The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

CA has the fastest growing economy because it attracts the most innovators, and has a culture of materialism (more so than most other places in the country). Their economy is growing despite the high price of everything, including utilities, not because of it.

This might be fine for most Californians, but it has an outsized negative impact on the poor, which CA has plenty of.

Perhaps long term there will be some savings to be had by moving towards renewables, but that isn't evident yet. There will likely be no way to quantify the health impacts of going to renewables, other than the clear cases of technicians who fall to their deaths while installing solar roofs, or while working on wind turbines.

A Carson City roofing contractor was fined $42,000 when a municipal code enforcement officer witnessed his crew members working without OSHA-approved restraint systems while installing a conventional residential roof,a clear violation of conditions of his business license.
Short of an equipment malfunction,I can't imagine why anyone actually concerned about their own health and safety would be at risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of 2011,a window washer fell to his or her death every 10-seconds in the USA.I suppose we'll be demolishing all the skyscrapers now.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As I said, it's not clear that renewable energy will be a long term cost saving. If it were so now, then we'd just have renewables powering everything.

The health effects of fossil fuel use is not easy to quantify at all. In fact, most every economic and health metric is positively correlated with fossil fuel consumption. In other words, life expectancy has skyrocketed since the age of fossil fuels, and poverty has plummeted.

It's cut and dry that someone falling to their death from a wind turbine has been killed in service of renewable energy, or it's clear cut that a coal mine collapsing and killing a person is directly related to fossil fuels, but someone simply dying of cancer cannot be directly attributed to pollution. It may be easy to quantify fossil fuel related health problems if every other variable remained as it was, but instead every variable has changed.

Fossil fuels have without question resulted in a great good for human well-being. That isn't to deny the negative externalities, but there isn't even a debate about whether measurable things such as poverty and health have improved due to their use.

I would implore you to read Daniel Yergin's 'THE PRIZE' and see if you could maintain what you believe.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

As has been pointed out, regulatory and protestatory hurdles greatly increase costs of nuclear power plants as well as provide a highly uncertain financial situation increasing the costs of financing the project.

Even in France, they are phasing out nuclear power plants.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by sendler

We really don't know what wind costs to install since I can't find any documented numbers on wind farms with a year of actual production and the total cost of the farm. Why hide the data and capex totals? We know what people say it costs. But we also read official cost reports on solar which turn out to be much higher in the real world.
.
Wikipedia has data on Solar Star, Topaz, and Desert Sunlight which were all around $3.50/ Watt. At 30% capacity factor this makes them actually $10.50/ Watt installed not considering any further operating costs. And of course they produce 0 Wh every night.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_..._PV_facilities
.

Look at Iowa - they are now getting over 31% of their electricity from wind. They are building more and more turbines all the time.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Batteries need energy density for vehicles, even batteries for non electric cars.

Uhn, what if space and weight of batterires wasn't a problem, like for home ?

Why not try to engineer a battery, rechargeable, with very affordable price for high storage capability, using something like chemicals solutions in tanks, like water thanks or small plastic composite pools?
If there is a chemical combination, affordable for recharge batteires, able to recicle, able to use in non xspensive tanks. Periodically the tanks content would be removed for recicled, avoiding polution of suage.

This is already happening. Grid storage batteries can be be much cheaper and last much longer, because they don't need to be small and energy dense.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Well, we don't want people to kill you, rape your wife and marry you pre teen daughters, don't you agree?

Sorry for the strong sentence. I don't even know you or you family. It was just to raise a point.

Humans are a disgrace, we are more prone top evil than for good. To get a good rightfull person you need 2 decades, a lot of moral education, good parenthood, good example, good influence, and even so it'd not guarantee. For other side, to create a monster or a crap you just need to do nothing.

Rights are a invention, yes, and not a human nature. If it was from human nature it would be some sort of abominable disgracefull rights.

It took some thousand years to take we out of a savage condition, with society, some laws, some protections. But it would took just some months to take us back to bestiality, in case of a nuclear was or cataclysm.

Yeah,the son of your family's best friend shoots his boss in Dallas so your dad can get his job.Or at least tries.And these are the one-percenters,Ivy Leaguers,best educated,top of the food chain.But hey,greed is good! And what you can't get with a kiss you can get with a bayonet.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Even in France, they are phasing out nuclear power plants.

We all get you don't like nuclear power and are among the fearful masses who would rather not deal with anything nuclear.

France has quite a handful of older 40+ year old plants that are nearing the end of their useful life. So what? That doesn't mean the plants were a failure. All over the California wind corridors are wind farms from the 70s onward that failed economically and their builders have left them to rot. Who is to clean them up? Its a problem that needs to be worked through. According to an article from Popular Science that references studies I'm not sure about, many wind and solar projects never return the energy that was invested in their production and installation/maintenance. A later article from the same magazine said that 2010 was a turning point for both solar and wind as both technologies are efficient enough and produced with less material and energy input to come out ahead in energy production over their lifetimes. Again, I'm unsure what studies they are referencing. As wind and solar multiply, we need to look at not just the production, but also the end of life recycling. Aerohead references clean production here in America. But a large bulk of the solar cells are produced in China. I've seen their factories. I've seen the pollution. Don't tell me solar cell production is clean until you also can deal with foreign production issues. Recycling? The majority of electronic wastes get shipped off to places along the Pacific Rim for hand sorting and crude metal material separation. Want to know how they separate these metals in Bangladesh? They are burned in an open oven to clean the metals from insulation and circuit boards. As renewables like solar and wind become more common and ubiquitous, we must also plan their demise and recycling. Proper recycling. That costs. Will that cost be carried by the consumers or by some poor government officials a generation from now?

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...mental-crisis/

Just an article that touches on some of the issues.

I can't find the article from A UC Berkeley Professor who teaches nuclear physics and engineering and who is not a proponent of nuclear power. He had a question and answer session on Quora where he cautions supporters of renewables to think out the logistics when you need a massive replacement of the 17 TerraWatts or so of power our modern world now uses. He estimated a square 331 miles on a side, with current tech solar panels, residing in the Sahara would meet the needs of the worlds 17 TW power consumption. You would actually need more of course because not all solar panels will be in such an ideal spot geographically, but it points out the gargantuan scale of renewables. Much the same for wind, though wind, like hydro-power and geo-power are more site constrained. He cautions us to include disposal planning for large numbers of panels, turbines and hydro-power projects. These things don't last forever. And, by their sheer number and bulk, they will dwarf the recycling problems already found with computers, phones, battery tools and other consumer items.

[freebeard]

*The magnetic field strength between the Sun and Earth is inversely proportional to the square of the distance in between them,or,follows an inverse-square relationship.
*Since Earth follows an elliptical orbit around the Sun,the magnetic field strength varies as the orbital distance varies
*Since Earth's orbital ellipticity also varies with one of the three Milankovitch cycles,the magnetic field strength is also coupled to this cycle.

Which magnetic field reaches beyond Pluto (or Neptune as the case may be). It supports the material driven off the surface of the Sun as fast waves, slow waves and squirted through the magnetic portals.

Yeah,the son of your family's best friend shoots his boss in Dallas so your dad can get his job.Or at least tries.And these are the one-percenters,Ivy Leaguers,best educated,top of the food chain.But hey,greed is good! And what you can't get with a kiss you can get with a bayonet.

T'would make a TV series. Would anyone watch?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

We really don't know what wind costs to install since I can't find any documented numbers on wind farms with a year of actual production and the total cost of the farm. Why hide the data and capex totals? We know what people say it costs. But we also read official cost reports on solar which turn out to be much higher in the real world.
.
Wikipedia has data on Solar Star, Topaz, and Desert Sunlight which were all around $3.50/ Watt. At 30% capacity factor this makes them actually $10.50/ Watt installed not considering any further operating costs. And of course they produce 0 Wh every night.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_..._PV_facilities
.

A drive through Sweetwater,Texas,in the wee hours of the night might change your view,literally.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My gripe is more one of semantics. The form shouldn't be called a marriage license, but instead "registration of spouse". Just as the state can't stop you from purchasing a vehicle, they do require that you register with them. I'm ok with that for purposes of bestowing certain legal rights/responsibilities. I'm just not asking for permission to get married. "Denied" is not an acceptable option for the state to decide. I suppose from that standpoint that makes me "pro-gay marriage", insofar as it's none of the state's business.

When I was filling out my marriage application, it asked for my occupation. My response, "Nunya". I didn't know that would appear on the actual certificate. To my wife's chagrin, and my absolute delite, it does.

If we are 'one nation under God',then the instant it entered into your mind that you wanted to be 'married',in that instant,you were married,and 'states' have nothing to do with that.And the 'state' must agree,if they're going by the same 'book.'(unless they want to cherry-pick scripture).
'Legally' married is a different animal,as mentioned by others.It confers certain legal 'privileges' and remedies upon those who are entered into a legal contract with the state,and protect if nothing else,the taxpayers from economic burdens imposed by legally married couples who's relationship deconstructed,placing those identified by the state,with the responsibility to absorb the social cost of the deconstruction.