break for you. However, being so mentally challenged, you should shut up once in a while.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's all your obnoxious ass deserves. It shocks me that people try to engage you seriously about anything.

You and your kind are the ones that no one takes seriously.

^ He says in the thread about 195 countries and their leaders holding a summit to take this seriously.

Not Climate Change retard, it's YOU that no one takes seriously.

In addition to your other mental insufficiencies, you are functionally illiterate too? Tough break pal.

Oh you big ******* idiot I guess you shouldn't have typed "your kind." Please post some more emoji's and shitty edited MS piant photos so you can be taken seriously like skooker.

Moron, I never post emojis retard, that was YOUR emoji. How ******* stupid are you really? Ignorant and illiterate, like I said, that's a tough break for you. However, being so mentally challenged, you should shut up once in a while.

^ didn't get it. Not even close.

 

[jc456]

Consider............

• Any treaty is not binding and zero chance of making it through the Senate
• No enforcement provisions will even be discussed in Paris
• More people are driving SUV's than ever before in our history
• More people carpooled in 1980 than they do now
• 70% of the American people are against any taxes to fight "climate change"
• On every reputable poll taken since 2010, global warming is at or near the bottom of voter "concerns".
• We have seen zero significant climate legislation since 2007
• Electric vehicle sales are still a joke
• China will only be agreeing to reduce emissions starting in.....2030.
• China will be upping its coal production by 50% over the next 30 years.
• Cap and Trade failed in the US and has been a disaster in places like Germany and Australia.
• NASA has admitted its data is rigged.
• Over 30,000 scientists say global warming is a bunch of hooey
• Going "green" in Spain 10 years ago cost 2 jobs for every green job gained!!

Now.....for 30 years, with the backing of the entire media and a wholesale sell of the 97% mantra on every campus in America ( grade/middle/high/college)......an unmitigated disaster. TOTAL FAILURE!!!

Actually........its quite astonishing!!!

the same old material pulled out like it is christmas time and you're setting up for the holidays. Funny stuff jean.

 

[jc456]

Consider............

• Any treaty is not binding and zero chance of making it through the Senate
• No enforcement provisions will even be discussed in Paris
• More people are driving SUV's than ever before in our history
• More people carpooled in 1980 than they do now
• 70% of the American people are against any taxes to fight "climate change"
• On every reputable poll taken since 2010, global warming is at or near the bottom of voter "concerns".
• We have seen zero significant climate legislation since 2007
• Electric vehicle sales are still a joke
• China will only be agreeing to reduce emissions starting in.....2030.
• China will be upping its coal production by 50% over the next 30 years.
• Cap and Trade failed in the US and has been a disaster in places like Germany and Australia.
• NASA has admitted its data is rigged.
• Over 30,000 scientists say global warming is a bunch of hooey
• Going "green" in Spain 10 years ago cost 2 jobs for every green job gained!!

Now.....for 30 years, with the backing of the entire media and a wholesale sell of the 97% mantra on every campus in America ( grade/middle/high/college)......an unmitigated disaster. TOTAL FAILURE!!!

Actually........its quite astonishing!!!

Oh yes.....that's another talking point for progressives.( and this is the only thing this bozo ever posts in here )


That's been a real effective campaign too!!

Given the present GOP candidates statement on AGW, and what we are seeing this year and what we will see next year concerning weather, and the increase in temperature, it is an excellent talking point.

what is it you saw this year? weather?

 

[jc456]

Our present President did not leave the man that masterminded the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil alive for seven years. He promised in his campaign for the Presidency that if he was elected, Bin Laden would die. Bin Laden is dead.

Our present President did not preside over the biggest economic debacle since the First Great Republican Depression. Instead, in seven years he presided over an economy that moved from over 10% unemployment to one with 5% unemployment. And the DOW moved from an anemic 6500 to around 17,500. I am sure the GOP longs for the good ol' days of January 2009.

Our present President is not regarded by leaders foreign and domestic as an utter dunce, as the man put in office by the GOP was.

And our present President is taking a leadership position on the very important issue of AGW. If that torques your jaws, great. See you on election day, Nov16.

holy crap more made up talking points. Funny how the facts always allude you.

It's like the lie that if you like your current insurance you can keep it. That kind of lying.

 

[jc456]

Man made Climate Change is a scam. It's the perfect scam for Democrats because the cause has no violence, no guns, they can claim we are all victims, and the answer to it is more and bigger government. The more we hold the Democrats off and prevent them from damaging the country pushing their AGW scam, the more the American people realize what a scam it is.

People like you are ignorant asses that constantly make statements with zero to back the statements up. Are you ever going to back up anything you state, or just continue to be a board troll?

The climate summit represents that fact that most of the world understands now what we are doing to ourselves, and are starting to seek remedies. By standing on the sidelines, ignorant and stupid, you will have no say is what is done, and will not be able to do anything but go along while it is being done.

People like you are ignorant asses that constantly make statements with zero to back the statements up. Are you ever going to back up anything you state, or just continue to be a board troll

People like you are ignorant asses that constantly make statements with zero to back the statements up. Are you ever going to back up anything you state, or just continue to be a board troll?

 

[jc456]

LOL. No one takes AGW seriously, eh? That is the reason for the meeting in Paris? A subject that no one takes seriously?

No one takes me seriously? Why should they, I am just a poster on a hyper-Conservative internet board, same as you. The differance is that I back up my opinions with articles written for peer reviewed scientific journals, while you back up yours with the opinions of an obese junkie on the AM radio.

few take climate change seriously, you should take some chill pills, your scared and confused.

 

[Old Rocks]

Consider............

• Any treaty is not binding and zero chance of making it through the Senate
• No enforcement provisions will even be discussed in Paris
• More people are driving SUV's than ever before in our history
• More people carpooled in 1980 than they do now
• 70% of the American people are against any taxes to fight "climate change"
• On every reputable poll taken since 2010, global warming is at or near the bottom of voter "concerns".
• We have seen zero significant climate legislation since 2007
• Electric vehicle sales are still a joke
• China will only be agreeing to reduce emissions starting in.....2030.
• China will be upping its coal production by 50% over the next 30 years.
• Cap and Trade failed in the US and has been a disaster in places like Germany and Australia.
• NASA has admitted its data is rigged.
• Over 30,000 scientists say global warming is a bunch of hooey
• Going "green" in Spain 10 years ago cost 2 jobs for every green job gained!!

Now.....for 30 years, with the backing of the entire media and a wholesale sell of the 97% mantra on every campus in America ( grade/middle/high/college)......an unmitigated disaster. TOTAL FAILURE!!!

Actually........its quite astonishing!!!

Oh yes.....that's another talking point for progressives.( and this is the only thing this bozo ever posts in here )


That's been a real effective campaign too!!

Given the present GOP candidates statement on AGW, and what we are seeing this year and what we will see next year concerning weather, and the increase in temperature, it is an excellent talking point.

what is it you saw this year? weather?

Global temperatures reached high levels in 2014 but 2015 is expected to be the warmest since records began

Global temperatures are set to rise more than one degree above pre-industrial levels according to the UK's Met Office.

Figures from January to September this year are already 1.02C above the average between 1850 and 1900.

If temperatures remain as predicted, 2015 will be the first year to breach this key threshold.

The world would then be half way towards 2C, the gateway to dangerous warming.

The new data is certain to add urgency to political negotiations in Paris later this month aimed at securing a new global climate treaty

Warming set to breach 1C threshold - BBC News

That is what we saw this year. A record year for heat following a record year for heat.