American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

[jflorey2]

A mix is good. But you need to have a base generation that will not stop due to the weather. Find a way to burn coal cleaner

That you're not going to do, unless you can transmute matter cheaply. Coal contains uranium, thorium, cadmium, lead etc and all that waste has to go somewhere. You can get it out of the flue gases - but then you have to put it somewhere. You can put it in storage pits - but then it leaks into ground water. You can put it into lined, sealed pits - but then you're going to need a LOT of real estate.

find ways to neutralize & dispose of your nuclear waste.

That's easier, because the volume of waste is so low - and it IS possible to transmute those volumes (or store them more easily, or reprocess them.) But the question is still - who will pay for it? Two AP1100 reactors in South Carolina were just cancelled because of cost overruns; they simply couldn't afford to build them. I'm all for cheap/safe nuclear power, but we're a ways from that right now.

Totally walking away from those power sources is not a good idea so find ways to use them as best as you can.

Agreed. We will have both in some form for a while, although absent some technological breakthroughs they will decline with time due to costs.

[max2k]

The report in question was written by published climate scientists as part of the federal US Global Change Research Program, and the National Academy of Sciences's comments on the draft report (also written by scientists) are at nap.edu/catalog/24712/review-of-the-draft-climate-science-special-report . This is a straight-up summary of the peer-reviewed science, by scientists involved in the topic, linking carefully to their sources.

Political interference in science would be a serious problem. For instance, if the government fired or reassigned climate scientists, cut back heavily on scientific advisory boards, or pressured agencies to avoid talking about climate change, that'd be politics trying to influence climate science, and anyone interested in objective science should oppose such interference.

I don't really care who wrote it I was objecting to the discussion method used. You said yourself: "see the draft "U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report" that's been in the news lately". what that draft was doing in the news? It was doing politics.

BTW, how about funding other scientists who object to the idea of climate change or was it 'global warming'? Who gave these climate scientists the right to define what is true and what is false? If it looks like politics if it smells like politics - it is politics. BTW all this does huge disservice to the cause as it prevents opposing points of view from existence, another hell sign of politics/cult.

[DanKegel]

I don't really care who wrote it I was objecting to the discussion method used. ... what that draft was doing in the news? It was doing politics.

Sometimes science is newsworthy.

BTW, how about funding other scientists who object to the idea of climate change

Anyone who helps improve the accuracy of science's predictions is an asset, and I look forward to reading their contributions in peer-reviewed journals (possibly indirectly via national reports).

Folks funded by political think-tanks and don't publish in reputable climate science journals, though, probably aren't going to advance the state of science much.

[SunEagle]

Or setting a high goal. An organization that sets a goal of 100% RE and then studies how to get to there may well decide that 80% is as high as they can get affordably for the next X years, and yet keep the 100% goal to guide further decisions.

Making stretch goals is good. Something to reach for even if it is not practical.

I would have preferred to see them set a goal concerning the reduction of power usage along with the increase of RE. Something more possible but from what I see people that can generate "free power" from solar tend to just add more loads like EV's instead of reducing their "carbon footprint". IMO they are just as greedy as the mean POCO.

[J.P.M.]

Making stretch goals is good. Something to reach for even if it is not practical.

I would have preferred to see them set a goal concerning the reduction of power usage along with the increase of RE. Something more possible but from what I see people that can generate "free power" from solar tend to just add more loads like EV's instead of reducing their "carbon footprint". IMO they are just as greedy as the mean POCO.

Anecdotally, the folks I monitor ( 8 or so neighbors at this time) seem to show a 10-20 % bump in usage after PV. Bills are less. usage is up. Greed is universal.

[max2k]

Sometimes science is newsworthy.

You know exactly what I meant and nonetheless trying to spin this around proving you do have agenda and not really after objective discussion: in this case 'science' started from the news as they published 'draft' for uneducated public review breaking all the basic rules of the scientific approach. You're telling me you don't see it? Then I'm done here and I thought for a moment SK was too harsh on you- no, quite the opposite.

[J.P.M.]

You know exactly what I meant and nonetheless trying to spin this around proving you do have agenda and not really after objective discussion: in this case 'science' started from the news as they published 'draft' for uneducated public review breaking all the basic rules of the scientific approach. You're telling me you don't see it? Then I'm done here and I thought for a moment SK was too harsh on you- no, quite the opposite.

Max: Your education continues.

[DanKegel]

I would have preferred to see them set a goal concerning the reduction of power usage along with the increase of RE.

In the case of LADWP, it seems rather likely that efficiency will play a big role. California and Los Angeles actively encourage energy efficiency already, and will gladly do more if needed to reach their goals.

[DanKegel]

in this case 'science' started from the news...

? The draft report started very much from the science, and is sticking to the science. News won't influence its contents, as far as I know.

I guess you object that it's in the news, but I'm not sure why. (Try explaining again as if you were talking to an alien, maybe. I seem to live in a different world than my father, who voted for Trump despite agreeing with mainstream climate science.)

[max2k]

? The draft report started very much from the science, and is sticking to the science. News won't influence its contents, as far as I know.

I guess you object that it's in the news, but I'm not sure why. (Try explaining again as if you were talking to an alien, maybe. I seem to live in a different world than my father, who voted for Trump despite agreeing with mainstream climate science.)

I don't think you need explanation- you know exactly what you're doing. I just wonder - what's in it for you? Is the real science just too difficult to study so you joined this 'movement' to stay relevant? I wouldn't even mind much but unfortunately taken far enough this approach has consequences for the real scientists- first they are deprived of necessary funding then their 'peers' become one gang with 'approved, mainstream' point of view so they simply don't have multiple independently thinking experts in the area to discuss their ideas with; then they're simply out of existence. Luckily the nature doesn't give flying ... about any of this and all this BS will finally fall apart at great cost to society. Humanity already tried political approach to scientific problems and it resulted in no usable results besides stagnation in the affected areas of knowledge. The proponents were making swell living in the process though.
One current example of taking political approach to engineering problem: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/n...er-suffers.htm

Is this what you're proposing?

[DanKegel]

I don't think you need explanation- you know exactly what you're doing.

I thought I was talking about science. I'm not sure what you think I'm doing.

Is the real science just too difficult to study so you joined this 'movement' to stay relevant?

Uh, what? Are you saying that mainstream climate science is fake? If that's what you're saying, fine. I was just confused by the indirectness of how you expressed it.

And I disagree; I haven't seen anything that indicates mainstream climate science is anything but a straight up, honest attempt to understand a complex natural phenomenon.

[max2k]

I thought I was talking about science. I'm not sure what you think I'm doing.



Uh, what? Are you saying that mainstream climate science is fake?

It's hopeless. Meanwhile state workers in Taiwan are on energy rationing which means no AC in the middle of the day sweating their a... off. Want to join to experience first hand how your dream future actually feels? I give it to Taiwanese politicians: reality flying them in the face but they're sticking to their guns. Then they'll be wondering why ppl chop their heads off.

[DanKegel]

It's hopeless. Meanwhile state workers in Taiwan are on energy rationing which means no AC in the middle of the day sweating their a... off. Want to join to experience first hand how your dream future actually feels?

I distinctly remember saying I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind in this thread; I was only answering SolarEagle's question about why California is trying to reduce fossil fuel use.

But I'm curious: are you arguing that, because it's hard to reduce carbon emissions, that therefore mainstream science is fake? It's hard to follow your logic.

[max2k]

I distinctly remember saying I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind in this thread; I was only answering SolarEagle's question about why California is trying to reduce fossil fuel use.

But I'm curious: are you arguing that, because it's hard to reduce carbon emissions, that therefore mainstream science is fake? It's hard to follow your logic.

interesting- second message in the row you're ignoring facts presented and keep asking less relevant question about whether 'mainstream climate science is fake'. Looks like you don't like the real life outcome of your proposed 'mainstream' solution to energy problem. As I said nature has sure way of dealing with political BS. Taiwanese are lucky as they're not freezing their a... off. Imagine some political .. head implemented such strategy up North.

[DanKegel]

interesting- second message in the row you're ignoring facts presented and keep asking less relevant question about whether 'mainstream climate science is fake'. Looks like you don't like the real life outcome of your proposed 'mainstream' solution to energy problem..

You keep mixing up cause and effect.

Fossil fuel use causes climate change, therefore
California wants to use less fossil fuel. I'm not sure why you think that means the grid would fail and people would freeze.