Methane worse than CO2

[Sodafin]

Frank -

In all honesty, it seems to me that you misinterpreted the point he was making at 9.30 in the video.

Other people seem to have interpreted in the same way that I did, and that seems perfectly logical to me.

Beat your chest all your like, but if you are the only one in class who missed the point - how clever do you think you look right now?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

you have misunderstood the point being made.

And yes - I did watch the video!

"He's one of the most amazing sight-readers that ever existed on the instrument. One day we were in a Frank rehearsal, this was early '80s, and Frank brought in this piece of music called "Mo 'N Herb's Vacation." Just unbelievably complex. All the drums were written out, just like "The Black Page" except even more complex. There were these runs of like 17 over 3 and every drumhead is notated differently. And there were a whole bunch of people there, I think Bozzio was there. Vinnie had this piece of music on the stand to his right. To his left he had another music stand with a plate of sushi on it, okay? Now the tempo of the piece was very slow, like "The Black Page." And then the first riff came in, [mimics bizarre Zappa-esque drum rhythm patterns] with all these choking of cymbals, and hi-hat, ruffs, spinning of rototoms and all this crazy stuff. And I saw Vinnie reading this thing. Now, Vinnie has this habit of pushing his glasses up with the middle finger of his right hand. Well I saw him look at this one bar of music, it was the last bar of music on the page. He started to play it as he was turning the page with one hand, and then once the page was turned he continued playing the riff with his right hand, as he reached over with his left hand, grabbed a piece of sushi and put it in his mouth, continued the riff with his left hand and feet, pushed his glasses up, and then played the remaining part of the bar. It was the sickest thing I have ever seen. Frank threw his music up in the air. Bozzio turned around and walked away. I just started laughing."

Vinnie Colaiuta | Interviews | DRUM!, 2004

Yeah, that clears up the whole "CO2 takes 500,000 years or so to work as a temperature regulator"

 

[Skull Pilot]

I see. A technological specie changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere and the acidity of the ocean cannot have impact on climate and life on earth.

Has it occured to you that a very small non-technological organism completly changed the atmosphere of the earth two billion years ago?

We are a democracy. Therefore, the people are the government. And if we decide that we wish to government to sponsor energy that does not emit GHGs, and is non-poluting, then we will do that. And those of you that wish to remain in 1910 can piss and moan, just get the hell out of the way of the majority of us.

I said control not change.

And when that attempt to control empowers government to assert even more control over us we have seen we end up with many vested interests vying for their portion of government pork and gravy and guess where that portion comes from. Us that's who leaving all of us the poorer and thus more likely more dependent on government.

I am a skeptic by nature and will remain so. So far all the so called models for global warming have yet to be accurate. There are serious questions about some of the so called scientists conduct and therefore their claims should be doubted to a degree.

And check your history. We are a republic.

And what 1910 has to do with anything i don't know. It's the democrats and their cap and tax scheme that want to bring us back to carbon output from 1875 not me.

I'm all for better cleaner energy as I have stated umpteen times but instead of confiscatory taxes and more government control, I would rather see tax breaks for businesses and individuals that research, design, produce and implement these technologies.

If government and you are truly only worried about the planet and not the sacred government revenue stream, you shouldn't have a problem with 100% tax credits for purchasing and installing greener energy sources should you?

Not only do I not have trouble with that idea, I have suggested a major program based on that, that would force the development of solar and electric vehicles.

Rather than 100% subsidy, here is how it would work.

The government would announce, say Feb. of 2010, that as of 2011, it would fund $3500 of the purchase of an electric vehicle, or non polluting fuel cell vehicle, and $3500 of the cost of the first 5 kw of a home solar installation. If both were done at the same time, it would double both amounts.

That would take care of the additional load on existing grids, and the years delay would give both industries time to gear up.

Also, in cases like Oregon, where we already have a state subsidy for clean power, there would be no penelty for the state subsidy.

government subsidies are just another tax fo rthe simple reason that government cannot spend any money it does not first take from the taxpayers..

Do not subsidize but give tax credits not deductions but credits.

 

[Sodafin]

government subsidies are just another tax fo rthe simple reason that government cannot spend any money it does not first take from the taxpayers..

Do not subsidize but give tax credits not deductions but credits.

Thanks for getting us back on topic, SP!

Firstly - all sources of energy have used subsidies. It seems to be a permanent part of energy production - probably because the investment required to build a hydro dam, nuclear facility or wind park is simply so enormous.

Secondly - there is a difference between long term subsidies, which I would usually oppose, and short term stimulus shots used to restructure the sector.

In some countries the energy sector is now restructured, the subsidies are being phased out, and the benefits are coming in the form of exports (meaning more taxes paid) and new jobs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

government subsidies are just another tax fo rthe simple reason that government cannot spend any money it does not first take from the taxpayers..

Do not subsidize but give tax credits not deductions but credits.

Thanks for getting us back on topic, SP!

Firstly - all sources of energy have used subsidies. It seems to be a permanent part of energy production - probably because the investment required to build a hydro dam, nuclear facility or wind park is simply so enormous.

Secondly - there is a difference between long term subsidies, which I would usually oppose, and short term stimulus shots used to restructure the sector.

In some countries the energy sector is now restructured, the subsidies are being phased out, and the benefits are coming in the form of exports (meaning more taxes paid) and new jobs.

There is absolutely no need to further tax people to spur growth in new energy production.

The real reason government is planning things like cap and tax and now saying that carbon is hazardous waste is not to save us all but to tap into more tax revenue.

People are conserving, people are using less energy and the trend is strong enough for government to worry because the tax revenue is drying up the more people conserve the less gas taxes etc are collected. People are holding on to cars longer so less excise tax and sales taxes are being collected. this in a time where government is seeing a huge expansion.

The next phase of taxation is meant to replace and increase the revenues that used to be collected.

 

[Sodafin]

I don't disagree with you on the tax matters - and I suspect most people agree with you, to some extent anyway.

But ultimately if people and companies conserve - they will also save.

Put a solar panel on the roof or buy shares in a wind farm and you can be on the road to saving 30% or so on your energy costs.

If a company converts from using oil to using wind or osmotic energy they can make even more.

So it's not all downside.

I agree that conservation lowers government income - as we also see from reduced air travel and so forth - but a reasonable and balanced VAT should make up for that without costing you a cent (because it draws money largely from sources who currently do not pay income tax).

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Put a solar panel on the roof or buy shares in a wind farm and you can be on the road to saving 30% or so on your energy costs.

Utter nonsense. Have you done the math on that? The cost/benefit analysis? The amortization, the payout?

Do it for yourself, crunch the numbers. Unless you're Al Gore with a $10,000/month electric bill, your payout is going to be in the area of 10-25 years depending on your average monthly electric bill. And by then you've had to replace solar panels, and have had to spend other funds on maintenance. And we're not even talking about depreciation in this equation.

THIS is why they are trying to artificially inflate energy costs via cap and trade. To make these "alternatives" almost look economically viable. If they were viable, there would be NO NEED to artificially inflate the cost of energy via a tax! We would already have them everywhere!

 

[Sodafin]

I read this case study the other day - Kings College in London:

"Annual electricity consumption was reduced by 18 per cent and gas by 11 per cent, saving around £96,790 per year."

Keith recommends undertaking an energy audit of all your buildings.

"Find out if your buildings are functioning as you think they are or should be," he says. "You may well be able to make major savings.

“Since we implemented our Carbon Management Strategy, the college has reduced its carbon emissions by 12.5 per cent, which equates to a reduction of 4,900 tonnes of CO2.”

Environment Agency - King's College London

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I read this case study the other day - Kings College in London:

"Annual electricity consumption was reduced by 18 per cent and gas by 11 per cent, saving around £96,790 per year."

Keith recommends undertaking an energy audit of all your buildings.

"Find out if your buildings are functioning as you think they are or should be," he says. "You may well be able to make major savings.

“Since we implemented our Carbon Management Strategy, the college has reduced its carbon emissions by 12.5 per cent, which equates to a reduction of 4,900 tonnes of CO2.”

Environment Agency - King's College London

An energy audit is the first step. THAT is what should be recommended, not "just install solar panels!!!"

In your example, we have no idea what the energy usage is, or how much it cost, or how many years the amortized payout. DO YOUR OWN NUMBERS and see if it's viable for YOU.

Likely, it will not be. And it's not, for most. That's why they want to artificially inflate energy costs via cap and tax.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I read this case study the other day - Kings College in London:

Here's mine:

Average monthly electric cost, 3 bedroom 2 bath home, all electric -- $135

Times 12 is $1,620 annually.

Cost of solar panels and controls: $22,800 this is for going completely off the utility, and actually turning their meter backwards during periods of very low energy usage while still having electric service for when we have extended periods of NO SUN.

Where I live, we have an average of 204 "sunny" days a year.

It's not hard to see the issue here. If I successfully match my energy usage, making my electric bill zero, it will take 14 freaking years to pay off the investment. This does NOT count replacing panels, batteries, and maintenance on the controls over that 14 year period.

If I am able to turn their meter backwards enough to get PAID the $1620 annually, that's $3,240 towards the investment every year. That's still SEVEN years before getting paid back on the initial capital outlay. That's best case scenario that again, doesn't take into account replacements, maintenance or repairs. Add at least 2 more years to the note, to cover that.

See? It's stupid. There are much better ways to invest your money. And that's the reason for cap and tax.

When cap and tax doubles my electric bill, you can see from the numbers above that solar almost looks viable.

This is why everyone must crunch their own numbers, and not rely on anecdotal stuff like I just gave you, and that you linked here for us.

 

[Old Rocks]

Two very invalid asumptions here.

One, that the cost of electricity from the utility is not going to rise over this period. What does that past show on that issue?

Two, that the cost of solar is not going to come down significantly in the near future. Not only come down significantly, but the efficiency of the panels will more than double. New technologies are coming on line as we post.

As electric and plug in hybrids become increasingly more common, having one's own source of fuel for their vehicle reduces the payback time significantly.

BYD announces F3DM hybrid and e6 EV models for US Market in 2011

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"CO2 takes about half a million years or so (to act as a climate regulator)..." Richard B. Alley, head Warmer Penn State

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, I'm going to present a synopsis of the video because it is very powerful testimony. CO2 might well have acted as a primary warming agent, albeit in massive doses that took 500,000 years to take effect.

After New Year I will post my precise of the testimony.

If you watch it, it's like watching one of the Gambinos testify at his murder trial about why his favorite weapon is a small caliber revolver. The testimony is very damaging to the Warmers case and should seal their fate.

 

[Ringel05]

Methane worse than CO2

Damn. Now I'm going to have to start taking Gasex. I guess it's time to do my part to combat global warming, oh the sacrifices one must make.

 

[Sodafin]

Two, that the cost of solar is not going to come down significantly in the near future. Not only come down significantly, but the efficiency of the panels will more than double. New technologies are coming on line as we post.

/QUOTE]

Indeed.

In Cyprus, some 90% of homes now have a solar panel, and Israel is close behind. Hence, the prices have plummeted, there is genuine competition, and knowledge about installations is very high. The same pattern is true in Turkey and Spain.

But the other mistake people make is to assume solar is the only option on the table - here in Finland we saw 15,000 heat exchange (adsoprtion) pumps installed year, plus there is underground/thermal is an option. A friend of mine in Sweden paid €7,000 to install one, but expects it to pay for itself within 10 years, plus upping the house resale price. And then there is good old options like double glazing windows and better insulation.

So there is a lot people can do to save themselves money while also reducing emissions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I'm going to present a synopsis of the video because it is very powerful testimony. CO2 might well have acted as a primary warming agent, albeit in massive doses that took 500,000 years to take effect.

After New Year I will post my precise of the testimony.

If you watch it, it's like watching one of the Gambinos testify at his murder trial about why his favorite weapon is a small caliber revolver. The testimony is very damaging to the Warmers case and should seal their fate.

Frank, what you are talking about is the normal outgassing of volcanoes and the weathering of rock.

The response time of the temperature of the atmosphere to a rapid increase in GHGs in measured in a few decades. And Dr. Alley's lecture addresses that. As anyone that watch's it can easily see.

Here is the site,

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

The lecture is the Bjerksen lecture, A23A.

For anyone interested in science, there are many good lectures on this site. For the whole lecture, download.

In lecture C24A, Dr. Hinzeman presents a good deal of information on some of the alarming signs of the present warming in the Artic.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Well, I'm going to present a synopsis of the video because it is very powerful testimony. CO2 might well have acted as a primary warming agent, albeit in massive doses that took 500,000 years to take effect.

After New Year I will post my precise of the testimony.

If you watch it, it's like watching one of the Gambinos testify at his murder trial about why his favorite weapon is a small caliber revolver. The testimony is very damaging to the Warmers case and should seal their fate.

Frank, what you are talking about is the normal outgassing of volcanoes and the weathering of rock.

The response time of the temperature of the atmosphere to a rapid increase in GHGs in measured in a few decades. And Dr. Alley's lecture addresses that. As anyone that watch's it can easily see.

Here is the site,

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

The lecture is the Bjerksen lecture, A23A.

For anyone interested in science, there are many good lectures on this site. For the whole lecture, download.

In lecture C24A, Dr. Hinzeman presents a good deal of information on some of the alarming signs of the present warming in the Artic.

Why would any reasonable person give a shit about what some lying ass liberal has to say?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, I'm going to present a synopsis of the video because it is very powerful testimony. CO2 might well have acted as a primary warming agent, albeit in massive doses that took 500,000 years to take effect.

After New Year I will post my precise of the testimony.

If you watch it, it's like watching one of the Gambinos testify at his murder trial about why his favorite weapon is a small caliber revolver. The testimony is very damaging to the Warmers case and should seal their fate.

Frank, what you are talking about is the normal outgassing of volcanoes and the weathering of rock.

The response time of the temperature of the atmosphere to a rapid increase in GHGs in measured in a few decades. And Dr. Alley's lecture addresses that. As anyone that watch's it can easily see.

Here is the site,

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

The lecture is the Bjerksen lecture, A23A.

For anyone interested in science, there are many good lectures on this site. For the whole lecture, download.

In lecture C24A, Dr. Hinzeman presents a good deal of information on some of the alarming signs of the present warming in the Artic.

Is there a text version of the presentation?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I read this case study the other day - Kings College in London:

Here's mine:

Average monthly electric cost, 3 bedroom 2 bath home, all electric -- $135

Times 12 is $1,620 annually.

Cost of solar panels and controls: $22,800 this is for going completely off the utility, and actually turning their meter backwards during periods of very low energy usage while still having electric service for when we have extended periods of NO SUN.

Where I live, we have an average of 204 "sunny" days a year.

It's not hard to see the issue here. If I successfully match my energy usage, making my electric bill zero, it will take 14 freaking years to pay off the investment. This does NOT count replacing panels, batteries, and maintenance on the controls over that 14 year period.

If I am able to turn their meter backwards enough to get PAID the $1620 annually, that's $3,240 towards the investment every year. That's still SEVEN years before getting paid back on the initial capital outlay. That's best case scenario that again, doesn't take into account replacements, maintenance or repairs. Add at least 2 more years to the note, to cover that.

See? It's stupid. There are much better ways to invest your money. And that's the reason for cap and tax.

When cap and tax doubles my electric bill, you can see from the numbers above that solar almost looks viable.

This is why everyone must crunch their own numbers, and not rely on anecdotal stuff like I just gave you, and that you linked here for us.

Your numbers are wrong. To generate an average of 1200 kwh(approximately $135 worth) per month would require an initial investment of around $100k. PV Solar Panels or Electric Photovoltaic Feed In Tariffs UK That site says that a 5kw system will generate 4500 kwh annually. You need 14,500 kwh, so the bare minimum would be a 15 kw system, but in reality usage is not evenly distributed all year so a 20kw system would be the actual bare minimum.

Grid Tie Solar Power System 10,080 watt WSS Select 10080
A 10kw system is about $40k, so two would be at least $80k plus installation and set up fees, let's call that $20k. If we factor in an additional $500/year for maintenance we have a combined 20 year total of $110k. At the end of 20 years when it is time to replace your worn out solar system you would have made about 300,000 kwh for a cost of $.366/kwh or about three times the current price, which is about what it cost 10 years ago as well, by the way.

In short, solar power sucks right now. I think it will be great if it gets affordable and we all have panels on our own houses.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, I'm going to present a synopsis of the video because it is very powerful testimony. CO2 might well have acted as a primary warming agent, albeit in massive doses that took 500,000 years to take effect.

After New Year I will post my precise of the testimony.

If you watch it, it's like watching one of the Gambinos testify at his murder trial about why his favorite weapon is a small caliber revolver. The testimony is very damaging to the Warmers case and should seal their fate.

Frank, what you are talking about is the normal outgassing of volcanoes and the weathering of rock.

The response time of the temperature of the atmosphere to a rapid increase in GHGs in measured in a few decades. And Dr. Alley's lecture addresses that. As anyone that watch's it can easily see.

Here is the site,

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

The lecture is the Bjerksen lecture, A23A.

For anyone interested in science, there are many good lectures on this site. For the whole lecture, download.

In lecture C24A, Dr. Hinzeman presents a good deal of information on some of the alarming signs of the present warming in the Artic.

Did you watch the presentation without your ManMAde Global Warming Rose Colored glasses and headphones on?