World's largest solar plant now online

[gnarlylove]

elektra, you are partially right, but that means you're actually wrong. There is input to output ratios to consider, one could call it the overhead.. So it takes resources and natural capital to build and erect a solar plant. However, upon completion and given it works, the plant reduces demand for FF. If the plant is able to remain operative for a few months it will have supplied its overhead in FF by cutting the equivalent emissions. That means it has repaid its pollution debt. Now comes the most important part....if the plant can continue to operate for say years after that, then it does what it sets out to do: reduce actual demand for FF.

 

[westwall]

elektra, you are partially right, but that means you're actually wrong. There is input to output ratios to consider, one could call it the overhead.. So it takes resources and natural capital to build and erect a solar plant. However, upon completion and given it works, the plant reduces demand for FF. If the plant is able to remain operative for a few months it will have supplied its overhead in FF by cutting the equivalent emissions. That means it has repaid its pollution debt. Now comes the most important part....if the plant can continue to operate for say years after that, then it does what it sets out to do: reduce actual demand for FF.

This plant (and this is one of the solar types I actually have hopes for) will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept) nor will it ever produce energy as efficiently as a FF plant. That's why they built it AS a FF plant.....with solar thrown in to look good.

 

[bodecea]

in MURICA too deniers:

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is now operational and delivering solar electricity to California customers. At full capacity, the facility's trio of 450-foot high towers produces a gross total of 392 megawatts (MW) of solar power, enough electricity to provide 140,000 California homes with clean energy and avoid 400,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, equal to removing 72,000 vehicles off the road.

So that's what all that was they were building next to the Nevada border.

 

[gnarlylove]

This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)

I think I'm wasting my time talking to you at all. You have clearly demonstrated no concern for intelligent debate. You assert what sounds right given according to the assumption your worldview and opinions are indisputable fact. The problem is people sharply disagree with you. Millions of people in America strongly think your basic premises are just utterly flawed. I know you don't, and you aren't open to the possibility that your ideas are reason deficient.

What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts? Which would be a fair assessment of how much energy went into making the components and erecting the plant. If you think the number is higher, why do you?

At any rate, the amount of energy that went into this solar plant is finite. It is limited. So as long as the plant can stay operational, then it is certain its carbon debt will be repaid and many more times over... so you are just crapping nasty brown all over this message board. But your credibility never was very high.

nor will it ever produce energy as efficiently as a FF plant.

What do you base this on? Has solar stop being capable of advancing? If history is a tell-tale sign, then solar prices have dropped every decade in significant ways...solar is now roughly .74 cents a watt. Fossil fuels are hardly lower, and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them, which keeps prices low unlike in the UK where gas is about 10 dollars a gallon. Our consumption subsidies were over 200 billion last year alone. (See subsidies on wikipedia)

Again, you are just shitting your pants when you make flippant remarks with no basis in reality.

 

[Kosh]

Aren't solar panels toxic if broken?

Not exactly, but they are made from petroleum oddly enough.

 

[Kosh]

What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts?

Because it is not possible now for that to happen. Maybe in 1000 years, but not now.

Also the world economy relies on fossil fuels, so you can not change that over night.

So are the AGW cultists willing to wait a 1000 years for solar to maybe become viable?

 

[Dot Com]

This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)

I think I'm wasting my time talking to you at all. You have clearly demonstrated no concern for intelligent debate. You assert what sounds right given according to the assumption your worldview and opinions are indisputable fact. The problem is people sharply disagree with you. Millions of people in America strongly think your basic premises are just utterly flawed. I know you don't, and you aren't open to the possibility that your ideas are reason deficient.

What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts? Which would be a fair assessment of how much energy went into making the components and erecting the plant. If you think the number is higher, why do you?

At any rate, the amount of energy that went into this solar plant is finite. It is limited. So as long as the plant can stay operational, then it is certain its carbon debt will be repaid and many more times over... so you are just crapping nasty brown all over this message board. But your credibility never was very high.

nor will it ever produce energy as efficiently as a FF plant.

What do you base this on? Has solar stop being capable of advancing? If history is a tell-tale sign, then solar prices have dropped every decade in significant ways...solar is now roughly .74 cents a watt. Fossil fuels are hardly lower, and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them, which keeps prices low unlike in the UK where gas is about 10 dollars a gallon. Our consumption subsidies were over 200 billion last year alone. (See subsidies on wikipedia)

Again, you are just shitting your pants when you make flippant remarks with no basis in reality.

good post.

 

[Kosh]

This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)

I think I'm wasting my time talking to you at all. You have clearly demonstrated no concern for intelligent debate. You assert what sounds right given according to the assumption your worldview and opinions are indisputable fact. The problem is people sharply disagree with you. Millions of people in America strongly think your basic premises are just utterly flawed. I know you don't, and you aren't open to the possibility that your ideas are reason deficient.

What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts? Which would be a fair assessment of how much energy went into making the components and erecting the plant. If you think the number is higher, why do you?

At any rate, the amount of energy that went into this solar plant is finite. It is limited. So as long as the plant can stay operational, then it is certain its carbon debt will be repaid and many more times over... so you are just crapping nasty brown all over this message board. But your credibility never was very high.

nor will it ever produce energy as efficiently as a FF plant.

What do you base this on? Has solar stop being capable of advancing? If history is a tell-tale sign, then solar prices have dropped every decade in significant ways...solar is now roughly .74 cents a watt. Fossil fuels are hardly lower, and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them, which keeps prices low unlike in the UK where gas is about 10 dollars a gallon. Our consumption subsidies were over 200 billion last year alone. (See subsidies on wikipedia)

Again, you are just shitting your pants when you make flippant remarks with no basis in reality.

good post.

The far left/AGW cultists ability to live in reality show up once again.

 

[gnarlylove]

I think I'm wasting my time talking to you at all. You have clearly demonstrated no concern for intelligent debate. You assert what sounds right given according to the assumption your worldview and opinions are indisputable fact. The problem is people sharply disagree with you. Millions of people in America strongly think your basic premises are just utterly flawed. I know you don't, and you aren't open to the possibility that your ideas are reason deficient.

What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts? Which would be a fair assessment of how much energy went into making the components and erecting the plant. If you think the number is higher, why do you?

At any rate, the amount of energy that went into this solar plant is finite. It is limited. So as long as the plant can stay operational, then it is certain its carbon debt will be repaid and many more times over... so you are just crapping nasty brown all over this message board. But your credibility never was very high.



What do you base this on? Has solar stop being capable of advancing? If history is a tell-tale sign, then solar prices have dropped every decade in significant ways...solar is now roughly .74 cents a watt. Fossil fuels are hardly lower, and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them, which keeps prices low unlike in the UK where gas is about 10 dollars a gallon. Our consumption subsidies were over 200 billion last year alone. (See subsidies on wikipedia)

Again, you are just shitting your pants when you make flippant remarks with no basis in reality.

good post.

The far left/AGW cultists ability to live in reality show up once again.

So anything that doesn't fit your assessment of reality is a cult, huh? Sounds like a cult-ish view to me. What's the problem with solar succeeding? It makes your entire worldview nonsensical. I mean you could be a little more reasonable about saying the carbon debt will never be repaid but somehow you just type words and expect them to be accepted as fact. Again, sounds like a cult view to me, I mean, c'mon, do you really think everything you say is fact that has no need of being supported by evidence?

 

[Kosh]

good post.

The far left/AGW cultists ability to live in reality show up once again.

So anything that doesn't fit your assessment of reality is a cult, huh? Sounds like a cult-ish view to me. What's the problem with solar succeeding? It makes your entire worldview nonsensical. I mean you could be a little more reasonable about saying the carbon debt will never be repaid but somehow you just type words and expect them to be accepted as fact. Again, sounds like a cult view to me, I mean, c'mon, do you really think everything you say is fact that has no need of being supported by evidence?

When the European nations are abandoning their alternative energy projects getting the US to enter into illegal wars like Libya for OIL, that is all the proof one needs that AGW is bunk.

Then again anyone that is informed on these matters would know that solar is not viable and that far left social programs trumps the Spector of AGW.

As I pointed it will be viable, but not in the short term as fossil fuels controls the world economy and what helps the far left stay in power in Europe (soon to the US if we are not careful).

When solar becomes viable as in not a 30 year pay off then you will see it take off, but that most likely happen in your or my life time.

 

[gnarlylove]

Politics is not a good indicator as to the truth and validity of a scientific theory. But you clearly haven't the slightest clue what critical thinking is. You just speak what your little brain thinks as if it's fact. You need to read a book on logic and critical thinking, please. Otherwise, you just make no sense from an intelligent, objective perspective.

Politics is given to hyperbole and exaggeration and is heavily influenced by money. Science is not. Science says the direct opposite of what governments are doing.

If you think politics is an accurate gauge for reality, you are severely mistaken.

 

[Kosh]

Politics is not a good indicator as to the truth and validity of a scientific theory. But you clearly haven't the slightest clue what critical thinking is. You just speak what your little brain thinks as if it's fact. You need to read a book on logic and critical thinking, please. Otherwise, you just make no sense from an intelligent, objective perspective.

Politics is given to hyperbole and exaggeration and is heavily influenced by money. Science is not. Science says the direct opposite of what governments are doing.

If you think politics is an accurate gauge for reality, you are severely mistaken.

Obviously you do as that is what is driving the AGW religion. And thus shows that anyone that believes in AGW is not connected to reality.

If these governments believed in AGW and believed AGW is the greatest WMD known to man they would favor alterative energy research instead of funding their over bloated social programs. Yet another reason why not to believe AGW is actual science. Anyone promoting AGW as science is definitely not connected to reality.

 

[gnarlylove]

Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective

 

[Dot Com]

Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective

You are correct. Here's a sampling of his durpisms: Kosh

 

[Kosh]

Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective

ANd how would that be different than anything the far left/AGW cultists post?

 

[Kosh]

Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective

You are correct. Here's a sampling of his durpisms: Kosh

Says the far left Obama drone!

 

[asterism]

Politics is not a good indicator as to the truth and validity of a scientific theory. But you clearly haven't the slightest clue what critical thinking is. You just speak what your little brain thinks as if it's fact. You need to read a book on logic and critical thinking, please. Otherwise, you just make no sense from an intelligent, objective perspective.

Politics is given to hyperbole and exaggeration and is heavily influenced by money. Science is not. Science says the direct opposite of what governments are doing.

If you think politics is an accurate gauge for reality, you are severely mistaken.

You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.

 

[gnarlylove]

So the 100% of the peer reviewed academic journals called Nature, Biology, etc. are not science? So what is science if it isn't produced by credible researchers at renowned institutions, who are independent of one another and continually employ the scientific method in their research, data, and conclusions? You know, that 98% crowd? If not them, who?

I can't imagine you take yourself seriously with a phrase like that.

If science doesn't come from re-producible and verifiable reports, like the one's the 98% says, then there simply isn't science. In any other field where 98% of experts agree, virtually unanimous, we would at least consider it's possibility of being right. But even that isn't done. There was never a hope for this view because it halts the world economy. But it's either keep disregarding the science and trust the politicians and public and truncate the species, literally, or stop the rhetoric and lies and take major steps towards preserving a planet.

But don't believe, me! Please! GO read those journals yourself that publish after significant peer review has examined the material. If you can't respect this 98% of dedicated scientific researchers as at least attempting science, then you certainly can't trust things coming from Americans for Prosperity and other financial poop shoots.

 

[asterism]

So the 100% of the peer reviewed academic journals called Nature, Biology, etc. are not science? So what is science if it isn't produced by credible researchers at renowned institutions, who are independent of one another and continually employ the scientific method in their research, data, and conclusions? You know, that 98% crowd? If not them, who?

I can't imagine you take yourself seriously with a phrase like that.

If science doesn't come from re-producible and verifiable reports, like the one's the 98% says, then there simply isn't science. In any other field where 98% of experts agree, virtually unanimous, we would at least consider it's possibility of being right. But even that isn't done. There was never a hope for this view because it halts the world economy. But it's either keep disregarding the science and trust the politicians and public and truncate the species, literally, or stop the rhetoric and lies and take major steps towards preserving a planet.

But don't believe, me! Please! GO read those journals yourself that publish after significant peer review has examined the material. If you can't respect this 98% of dedicated scientific researchers as at least attempting science, then you certainly can't trust things coming from Americans for Prosperity and other financial poop shoots.

Garbage in garbage out. The historical temperature record has been incorrectly adjusted and the original data are no longer available.

 

[gnarlylove]

Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future. You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.