Even prominent skeptics now agree, the earth is warming, and the effect is man-made.

[flacaltenn]

I expect that all the true believers will, by now, have parked their vehicles; turned off their thermostats; flipped off their main breakers and started harvesting their own locally grown (no transport required) veggies which they will eat raw.

If they're not doing that then they're part of the problem and have no right to act "superiour".

Hopefully they have put solar on their roof and bought a electric car that's powered by it. Hell, when you think about it that isn't a bad idea.

The only thing stopping it is the price of solar to be able to power your home and car.

Yeah -- the only thing stopping you then would be a rain/snow storm, your lattitude or night..

 

[JimBowie1958]

Muller is no more a converted skeptic than I am a big Nancy Pelosi fan..
...

So, just how long have you been a Pelosi fan?









/jk lol

 

[flacaltenn]

Muller is no more a converted skeptic than I am a big Nancy Pelosi fan..
...

So, just how long have you been a Pelosi fan?

/jk lol

Not since that last Botox injection that stopped her blinking. Must have been administered way too deep because blinking and thinking are both non-existent.

 

[Darkwind]

I am naturally sceptical of anything paid for by the Koch Brothers.

That being said, WOW! Muller has been a thorn in the yes its real side for a long time. That he would suddenly change sides is fairly dramatic. And if he indeed has evidence as he claims that is stronger than previous data, then it could spell the end of the debate.

That being said, its freaking HOT!!! And Im in Minnesota!!!!

So many misconceptions in this thread -- so little time..

Muller is no more a converted skeptic than I am a big Nancy Pelosi fan..

CLEARLY -- he got that reputation for biting the ankles of MANN about the Hockey Stick Fraud. But that was just an incident of plain occupational honesty.. Something I believe him to basically be -- honest.

If you doubt me -- look up his old lectures.. For instance -- "Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty" where he dives right into SOLUTIONS for man-made Global Warming..

Second problem with this thread -- (not picking on you Vidi) -- his statements about the Best Study ACTUALLY VINDICATE many of the "Denier's" Complaints about missing, altered, inaccurate or downright fraudelent data. In a recent WSJournal article he says.

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, "most" of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.

And YET --- some of you same posters have ridiculed Anthony Watts, refuse to accept links from his site, and RIDICULED the USMB folks trying to tell you FACTS like that.

Can we get an apology now?? Didn't think so.. You're gonna go on calling us deniers and science molesters and all those other juvenile slurs. .

But the BIGGEST revelation in Muller's WSJ OPEd follows...

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Which is it? What he says to THIS SOURCE? Or what he stated in the WSJ Op Ed?? Is it PROVEN in the BEST study (funded miniscually by the Koch Bros)?? NO... It's projected opinion that he's ALWAYS really had and advocated..

And Finally --- where were all you folks when last month James LoveLock the so-called Father of Man-Made Global Warming came out as a skeptic? Did it matter a lot to us "deniers".. Not really.. We're focused on FACTS and SCIENCE -- not on personalities and press releases...

bump

 

[MeBelle]

Now, do you want to continue with the fiction that the left supports drilling for our own oil?

Daveman...information overload...

ANWR

 

[IanC]

Another relevant question: what kind of integrity do people have when they take a quibbler like Muller and dress him up as an opponent then celebrate his 'conversion'?

I would say a bunch of liars who I wouldnt trust with my piggy bank, much less directing national taxes and expenditures across the whole globe via AGW carbon taxes and limits.

And for Gods Sake, BERKELY? Not a hotbed of rightwingers, no matter who pays for it.

I think the Koch brothers got conned, lol.

Ahh, and here's a classic strategy...

Deny that a converted person was ever on your side to begin with. Pretend that he was always "just a plant".

Classic.

In fact, it turns out that Dr Muller was the original disprover of the "Hockey Stick"...

In a 2004 Technology Review article, Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium, on the grounds that it did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA). In the article, Richard Muller stated:

"McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?"

The reason he is the founder and the current chairperson of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") project, is due to the fact that he believed the original readings were faulty, and he was quite vocal about it.

But, I'm sure that whatever evidence is presented, and whoever is converted, some people will find a way to rationalize it away.

Muller was never a skeptic as is blindingly clear if you watch any of his youtube videos. he is a commited supporter of the IPCC. neither is he in bed with the climate science community which he shows a certain amount of distain for. Muller had scathing criticism for Michael Mann which was thoroughly deserved, and a deep concern that the various temperature series were compromised by poor siting and poor adjustment methodology.

once he started the BEST study he found out that it is difficult to reinvent the wheel when the data has been irrevocably contaminated by past adjustments so he just added his own adjustment of kridging together past homogenized readings and followed past SOP of ignoring the uncertainty for data of many areas around the world.

what few people seem to realize is how weak and equivical the evidence is. take a look at the actual proxies that make up some of the temperature reconstructions. look at the history of New Zealand's temperature series to see how lax and incompetent its operation was (and is). check out the amazing differences in the single location GISS temperature graphs from year-to-year. every time you look closer than just the headline story you will find glaring discrepancies and distorted logic.

 

[Steelplate]

here's my take...the truth of the matter is, we don't truly know 100% whether this is man made or not....but here's what we do know. fossil fuels cause pollution. we pump all kinds of crap into our atmosphere, we pollute the water that we drink, we pollute the land that we use.

Doesn't it make sense to eliminate as much of this stuff as possible? Also...politically, reducing dependence on foreign oil can only help.

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

why won't the right embrace renewable energy? Every single time someone brings up non-polluting, green energy solutions, the right acts like someone shot their dog.

There are logical and practical solutions that only need to be assimilated into the mainstream to lower the cost....sure, it's expensive now....it's in it's infancy and not being mass produced. I even thought of a work around for hydrogen production....a massive solar array in the SW desert that's sole use is to run a hydrogen production plant. Why keep burning shit that causes pollution?

So really, you don't agree....because just keeping on doing what we already do is not a solution....the only thing you agree with in my post is the last line... Sorry that was a footnote, an added bonus, if you will....not the main point.

 

[flacaltenn]

here's my take...the truth of the matter is, we don't truly know 100% whether this is man made or not....but here's what we do know. fossil fuels cause pollution. we pump all kinds of crap into our atmosphere, we pollute the water that we drink, we pollute the land that we use.

Doesn't it make sense to eliminate as much of this stuff as possible? Also...politically, reducing dependence on foreign oil can only help.

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

why won't the right embrace renewable energy? Every single time someone brings up non-polluting, green energy solutions, the right acts like someone shot their dog.

There are logical and practical solutions that only need to be assimilated into the mainstream to lower the cost....sure, it's expensive now....it's in it's infancy and not being mass produced. I even thought of a work around for hydrogen production....a massive solar array in the SW desert that's sole use is to run a hydrogen production plant. Why keep burning shit that causes pollution?

So really, you don't agree....because just keeping on doing what we already do is not a solution....the only thing you agree with in my post is the last line... Sorry that was a footnote, an added bonus, if you will....not the main point.

Because MOST of the list of "Alternatives" are frauds and not ecologically sound. I am an enviromentalist. And I'll tell you that ---

Biomass is garbage incineration with much the same problems as burning coal.

Geothermal is a dirty mining operation.

Hydro is now REFUTED by most Enviro operations because of it's massive impact on the enviroment. AND it's been been realized it is a large source of CO2.

Which leaves us with wind and solar. Both of which are TANKING in terms of marketability. Look at the stocks.

NOW -- You have a FABULOUS idea for using wind and solar to produce hydrogen.. I LOVE that concept because that doesn't mind spikey unreliable sources of power.

But wind is a nightmare for general grid integration and defers LITTLE in terms of fossil or nuclear capacity because it has to be backed up on the grid MINUTE TO MINUTE by some other PRIMARY source. Using it as YOU suggest --- for Off-Grid applications makes sense.

Relying on it to SUBSTITUTE on the grid for nuclear, hydro, fossil is a sure loser..

THAT'S why the eco-frauds HAVE ***** my pooch with their fraudulent efforts to pass off Biomass/Geothermal and push wind onto the grid.. Time to get real and realize why that list is NOT a list of "Alternatives" for Grid Produced GREEN energy...

 

[Steelplate]

explain what you mean by your comments on geothermal. We(my wife and I) have been kicking around the idea of going with geothermal for our house's heating and cooling needs. We figure it'll cost 2x the price of a standard central air system...but the numbers I've seen say that it will pay for itself in 7-10 years.

we realize that we will still use heating oil and electricity, but from the research I've done, it'll be a heck of a lot less.

 

[flacaltenn]

explain what you mean by your comments on geothermal. We(my wife and I) have been kicking around the idea of going with geothermal for our house's heating and cooling needs. We figure it'll cost 2x the price of a standard central air system...but the numbers I've seen say that it will pay for itself in 7-10 years.

we realize that we will still use heating oil and electricity, but from the research I've done, it'll be a heck of a lot less.

Not the same geothermal that Al Gore was ranting about. You are only gonna recirculate cooled air below ground. Geothermal is a drilling operation that boils water from magma heat. Contains tons of toxic stuff -- rots, creates rivers of effluent and kills life for a wide radius if it blows out.. Been thrown out in a lot places after these effects became common knowledge.

Also important -- those wells are not renewable without RE-DRILLING and periodic reconstruction of the whole plumbing because of the corrosive rot.. Despite what fantastic stories you've been fed about how GREEN this is --- it's anything but and OPPOSED by MANY enviromentalists like me...

Actually -- what you're proposing does make some sense for home construction as does solar thermal (not PhotoVoltaic).

What we need is technical discussion about WHERE increased capacity on the grid is gonna come from for EVs and economic expansion. And how best to use solar and wind for OFF-Grid applications to make hydrogen, chemicals, biofuel and other STORABLE commodities.

But more than anything -- we need to CUT SUBSIDIES and increase plain R&D for "renewables" because they have not proven to be Alternatives.. Emphasize Hydrogen generation and infrastructure in the mix and IMMEDIATELY act to plan and propose to replace and INCREASE our nuclear generation..

 

[Steelplate]

ok...gotcha...I agree with you on the geothermal....let's go back to biomass. Yes, it produces the same after effects as any other fossil fuel source. however would it not be a solution to the degrading issue of landfills and the myriad of problems they have(leeching toxic drainage into water supply, vaporization onto the air from contaminated soil...plus the contaminated soil itself)

although, burning the stuff for fuel isn't exactly what you would call "green", it seems to me that it's the lesser of two evils when you look at the big picture.

 

[ScienceRocks]

here's my take...the truth of the matter is, we don't truly know 100% whether this is man made or not....but here's what we do know. fossil fuels cause pollution. we pump all kinds of crap into our atmosphere, we pollute the water that we drink, we pollute the land that we use.

Doesn't it make sense to eliminate as much of this stuff as possible? Also...politically, reducing dependence on foreign oil can only help.

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

why won't the right embrace renewable energy? Every single time someone brings up non-polluting, green energy solutions, the right acts like someone shot their dog.

There are logical and practical solutions that only need to be assimilated into the mainstream to lower the cost....sure, it's expensive now....it's in it's infancy and not being mass produced. I even thought of a work around for hydrogen production....a massive solar array in the SW desert that's sole use is to run a hydrogen production plant. Why keep burning shit that causes pollution?

So really, you don't agree....because just keeping on doing what we already do is not a solution....the only thing you agree with in my post is the last line... Sorry that was a footnote, an added bonus, if you will....not the main point.

I agree with renewable energy as long as the operating cost don't hurt people as it's already expensive enough. Honestly, renewables have a few major weaknesses with solar and wind that nuclear and fossil fuels don't suffer. Outside of wave energy they're not reliable at all times...

It's understandable the fear of nuclear, but if you want to go green, that's the way to do it and fast. My position has weakened in the last few years and will likely weaken more on renewables as they become more advanced and economical. Raising prices through the roof isn't moral and shutting down coal plants before their replacement doesn't make much sense. Shooting energy prices through the roof is evil as people are already choosing between food and energy.

How about a massive solar array on the moon? May seem insane, but it would take away that limitation. We could put 60 gw or more.

 

[Steelplate]

I don't know that anyone is talking about a large scale replacement of coal, etc. I have very little fear of nuclear energy in and of itself. The spent fuel rods, however are worrisome.

Truthfully, if we upgraded our grid system...which I've read wastes 60% of the electricity our power plants produce....it would mean less strain on the system, less consumables used, and less energy generated....all of which would....or perhaps a more appropriate word is SHOULD decrease cost to the consumer. This is something we could start implementing immediately...The grid is part of our national infrastructure and is just one area where we are relying on severely outdated technology to meet our modern needs.

 

[flacaltenn]

ok...gotcha...I agree with you on the geothermal....let's go back to biomass. Yes, it produces the same after effects as any other fossil fuel source. however would it not be a solution to the degrading issue of landfills and the myriad of problems they have(leeching toxic drainage into water supply, vaporization onto the air from contaminated soil...plus the contaminated soil itself)

although, burning the stuff for fuel isn't exactly what you would call "green", it seems to me that it's the lesser of two evils when you look at the big picture.

No -- it's not Green... And there's a worse fiction that's it's zero net carbon if you plant stuff just to burn it.. That's assuming there wasn't a constant crop of CO2 sinking material THERE in the 1st place! LEAVING it as corn or switchgrass or trees STILL produces less CO2 than burning for fuel.

There's been massive bait and switches on Biomass. G.Britain enviro orgs are FURIOUS that they were duped into believing that these plants would be burning crops DESIGNED for low emissions and instead govt there has green lighted making these into TRASH incinerators that are BLESSED as green (our EPA has done the same).

If you can BURN this stuff without problems -- how come COAL cannot be burned? Same type of plant construction.. In fact, you can switch a coal plant to burning trees and brush pretty easily.. It's hypocrital..

AND -- if you use landfill, you will end up with a CONCENTRATED toxic ash and remnants that STILL have to be properly disposed of.. It's bunk and fraud perpetrated on a public that DESPARATELY wants to be green, but doesn't understand the diff between burning trees and burning coal...

The combustion chambers on coal plants are EXTREMELY radioactive. That's because all the concentrated ash contains LARGE amounts of trace radioactive materials. This USED to go up the smokestack and some still does.. Most folks aren't capable of weighing all these practicalities so the debate becomes emotional and not practical. Bigger radioactive footprint from COAL than the total release from ALL nuclear plants in the entire history of USA nuclear power..

 

[daveman]

here's my take...the truth of the matter is, we don't truly know 100% whether this is man made or not....but here's what we do know. fossil fuels cause pollution. we pump all kinds of crap into our atmosphere, we pollute the water that we drink, we pollute the land that we use.

Doesn't it make sense to eliminate as much of this stuff as possible? Also...politically, reducing dependence on foreign oil can only help.

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

why won't the right embrace renewable energy? Every single time someone brings up non-polluting, green energy solutions, the right acts like someone shot their dog.

No one on the right opposes renewables.

What we oppose is legislating out of existence the use of fossil fuels BEFORE the renewables are practical, scalable, and economical.

You want to shut down all the coal plants? Fine. Give me something that will come on line the second you shut down the coal plants. The power produced has to be comparable in price to that generated by coal.

And bear in mind that you have to replace HALF the nation's electricity currently provided by coal.

So...what have you got?

There are logical and practical solutions that only need to be assimilated into the mainstream to lower the cost....sure, it's expensive now....it's in it's infancy and not being mass produced. I even thought of a work around for hydrogen production....a massive solar array in the SW desert that's sole use is to run a hydrogen production plant. Why keep burning shit that causes pollution?

So really, you don't agree....because just keeping on doing what we already do is not a solution....the only thing you agree with in my post is the last line... Sorry that was a footnote, an added bonus, if you will....not the main point.

Or you could read what I actually write. There's an idea.

 

[Steelplate]

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

why won't the right embrace renewable energy? Every single time someone brings up non-polluting, green energy solutions, the right acts like someone shot their dog.

No one on the right opposes renewables.

What we oppose is legislating out of existence the use of fossil fuels BEFORE the renewables are practical, scalable, and economical.

You want to shut down all the coal plants? Fine. Give me something that will come on line the second you shut down the coal plants. The power produced has to be comparable in price to that generated by coal.

And bear in mind that you have to replace HALF the nation's electricity currently provided by coal.

So...what have you got?

There are logical and practical solutions that only need to be assimilated into the mainstream to lower the cost....sure, it's expensive now....it's in it's infancy and not being mass produced. I even thought of a work around for hydrogen production....a massive solar array in the SW desert that's sole use is to run a hydrogen production plant. Why keep burning shit that causes pollution?

So really, you don't agree....because just keeping on doing what we already do is not a solution....the only thing you agree with in my post is the last line... Sorry that was a footnote, an added bonus, if you will....not the main point.

Or you could read what I actually write. There's an idea.

Hummer..where did I say anything like what you said?

As far as what I got...read the discussion between flacaltenn(sp?) and I.
Tenn brings up good points and I agree with him on most of it. I still think burning our own garbage as fuel is a good way to go. Disposal of the ash is an issue though, and I concede the point. But I don't concede the concept...burning our waste as fuel instead of dumping it in a landfill still makes sense

There are things we as individuals can do too. Like I said, my wife and I were talking about central air...a co-worker told my wife about how her and her husband went with a geothermal system that significantly reduced their electricity usage in the Summer and their fuel oil usage in the winter and they had a oil/hot air system. We have oil/hot water, which holds it's heat longer. There are, like Tenn said, solar arrays that heat your water and helps.

I think we need to stop looking at things like this as black vs. white and embrace what we can now, implement the things that aren't quite ready when they are, and never give up on things like fusion.

photovoltaics will become more efficient, most of hydrogen's carbon footprint is in the power required to produce it(which I think what I proposed would eliminate most of), and who knows what will be discovered or invented in the future.

Heck, I read an article in popular science about an 14 year old who built a fusion reactors....it's small scale and it's application is to scan ships coming into port for nuclear weapons...he was only the 32nd person in the world to build a working fusion reactor. What we don't know is a heck of a lot more than what we do.

 

[Vidi]

I don't know that anyone is talking about a large scale replacement of coal, etc. I have very little fear of nuclear energy in and of itself. The spent fuel rods, however are worrisome.

Truthfully, if we upgraded our grid system...which I've read wastes 60% of the electricity our power plants produce....it would mean less strain on the system, less consumables used, and less energy generated....all of which would....or perhaps a more appropriate word is SHOULD decrease cost to the consumer. This is something we could start implementing immediately...The grid is part of our national infrastructure and is just one area where we are relying on severely outdated technology to meet our modern needs.

Yes this!


Our infrastructure needs to be upgraded. That alone would increase the efficiency of our current system and thus reuire LESS overall fossil fuel usage.


is it going to fix the entire issue? No. But I believe we can nickel and dime our way to a permanent solution. One BIG quick fix is not in the cards.

 

[daveman]

why won't the right embrace renewable energy? Every single time someone brings up non-polluting, green energy solutions, the right acts like someone shot their dog.

No one on the right opposes renewables.

What we oppose is legislating out of existence the use of fossil fuels BEFORE the renewables are practical, scalable, and economical.

You want to shut down all the coal plants? Fine. Give me something that will come on line the second you shut down the coal plants. The power produced has to be comparable in price to that generated by coal.

And bear in mind that you have to replace HALF the nation's electricity currently provided by coal.

So...what have you got?

There are logical and practical solutions that only need to be assimilated into the mainstream to lower the cost....sure, it's expensive now....it's in it's infancy and not being mass produced. I even thought of a work around for hydrogen production....a massive solar array in the SW desert that's sole use is to run a hydrogen production plant. Why keep burning shit that causes pollution?

So really, you don't agree....because just keeping on doing what we already do is not a solution....the only thing you agree with in my post is the last line... Sorry that was a footnote, an added bonus, if you will....not the main point.

Or you could read what I actually write. There's an idea.

Hummer..where did I say anything like what you said?

Where did I say I opposed renewables?

You were speaking generally. Incorrectly, but generally.

I was speaking generally, too. Only I was right. Obama said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry, and he's using the EPA to do just that.

What's going to replace that lost generating capacity? There's nothing in the wings that can do what coal does.

As far as what I got...read the discussion between flacaltenn(sp?) and I.
Tenn brings up good points and I agree with him on most of it. I still think burning our own garbage as fuel is a good way to go. Disposal of the ash is an issue though, and I concede the point. But I don't concede the concept...burning our waste as fuel instead of dumping it in a landfill still makes sense

There's an alternative: Thermal depolymerization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

There are things we as individuals can do too. Like I said, my wife and I were talking about central air...a co-worker told my wife about how her and her husband went with a geothermal system that significantly reduced their electricity usage in the Summer and their fuel oil usage in the winter and they had a oil/hot air system. We have oil/hot water, which holds it's heat longer. There are, like Tenn said, solar arrays that heat your water and helps.

I love the idea of geothermal heat pumps. When I buy my own house, I'd love to install a system. Got some ideas about solar heat, too, and thermal mass to store the heat harvested.

I think we need to stop looking at things like this as black vs. white and embrace what we can now, implement the things that aren't quite ready when they are, and never give up on things like fusion.

I agree completely.

photovoltaics will become more efficient, most of hydrogen's carbon footprint is in the power required to produce it(which I think what I proposed would eliminate most of), and who knows what will be discovered or invented in the future.

People are amazingly inventive and imaginative. We need to encourage that where we can, and minimize the obstacles to their creativity.

Heck, I read an article in popular science about an 14 year old who built a fusion reactors....it's small scale and it's application is to scan ships coming into port for nuclear weapons...he was only the 32nd person in the world to build a working fusion reactor. What we don't know is a heck of a lot more than what we do.

The Boy Who Played With Fusion | Popular Science

Damn. Just...damn.

Like the guy said, I'm glad that kid's on our side.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't know that anyone is talking about a large scale replacement of coal, etc. I have very little fear of nuclear energy in and of itself. The spent fuel rods, however are worrisome.

Truthfully, if we upgraded our grid system...which I've read wastes 60% of the electricity our power plants produce....it would mean less strain on the system, less consumables used, and less energy generated....all of which would....or perhaps a more appropriate word is SHOULD decrease cost to the consumer. This is something we could start implementing immediately...The grid is part of our national infrastructure and is just one area where we are relying on severely outdated technology to meet our modern needs.

Yes this!


Our infrastructure needs to be upgraded. That alone would increase the efficiency of our current system and thus reuire LESS overall fossil fuel usage.


is it going to fix the entire issue? No. But I believe we can nickel and dime our way to a permanent solution. One BIG quick fix is not in the cards.

150 new nuclear plants would lower our CO2 emissions, address REAL pollution issues, allow us to tear down some dams, free the salmon, and charge some EVs.

Not a fan of making electricity RARE and EXPENSIVE.. That's the goal of conservation in truth. And as an electronics/electrical engineer -- you gotta be careful about numbers like the Grid is 60% inefficient. We could spend a lot of money to change that number to 40% short of getting SUPERconducting grid components. A lot of that waste is counted because plants HAVE to operate above current grid demand to be available, "power factor" losses due to heavy machinery that kicks back current out of phase with the grid, and just plain long transmission hauls because Primadonnas like California don't want Generators of ANY kind in their state.

And the public is gonna damage themselves adopting this "Smart Grid" stuff. Just like the G.B. greenies were co-opted as tools of "Big Biomass". Smart Grid is largely designed so the power/transmission companies can maximize their profit and they can operate the grid dangerously close to disaster, and for govts to have control over your daily usage. In Germany, HUGE FINES are levied anytime you even go over limits of usage. And where does that money go? --- to govt.. So they can shut down more generation and plan Germany's power structure on Hope and Fairies.


Best to stop fantasizing about nebulous "alternatives" and figure out how important it is to HAVE Electric Cars and Low CO2 emissions. You gotta ask yourself if you're more scared of nuclear power OR Global warming. Because nuclear at this point is the primary way to fix Global Warming (assuming of course that CO2 is the Primary cause -- )

0.7 ounces of nuclear waste per household per year.. We can handle that...

 

[Bill Angel]

I expect that all the true believers will, by now, have parked their vehicles; turned off their thermostats; flipped off their main breakers and started harvesting their own locally grown (no transport required) veggies which they will eat raw.

If they're not doing that then they're part of the problem and have no right to act "superiour".

One could use solar energy to cook one's food.
There are now even solar powered air conditioners .
See Small-Scale Solar Powered Air Conditioning Is Here (in Spain, Anyways) : TreeHugger