Harrekin
Well-Known Member
How is that exactly?
Cos I've seen people with impressive banks of batteries powered by PV cells that can provide something like 130% of their yearly electricity.
Changing opinion on Global Warming
- Thread starter Bugeye
- Start date
Cos I've seen people with impressive banks of batteries powered by PV cells that can provide something like 130% of their yearly electricity.
see4
Well-Known Member
Well aren't you a defensive little girly man. I bet you wear scarves so your neck[beard] doesn't get too cold.
No, when I see "breitbart", just like when I see "Fox News", as a point of reference, I immediately and quite aptly conclude the person who is doing the referencing is a complete moron. You're not a moron, are you?
Have a wonderful rest of your day.
see4
Well-Known Member
Is that what brietbart and Faux Noose told you?
There are entire countries, albeit smaller than the United States, that generate most of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar. Shit man, Sweden has been running their bus system on bio diesel for over a decade now.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
I hear you. I took notice of the issue in the early 90s and it was an issue before that. I do not believe we are in imminent danger from AGW but I don't rule it out, just low probability. I believe the probability of AGW being closer to the low range of the IPCC estimates are most likely.
So why not prepare like it will be worst case? Because the solutions being discussed are far more costly than they are effective. I'm big into conservation of energy because it isn't that hard and saves me money. Win win. Large wealth transfers conceived by jet setting politicians in the form of carbon credits that don't really make a gnats ass of difference on warming - doesn't interest me.
Regarding the straw man, no, I'm not asking if AGW is a straw man argument. When people say the science is settled on AGW and imply that the opposition believes AGW is a fairy tale, that is a straw man argument. There is no large body of people saying AGW is completely bogus. The opposition to AGW alarmism is largely around how much heating can be expected.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
And what was the total cost of that investment, excluding subsidies? Historically solar has a much higher cost per kilowatt hour than electric coming off the grid, but obviously varies by how much sun you get. This seems to be changing rapidly but I still have trouble finding the numbers on solar energy that don't include subsidies. Tesla has some exciting battery storage stuff going on that could also change the cost curve dramatically on solar, or so it appears.
Last edited:
bravedave
Well-Known Member
Name those countries. Biodiesel is heavily subsidized. More expensive and less efficient. It also produces high amounts of Nitrogen Oxide ( you know, the stuff that was used against the coal industry because acid rain was going to destroy all the forests?)
bravedave
Well-Known Member
I guess it is important for you to try to create a picture of me that you are comfortable arguing with. Again , feel free to read only those things approved by your leftist masters.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
In Arizona? I have a buddy in a northern state, off the grid, and he had a roof of panels and in the winter their contribution is almost nil.
He has an "Outback" system using wind, solar, and diesel all feeding a bank of batteries. After a decade of use he just shakes his head if you ask him about solar or his turbine...whereas he was super excited at the beginning based on how they were sold. Not ready.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Sounds like bullshit to me bro...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Those damn women and minorities just hate your freedom to exploit them don't they?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Hey, try finding cost analyses of fossil fuel use that don't include subsidies!
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD is the piece of the puzzle you're missing. Currently the corporations get to make all the rules- and break them with impunity.
The idea that energy conservation or efficiency is bad doesn't survive the smell test.
Our very point, by the way, is to eliminate subsidies for every form of corporate welfare to the greatest extent possible, except those for helping real, actual, needy people.
We need to take a hard look at utilities and see how that model can be expanded for other services besides water, gas and electricity. I think a data utility makes an enormous amount of sense and we had one in this country for many years; Ma Bell. They were regulated and supervised to be able to operate for the public good while earning enough money to continue providing the service efficiently, as many other utilities still are.
That doesn't make them a target for privatization and the subsequent fleecing of the public!
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Ha! I worked for an RBOC many many moons ago and they were fucking you hard! The PUC regulated profit margins so there was never any incentive to cut costs. Along comes divestiture with the telecom act and competition emerges. Amazing how many fucking layers of bullshit spending we found to cut when we had competition. Your long distance now is probably free or close to it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Then there has to be a middle ground that does not involve massive corruption and cronyism at the top.
see4
Well-Known Member
Denmark, Germany, UK, Sweden, Scotland, Ireland to name a few that have seen dramatic growth in renewable energy consumption in the past few years.
I guess it is important for YOU to try to create a picture of ME that you are comfortable arguing with. -- I'm not leftist or libtarded. But thank you for reaffirming the type of person you are and what I can expect from you.
You use brietbart and Fox news as sources of fact. I'm simply stating I don't believe them to be sources of factual [unbiased] information. And as I point that out, you become defensive, label me and toss me in a group you're comfortable arguing with, then have the balls to say that is what I'm doing to you. Class act bro... class act.
see4
Well-Known Member
I don't need to paint a picture madam, you do it just fine all by yourself; this is the news source you like to reference as factual unbiased information:
https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/new...onald-trump-9-11-muslim-222440597.html?ref=gs
They, like Forbes, enjoy perpetuating bullshit. And you dumb-dumbs gobble that shit up.
Gobble gobble gobble.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
All true. But yeah lets have the government give people a bunch of money to install equipment that is shaky and inconsistent and then a decade later it proves obsolete. That's brilliant....not. Like medical expenses, I could get behind full tax deductibility for anyone buying anything that improves their power situation but no giveaways ripe for fraud and cronyism...again like Solyndra. .
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Still better to give it to the people than weapons companies...
bravedave
Well-Known Member
Apple meet bread fruit.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well fuck, if the Dick Pulman (if ever there was a name that says it all) blog says Solyndra doesn't matter, I guess it's settled science.
We'll be needing a peer reviewed study before we can accept any of that blather.
