What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Someone at work just suggested that our causing global warming is actually saving us from entering an ice age. Based on when they've occurred in the past.

Eta. And I'm sure no actual scientific reasoning.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

LynahFan said:
The other side of the story is that "they deserved the funds because Congress passed the bill." Well, no kidding - the argument isn't that the additional subsidy is ILLEGAL. The argument is that the solar plant is, in aggregate, a bad deal for tax payers because it is an extremely expensive way to generate power compared with conventional means, and it has significant externalities.

Solar is not an economical solution for utility power. Throwing more subsidies at it does not counter that statement - it is evidence FOR it.
Click to expand...

That's a fair argument. However, the Forbes (as well as some other usual suspects) article seems to be pressing a much less rational and accurate narrative, that Ivanpah can be deemed a failure based on its first year and their own projections and that investors are now seeking a gov't bailout. That is nothing more than a [successful] attempt to feed the echo chamber.
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

JF_Gophers said:
Someone at work just suggested that our causing global warming is actually saving us from entering an ice age. Based on when they've occurred in the past.

Eta. And I'm sure no actual scientific reasoning.
Click to expand...

They were warning of an ice age in the late 70's if I remember correctly.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

GrinCDXX said:
That's a fair argument. However, the Forbes (as well as some other usual suspects) article seems to be pressing a much less rational and accurate narrative, that Ivanpah can be deemed a failure based on its first year and their own projections and that investors are now seeking a gov't bailout. That is nothing more than a [successful] attempt to feed the echo chamber.
Click to expand...
I can definitely agree with this, as well. Why on earth would they turn down a tax break that Congress offered them, even if the plant were running at 2x promised capacity? Taking the tax break has nothing to do with the long term viability of the plant, one way or the other - physics, economics - and politics - will decide.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

St. Clown said:
The tops of those volcanoes are officially glaciers. Truly, they are. Look it up. Like Kepler said, you can go snow skiing in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt this. When I went on a choir tour a while back, we had some Hawaiians on the trip that had seen snow for the first time in their lives, and wanted to ship it back.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Lawrence Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard and a strong supporter of environmental rights, joins in a suit against the EPA.

As a law professor, I taught the nation’s first environmental law class 45 years ago. As a lawyer, I have supported countless environmental causes. And as a father and grandfather, I want to leave the Earth in better shape than when I arrived.

Nonetheless, I recently filed comments with the Environmental Protection Agency urging the agency to withdraw its Clean Power Plan, a regulatory proposal to reduce carbon emissions from the nation’s electric power plants. In my view, coping with climate change is a vital end, but it does not justify using unconstitutional means.

Although my comments opposing the EPA’s proposal were joined by a major coal producer, they reflect my professional conclusions as an independent legal scholar. I say only what I believe, whether I do so pro bono, or in this case having been retained by others. After studying the only legal basis offered for the EPA’s proposed rule, I concluded that the agency is asserting executive power far beyond its lawful authority.

The Clean Power Plan would set a carbon dioxide emission target for every state, and the EPA would command each state, within roughly a year, to come up with a package of laws to meet that target. If the agency approves the package, the state would then have to impose those laws on electric utilities and the public.

The agency would effectively dictate the energy mix used in each state and leave the state with essentially no choice in implementing its plan. But Supreme Court precedent settled over two decades ago in New York v. United States (1992) and reaffirmed by a 7-2 vote as recently as 2012 in NFIB v. Sebelius, the ObamaCare decision, holds that such federal commandeering of state governments defeats political accountability and violates principles of federalism that are basic to our constitutional order.
Click to expand...
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

I'm wondering if this really is meaningful: What Apple Just Did in Solar Is a Really Big Deal
I like the fact that the shareholders of all involved are supporting it. If lots of money acts in concert with a conscience, perhaps things will get done more rapidly in an agreeable free-market way with increasing production continuing to drive the price down on solar at the same time it puts downward pressure on oil (win-win). Or is this Apple thing just a symbol for the consumers to lap up?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

geezer said:
I'm wondering if this really is meaningful: What Apple Just Did in Solar Is a Really Big Deal
I like the fact that the shareholders of all involved are supporting it. If lots of money acts in concert with a conscience, perhaps things will get done more rapidly in an agreeable free-market way with increasing production continuing to drive the price down on solar at the same time it puts downward pressure on oil (win-win). Or is this Apple thing just a symbol for the consumers to lap up?
Click to expand...

\\I just got a price to put 9.6kW on the roof of my shop, $28,000 or so, with the 30% fed tax credit that puts it at $20,500. 12 years to pay back, 8% ROI. Need a safe place to put some money and I'm really close to pulling the trigger. Have a few issues to work out first put I expect to see it by early next fall
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

walrus said:
\\I just got a price to put 9.6kW on the roof of my shop, $28,000 or so, with the 30% fed tax credit that puts it at $20,500. 12 years to pay back, 8% ROI. Need a safe place to put some money and I'm really close to pulling the trigger. Have a few issues to work out first put I expect to see it by early next fall
Click to expand...
I assume 9.6kW is max capacity? What actual electricity production rate do you need to average to hit that 8% ROI over 12 years? Do the calculations assume any maintenance at all, or does the first repair bill push it out another 5 years?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

LynahFan said:
I assume 9.6kW is max capacity? What actual electricity production rate do you need to average to hit that 8% ROI over 12 years? Do the calculations assume any maintenance at all, or does the first repair bill push it out another 5 years?
Click to expand...

10 year warranty, so no repairs until then. I'm a licensed Electrician, so not worried about repairs. Good question on the production rate to hit that ROI.I'll ask that. The company I'm talking to uses 70%(rule of thumb for this area) and then deducts for losses from that point. 5% for inverter as an example, they deduct for snow cover, wiring losses. I oriented the building this is going on purposely for this project. I'm already using a built in collector on south wall to heat the building,radiant floor. I thought about doing install myself but I doubt I can buy the equipment anywhere close to what they buy and sell for and I'm too old to crawl around on roof :)
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Serious questions (this time, anyway...). Genuine curiosity.

If the accumulation of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere as a result of human activity is such a problem, what difference does it make whether we limit CO[SUB]2[/SUB] or increase the rate at which we remove CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere to compensate for what is being emitted?

Isn't the net result exactly the same in either case?



Doesn't it make sense, if you truly are trying to persuade people to actually do something effective, to advocate for a strategy that most people will easily understand and accept? Insisting that the only way to address the situation must be to limit emissions alienates quite a few people who otherwise might be quite receptive, no?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Serious questions (this time, anyway...). Genuine curiosity.

If the accumulation of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere as a result of human activity is such a problem, what difference does it make whether we limit CO[SUB]2[/SUB] or increase the rate at which we remove CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere to compensate for what is being emitted?

Isn't the net result exactly the same in either case?



Doesn't it make sense, if you truly are trying to persuade people to actually do something effective, to advocate for a strategy that most people will easily understand and accept? Insisting that the only way to address the situation must be to limit emissions alienates quite a few people who otherwise might be quite receptive, no?
Click to expand...
Serious answer (this time anyway...)
Of course. But I feel this whole post misses the mark significantly (as far as what the scientific community says). I have not heard of a scientist that promotes just reducing emissions. Or of one who says removing CO2 from the atmosphere would not help the situation. I think the premise of your question relies on a strawman.

I think it is not talked about as much because, from what I can tell, reducing emissions is the low hanging fruit of the equation.

It is hard to advocate any strategy to do something about it when a large portion of the population refuse to acknowledge its existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top