Solar panels increase house prices.

[snic]

3) Man is changing the environment - no doubt and for the worse. If one person pees in the pool it is no big deal however, if several billion pee in it things get yucky.

Ah, I see. So you agree with me all along. It's just that you prefer to mock and insult anyone who you think espouses a "green" point of view.

Snic: I'm sort of on your side, but you're not making it any easier for the rest of us. Question: Do you have any idea how much energy you consume in a year ? Do you even know how to begin looking for such a thing ?

Yes, and yes.

Get a clue and find out, and leave the "you could just do this and the world would be fine" mentality out of it.

I did not say anything remotely similar to "you could just do this and the world would be fine". I said that the solution will take a long time in coming and that we don't know what it will look like, but we need to foster an energy market in which the participants are incentivized to look for the solution. I think this is a reasonable outlook. That, in fact, is the extent of my opinion on renewable energy, but it has not been addressed in any of the responses to what I've written. I guess it's more fun to bluster about enivro-nazis and accuse people of ranting.

[russ]

snic - BTW - I do believe man is changing the environment - I do not believe the warmers to there last word.

Please be aware that what the "warmers" are chattering about is chemistry - not anything else.

Learn more about the topic before you go off on rants please.

[russ]

I doubt that you are in the majority on this one. Even if you are - that is, if the majority of the people in the world believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans - that still doesn't make you right.That is exactly what I told you

There is a big difference between minorities that are self-interested parties and "minorities" that are scientists. Please define "scientist" - you can leave out the NRDC, EDF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc. There are scientists in the groups but few. The percentages claimed in articles are nothing more than WAGs.

In the former case, the objectivity of the self-interested party should routinely be questioned. But scientists aren't self-interested parties: they aren't going to gain anything by interpreting the facts one way and not another. Their point of view tends to be as diverse as the scientific method allows. In other words, scientists using different techniques and approaches often come up with different interpretations, and they often spend years arguing about which one is correct. With repetition of experiments and advancement in techniques, these questions eventually get resolved. That is how we know the earth revolves around the sun, even though there were huge arguments about this 500 years ago. You do love to play with words while supporting blather. You and your lot are very much the same as the church was years back - center of the universe my butt.

In the case of climate change, what is remarkable is that the scientists' conclusions nearly universally favor the hypothesis that it's real and caused by us. This kind of agreement is unusual except in cases where the data strongly support one hypothesis. Your scientists and they could well be off base.

I don't know what's more worrisome - the fact that climate scientists all agree, or the fact that people like you refuse to listen to them.

snic - Goofy greens always claim that anyone not agreeing with them is just plain wrong - enviro nazis.

1) Climate always changes so how much is natural and how much man made - some of both in reality.

2) In well understood chemical processes we understand some and some reactions are guessed at. In the process I have worked with for a life time I know this is true. The engineers working on it are equal to and better than the warmers.

3) Man is changing the environment - no doubt and for the worse. If one person pees in the pool it is no big deal however, if several billion pee in it things get yucky.

What is worrisome is fools that follow goofy bunches like the warmers and their "scientists" without understanding what they are trying to say. Any time a chemical engineer says he is positive about a highly complicated series of reactions over time it is time to get the anti BS meter out.

People are claiming to understand how the various components of the atmosphere react when in reality they have little idea.

[J.P.M.]

I doubt that you are in the majority on this one. Even if you are - that is, if the majority of the people in the world believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans - that still doesn't make you right.

There is a big difference between minorities that are self-interested parties and "minorities" that are scientists. In the former case, the objectivity of the self-interested party should routinely be questioned. But scientists aren't self-interested parties: they aren't going to gain anything by interpreting the facts one way and not another. Their point of view tends to be as diverse as the scientific method allows. In other words, scientists using different techniques and approaches often come up with different interpretations, and they often spend years arguing about which one is correct. With repetition of experiments and advancement in techniques, these questions eventually get resolved. That is how we know the earth revolves around the sun, even though there were huge arguments about this 500 years ago.

In the case of climate change, what is remarkable is that the scientists' conclusions nearly universally favor the hypothesis that it's real and caused by us. This kind of agreement is unusual except in cases where the data strongly support one hypothesis.

I don't know what's more worrisome - the fact that climate scientists all agree, or the fact that people like you refuse to listen to them.

Snic: I'm sort of on your side, but you're not making it any easier for the rest of us. Question: Do you have any idea how much energy you consume in a year ? Do you even know how to begin looking for such a thing ? Get a clue and find out, and leave the "you could just do this and the world would be fine" mentality out of it. Look in the mirror and start there. Last time I looked this was a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions about solar energy. I'd respectfully suggest you take a deep breath, lighten up a bit, learn to walk more of the appropriate technology road, get some solid #'s behind your statements that can be validated and join some of the rest of us in searching for viable solutions to questions that have some hope of resolution. Your rants aren't helping.

[snic]

It is beyond me how some people can still deny the existence of climate change.

OK - since you think it is true it has to be true? This is a true green viewpoint. Many minorities demand all others accept their viewpoint.

I doubt that you are in the majority on this one. Even if you are - that is, if the majority of the people in the world believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans - that still doesn't make you right.

There is a big difference between minorities that are self-interested parties and "minorities" that are scientists. In the former case, the objectivity of the self-interested party should routinely be questioned. But scientists aren't self-interested parties: they aren't going to gain anything by interpreting the facts one way and not another. Their point of view tends to be as diverse as the scientific method allows. In other words, scientists using different techniques and approaches often come up with different interpretations, and they often spend years arguing about which one is correct. With repetition of experiments and advancement in techniques, these questions eventually get resolved. That is how we know the earth revolves around the sun, even though there were huge arguments about this 500 years ago.

In the case of climate change, what is remarkable is that the scientists' conclusions nearly universally favor the hypothesis that it's real and caused by us. This kind of agreement is unusual except in cases where the data strongly support one hypothesis.

I don't know what's more worrisome - the fact that climate scientists all agree, or the fact that people like you refuse to listen to them.

[snic]

I don't doubt that new technology will come along and people will learn to do with less but you have to realize what it will take to change how power generation is performed on a world wide scale and the time it will take to do it.

Let me know what you plan to do when the sun goes down and the wind stops yet you still want to have lights, refrigerated food, fans for cooling and electronics for entertainment. The power has to come from somewhere and a battery won't get you far.

So you may hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution to replace all forms of power generation from nuclear or fossil fuel but that will not happen over night or over decades for our energy hungry planet. Until then you need to make a decision on what type of "fuel" will be used to your power and light or start learning how to make candles.

I'm aware of all these points. The energy market is not going to change quickly, that's a given. But it has already changed far faster in Europe (especially Denmark and Germany) than it has here. That is because the Germans and the Danish realize that the free market isn't going to solve all problems. A far greater percentage of their power comes from renewable sources than ours because it's incentivized. As you are certainly aware, despite the relatively large contribution of wind and solar power there to the total, everyone in Germany and Denmark has 24 hour refrigeration and lights on at night. But energy conservation measures are also more widespread there (almost certainly more than in Texas), so, for instance, those lights might automatically turn off when a person leaves a room. Add these sorts of technologies up over the entire population, and you end up with less need for that nighttime power.

I don't know where you get the idea that I "hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution". That is not what I said. I hope and wish for a regulated energy market in which the growth and development of renewable energy technology (as well as energy conservation efforts and technology) is fostered by appropriate incentives. "Someone" won't invent the "perfect solution," but if there is profit in it, multiple solutions will emerge and they will get better with time. This strikes me as a far more rational approach to the problem of climate change than simply throwing up one's hands and saying "batteries won't work so we need nuclear and/or fossil fuels."

We don't have the answers now; that's true. And fossil fuels probably will continue to provide energy for us for decades and centuries. But that doesn't mean we can't do all we can right now to minimize their use. In my opinion, we aren't doing enough.

[SunEagle]

I never really understood assertions like these.

You are telling us that "there will always need to be another energy source" other than wind or solar. That statement is true only to the extent that the assumptions underlying it are true. One of those assumptions is that our need for energy will continue to be as high as it is now. But that assumption is flawed. People are capable of living (and even living well) using much less energy than the average citizen of the first world uses today. Given the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power (or, I should say, if and when the environmental costs becomes reflected in the financial cost), people are likely to begin to reduce their energy usage, and to look favorably at renewable energy to fill their needs.

The fallacy here is assuming that tomorrow's market and technological capabilities will look much like today's. There are good reasons to believe that they will not.

I don't doubt that new technology will come along and people will learn to do with less but you have to realize what it will take to change how power generation is performed on a world wide scale and the time it will take to do it.

Let me know what you plan to do when the sun goes down and the wind stops yet you still want to have lights, refrigerated food, fans for cooling and electronics for entertainment. The power has to come from somewhere and a battery won't get you far.

So you may hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution to replace all forms of power generation from nuclear or fossil fuel but that will not happen over night or over decades for our energy hungry planet. Until then you need to make a decision on what type of "fuel" will be used to your power and light or start learning how to make candles.

[russ]

It is beyond me how some people can still deny the existence of climate change.

OK - since you think it is true it has to be true? This is a true green viewpoint. Many minorities demand all others accept their viewpoint.
There are reliable long-term weather data to back it up.
Some data does and some doesn't.

It's not an invention of some "liberals" but a widely accepted scientific theory stipulated by those whose job it is to do research on it.Pardon? Pollution has an effect on the earth I agree. What that is we do not know and the "concerned scientists" plus UN lot are generally blowing smoke.

Depending on the economic and the political climate, public opinion seems to change. However, there is a difference between mere beliefs and evidence and theories derived from evidence Congratulations - that is 3 lbs of BS in a 3 lb bag!

Comments in bold within the text

[russ]

You are telling us that "there will always need to be another energy source" other than wind or solar. People expect the lights to come on when they flip the switch - that requires backup power generation.

One of those assumptions is that our need for energy will continue to be as high as it is now. Few have your apparent desire to live in a cave.

People are capable of living (and even living well) using much less energy than the average citizen of the first world uses today.Consumption has gone down sharply the past 40 years. Most people living in the first world have no desire to live like a peasant in India - or even like a middle class person there lives.

Given the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power (or, I should say, if and when the environmental costs becomes reflected in the financial cost), people are likely to begin to reduce their energy usage, and to look favorably at renewable energy to fill their needs. Nice green blather but no more.

The fallacy here is assuming that tomorrow's market and technological capabilities will look much like today's. There are good reasons to believe that they will not".Again - green blather. If you have some point make it rather than make a wild blanket statement like "someone will think of something.

Comments in bold within the text.

[bcroe]

Generation

Unless you can keep the sun shining or the wind blowing all the time you will always needs another energy source. Storage will never be able to supply the need so generation is the only answer. The choices are nuclear or fossil fuel so we will always rely on them.

That is certainly true. But we need to keep pushing development in every area. Maybe
solar will find a proper niche, like recharging your spare electric car battery
(while you drive the other). I am not feeling guilty in using the development
to some advantage here. Bruce Roe

[snic]

Unless you can keep the sun shining or the wind blowing all the time you will always needs another energy source. Storage will never be able to supply the need so generation is the only answer. The choices are nuclear or fossil fuel so we will always rely on them.

I never really understood assertions like these.

You are telling us that "there will always need to be another energy source" other than wind or solar. That statement is true only to the extent that the assumptions underlying it are true. One of those assumptions is that our need for energy will continue to be as high as it is now. But that assumption is flawed. People are capable of living (and even living well) using much less energy than the average citizen of the first world uses today. Given the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power (or, I should say, if and when the environmental costs becomes reflected in the financial cost), people are likely to begin to reduce their energy usage, and to look favorably at renewable energy to fill their needs.

The fallacy here is assuming that tomorrow's market and technological capabilities will look much like today's. There are good reasons to believe that they will not.

[SunEagle]

I agree that there should be backup. But I think that with all the new technology at hand, we could build a dynamic grid that can exist with much less nuclear and coal than we have today. Proponents of traditional electrical generation always argue that we couldn't do without them. However, that doesn't mean we have to solely rely on them.

Unless you can keep the sun shining or the wind blowing all the time you will always needs another energy source. Storage will never be able to supply the need so generation is the only answer. The choices are nuclear or fossil fuel so we will always rely on them.

Unless you have a "black hole" somewhere in your pocket.

[SunEagle]

The pie-in-the-sky concept is that a market for solar will facilitate innovation, making it more and more efficient, affordable and widespread, so that eventually it contributes significantly to energy production and reduces use of fossil fuels.

It might be pie in the sky, but so was the airplane when those bicycle mechanics went flapping around on the beach in North Carolina 114 years ago.

Do not forget that all renewable energy sources require to be backed up by other energy sources. If we don't get the Nuclear program back up to snuff that other energy will always come from fossil fuels.

[SunEagle]

Not to forget interplanetary travel. Many innovations came out of that endeavor. (OK Tang was not that great but Velcro was)

Didn't we get Velcro from the Men in Black?

[Naptown]

The pie-in-the-sky concept is that a market for solar will facilitate innovation, making it more and more efficient, affordable and widespread, so that eventually it contributes significantly to energy production and reduces use of fossil fuels.

It might be pie in the sky, but so was the airplane when those bicycle mechanics went flapping around on the beach in North Carolina 114 years ago.

Not to forget interplanetary travel. Many innovations came out of that endeavor. (OK Tang was not that great but Velcro was)