The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

I wonder if there is a software to calculate the risk of shading, partial shading, by analysing the edifications near, or even not so near but large building in the residential area in a 2 square km block.
I saw a image of a huge store with roof covered with solar panels, but the shadow of a tall building was over 50% or so of the panels in a given hour of the day.
The software could use google maps satelite photos as reference.


Efficience advances :

https://electrek.co/2018/02/17/solar...film-monoperc/

Thin solar film with 25,1% efficience. If it get cheaper than actual chinse modules it's good news : https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300592510.html


Bad news about Sunpower's Maxeon cells in promotions. SunPower website tells that the low cost cells selled in China are rejected lots from SunPower that somehow went to China and are being selled buy unauthorized dealers.

Somehow went to China ? I bet they selled it to China, or some corrupt employer of SunPower gattered the bad lot and sold.
The price of real SUnPower cells are quite expensive, and the price of the last 24,3% efficience advance cell they created are the double of that.

:-(

[NeilBlanchard]

A fair number of solar PV installations are micro inverters and are connected to 240V AC at the panel. That is how they are in my system - three strings, of no more than 12 panels each. Each string uses a 40A (I think) 240V breaker.

The most expensive way to generate power is nuclear - this is why almost none are being built. Land based wind is the cheapest. Sea based wind is more than land, but now with the 12MW turbines, the cost of sea based systems has come down quite a bit.

Decommissioning the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth MA will cost <b>$1,000,000,000 - $One Billion</b> and take (at least) about a decade. They said they will store the waste in New Mexico. But I think it will be staying on site in dry casks - that last only about 100 years. Who will pay in the long run?

Entergy Agrees To Sell Plymouth Nuclear Plant To Handle Its Decommissioning | Bostonomix

43-Year-Old Pilgrim Nuclear Plant In Plymouth To Close Permanently | WBUR News

It is already losing money - about $40,000,000 a year. It was shut down FIVE TIMES for emergencies in the past year, or so. So, there goes the theory that nuclear is "dependable".

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...qQO/story.html

[NeilBlanchard]

More flooding in ... Madison WI:

https://weather.com/safety/floods/ne..._ven=wu_videos

Hawai'i got as much as 48.25" of rain in just three days.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The most expensive way to generate power is nuclear - this is why almost none are being built. Land based wind is the cheapest.

Hogwash. They aren't being built because of NIMBY and FUD due to the human tendency to be terrible at approaching risk in a rational way. If land based wind were cheaper, my utility would ask if I would like to pay 4 cents less per kWh for "green" energy rather than asking that I pay 4 cents more.

Decommissioning is factored into the price of nuclear plants before construction even begins. The extremely high upfront and decommissioning cost is meant to be amortized over the course of 40 years or more. Fuel and maintenance is extremely cheap beyond these 2 major expenses. The rising cost of nuclear has more to do with irrational fear and NIMBY hurdles than anything else. Storing "waste" isn't a problem, you just store it. The USA has tons of space to store a little fuel. Besides that, today's waste is tomorrow's fuel.

Decommissioning the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth MA will cost <b>$1,000,000,000 - $One Billion</b> and take (at least) about a decade. They said they will store the waste in New Mexico. But I think it will be staying on site in dry casks - that last only about 100 years. Who will pay in the long run?

That's 1 plant out of 440 in the world. I'm not up on why they want to decommision the plant, or why it's "losing" money. Normally once a plant is built, the cost is already sunk and you can only make money from there on out. CA wants to decommision a plant due to NIMBY, but it currently produces carbon free electricity at $0.027 /kWh. Somehow those idiots think they are better off building new natural gas plants at a higher cost, than simply continuing to use the plant that is already built.

[Xist]

Hopefully my mail-in ballot wasn't intercepted. I would hate for a more informed voter vote for me.

Going through My Ballot — #azvotes: azcentral politics' 2018 Voters Guide it was interesting to see a familiar face from coroplast in the Phoenix area on my ballot--a friend from high school. The Arizona Republic sent each candidate a survey and one of the questions is: Do you agree with mainstream science that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, and do you feel it is the role of corporation commissioners to address that issue when regulating utilities?

Justin Olson: The role of the Commission is limited to its constitutional requirement to establish just and reasonable rates for public service corporations.

Tom Forese: Science is science. I have seen the science and I see the reasoning and the argument that science is making. There are many things that contribute to our environment and our climate. On a personal and moral level, I believe in taking all things into consideration when deciding a case, including the environmental impact. However, having said that, it is not the role of the Arizona Corporation Commissioners to set environmental policy. There are other agencies in Arizona who share that direct responsibility.

William "Bill" Mundell: Yes. The cost of solar, wind and other renewables has come down substantially in the last few years and in some cases is even cheaper than fossil fuel. It is the responsibility of the Commissioners to make sure that the utilities are generating electricity from the least expensive energy source possible. By increasing the use of solar, wind and other renewables, we will bring down the cost of electricity and also reduce CO2 emissions.
Arizona should be the Solar Capitol of the world.

Sandra Kennedy: Yes, and it should be addressed by the corporation commissioners.

Rodney Glassman: Like a great many things, burning fossil fuels likely contributes to climate change. Science, mainstream or otherwise, does not yet agree how much. Regardless, the Commission is not the appropriate venue for setting statewide energy policy. That remains the responsibility of the Legislature. The Commission's constitutional charge is to protect ratepayers while ensuring reliable, resilient, safe, and affordable public services. As tempting as it may be for elected Commissioners, some whom have demonstrated a desire for higher office, to expand the commissions role and be seen as being more active in certain areas, I do not believe the commission has the constitutional role to mandate or advocate and should instead remain focused on its constitutionally charged duties of protecting ratepayers pocketbooks while guaranteeing reliable, resilient, safe, and affordable public services from Arizona utilities.

James "Jim" O'Connor: All decisions of the commission regarding energy sources come with a cost. The costs factor into the rates customers pay for water and power. So yes, commissioners have a duty and responsibility to weigh-in on this subject.

Kiana Maria Sears
Burning fossil fuels does lead to climate change. This is a fact. And I also believe that the Corporation Commission has a responsibility to address this issue. Because we live in Arizona, there is no reason that solar and other renewable energy sources should not be utilized to create clean and sustainable energy. Utilizing renewable sources of energy means Arizona is also using clean energy. Aside from climate change itself, fossil fuels lead to pollution and the low air quality across Arizona. Corporations like APS are not going to make these changes on their own, which means the Corporation Commission must step in.

Eric Sloan: If you want to eliminate carbon emissions from the air, and that is a good goal to have, nuclear is the best source of fuel to do that. Arizona has a huge advantage by having the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station operating in Arizona for Arizonans. I will vote No on mandates and I will vote No on subsidies.
I will be vigilant to make sure that utilities are playing by the rules and meeting the clean air and clean water standards. This can happen by working with federal and local regulators to ensure utilities are not breaking the rules or the laws. Clean drinking water is the most important issue and the current commission has failed the people of Pinal County who are dealing with Johnson Utilities. I would immediately call for hearing and legal action for any company that did not meet the clean air and water standards.

Unfortunately, I am on my own regarding local elections. Should I vote for the friendly guy from Church for Justice of the Peace--or the other friendly guy from Church. There are zero candidates for court clerk. The previous clerk quit to run for JotP, but she gives out peanut butter kisses for Halloween.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The most expensive way to generate power is nuclear - this is why almost none are being built. Land based wind is the cheapest. Sea based wind is more than land, but now with the 12MW turbines, the cost of sea based systems has come down quite a bit.

Decommissioning the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth MA will cost <b>$1,000,000,000 - $One Billion</b> and take (at least) about a decade. They said they will store the waste in New Mexico. But I think it will be staying on site in dry casks - that last only about 100 years. Who will pay in the long run?

Entergy Agrees To Sell Plymouth Nuclear Plant To Handle Its Decommissioning | Bostonomix

43-Year-Old Pilgrim Nuclear Plant In Plymouth To Close Permanently | WBUR News

It is already losing money - about $40,000,000 a year. It was shut down FIVE TIMES for emergencies in the past year, or so. So, there goes the theory that nuclear is "dependable".

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...qQO/story.html

The problem with nuclear power plants is that new designs have not been supported and built.

It would be more truthful to compare these old plants to the solar and wind farms of 1960s technology. Where are those farms now? How much power did they produce in their lifetimes?

[freebeard]

Weaponizable plutonium never enters in the economic equation (overtly). Is it too late to start over with Thorium?

Originally Posted by Xist

Unfortunately, I am on my own regarding local elections.

I'm sympathetic, but it's a little political for The Lounge for me.

[Xist]

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

Should I vote for the friendly guy from Church for Justice of the Peace--or the other friendly guy from Church.

I like most of those responses, with my favorite perhaps from Glassman. The worst response was from Kennedy; a statement with no justification.

[All Darc]

If we would judge nuclear power plants by brazilian's Angra I and Angra II
power plasnts projetcs, we would end up concluding that nuclear power plants it's a esxucse for sociopaths cretins steal money, public money, buying obsolet nuclear reactors, overprice just on paper to get money for thenselves, and spent years, decades, faking that was developing the technology and aprimorating the project, but in reality was just stealing money over, over and over...