The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Is that the full incremental (all costs minus fixed) cost per kWh for power there? What is that utility? I thought I had it cheap on Clark PUC, paying something like $12 fixed cost plus 8 cents per kWh all in.

Basic Charge is $12.90. S********** Utility Board.

You keep repeating that there are "things that don't agree with the narrative". The one thing you say is that scientists are not accounting for the sun.

Which is simply wrong.

We're still learning about the energy transfer mechanisms (both ways) between the Earth and the Sun.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I honestly don't believe that such "money maker" skilled people (despite suspicious character) would invest in solar energy if they saw the energy produced per month as less economic than the energy payed from the power grid. They would not get fooled easily...

I have some faith in Braga & Goodenough battery. Even if it get just 2x or 3x the power density of actual best lithium batteries...

Solar can make financial sense at the micro level because individuals don't have to contend with the enormously difficult problem of balancing power supply with demand in real time.

When you factor in the hugely difficult problem of exactly matching power production with power demand by the second at both macro and micro levels, the unpredictability and utter lack of control of solar creates a huge problem; one that cannot currently be solved without extreme engineering and expense.

Hawaii is already having problems with neighborhoods that produce too much solar from individual homeowners. If infrastructure isn't built to handle it, then it creates problems.

It might make economic sense to do macro solar up to some relatively low total percent of power production (perhaps 20% or so), but it's not a solution. It's not even half of a solution. So far the evidence seems to suggest solar isn't even economical in regions with excellent sunshine, because those places that have implemented it have among the highest utility rates. Wind seems to be more economical than solar.

As I've said before if solar or wind is cheaper than conventional power generation, then my utility would invite me to pay less for "green energy". As it is, the utility asks just the opposite; for me to pay more for solar or wind power. Anyone saying solar or wind is cheaper (at the macro level) is misinformed at best, or peddling a lie for nefarious purposes at worst.

[All Darc]

I'm really sorry, I had no bad intention towards you or you wife.

But I really believe medical science it's a mess, and a mess in terms of advances in the last 25 years. I use to read about new technics, new treatments, but 99% end in bull****, failed miserably or turns out as very more worse than announced.

And there is no really true intention of get better in terms of science development, since diseases are profitable and cures are not.

And I don't trust doctors, and I have relatives doctors and I don't trust then either, and I have reasons to don't trust, reasons I sadly found to discover. They are a mafia, at least in my country a f...ing mafia.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Hey my wife and I both work in the medical field!

You're absolutely right though. We're just scratching the surface of understanding human biology.

We're much closer to being able to build cities under the sea than curing viral or bacterial infections, for instance.

[All Darc]

When sodium batteries became cheap and higher in energy density than Lithium, and cars got large batteries, the solar panels could be connected to a net of parking cars.

Let's cross the fingers to the Goodenough & Braga battery have some true about the claims they did.

The solar field I talked before:

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I'm really sorry, I had no bad intention towards you or you wife.

But I really believe medical science it's a mess, and a mess in terms of advances in the last 25 years. I use to read about new technics, new treatments, but 99% end in bull****, failed miserably or turns out as very more worse than announced.

And there is no really true intention of get better in terms of science development, since diseases are profitable and cures are not.

And I don't trust doctors, and I have relatives doctors and I don't trust then either, and I have reasons to don't trust, reasons I sadly found to discover. They are a mafia, at least in my country a f...ing mafia.

I was being sarcastic about us being in the medical field. About the only way someone could offend me online is to claim that I have evil intentions, and even then I'd just dismiss it because I don't need to convince anyone of anything.

Medicine is relatively uncorrupted in the US, but nonetheless very inefficient and excessive.

I expect disease to become more prolific over time because we've largely eliminated natural selection. Bad hearts, poor eyesight, diabetes, poor immune function, etc can all be mitigated by medicine (thankfully), but the consequence is a sicker population requiring more medical attention. This is compounded by the rapid change from living very physical lifestyles where food was in short supply, to being mostly sedentary with an abundance of food. We're not programmed to live healthy this way.

As I've said, we're in our infancy of understanding biology and implementing solutions to problems (rather than treating symptoms). I don't think there is much of a conspiracy to focus efforts on symptoms by the way; that's just the easier path. Politicians are susceptible to this lazy thinking and people buy in too. For instance, a politician might identify poorness as the root problem of poor people, and come up with the lazy (and often counterproductive) idea that they simply need (someone else's) money.

In the future, I expect we'll have solved the major medical issues through genetic engineering, which will also have the effect of drastically reducing population growth since reproduction would largely be a conscious decision. Chemotherapy, insulin injections, laser eye surgery... it will all look like bloodletting by future humans, and they'll wonder how we went to the moon in such a primitive age.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Let's play out your conspiracy theory, then - how is it possible for THOUSANDS of scientists - virtually ALL of them, to coordinate their data and papers and conclusions?

How did they travel back in time, to "get to" the 19th century scientists to invent how greenhouse gases work?

How do they get the ice to melt? How do they get the tundra to melt? How do they get planting zones to move toward the poles? How do they make thousands of species to go extinct?

How do they get wildfires to happen all year, and get so intense? How do they force people from their homes with rising sea levels?

Easy, the planet started warming 14,000 years ago and hasn't stopped warming.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

That looks like some beautiful land; and it seems a shame to have clear cut it. I wonder what the net annual BTU productivity of sugarcane on that land would be vs the solar energy collected?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You keep repeating that there are "things that don't agree with the narrative". The one thing you say is that scientists are not accounting for the sun.

Which is simply wrong.

So, why do you keep repeating something that is wrong? It only makes you not credible on this.

The believers are obsessed that the suns radiant output only changes by 1% which is true and that radiance is the only thing that effects weather and climate.
ICON and GOLD satellites will confirm the effect of solar wind and the lack there of once and for all on the upper atmosphere.

But with china pumping out more CO2 than any one could have imagined and the sun going into a solar minimum we won't need no satellites to tell us if the sun effects climate.

[All Darc]

Well, plants convert much less sun into energy than solar panels, since photosynthesis it's way less efficient. And the plant need glicose to grow (own metabolism) and just that remains can be be harvested.
From what is harvested it have the energy use to harvest and process the sugar caine (extract it). The sugar juice will be fermented, eated by levedures and what remains it's what have alcoohol together.
In the end it's just a very tiny fraction, a fraction of a fraction, of the sun that is converted to Ethanol fuel.

It's like hold a cup with a small waterfall over you.

In the case of USA ethanol (made from corn) it's even worse, since corn have much less glicose than sugar caine, so it would be like have a huge waterdfall over you and your cup.



I love corn, and when I see Indy race and think about all the corn wasted to make a little bit of ethanol...

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That looks like some beautiful land; and it seems a shame to have clear cut it. I wonder what the net annual BTU productivity of sugarcane on that land would be vs the solar energy collected?

[All Darc]

The solar trackers paradox :

Why increase cost a lot by putting trackers to increase energy output in 40%, if you need more than 50% more space to create a solar farm with trackers, since the trackers require space for the shadows generated but the panels with trackers ?

Why not just put the panells in almost 90 degree, (in tropical countries it's possible) and put panels closer, since without trackers you can optimize space ?