Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Wayne SW/MO]

Have you driven through Wyoming lately and seen some of those wind farms? They're a blight on the landscape - is that really a good idea to add 120,000 more?

And along I-40 in OK, the Tehachapi mountains in CA., northern CO, etc.

I think mass production would bring solar down considerably, they aren't hard to build and there's no reason they can be built on an assembly line. The biggest cost should be the electronics, the installation and tying it in to the existing system.

The biggest problem is opposition from too many who feel they won't get a share of the pie to satisfy them.

There are too many simple but effective solutions that have been floating around for decades to believe there is any authority who really cares beyond the pocket.

[Tim Smith]

Your links are somewhat contradictory and generalized, except for the first one.

A quote from link one:

For example: A system that costs $18,000 has a payback period of about 20 years. The cost of a solar panel today is around $3 per watt, and the extra cost of installation brings costs up to $5- $6 per watt. Note: Installation costs for PV systems include both labor and the electronics needed to tie the solar array into your existing electrical system.

Link 3 seems to contradict that:

The environmental impact of using solar energy is negative at the start with the cost of the materials and the cost of production of the equipment. It balances out after a few years and the impact is then positive.

Read more: http://wiki.answers....y#ixzz1yYB8j08D

20 years to get to even on a typical residential solar panel installation. Tough sell in this economy for the average homeowner. I've looked into installing them on my house, but the savings aren't there. Solar technology is certainly capable of supplementing our electrical use, and I am hoping in a few years costs will come down enough for it to make sense for the average homeowner. And if we're talking electric cars in our future we're going to need to extra electricty to charge those cars.

And I'm sure you noticed in the links you provided that to replace exisiting electrical production using wind as part of the solution, they're talking about intalling 120,000 wind turbines over forty years. 120,000 wind turbines? Have you driven through Wyoming lately and seen some of those wind farms? They're a blight on the landscape - is that really a good idea to add 120,000 more?

And wind farms are not without their impacts - seems to be an issue with local climate warming.

http://www.smartplan...vironment/26086

Yes if you're selective with the numbers you can twist a contradiction out of them.

The break even point where I live is 8 years for a 50% offset. If you want to stretch that number out to 20 you can definitely do that. I suppose you could bury the whole solar industry if you based your projections on the rainforests of the Pacific Northwest.

120,000 windmills? You do realize that there are already over 100 wind generation sites in the US.

Most of the highly desirable sites are located in the Great Plains and many of the future sites are projected to go offshore.

I find it interesting how suddenly wind and solar impacts are so horrific compared to everything else. Hmmm...blight on the land...seems to me I remember something about blights on the land...

http://throughagreenlens.com/2011/01/10/oil-still-fouls-louisiana-marshes/

[Al Agnew]

See, what drives me nuts is the attitude that since we don't have viable, superior, power plant ready technology right now, let's don't even try to develop it, let's just continue to use oil and coal. Jeb, I think it was, asked why we're screwed if we're still using fossil fuels 30 years from now. I'll try one more time...

1. We have NEVER come close to a balanced budget EITHER by cutting spending or raising taxes. The only way we ever came close to a balanced budget is through a thriving, growing economy. And in the history of the last 100 years or so, neither raising taxes or cutting spending ever obviously got us out of a recession. What got us out was investment in new or expanded technologies. From the Great Depression, which muddled along for more than ten years before WWII came along and the government put private industry to work producing war materials, to the dot com boom that got us pretty close to a balanced budget before the bubble burst, to the big, unprecedented real estate bubble that got us out of the 9/11 recession before IT burst, we've seen that economic policies are not simple and it takes an economic stimulus (not necessarily a government stimulus) to start bringing in more tax revenue. Now...keep that in mind.

2. As I think I've adequately pointed out but it continues to be ignored, the price of oil has become a major drag on the economy. Lots of economists a lot smarter than I am have pointed this out. If for no other reason, if we're still even as close to being dependent on oil 30 years from now, we will have probably gone through 30 years of repeated cycles of tepid growth and crashes due largely to the fluctuating price of oil. We won't see cheap oil again, ever. If the developing countries like China and India continue to use more and more oil, the price of oil will only go up and up. THIS COUNTRY CANNOT HAVE A THRIVING ECONOMY WITH ENERGY COSTS THIS HIGH AND CONTINUING TO RISE. Period.

3. Like it or not, the available oil that we have in this country now, and are continuing to find, is very expensive, and environmentally expensive, to get out of the ground. Tar sands and oil shale oil is not real oil, it is kerogen, it takes a lot more refining steps to turn it into usable oil. It takes extraordinary technology to get it, extraordinary technology to make it usable. The other oil we keep finding is either deep offshore, also very expensive and environmentally risky as we've seen, or up in the Arctic, also very expensive and difficult. Our two biggest foreign sources of oil are Canada and Mexico. There are questions as to how much oil those two countries have that is any easier to get out than American oil. That, of course, is one reason why oil will not get cheaper than it is except possibly for short periods as we enter new recessions and the demand goes down. AS LONG AS DEMAND KEEPS GROWING, OIL PRICES WILL KEEP RISING. That's free enterprise 101.

3. And guess what...other countries are finding more "difficult" oil, too. Russia just had a major new find up in the Arctic area. This could be good if you want to keep using oil, but what happens if Russia ends up having the bulk of extractable oil in a couple of decades, and wants to "punish" the U.S. by only selling their oil to other countries that don't like us much either, like China? The chances of us being self sufficient in oil at any time in the next 30 years is practically nil, and as long as we depend upon other countries for part of the oil we use, we are either at their mercy or we have to put in a lot of military effort to keep that oil flowing.

4. I am not advocating tossing fossil fuel energy out the window today and going with something that hasn't proven itself. But what I am advocating is spending money and resources in the basic research into developing energy sources that CAN not only compete with oil but outcompete it WHEN ALL COSTS ARE CONSIDERED. Yes, I do believe that energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuel energy can be developed. Even present technology can get us there with some improvements.

5. So here's my scenario for how the future needs to go...Stop ALL subsidies for existing energy sources. Institute environmental regulations that apply to all industries and are fairly enforced on everybody (because that's the only way that you'll ever see the true costs of a given energy source). Invest a lot more money and resources into basic research of alternative energy sources, with an eye toward making them viable, inexpensive, and reliable. In the meantime, get smart about the existing energy sources besides fossil fuels, figure out how they can be made to work to BEGIN to lessen our demand for fossil fuels. The goal should be a modest decrease in fossil fuel use each year or each decade until we're pretty sure we've found something that will obviously be better. THEN, private industry will be ready to adopt it, develop it, and outcompete fossil fuels with it. When that happens, bingo! We have a major new technology, major new industries springing up, causing substantial and lasting economic growth which will, if the politicians are smart, get us out from under our huge debt.

I know that's probably pie in the sky, but there was a time in America when we were the world's greatest innovators and the world's economic engine. Continuing to depend upon fossil fuels means continuing to settle for mediocrity at best.

[Justin Spencer]

Have you driven through Wyoming lately and seen some of those wind farms? They're a blight on the landscape - is that really a good idea to add 120,000 more?

.

I think they look cool. To me they represent forward thinking and I have warm fuzzy feelings everytime I pass a big windmill.

[Justin Spencer]

Current numbers are showing 100's of years of supplies of oil. So I don't see the need for a headlong rush. Let's take our time and get it right.

How many years ago was the first big oil shortage? Just because we will be dead and gone doesn't mean we shouldn't put a rush on things. It might be nice to save a little oil in case we need it during a cloudy or windless year. 100 years is not far off.

[jeb]

Jeb. Not everything can be judged on short term profit. To approach these issues from that perspective cripples the whole process.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said short term. None of the alternatives will be profitable ever on their own unless the prices of fossil fuels continue to rise, at least with the current technology. The break through we really need, IMO, is storage. Solar and wind are both way to sporadic to count on without it.

I think Al and Eric have pointed out most of my concerns about your posts. In general you don't accept the human role in climate change...which sort of makes your other positions easier to understand. You don't think CO2 emissions are pollution so you write off an previous experience with pollution.

You're right about that. I don't believe man has much of anything to do with the global heating and cooling cycles. I believe in studying climate, but there is far more unknown than known about it at this point. So running around saying the sky is falling when there is absolutelty no proof of it hardly seems a good idea to base a new power grid on. Heck, even the name of the religion has changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. I laugh every time I hear the term climate change. Talk about covering your basis! The priests say "Wamer? Man caused it! Colder? Man caused it. Bad man! Hmmm, what's that? What caused the last ice age when man wasn't here? Heritic! Don't try to confuse us with logic."

So of course you criticize alternative energies.

I did not criticize them. I merely said they are not viable at this point so it makes no sense to go running down a path, spending money wildly, hoping it pans out. If it's more expensive than what we have now, it will not fly. It's just common sense.

Except that you are at odds with quite a few people who seem to know what they are talking about.

Even your links are full of doubts about their own validity. 80 goes to 50, and then big if's around, as I said above, storage capacity.

As long as you're stuck with your short term profit oriented thinking, you'll not make a positive contribution here.

LOL. Sounds like the modern day "consensus" science outlook. You must believe! If you don't, you will be cast out and ridiculed! Don't worry about the facts, we'll figure it all out sooner or later, we think.

[jeb]

See, what drives me nuts is the attitude that since we don't have viable, superior, power plant ready technology right now, let's don't even try to develop it, let's just continue to use oil and coal.

If by develop you mean research it, than you have not been reading very closely. I certainly support research. But it has to show a clear path to profitability at some point if it's ever going to reach prime time or it just will not work. It's just common sense.

Jeb, I think it was, asked why we're screwed if we're still using fossil fuels 30 years from now. I'll try one more time...

1. We have NEVER come close to a balanced budget EITHER by cutting spending or raising taxes. The only way we ever came close to a balanced budget is through a thriving, growing economy. And in the history of the last 100 years or so, neither raising taxes or cutting spending ever obviously got us out of a recession. What got us out was investment in new or expanded technologies. From the Great Depression, which muddled along for more than ten years before WWII came along and the government put private industry to work producing war materials, to the dot com boom that got us pretty close to a balanced budget before the bubble burst, to the big, unprecedented real estate bubble that got us out of the 9/11 recession before IT burst, we've seen that economic policies are not simple and it takes an economic stimulus (not necessarily a government stimulus) to start bringing in more tax revenue. Now...keep that in mind.

2. As I think I've adequately pointed out but it continues to be ignored, the price of oil has become a major drag on the economy. Lots of economists a lot smarter than I am have pointed this out. If for no other reason, if we're still even as close to being dependent on oil 30 years from now, we will have probably gone through 30 years of repeated cycles of tepid growth and crashes due largely to the fluctuating price of oil. We won't see cheap oil again, ever. If the developing countries like China and India continue to use more and more oil, the price of oil will only go up and up. THIS COUNTRY CANNOT HAVE A THRIVING ECONOMY WITH ENERGY COSTS THIS HIGH AND CONTINUING TO RISE. Period.

Not sure I agree with you, but again I'll ask, are you really seriously thinking some form of altnerative energy is going to end up being cheaper than what we have now? Again, I think that is terribly naive. I've never heard anyone make such a claim. What you hear all the time is that we need fossil fuel prices to rise to make the alternatives seem more affordable. So if you're concerned about the price of energy NOW being a drag on the economy, wait until we have to start paying for the alternative versions!

Another huge drag on the economy is all the regulations companies have to deal with in this country, along with the horrendous corporate tax rates.

3. Like it or not, the available oil that we have in this country now, and are continuing to find, is very expensive, and environmentally expensive, to get out of the ground. Tar sands and oil shale oil is not real oil, it is kerogen, it takes a lot more refining steps to turn it into usable oil. It takes extraordinary technology to get it, extraordinary technology to make it usable. The other oil we keep finding is either deep offshore, also very expensive and environmentally risky as we've seen, or up in the Arctic, also very expensive and difficult. Our two biggest foreign sources of oil are Canada and Mexico. There are questions as to how much oil those two countries have that is any easier to get out than American oil. That, of course, is one reason why oil will not get cheaper than it is except possibly for short periods as we enter new recessions and the demand goes down. AS LONG AS DEMAND KEEPS GROWING, OIL PRICES WILL KEEP RISING. That's free enterprise 101.

See my comments above. Energy prices are not going to be cheaper when and if we ever get alternate sources figured out.

3. And guess what...other countries are finding more "difficult" oil, too. Russia just had a major new find up in the Arctic area. This could be good if you want to keep using oil, but what happens if Russia ends up having the bulk of extractable oil in a couple of decades, and wants to "punish" the U.S. by only selling their oil to other countries that don't like us much either, like China? The chances of us being self sufficient in oil at any time in the next 30 years is practically nil, and as long as we depend upon other countries for part of the oil we use, we are either at their mercy or we have to put in a lot of military effort to keep that oil flowing.

Maybe that will be incentive enough to open up more drilling of our own reserves. Yeah, I know, I said drilling, and using our own resources! I'm really quite shameless about it, too.

But I do agree with you mostly on this one. And if you'd read what I had posted so far, you know the reason I'm in favor of researching alternatives is primarily to see the USA become energy independent. Very much looking forward to that day.

4. I am not advocating tossing fossil fuel energy out the window today and going with something that hasn't proven itself. But what I am advocating is spending money and resources in the basic research into developing energy sources that CAN not only compete with oil but outcompete it WHEN ALL COSTS ARE CONSIDERED.

As I've said a few times now, I also support research. I think we're probably already spending too much on it, but that's symantics, IMO. I do truely hope we see a breakthough sooner rather than later. I know the storage issue has been a huge one for years. We've been looking for the magic pill there for probably close to 20 years now. I'm starting to wonder if it will ever be possible. Lots of smart folks have worked on it, and trillions have likely been spent. And yet very little has changed in the battery world. Some progress for sure, but the good ones are still fairly large and quite expensive. Maybe someday.

Yes, I do believe that energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuel energy can be developed.

Hey, I hope you're right. I do. But I've never heard anyone make that claim. Quite the opposite, really.

Even present technology can get us there with some improvements.

Please elaborate.

5. So here's my scenario for how the future needs to go...Stop ALL subsidies for existing energy sources.

Good with that, as long as ALL means new sources, too.

Institute environmental regulations that apply to all industries and are fairly enforced on everybody (because that's the only way that you'll ever see the true costs of a given energy source).

You mean like enforced on the nations taking away our jobs because of all our regulations? Oh, that's right, we can't do that. So the China's of the world will still use the cheaper energy and laugh all the way to the bank.

Invest a lot more money and resources into basic research of alternative energy sources, with an eye toward making them viable, inexpensive, and reliable. In the meantime, get smart about the existing energy sources besides fossil fuels, figure out how they can be made to work to BEGIN to lessen our demand for fossil fuels. The goal should be a modest decrease in fossil fuel use each year or each decade until we're pretty sure we've found something that will obviously be better.

This reminds me of a story in the news lately. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html

This is the kind of thing that happens when you pass regulations that you have no idea if they can be met. Lunacy.

Continuing to depend upon fossil fuels means continuing to settle for mediocrity at best.

I understand that's your opinion. And I want to see us less dependent, too. But charging down an unkonwn path, wasting trillion of dollars in the process, could be much worse.

Let's do the research FIRST! Make sure we have a logical progression to get where we want to go. Throwing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks is no way to chart our future. IMO.

[jeb]

How many years ago was the first big oil shortage? Just because we will be dead and gone doesn't mean we shouldn't put a rush on things. It might be nice to save a little oil in case we need it during a cloudy or windless year. 100 years is not far off.

That's not going to be an issue. If fossil fuels ever do become truely even a little bit scarce, the prices will skyrocket. And I'm not talking about when it's gone. It will be when something like Saudia Arabia's output capacity goes down and they can't do anything about it. That's what will truely drive the adopting of alternative fuel source. It's called market driven. It's what built our country into what it is. Or was, rather.

[eric1978]

You're right about that. I don't believe man has much of anything to do with the global heating and cooling cycles. I believe in studying climate, but there is far more unknown than known about it at this point. So running around saying the sky is falling when there is absolutelty no proof of it

You're not paying attention then. And why would you "believe in studying climate" if you simply dismiss the data and choose to believe whatever you want anyway? What would be the point? Dylan said, "People don't do what they believe in; they just do what's most convenient, then they repent."

[Chief Grey Bear]

Jeb for president!! This man has it going on!!!