LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, they are doing that too.
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
I expect they will only do a new solar farm,
if it’s with someone else’s money
if it’s with someone else’s money
E
Ender
Guest
The AGW narrative is the predominate one in virtually all public venues. We are all constantly exposed to them. The usefulness of citing opposing opinions here is to reinforce the understanding that the science behind AGW is nowhere nearly as convincing as it is publicly presented.
If you believe the facts support your position then make a case for it. That’s what is being done here with regard to the skeptic belief that the case for AGW is not supportable. It is not a question of merely expressing similar views; what is being presented are specific examples where the data conflict with the AGW claims. These are not simply opinions; they are claims that reinforce the skeptic case against AGW.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It appears to me that the main usefulness of most of the posts here is to create that welcome illusion that the participants in this silo have lots of company. There is virtually no exploration of the science behind AGW. For example, all this talk about the inefficiency of renewables has absolutely nothing to do with the climate science. But it does offer a soothing balm to those nagging doubts that maybe we could do something to mitigate harm from climate change. A real exploration of the science would consider climate change independently from any consideration of political policy, mitigation, and other potential consequence of the science. As you said, "Real life can be so cruel.” I take that to mean that the science of climate change is not going to change depending on whether there are cost-effective countermeasures. But the posters in this thread just cannot resist mixing up all these issues, as if we can change the science based on whether taxes are too high.LeafByNiggle:
The AGW narrative is the predominate one in virtually all public venues. We are all constantly exposed to them. The usefulness of citing opposing opinions here is to reinforce the understanding that the science behind AGW is nowhere nearly as convincing as it is publicly presented.
T
Theo520
Guest
Your post is wrong on all levels.
Many of the posts here related directly to the science behind AGW, and whether the problem is legit.
The posts on energy relate directly to the fix that warmists are trying to push down our throats. Even if the problem is serious, it’s critical to have solutions that actually work, not just ‘feel good’
So the posts here hit the AGW issue from both sides.
Many of the posts here related directly to the science behind AGW, and whether the problem is legit.
The posts on energy relate directly to the fix that warmists are trying to push down our throats. Even if the problem is serious, it’s critical to have solutions that actually work, not just ‘feel good’
So the posts here hit the AGW issue from both sides.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But it’s more than one issue. The climate science is one issue and the fixes are another issue. The resolution of the climate science issue does affect the fixes issue. But the fixes issue has absolutely no effect on the climate science issue. Yet many act as if it does, as is evident by the fact that the climate deniers in this thread are unable to discuss the science without talking about fixes and their shortcomings. How many of the last 30 deniers’ postings can you find that discusses the science of climate change exclusively?
T
Theo520
Guest
You are right they are separate issues
But they are also connected, in that the same people are not applying basic logic and common sense to the problem. They don’t recognize bogus fixes nor gaping holes in the science.
So combined they are an effective attack on the integrity of warmists.
Let’s refer back to your article on PR.
The guy in the apartment building had a 255W panel on the roof. Maybe it averages 100W output after losses and variances in the sun. That’s enough power to run a single notebook PC, but not any household appliance, and it’s miles away from a refrigerator to stop food or medicine from spoiling.
I doubt the roof had enough room to give each apartment an equivalent 100W of power.
Net it was a feel good story, but a practically useless solution beyond charging a couple cell phones.
But they are also connected, in that the same people are not applying basic logic and common sense to the problem. They don’t recognize bogus fixes nor gaping holes in the science.
So combined they are an effective attack on the integrity of warmists.
Let’s refer back to your article on PR.
The guy in the apartment building had a 255W panel on the roof. Maybe it averages 100W output after losses and variances in the sun. That’s enough power to run a single notebook PC, but not any household appliance, and it’s miles away from a refrigerator to stop food or medicine from spoiling.
I doubt the roof had enough room to give each apartment an equivalent 100W of power.
Net it was a feel good story, but a practically useless solution beyond charging a couple cell phones.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I wasn’t making an argument for the effectiveness of solar. I was just showing you that despite your claim, some solar is being rebuilt.
And the “same people” argument only applies if you are analyzing the character of the scientists rather than the science itself, which stands or falls regardless of the character of the ones professing it. (And they are not the same people anyway. Climate scientists do not offer fixes.)
E
Ender
Guest
No one disputes that determining the problem and determining the fix are two entirely different issues, but neither is it illegitimate to address one without addressing the other. The comments made here reject both the claims of the believers and their proposed fixes.
Nor is anyone on this side shy about addressing whatever scientific claims are presented. This particular thread serves the very commendable purpose of broadcasting information that is not otherwise commonly presented. It is not the skeptics who dismiss statements based on their source rather than their content.
T
Theo520
Guest
@LeafByNiggle:
I read the article more closely, and I think it’s mixed.
15 solar systems were donated at a cost of $350k, for remote locations. So that is an example of other people’s money.
One solar farm said it was back to 74% capacity in Oct last year. I think this may be convoluted since they have a contract where they are paid for lost revenue. One could argue this is also ‘other people’s money’ and they wouldn’t rebuild if it was a new investment, without guaranteed revenue.
There is no recent news.on PR solar farms. I certainly wouldn’t make a new contract that guaranteed revenue for a system highly vulnerable to storm damage.
I read the article more closely, and I think it’s mixed.
15 solar systems were donated at a cost of $350k, for remote locations. So that is an example of other people’s money.
One solar farm said it was back to 74% capacity in Oct last year. I think this may be convoluted since they have a contract where they are paid for lost revenue. One could argue this is also ‘other people’s money’ and they wouldn’t rebuild if it was a new investment, without guaranteed revenue.
There is no recent news.on PR solar farms. I certainly wouldn’t make a new contract that guaranteed revenue for a system highly vulnerable to storm damage.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
See the attached article about Puerto Rico solar [from Australia]
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/pu...lar-plus-five-months-on-15-still-blacked-out/
T
Theo520
Guest
Good article, many interesting details about how badly their power utility was run. If you had the right connections, you got free power!
In an included link I read that one solar farm survived, it was built to withstand hurricanes. I wonder at the increased costs though.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Evidence for cooling appears to be more than just anecdotal.
Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP).
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Boutique power is tough to do.
www.theweatherjunkies.com
Puerto Rican Solar Farms Heavily Damaged By Hurricane Maria
Hurricane Maria’s flooding rains and raging winds heavily damaged Puerto Rico’s solar farms - an emerging energy source for the U.S. territory. In the first sixth months of 2017, solar surpassed wind as Puerto Rico’s top producer of renewable energy. This trend comes as several large solar...
www.theweatherjunkies.com
T
Theo520
Guest
Is climate alarmist consensus about to shatter?
Foreword by Paul Driessen A new study by climatologists Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry concludes that Earth’s “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) to more atmospheric carbon dioxide is as much …
wattsupwiththat.com
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
D
DaveBj
Guest
And perhaps self-regulating? Volcanic eruptions release lots of gases associated with “global warming”, but on the other hand, they also release lots of particulates, which block sunlight and have a cooling effect. Past experience indicates that large eruptions have, overall, a significant cooling effect.
D
T
Theo520
Guest
CO2 Just Hit 410ppm – and All is Well
Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t ivankinsman – did anyone else notice the end of the world? Greenhouse gas reaches alarming new record By Brandon Miller, CNN Updated 1626 GMT (0026 HKT) May 3,…
wattsupwiththat.com
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
California to require solar panels on most new homes
California to require solar panels on most new homes
There's no question that solar power is entering the mainstream, but California is about to give it a giant boost. The state's Energy Commission is expected to approve new energy standards that would require solar panels on the roofs of nearly all new homes, condos and apartment buildings from...
There’s no question that solar power is entering the mainstream, but California is about to give it a giant boost. The state’s Energy Commission is expected to approve new energy standards that would require solar panels on the roofs of nearly all new homes, condos and apartment buildings from 2020 onward. There will be exemptions for homes that either can’t fit solar panels or would be blocked by taller buildings or trees, but you’ll otherwise have to go green if your property is brand new.
The plan doesn’t require that a home reach net-zero status (where the solar power completely offsets the energy consumed in a year). However, it does provide “compliance credits” for homebuilders who install storage batteries like Tesla’s Powerwall, letting them build smaller panel arrays knowing that excess energy will be available to use off-hours.
The new standards are poised to hike construction costs by $25,000 to $30,000 (about half of which is directly due to solar), but the self-produced energy is estimated to save owners $50,000 to $60,000 in operating costs over the solar technology’s expected 25-year lifespan.
And of course, $25k to the cost of a home means nothing in a place like San Francisco where house costs are so low.
I have this strange idea: why not let a free people make their own choices and decisions.
- Status