Steven info going out to you very shortly via email.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask I will do my best to get the info to you .
Any one else please send me your email and I will get back to you .
Roycooke@hotmail.com
Four Numbers Say Wind and Solar Can’t Save Climate
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/four-numbers-say-wind-and-solar-can-t-save-climate.html
Great article Michael, thanks
There are some things we can inspect on solar arrays without too much problem; proper grounding, sub-array spacing for cooling, proper flashing of stand-offs, etc, but there are other items that require expertise that require special training: proper wire gauge, compatibility and functionality of various components of different ages, etc. Some of the older systems, most of us won’t understand how they were designed to work, or even if they were designed by someone with any real knowledge of PV systems.
They’re specialized systems and most inspectors don’t even know what they don’t know.
I don’t think so!
I don’t know who Byrce imagines has suggested replacing all the power the US gets from coal with wind, but CLUE: NOBODY!
Numbers, numbers, numbers. Everybody’s got 'em and they all slant then to support their theories, and almost all of them are practically impossible to confirm, because you actually have to go back and confirm that the studies they got the numbers from used valid methods. That includes the IPCC report which is based on a collection of studies, almost all of which no one reads, but which get summarized. What are the politics of those writing the summaries?
I actually read some of those IPCC studies, so I know that the reason they’re seldom read is that the studies include things like the effect of jet contrails on the annual growth of greenhouse gases. Considering that the greenhouse gas that contributes the most to climate change is water vapor, and about 70% of the earth’s surface [a widely-agreed upon number]) is covered with water, it’s hard to justify spending a lot of time reading about jet contrails unless you’re in prison and have nothing better to do with your time.
Presidential administrations set the tone for the actual handling of environmental issues, and it’s usually possible to at least get an idea of the general attitude toward environmental issues of a candidate during the couple of years running up to a presidential election, but once the election is over, and also elections of the legislature, we all get to see what actually gets funded and what doesn’t. That’s if anyone takes the time to follow legislative procedures over which individuals typically have little control.
We need to use all energy sources we can exploit at a reasonable cost. So there’s another term that will open a can of worms. We need to keep pursuing more affordable ways to make coal cleaner, because it’s obviously our number one source of energy. At the same time, try to make renewables a more financially realistic alternative.
The government heavily subsidizes the oil and coal industries also. So then, logically, if someone is against any energy source, except through free market economics, then they would be against oil and coal.
Yes, the US and Canada have lots of un extracted oil. Unfortunately, most of it has a low ROI, return on investment. Meaning it takes a lot of energy to get that energy. Also One of the main faults with some existing green energy sources, at this time. Richard Heinberg talks about peak oil; the recent fracking bubble is just a symptom of starting to suck the supply empty.
Lots of coal reserves also, but there’s coal and there’s coal. The high quality coal reserves are expected to only last a few decades. There is plenty of natural gas to last a while.
One way or the other, 20 years or 100, the oil (golden?) age will come to an end.
Really ?
Please explain what the oil subsidies are or is that just some talking point you heard once and didn’t bother to understand?
Hundreds of years of supply of coal available. Look it up.
Oil is "subsidized?’ That’s a new one on me.
Oil is “taxed,” which is quite the opposite of being subsidized. Take a look at the taxes on your gasoline some time.
This “green energy” (or “alternative” energy) movement is pure BS.
In fact, CA power providers are considering an additional “surcharge” for users of solar electric systems because “these systems negatively affect the profit margins of power providers.”
I see he did not come back to explain but the talking point he heard probably goes something like this:
Oil companies receive $$$BILLIONS in oil depletion allowances.
Of course they ignore the fact that every business is is allowed to depreciate their capital assets.
Adding PV to all rooftops is a very good step that the community can take in conserving energy collectively. Wish people did not have to be coerced into making this change though.
Talking about future is bit strange. Every time they talk about solar energy but never implemented.
Never understood the theory that solar panels or any other alternatives were baaaad. Jimmy Carter installed them on the white house after the great gas shortages of the 70’s. Reagan took them out when suddenly there were enormous supply left. Recently Barack has reinstalled them. Notice their is no fan fare for solar energy. Every new home should be built with at least 5kw of solar power with a solar hot water tank.
Save what’s left of the reserves for future wars…
You are welcome to include what ever solar panels YOU want to pay for.
Demanding others do the same or providing tax payer dollars as incentives to do so is simple theft.