I still like Al Gore: See his latest slide show:



Pharrell Williams too! Makes me "Happy!"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ivanpah is doing well.

Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015

“As we expected, our operating crew’s expertise with the technology is increasing all the time and the plant is continuing to increase its generation,” the statement read. “In March, Ivanpah produced the second most power it has ever done in a single month. April exceeded that level of generation within just the first two-thirds of the month and ultimately set a new record for power generated in a single month.”

http://breakingenergy.com/2015/06/17...p-170-in-2015/

Its performance is being closely watched because power towers are seen as the best bet for concentrating solar power. Although the technology has been hammered by cheap, increasingly productive photovoltaics in the past five years (and has run into environmental issues), its advocates hold out hope that its compatibility with energy storage could make it a winner. Ivanpah wasn’t built with storage, but SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes plant was. After seemingly endless delays, that plant, in Nevada, supposedly will come online this summer.

You hopefully realize that plant is somewhat of a scam. It requires tremendous input of energy to start up. Also, the maintenance costs are astronomical and the expected operating life is quite limited. Interesting demonstration of concept but not a truly viable way to convert solar energy into electricity. Photovoltaics are much better.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Imagine how well we would be doing if a lot more of us went solar. Here is some good info:

http://pureenergies.com/us/home-sola...s/solar-myths/

Interesting tidbit for M&L:

"Nearly all modern solar panel systems are grid tied which means they’re connected to the conventional electricity grid. Your system generates power during the day and excess is fed back into the grid through a system called net metering. When this happens, your meter spins backwards and your utility company credits you for that power. At night or on overcast days, you’ll use grid power, but you don’t generally get charged for it because of all the credit you’ve generated. This grid tied method tends to be the most convenient for homeowners. Batteries are an option for those who really want them, but they’re expensive, bulky, and have to be replaced every five to ten years."

Delayers typically trot out the notion that solar isn't base load power. But if you are connected to the grid, you'll actually contribute to base load power during the day, and receive it during the night.

We need about as much solar panel-covered rooftop space as equals that 400x400 foot slice of desert land covered in panels that would power the world. How many rooftops is that? I dunno, honestly, but I think it would cover it.

Here's another fact from the article:

"Solar panels work just fine in ambient light and will produce significant energy in the fog or on overcast days. In fact, solar panels are actually more efficient at cooler temperatures than hot ones. Although this might seem counter-intuitive, consider that solar panels on a rooftop in cool, foggy San Francisco produce only one percent less electricity than one in nearby Sacramento, where it’s sunny and hot. Consider too that Germany leads the world in residential solar right now, and doesn’t have a sunny climate."

So solar energy doesn't have to all come from sunny and hot places; Massachussetts, San Francisco, and Germany work just fine.

I have a feeling you and I read the same book way back when, I'm away from my library at the moment, I think the title was something like "The Coming Age of Solar Energy." Conceptually interesting however the base load issue is a really, big, hairy problem. The only decent ways to deal with it involve either large toxic battery arrays or using the intermittent outputs to do things like pump water up hill (inefficient). It is a non-trivial issue.

Pop Quiz:

The mean global temperature rise due to all causes since 1880 is?
A) 8 deg C
B) 2 deg C
C) 4 deg C
D) 1.8 deg C
E) 0.8 deg C
F) 0.6 deg C
G) 0.2 deg C
H) none of the above

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You hopefully realize that plant is somewhat of a scam. It requires tremendous input of energy to start up. Also, the maintenance costs are astronomical and the expected operating life is quite limited. Interesting demonstration of concept but not a truly viable way to convert solar energy into electricity. Photovoltaics are much better.

The article seemed to say otherwise.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I have a feeling you and I read the same book way back when, I'm away from my library at the moment, I think the title was something like "The Coming Age of Solar Energy." Conceptually interesting however the base load issue is a really, big, hairy problem. The only decent ways to deal with it involve either large toxic battery arrays or using the intermittent outputs to do things like pump water up hill (inefficient). It is a non-trivial issue.

The baseload issue is first of all a matter of our inefficiency and greed. Who says we should be able to turn on the light at 3 AM whenever we want, and that this is more important than saving other species and the sustainability of our planet? And in any case it ignores how inefficient our energy system still is. Second of all, the Ivanpah plant you knocked (and that other one about to come on line) show how molten salt batteries are making solar plants work around the clock. And I already answered the one about the need for big battery outlays; if you are connected to the grid, your solar panels will add energy to the grid, from which you can draw back at night.

The only non-trivial issue is the deniers and the delayers. The biggest contributor to global warming is the hot air emitted from their mouths. If you can't contribute to the most significant change of our lifetimes, then just sit back and watch it happen.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Pop Quiz:

The mean global temperature rise due to all causes since 1880 is?
A) 8 deg C
B) 2 deg C
C) 4 deg C
D) 1.8 deg C
E) 0.8 deg C
F) 0.6 deg C
G) 0.2 deg C
H) none of the above

E is closest; it's about 1C

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The baseload issue is first of all a matter of our inefficiency and greed. Who says we should be able to turn on the light at 3 AM whenever we want, and that this is more important than saving other species and the sustainability of our planet? And in any case it ignores how inefficient our energy system still is. Second of all, the Ivanpah plant you knocked (and that other one about to come on line) show how molten salt batteries are making solar plants work around the clock. And I already answered the one about the need for big battery outlays; if you are connected to the grid, your solar panels will add energy to the grid, from which you can draw back at night.

The only non-trivial issue is the deniers and the delayers. The biggest contributor to global warming is the hot air emitted from their mouths. If you can't contribute to the most significant change of our lifetimes, then just sit back and watch it happen.

People don't always vote, but they'll vote in mass if you tell them that must forgo their highly reliable power to save the earth. First, they won't believe you because believing means they have to give up a cherished resource. Second, they'll argue that something better is just around the corner; whether that's true or not. People have been trained to be short term thinkers. You'll need a new crop of people for that to change.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

People don't always vote, but they'll vote in mass if you tell them that must forgo their highly reliable power to save the earth. First, they won't believe you because believing means they have to give up a cherished resource. Second, they'll argue that something better is just around the corner; whether that's true or not. People have been trained to be short term thinkers. You'll need a new crop of people for that to change.

Well, it will have to be the millennials, or as Al Gore says, a new hero generation. We can't wait any longer, or we're toast!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes indeed, but doesn't warmer water take up more space than cold water? And thus cold water more than ice too?

NO!! Jesus Christ, Eric.

When water freezes, it expands. It's one of the few substances around where the solid phase has greater volume than the liquid phase. Water is weird shit. For god's sake, if you're going to throw yourself into something like this with such vehemence, learn some high school chemistry.

Put a half-glass of water in your freezer. Take a magic marker and mark the level of water on the glass. Let it freeze. Compare. Get back to me on your results.

You're the one who's being vehement on this question, Tim.

No doubt it would be a small difference; ice seems about the same size as the water I put in an ice maker in my freezer.

Originally Posted by TnT

NO!! Jesus Christ, Eric.

When water freezes, it expands. It's one of the few substances around where the solid phase has greater volume than the liquid phase. Water is weird shit. For god's sake, if you're going to throw yourself into something like this with such vehemence, learn some high school chemistry.

Put a half-glass of water in your freezer. Take a magic marker and mark the level of water on the glass. Let it freeze. Compare. Get back to me on your results.

In the 'do not do this at home', category, yes, water is weird stuff. Yes water expands as it freezes. Hold on a minute. If you put a container of water in the freezer, I'd suggest plastic or something with a little give. If you put a glass full of water in the freezer, you are apt to end up with a broken glass as the ice expands and breaks it. This might be an alternate proof of ice expansion, never mind the line.

There is an old high school physics / chemistry experiment where they used to fill hollow iron civil war era cannonballs with water, freeze them, and thus crack open the cannonball.

Of course, cracking cannonballs is significantly easier than getting Eric to respect experimental science when he doesn't feel like it.

I don't know if this guy is millennial or Xer, so I'll put this interesting video here:

Originally Posted by B Butler

In the 'do not do this at home', category, yes, water is weird stuff. Yes water expands as it freezes. Hold on a minute. If you put a container of water in the freezer, I'd suggest plastic or something with a little give. If you put a glass full of water in the freezer, you are apt to end up with a broken glass as the ice expands and breaks it. This might be an alternate proof of ice expansion, never mind the line.

There is an old high school physics / chemistry experiment where they used to fill hollow iron civil war era cannonballs with water, freeze them, and thus crack open the cannonball.

Of course, cracking cannonballs is significantly easier than getting Eric to respect experimental science when he doesn't feel like it.

But you don't respect it when it questions materialism, or do ya?

I've tried to memorize the periodic table, but no, I don't remember that high school experiment. I worked with test-tubes and stuff. A bit counter-intuitive. But I did put a glass in the freezer. I'd better take it out, although it's a sturdy glass.

I didn't notice any change, but I took it out before it finished. But I am enjoying the cold water. A ring is left exactly where I drew the line. So the line might not have been relevant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're the one who's being vehement on this question, Tim.

No doubt it would be a small difference; ice seems about the same size as the water I put in an ice maker in my freezer.

...............

Originally Posted by Copperfield

http://imgur.com/HefcaCW

...............

See what happens when you're mean to me, Tim? Galen, Copperfield and all the other bleeps come out of the woodwork to pile on. I can't even ask a simple science question without you guys snarking at me. You're just jealous of my superior metaphysical ability, I guess. I can't say I didn't know it would happen.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're the one who's being vehement on this question, Tim.

No doubt it would be a small difference; ice seems about the same size as the water I put in an ice maker in my freezer.

The change in volume is enough to break an inflexible container.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're the one who's being vehement on this question, Tim.

No doubt it would be a small difference; ice seems about the same size as the water I put in an ice maker in my freezer.

Oh Jesus...

Eric has never lived in a northern climate, where every winter brings new potholes when water gets into cracks in the road then freezes.
Putting a glass of water in the freezer won't help him get it. The top freezes first, adheres to the glass, and prevents the top line from rising. That's why the glass can break.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But you don't respect it when it questions materialism, or do ya?

Do I question experimental science when in conflicts with materialism? From my perspective, experimental science is a primary tool for comprehensive materialism. Yes, experiments quite often conflict with theory. This ought to be considered an opportunity to either verify the experiment, enhance the theory or both. It doesn't tempt me to throw out all of materialism. While in philosophy a contradiction is a sign of error, in science it indicates a chance to learn something.

But you really do quite discredit yourself when you apply your faith based attitude from spiritualism to empirical fields. You might work a bit on humility. Know the limits of your ignorance.

I was originally exposed to the cannonball thing in an elementary school picture book. Not rocket science.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Eric has never lived in a northern climate, where every winter brings new potholes when water gets into cracks in the road then freezes.
Putting a glass of water in the freezer won't help him get it. The top freezes first, adheres to the glass, and prevents the top line from rising. That's why the glass can break.

That's right. The suggested experiment was as false as my misconception. But yes, nh, that does happen here too.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Do I question experimental science when in conflicts with materialism? From my perspective, experimental science is a primary tool for comprehensive materialism. Yes, experiments quite often conflict with theory. This ought to be considered an opportunity to either verify the experiment, enhance the theory or both. It doesn't tempt me to throw out all of materialism. While in philosophy a contradiction is a sign of error, in science it indicates a chance to learn something.

So, I learned something. Or remembered it, perhaps. And got some things right too.

But you really do quite discredit yourself when you apply your faith based attitude from spiritualism to empirical fields. You might work a bit on humility. Know the limits of your ignorance.

I could be more humble. But you could set a better example, along with some of the rest of you. Not so humble. I'm just trying to educate people to what I know, and I give up on that sometimes, or I try my best to get you to get it, at other times. If you feel the need to educate me, then you could just do that, without the sarcasm; if you want to be a good example and be "humble," that is. If I don't know something, in my "ignorance," I can ask; as I did. But when I do, you guys lay on the cynicism. Not "humble" at all.

Bad news for deniers and delayers:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/count...ewable-energy/

As we kick off 2015—with hopes for an even bigger year for renewable energy—here’s five records that were broken in 2014.

1. Denmark sets world record for wind

Denmark set a new world record for wind production in 2014, getting 39.1 percent of its overall electricity from the clean energy source.

The latest figures put the country well on track to meet its 2020 goal of getting 50 percent of its power from renewables.

Denmark has long been a pioneer in wind power, having installed its first turbines in the mid-1970s, and has even more ambitious aims in sight, including a 100 percent renewable country by 2050.

Last year, onshore wind was also declared the cheapest form of energy in the country.

2. UK wind power smashes annual records

In the UK, wind power also smashed records in 2014, as generation rose 15 percent from 24.5 terawatt-hours (TWh) hours to 28.1 TWh.

That’s more than any other year, and the country now generates enough wind energy to supply the needs of more than 6.7 million UK households.

A combination of grid-connected wind farms and standalone turbines produced 9.3 percent of the UK’s electricity demand in 2014, up from 7.8 percent in 2013 and the latest data follows a string of wind power records announced in the second half of last year.

3. Renewables provide biggest contribution to Germany’s electricity

Renewable energy was the biggest contributor to Germany’s electricity supply in 2014, with nearly 26 percent of the country’s power generation coming from clean sources.

That’s according to Berlin-based think-tank Agora Energiewende.

Electricity output from renewables has grown eightfold in Germany since 1990, and the latest data further highlights the dramatic shift towards clean energy taking place in Europe’s largest economy.

4. Scotland sees “massive year” for renewables

With another record month experienced in December, 2014 was a “massive year” for renewables in Scotland.

Last month, wind turbines alone provided around 1,279 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to the national gird, enough to supply the electrical needs of 164 percent of Scottish households, or 3.96 million homes.

The latest figures further highlight the record year seen for renewables in Scotland, with wind turbines providing an average 746, 510 MWh each month—enough to supply 98 percent of Scottish households electricity needs.

Over six months of the year, wind generated enough power to supply more than 100 percent of Scottish households, while in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness there was enough sunshine to provide 100 percent or more of the electricity needs for an average home in June and July.

With figures like these it is no wonder new research out this week said the country’s power grid could be 100 percent renewable by 2030.

5. Ireland hits new record for wind energy

Windy conditions in Ireland meant the country saw not one but two wind energy records set already this year.

According to figures record by EirGrid on Wednesday (Jan. 7), wind energy had created 1,942 MW of energy, enough to power more than 1.26 million homes.

And while we are still only a week into 2015, this announcement marked the second time this year the country has seen this record broken. On the Jan. 1, wind energy output was at a previous high of 1,872 MW.

Talking counts too, Tim, according to one of the leading climate science advocates:
Bill Nye demolishes climate deniers: “The single most important thing we can do now is talk about climate change.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/06/bill..._use_my_brain/

I think a lot of us are looking for ways to make a difference on the climate front, but don’t necessarily know how. What advice do you give to people who want to apply your ideas or other eco-friendly practices in their daily lives?

There are plenty of things you can do – some are easy and others are hard. Don’t waste water bottles. Get in the habit of not wasting our resources. Don’t waste food in the restaurant where you eat. Don’t bring home extra napkins or extra French fries. Don’t waste. Insulate your house. If you haven’t insulated the ceiling, insulate it – it makes a real difference. If you want to go wild, invest and do the windows. The single most important thing we can do now, however, is talk about climate change.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Talking counts too, Tim, according to one of the leading climate science advocates:
Bill Nye demolishes climate deniers: “The single most important thing we can do now is talk about climate change.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/06/bill..._use_my_brain/

I think a lot of us are looking for ways to make a difference on the climate front, but don’t necessarily know how. What advice do you give to people who want to apply your ideas or other eco-friendly practices in their daily lives?

There are plenty of things you can do – some are easy and others are hard. Don’t waste water bottles. Get in the habit of not wasting our resources. Don’t waste food in the restaurant where you eat. Don’t bring home extra napkins or extra French fries. Don’t waste. Insulate your house. If you haven’t insulated the ceiling, insulate it – it makes a real difference. If you want to go wild, invest and do the windows. The single most important thing we can do now, however, is talk about climate change.

The single thing most people can do is stop using debt to buy useless crap / pay for the juice to run their big screen TVs / etc.

At the root of everything is Consumerism.

I am a proud Lowsumer. The less money in the outgo, the less all the schmucks who want to separate me from my money get rewarded. I'm all in.