The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

I'm sure there was nothing clean about how those panels were manufactured.
Unless they're on trackers you only get about 1kwh per 200 to 220 watts of panel. This is with SoCal, AZ, NM, West TX weather and sun.
That would be 60 to 65 million kwh per day.
Where a 1 giga nuclear power plant will generate 1 gigawatt for 24 hours straight, rain or shine. For a total of 24 million kwh per day.

With normal power plants you have 1 watt of generation capacity and you get 1 watt hour over a 24hr period. With solar you get more like 1 watt hour for every 5 or 6 watts of capacity, then if you want to use it later you have to store it some how.

So comparing a solar farm to nuclear plant is fair. As long as you count total kwh produced. So for 13 billion dollars they made 2.5 of the worlds most expensive power plants that don't work at night and lose a serious amount of capacity on cloudy days and rainy days.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If wind and solar are so cheap and so quick to build why after 20 years of wide scale adoption has it barely carved out a sliver on our total energy produced pie chart?

I only have a 2 year associates degree in wind and solar power generation as of 2016, but what do I know.



The guy that reviewed that paper in 2009, James Shirley works at nasa JPL and edited the encyclopedia of interplanetary sciences. Right now he appears to be studying the effects of solar minimum on mars climate. Probably because of the political back lash attached to suggestion that man made global warming may not be the driving force behind climate change on earth.
You might say he sees the big picture like no one else.

If the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution hadn't been prostituted by the Supreme Court in 1886,fossil fuel corporations wouldn't have ever been able to wage a disinformation campaign against climate change,and we might have had an extra 30-years to proactively enlarge solar and wind generating capacity.Now,after losing 30-years we're forced into a reactive posture.
Corporate 'persons' have a louder voice than actual human being 'persons.'
As to political backlash,do you have a specific citation that you're thinking about.
I am aware that certain entities have moved to defund and defenestrate certain government agencies,and censure the 1st Amendment rights of government climate scientists.Presidents appoint wolves to guard the hen house.
As I understand it,within the actual scientific community,there is no question as to whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases are driving climate change or not.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

What about the hydrogen reactor project, that tries to use hundred of the most powerfull lasers on Earth to create a controled reaction ?

How many years to became reality ?

a few years ago they said 30-years.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'm sure there was nothing clean about how those panels were manufactured.
Unless they're on trackers you only get about 1kwh per 200 to 220 watts of panel. This is with SoCal, AZ, NM, West TX weather and sun.
That would be 60 to 65 million kwh per day.
Where a 1 giga nuclear power plant will generate 1 gigawatt for 24 hours straight, rain or shine. For a total of 24 million kwh per day.

With normal power plants you have 1 watt of generation capacity and you get 1 watt hour over a 24hr period. With solar you get more like 1 watt hour for every 5 or 6 watts of capacity, then if you want to use it later you have to store it some how.

So comparing a solar farm to nuclear plant is fair. As long as you count total kwh produced. So for 13 billion dollars they made 2.5 of the worlds most expensive power plants that don't work at night and lose a serious amount of capacity on cloudy days and rainy days.

If you're 'sure' then you know,and have the information to share.Please do!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I don't like how they define energy for solar power farms. If the panels have maximum imput in the best day near equator, they put that number like it was capable of give this amount the entire day.
I call it trick.

For every location on earth,there is a compilation of meteorological data,and the mean,average values,computed from all data ever collected for that area.
I had to buy one in college for a solar energy class.
I suspect that the numbers that you are seeing are computed from such a database.
ASHRAE Manuals will have some of it.

[oil pan 4]

30 years ago solar power cost some where around $10 per watt and oil was cheap. So even if the US would have started 30 years ago we would have maybe several more gigawatts of solar power installed, for 10 times the cost it is today, those panels would probably be well on their way out after 30 years. So starting 30 years earlier would have given no measurable gain, aside from higher national debt.
So no regrets on not "starting 30 years earlier" as far as I can see.

Like global warming there is no debate about how horrible china's environmental stewardship is.

So no comment on the horrible $ to kwh conversion solar tends to run?

I don't have any thing against solar, I'm working towards installing several kw of solar on my house. I just don't understand the green lust everyone has.

[freebeard]

As I understand it,within the actual scientific community,there is no question as to whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases are driving climate change or not.

Steering, possibly; but driving?

Originally Posted by All Darc

There should be a way, a creation of a international code to also point the real average maximum prodution capacity of a given solar system, and for it would need consider anual sun incidence, sun intensity in that place, cloods, and efficieny and other characteristic of the solar panels instaled.

Thanks for thoroughly misinterpreting my comment about the 'nameplate capacity' of a BUgatti.

Of course what you ask for actually exists, Project Sunroof:

https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#p=0

Knock yourself out. [does that translate?]

[NeilBlanchard]

A Hawaiian island got about 50 inches of rain in 24 hours. Scientists warn it's a sign of the future

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

A Hawaiian island got about 50 inches of rain in 24 hours. Scientists warn it's a sign of the future

Yikes. I was there a couple months ago. I wonder if the Kalalua trail was destroyed as well?

It's impossible to tell how much of the damage was due to global warming, as warming isn't 100% responsible for weather damage. Perhaps severity and/or frequency increases with warming, but even freak storms exist regardless of warming.

Are there any estimates of how much more powerful storms are compared with, say, 1900 levels of CO2 and temperature?

[Xist]

I always tell people that Hawaiian dirt is red! They refuse to believe me!