The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Its not a lie at all. It's the truth.
Solar costs about half that of coal, for every watt of capacity you build. But you only get 4 or 5 hours of production per day.
You can stretch that to 6 or 7 hours with trackers but that will double the price of the project, and then some.

Then say you install 1,000 was worth of panels you probably only ever see 900 watts of production.
Because the industry standard test that "tests the panels" only translates to 80% to 90% of what you actually get once the panels out side in the environment and are hot from being in the sun for a few hours. Especially some where hot like texas, NM, AZ, SoCal.

Thermal solar storage is only cost effective for heating.
Even small Rankine cycle setups are really expensive, they make batteries look cheap.
Then even tiny Rankine systems that are only rated for a few Hp require additional permits, licensing in most states.

Once installed and amortized out,we're looking at free fuel for the life of the system,and of course there's virtually zero carbon footprint.They're not perfect,but perfection isn't something we should have expectations for.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Why many fixed solar tracks, the ones not on the roof (since many instalations are on plane roofs), have fixed angle at 45 degree or close, instead of zero (direct to sky) if the sun in midday shines stronger ?




By the way, they should create solar panels with some sealed apability, to fill and avoid water leaking, in a way to get part of the roof, saving money.



In this example (image above), I bet they sealed with silicone glue, silicone liquid rubber.

Solar panels abrasion??? Maybeby replace the glass solve it, or also some of the metals in the sides, and the glass (have some cost) could be recycled, or just polished to remove abrasion. I understand abrasions remove some of the transparency of the glass.

It's probably an economic consideration.
The cost of the energy lost due to the inefficiency of the seasonal angle of incidence of the solar insolation,versus a tracking system may not be deemed enough to justify the expense of the tracker.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If solar power "is so much cheaper than coal and natural gas" then why do places like California who use a lot of solar pay 3 times more for power then what I do?

Where I live we got a lot of wind, coal and natural gas.
The only cheaper power that I am aware of is in hydro power heavy areas.

Because if it was cheaper, it would be cheaper.
Right?

Perhaps the numbers are in the official public record and available if one is willing to put in the time. I was in Sacramento August 22,and gasoline alone was selling for $4/gallon,while I could buy it for $2.35 back home.
The California Public Utilities Commission might have records which would explain what's going on out there.
In 1973 the state made us all curtail around 15% of our electrical consumption,only to turn around and raise prices 15% to 'reward' us for our good behavior.!Estiercol de caballo !

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The coal plant near here has a bag house and scrubber.
The coal they burn is low sulfur coal brought in from Montana.

Warren Buffet's Berzerk Halfway's BNSF Railroad is bringing that in for you.
('When Philanthropy Killed the Earth',coming to a theater near you!)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If it costs more then it's not cheaper.
If it costs 3 or 4 times more then it's definitely not cheaper.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was 'cheap' for Japan.
The 'cost' of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is incalculable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2.35/gallon gasoline in Texas is 'cheaper' than $400.00/gallon US ARMY gasoline in Afghanistan.
The $Trillion Afghan War 'costs' more than the energy efficiency and renewables it would cost to get the US out of that part of the world forever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US Marine Corps is using more renewable energy than any other branch of the military service,and if the US Marines are' REAL MEN',maybe it would okay for the average guy in the USA to use them too?

[Xist]

I have been watching silly and useless YouTube videos while I did silly and useless things on my computer. Then it started playing Ted Talks, which were more entertaining, and I started learning while I did silly and useless things on the computer. Did you know that if you know a man in the U.S. at least seven feet tall between the ages of twenty and forty, there is a 17% chance that they are in the NBA? Did you know that competitive swimmers did not always do a somersault and kick off to turn around? They used to just turn around!

That is the only part of swimming that I do right!

Anyway, I am finishing my second video about how great and wonderful nuclear power is and anyone who disagrees is willingly ignorant. From one video:

He quotes Stewart Brand: "Look, despite what you might think, according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, nuclear actually produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does."[/QUOTE]

"Last year, Germany installed 4% more solar panels, but it generated 3% less electricity from solar."
"Germany installed 11% more wind turbines in 2016, but it got 2% less electricity from wind."

"[E]lectricity prices in Germany rose about 50% over the last 10 years. Today, German electricity is about 2 times more expensive than electricity is in France."
"France gets 93% of their electricity from clean energy sources, mostly hydro and nuclear; Germany gets just 46%."
"German carbon emissions have actually been going up since 2009."

But this was actually studied in an important article for the journal Science last year. One of the authors was James Hansen, the famous climate scientist, and what they found is that, even when you combine solar and wind, you just get a lot less clean electricity than when you do nuclear, and that goes for Germany as well as the United States. So what they did is they just compared the ten years of the most deployment of those two technologies, solar-wind versus nuclear, and it's a pretty stark comparison.

Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident we've ever had, and I think some people say it's the worst we could ever have. I don't need to make a statement that strong, but they literally had a nuclear reactor without a containment dome, and it was on fire, it was just raining radiation around everybody. It was really a terrible accident and when they start counting bodies, what they come up with is 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome, 15 deaths over the last 25 years from thyroid cancer, which as horrible as it sounds,
it's actually the best cancer to get because hardly anybody dies from it.
It's really treatable, you can take thyroxine, which is a synthetic substitute, get a surgery. In fact, most of the people that died were people that were in remote rural areas, that couldn't get the medical treatment they needed, and if you take the 16,000 people that got thyroid cancer from Chernobyl, they estimate 160 of them will die from thyroid cancer, and it's not like they're dying right now, they'll die of it in old age, and that's not to say that it's okay, but it is to put it in some kind of context.
There's no scientific evidence of thyroid cancer outside of those three main countries: Belarus, Ukraine, Russia. No effect on fertility, malformations, infant mortality, no conclusion or no data for adverse pregnancy outcomes, no evidence for any genetic effects, and I think this last one is the most striking thing: There's no evidence of any increase in cancer, including in the cohort of people who put the fire out and cleaned up afterwards.

What about Fukushima? This was the second worst nuclear disaster in history. There was a much smaller release of radiation than Chernobyl, and so what we find is that there's no deaths from radiation exposure from Fukushima, which is kind of amazing. 1,500 people died being pulled out of nursing homes, being pulled out of hospitals. It was insane, it was a panic. The Japanese government should not have done that, it violated every standard of how you deal with a disaster like that. You're supposed to shelter in place. In fact, by pulling people out of their homes and moving them around outside during that accident, they actually exposed them to more radiation.
Of course you have to put that in comparison to the other things that were going on, like 15 to 20 thousands people dying instantly from drowning, pinned under many different technologies, by the way, getting killed by that tsunami. Unlikely be any increase in thyroid cancer, and the big problem, of course, is just the stress and the fear that you've been contaminated when the evidence suggests that that's not the case at all.
They did an interesting study. They brought a bunch of school kids from Paris to Fukushima, and they wore dosimeters - that's what we call the old Geiger counters now. And what they find is that, those kids, when they go through the security systems, the radiation would spike. When they'd get on the airplane to fly to Tokyo, the radiation would spike. They'd go to the French Embassy, the radiation would spike. Iwaki didn't get - Iwaki is a city - it didn't get the plume, the radioactive plume. Tomioka did, and it's still a tiny blip compared to just going through the security system.
So let's look at some of the basics to put this in context. If you live in a big city like London or Berlin or New York, you're gonna increase your mortality risk by 2.8%, just from air pollution alone. If you live with someone who smokes cigarettes, 1.7%. But if you were somebody that cleaned up Chernobyl, got exposed to 250 millisieverts of radiation, 1%. 100 millisieverts, 0.4%. It's just because there just wasn't as much radiation as people think. The atomic bomb testing in the sixties exposed people to just - there's so many different measurements for radiation. You can just see a lot more radiation exposure during the a-bomb test than either Chernobyl or Fukushima. [...] I'm from the state of Colorado in the United States, we have an annual exposure, just because there's so much granite around us, about 9 millisieverts a year. That's what you'd get if you're the 6 million people that live around Chernobyl today.

But when you go into a survey, in most countries - this one was done in Russia - only 8% of the population surveyed accurately predicts the death toll from Chernobyl, and 0% predicted accurately the death toll from Fukushima.

"[T]hat's why every major medical journal that looks at this - this is from the British Medical Journal Lancet - finds that nuclear power is already the safest way to make electricity. And it leads to this really uncomfortable conclusion, one that the climate scientist James Hansen came to recently, which is that nuclear power has actually saved 1.8 million lives."

The thing about the nuclear waste is it's the only waste from electricity production that is safely contained anywhere. All of the other waste goes into the environment, from coal, gas. And then here's sort of a equally uncomfortable conclusion: Solar panels, there's no plan to recycle solar panels outside of the EU. Meaning that all of us in California - it's just gonna join the waste stream.
We calculated how much toxic waste -because the panels contain heavy metals, and lead, and chromium, and cadmium - how much toxic waste from solar is there?
To get a sense of it, look at how much more materials are required for each different energy source, and when you calculate all the panels that it'll require to produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear, solar actually produces 300 times more waste than nuclear, very little of it contained, and all of it containing toxic heavy metals.

He quotes Sting: "If you're going to tackle global warming, nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The attack on Pearl Harbor was 'cheap' for Japan.
The 'cost' of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is incalculable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2.35/gallon gasoline in Texas is 'cheaper' than $400.00/gallon US ARMY gasoline in Afghanistan.
The $Trillion Afghan War 'costs' more than the energy efficiency and renewables it would cost to get the US out of that part of the world forever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US Marine Corps is using more renewable energy than any other branch of the military service,and if the US Marines are' REAL MEN',maybe it would okay for the average guy in the USA to use them too?

I don't think any one understands what you're trying to say or where you are going with that.

[All Darc]

Sociopaths use to have higher IQ, and they are in the entire spectrum of society, all classes, in all colors.
They are crap people, since they are evil. Crap (what I refered about) it's not just about poor ignorant street criminals.

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

[freebeard]

[seven hours later he says:]
God must love the Common Law, because he made it so d*mn common.

Originally Posted by aerohead

carrots vs spears

I recommend the book,'The Prince',by Machiavelli.

I recommend 12 Rules for Living, but if —like me— Internet has ruined your ability read off paper, try Akira the Don's Reasonwave on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ordan+peterson

edit:

I don't think any one understands what you're trying to say or where you are going with that.

I do.

All Darc — There're also good people on the spectrum too.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Short of an equipment malfunction,I can't imagine why anyone actually concerned about their own health and safety would be at risk.

"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).

Let’s put a human face to these statistics. John Donnelly was killed in Oregon when a lanyard became entangled, dragging him into the spinning machinery. According to Paul Gipe, an advocate of wind power who authored an article on fatalities, the medical examiner described Donnelly’s demise as death by “multiple amputations”, witnessed by a horrified coworker. Another Oregon worker, Chadd Mitchell, young father of two, was killed when a wind turbine tower he was in collapsed to the ground in Sherman County after the turbine’s rotor went into “overspeed”..."

I'm not saying that wind or solar is unacceptably risky, but there will be deaths, and those deaths will be much more common than those caused by nuclear.

Not only that, but as Xist quoted, nuclear is the only mass power generating system where the pollutants are easily containable.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

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

Yeah, and they are getting 45% of their energy by coal, and rank #5 in highest energy user per capita.

In one August they generated 500 GWh of wind energy, and that same year produced 2,000 GWh in November. Producing 4x more energy in one month than another is a serious problem. Having unpredictable energy supply means you must have backup generating sources on standby, ready to go at a moments notice. I'd say they are nearing the upper limit of being able to manage wind energy while maintaining a stable grid.