Analysts: Solar energy is on the verge of a 'global boom'

Henning Gloystein and Aaron Sheldrick, Reuters
Apr. 25, 2015, 10:19 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar...om-2015-4?IR=T

SINGAPORE/TOKYO (Reuters) - One by one, Japan is turning off the lights at the giant oil-fired power plants that propelled it to the ranks of the world's top industrialized nations.

With nuclear power in the doldrums after the Fukushima disaster, it's solar energy that is becoming the alternative.

Solar power is set to become profitable in Japan as early as this quarter, according to the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation (JREF), freeing it from the need for government subsidies and making it the last of the G7 economies where the technology has become economically viable.

Japan is now one of the world's four largest markets for solar panels and a large number of power plants are coming onstream, including two giant arrays over water in Kato City and a $1.1 billion solar farm being built on a salt field in Okayama, both west of Osaka.

"Solar has come of age in Japan and from now on will be replacing imported uranium and fossil fuels," said Tomas Kåberger, executive board chairman of JREF.

"In trying to protect their fossil fuel and nuclear (plants), Japan's electric power companies can only delay developments here," he said, referring to the 10 regional monopolies that have dominated electricity production since the 1950s.

Japan is retiring nearly 2.4 gigawatts of expensive and polluting oil-fired energy plants by March next year and switching to alternative fuels. Japan's 43 nuclear reactors have been closed in the wake of the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima power plant after an earthquake and a tsunami - since then, renewable energy capacity has tripled to 25 gigawatts, with solar accounting for more than 80 percent of that.

Once Japan reaches cost-revenue parity in solar energy, it will mean the technology is commercially viable in all G7 countries and 14 of the G20 economies, according to data from governments, industry and consumer groups.

A crash in the prices of photovoltaic panels and improved technology that harnesses more power from the sun has placed solar on the cusp of a global boom, analysts say, who compare its rise to shale oil.

"Just as shale extraction reconfigured oil and gas, no other technology is closer to transforming power markets than distributed and utility scale solar," said consultancy Wood Mackenzie, which has a focus on the oil and gas

Oil major Exxon Mobil says that "solar capacity is expected to grow by more than 20 times from 2010 to 2040."

Investors are also re-discovering solar, with the global solar index up 40 percent this year, lifting it out of a slump following the 2008/2009 financial crisis, far outperforming struggling commodities such as iron ore, natural gas, copper or coal.

Cheaper panels

By starting mass-production of solar panels, China is the driving force in bringing down solar manufacturing costs by 80 percent in the last decade, according to Germany's Fraunhofer Institute.

In Japan, residential solar power production costs have more than halved since 2010 to under 30 yen ($0.25) per kilowatt-hour (kWh), making it comparable to average household electricity prices.

Wood Mackenzie expects solar costs to fall more as "efficiencies are nowhere near their theoretical maximums."

Solar is already well-entrenched in Europe and North America, but it is the expected boom in Asia that is lifting it out from its niche.

China's new anti-pollution policies are making the big difference. Because of these policies, Beijing is seeking alternatives for coal, which makes up almost two-thirds of its energy consumption.

China's 2014 solar capacity was 26.52 gigawatt (GW), less than 2 percent of its total capacity of 1,360 GW.

But the government wants to add 17.8 GW of solar power this year and added 5 GW in the first quarter alone, with plans to boost capacity to 100 GW by 2020.

Coal-dominated India, with its plentiful sunlight, could also take to solar in a big way.

Despite this boom, fossil-fueled power is far from dead.

"Additional generating capacity, such as natural gas-fired plants, must be made available to back up wind and solar during the times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing," Exxon says.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

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.

Yes, me too....

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

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.

You are channeling your inner Lost, they did not like debt either. Many of my fellow Xers are discovering this bit of wisdom that I had the good fortune to learn directly from the Lost.

Originally Posted by Galen

You are channeling your inner Lost, they did not like debt either. Many of my fellow Xers are discovering this bit of wisdom that I had the good fortune to learn directly from the Lost.

My GI parents also shared an aversion for debt. I don't know that I'd peg it as a generational thing. Thrift might just be one of those traditional American values that fell out of fashion.

As I noted earlier, a recent NASA paper based on measuring the surface level of the Antarctic ice suggests that a large part of Antarctica is gaining ice. It suggests that over much of Antarctica, more snow is accumulating than is melting. If true, this would suggest that East Antarctica will not be contributing to sea level rise. I mentioned that this new paper is controversial.

A RealClimate article So what is really happening in Antarctica?, goes into the controversy. How dense is the newly fallen snow? Is the ice getting thicker or is the continent rising? How does one handle the different data from the radar satellites, the laser satellites, and the gravity satellites? A case is made that the results of the recent 'icepack is increasing' article depends as much on the assumptions one makes as the data collected. It is possible for people to make entirely reasonable assumptions that yield quite different results.

If one is seeking clarity and resolution, do not follow the above link. RealClimate is written by climate scientists for climate scientists. I generally like it for digging a little deeper that most mainstream media articles without much of the spin. This article, though, gets deep enough in the scientific mud to leave one feeling covered with mud.

Originally Posted by B Butler

My GI parents also shared an aversion for debt. I don't know that I'd peg it as a generational thing. Thrift might just be one of those traditional American values that fell out of fashion.

They knew that the economy could collapse at any time even when things were going well. They knew that when times got rough it was wise to have some cash salted away.

The American economy has gotten to the point in which people feel no need to save -- or couldn't save if they had to. Debt for the little man enriches the Big Man, whether as a manufacturer or especially for a licit loan shark. People who cannot pay cash pay more -- much more. Just think of how the rent-to-own rip-off works (buy a flat-screen TV and a Blu-ray player for easy payments of $20 a week!) for two years. One ends up paying $2040 for two objects that you could pay cash for about $500 together at some box store and spend about $100 on a service contract. (You pay tax on the whole rental purchase because the non-taxable service contract and the implicit interest is built in to the price).

People would be wiser to save for consumer electronics, vacations, furniture, clothes, etc. ... the saving habit is a good one. Of course, Big Business wants people to pay exorbitant prices on pay that allows at best bare survival, which is maximal exploitation. That's the old Dixie way of life, and the South has risen in the American economy.

The Crash of 2007-2009 is now a good warning, and people with any wisdom are trying to cut back.

Originally Posted by Galen

You are channeling your inner Lost, they did not like debt either. Many of my fellow Xers are discovering this bit of wisdom that I had the good fortune to learn directly from the Lost.

Haha. An anecdote. My Lost (maternal) Grand Father built up a war chest through out the 1920s. When the SHTF in '29, he was ready to roll. He literally bought the farm (or shall we say, a farm). Got it for pennies on the dollar. By the time WW2 hit he was an agribusinessman and cattleman of some standing.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Haha. An anecdote. My Lost (maternal) Grand Father built up a war chest through out the 1920s. When the SHTF in '29, he was ready to roll. He literally bought the farm (or shall we say, a farm). Got it for pennies on the dollar. By the time WW2 hit he was an agribusinessman and cattleman of some standing.

That sounds about right for the Lost. I have more or less been setting up for a similar scenario myself.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

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.

And this, of course, is the most famous fallacy of composition - the paradox of thrift.

Simply, one person's spending is another's income. No one can have income unless another is spending. Everyone saving essentially returns everyone to subsidence farming. Most people, by far, vote no to that.

One can move on to living within their income, but again, the fallacy of composition sets in if everyone lives within their income - growth of economic exchange, and therefore living standards, stagnant. There needs to be opportunity to take risks - that can come by way of investors taking equity positions to raise capital, but that has been shown to be, and continues to be, much less efficient and effective relative to credit-based systems.

A non credit-based socioeconomic system today or in modern history is even more difficult to find than one based on Austrian or Libertarian concepts - and, well, there are none of those.

Savings by the individual is a good thing, but taken too far, you're basically being a freeloader in some way - it just takes a little digging around to figure out how.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And this, of course, is the most famous fallacy of composition - the paradox of thrift.

Simply, one person's spending is another's income. No one can have income unless another is spending. Everyone saving essentially returns everyone to subsidence farming. Most people, by far, vote no to that.

Thrift requires investment to make it sustainable. Investments in plant and equipment create lasting jobs that allow more consumption and thrift alike. But other than that caveat you are right.

The thriftiest people still end up spending. But is the thrift to save for cash purchases of consumer goods a better idea than paying full retail and exorbitant interest (stated or implicit, as with rent-to-own purchases or with purchases financed on predatory lending)?

I predict that one consequence of a post-industrial economy will be that people will less assert their individuality through the purchase of status symbols. People will work less and really need less. They will get more leisure and the means with which to more fully enjoy it.

One can move on to living within their income, but again, the fallacy of composition sets in if everyone lives within their income - growth of economic exchange, and therefore living standards, stagnant. There needs to be opportunity to take risks - that can come by way of investors taking equity positions to raise capital, but that has been shown to be, and continues to be, much less efficient and effective relative to credit-based systems.

If there is to be investment, then people need to live on less than their income. Businesses may close when customer spending collapses, but businesses do not form unless people have savings to invest. When most of the profit is from debt service, then we have a big problem. People buying ten-year-old used cars on 30% interest can be very lucrative -- but it is a horrible way to run an economy.

A non credit-based socioeconomic system today or in modern history is even more difficult to find than one based on Austrian or Libertarian concepts - and, well, there are none of those.

One country continues to outlaw purchases on credit cards. It is Burma. No paradise there!

Savings by the individual is a good thing, but taken too far, you're basically being a freeloader in some way - it just takes a little digging around to figure out how.

Savings that finance genuine investment are wonderful. Savings that finance loan-sharking in all but name are horrible.

A severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, according to a new study published Monday.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...change-drought

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, according to a new study published Monday.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...change-drought

And yet some fools think climate change is not real. I guess when they sit in a comfy chair far away from the worst hit areas watching fox news ignorance is bliss to them. We cannot fix what we are divided on. Greed, corruption, lies and division. smh. It will be the death of us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, according to a new study published Monday.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...change-drought

It sounds like the same sort of drought that has bedeviled California, a fair analogue of climate to the Levant. But California doesn't have leadership as unpopular as that of Butcher Assad.

I need no stars to predict that subarctic water of Russia and perhaps Scandinavia will be as vital to Humanity (at least in the Levant) as oil in the next few decades.

Sunshine revolution: the age of solar power
Ed Crooks and Lucy Hornby
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/488483ca-8...4112844fd.html



The suburbs of Las Vegas do not look like the cradle of a revolution. Golden stucco-clad houses stretch for street after identical street, interspersed with gated communities with names such as Spanish Oaks and Rancho Bel Air. The sky is the deepest blue, the desert air is clear and the distant mountains are beautiful. The only sounds are the buzz of a gardener’s hedge trimmer and a squeaking baby buggy pushed by a power-walking mother. The bright lights of Sin City seem a very long way away.

Yet these quiet streets are being changed by a movement that is gathering momentum across America and around the world, challenging one of the most fundamental of economic relationships: the way we use and pay for energy. There are now more than 7,000 homes in Nevada fitted with solar panels to generate their own electricity, and the number is rising fast. Just five years ago, residential solar power was still a niche product for the homeowner with a fat wallet and a bleeding heart. Not any more. Technology, politics and finance have aligned to move it into the mainstream. Solar power has become the fastest-growing energy source in the US.

For decades the electricity industry has been a cautious and conservative business, but the plunging prices of solar panels, down by about two-thirds in the past six years, have woken it up with a bang. Dynamic rooftop solar power companies have entered the market, in the most radical change to electricity supplies since the industry was born in the 19th century. It has been described as the equivalent of the mobile revolution in telephony, or the PC in computing.

A shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy will be a central issue at the UN climate talks in Paris, which begin later this month. Although countries will arrive having made commitments to curb their future greenhouse gas emissions, analysis of the pledges so far suggests they are unlikely to be enough to meet the internationally agreed goal of stopping global temperatures rising by more than 2C from levels before the Industrial Revolution. The hope is that countries will do more, including developing more renewable energy.

On a global scale, solar power is still tiny, providing only about 1 per cent of the world’s electricity, according to the International Energy Agency, the think-tank backed by developed countries’ governments. It is now clear, though, that it has the potential to contribute much more than that. Solar power and onshore wind power are the two most cost-effective forms of renewables but solar has the greater capacity for costs to fall further. “Wind is basically mechanics; solar is electronics. And the progress there is much more rapid, and will continue,” says Gérard Mestrallet, chief executive of Engie, the French energy group. Solar is also flexible in scale: it can power a calculator, or a city.

Yet for some the disruptive potential of solar power is not so much a promise as a threat. Established electric utilities are facing challenges they had not dreamt about five years ago. Many are starting to push back. It is a battle that will shape the future of the industry — and possibly of the climate.....

The Colorado river runs dry before it reaches the sea.

Cue the theme to the Ice Pirates!

Renewable energy isn’t boosting electric bills study contends
By Mark Jaffe The Denver Post
source: AP
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalan...ontends/12570/
(typos corrected)

Renewable energy is seen as the culprit behind higher electricity bills by Colorado Republican lawmakers, but a new study contends it just ain’t so.

The Colorado Senate passed a bill rolling back the state’s renewable energy standard — which requires that investor-owned utilities get 30 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 and rural electric
coops to get 20 percent — to 15 percent for both.

“We want to make sure we’re not pushing the envelope so far that we’re hurting consumers, especially the rural consumers,” said the sponsor, Sen. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction.

And handing out graphs of comparative rates, Rep. Dan Thurlow, R-Grand Junction, said, “We’ve gone from being one of the lowest-cost states, to being higher than most of our neighbors in the mountain states.” The bill, however, died in the Democratic-majority House.

It is true that Xcel Energy, the state’s largest electricity provider, has had a series of rate hikes over the last few years, but $347 million in increases between 2006 and 2009 were the result of the utility’s new $1 billion Comanche 3 coal plant coming on line. A lot of the rate increases were also driven by Xcel adding long-deferred infrastructure, such as transmission lines.

Putting that aside, have wind and solar installations increased the cost of electricity? A study by Nancy Pfund and Anand Chhabara says there is no evidence to show they have.

The study “Renewable Are Driving up Electricity Prices – Wait, What?” looks at the top ten states for renewable energy, the ten states with the least renewable energy, and the nation averages.

“Basically we didn’t find much difference and I think that’s the point,” said Pfund, who is a managing partner in DBL Investors, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm specializing in clean technologies and sustainable products and services.

Chhabara, who is working on dual law and business degrees at Stanford University, was a summer associate at DBL.

In their analysis the top 10 states in renewable energy had an average increase in retail electricity prices of 3.06 percent between 2002 and 2013. The 10 states with the least renewable energy generation had a 3.74 percent increase, while the national average was 3.23 percent.

The numbers don’t prove anything one way or another, but they don’t particularly support the contention that renewables boost rates. On the other hand, they don’t give any sense of what the rates would have been in those leading renewable energy states if they hadn’t had wind and solar.....

As we're coming up to another political conference on Global Warming, we're getting a propaganda push. So far I've been seeing far more coming from those favoring the science than the denialists. Here's a CNN piece, Report: Global temperature hike already halfway to 'two degree warming' limit. It confirms what I predicted, that a strong El Nino combined with a near peak on the solar cycle and ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has produced new records. They don't mention the solar cycle, though.

I'd better post this here also, in case I want to refer to it I can find it.

Another look at thorium from a green, anti-nuc perspective.
http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium...une-2012-.html

I'm not saying I agree.

There are possibilities for current fission nuc tech, if meltdowns can be prevented, and the waste can be recycled. The article suggests depleted uranium, which is plentiful, could be used.

US kids' lawsuit over climate change gathers steam
AFP AFP
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-...cid=spartandhp

A lawsuit over climate change filed by 21 young Americans has gained the attention of the fossil fuel industry, which is joining the US government to oppose the kids' demands for sharper pollution cuts

The plaintiffs, aged eight to 19, include the granddaughter of renowned climate scientist James Hansen, formerly of NASA and a well-known advocate of reducing the greenhouse gases that are causing the planet to heat up.

The plaintiffs want the government to commit to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions and implement "a science-based climate recovery plan" that protects the Earth for future generations, according to the Oregon-based group, Our Children's Trust.

"This case will put indisputable science about climate change squarely in front of the federal judiciary," said the group, which filed its lawsuit against President Barack Obama's administration in August, and has filed multiple state lawsuits over the past several years.

They are calling on the US District Court of Oregon -- the state where most of the plaintiffs live -- to order the government to "swiftly phase down carbon dioxide emissions" so that atmospheric CO2 concentrations "are no more than 350 parts per million by 2100."

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently around 400 ppm, a level unprecedented in modern history and one that has raised alarm among many climate scientists.

Meanwhile, the planet is on track for its hottest year since 1880, amid key climate talks later this month in Paris that will reveal how much world leaders are prepared to do to save the environment.

In a sign that the kids' lawsuit is causing some concern to industry interests, powerful oil and coal companies filed earlier this month for permission to join the US government in opposing it.

They include the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers -- which represents ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries and more -- the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers.

"The fossil fuel industry doesn't want additional pressure on the federal government to run a stricter climate change program," said Cornell University law professor Gerald Torres, an expert on environmental law who is not involved in the case.

"It does suggest they are taking this lawsuit seriously. And I think it ought to be taken seriously," Torres told AFP.

- Dangers ignored -

The plaintiffs say the federal government has known about the danger of carbon emissions since 1965, but has not done enough to stem them.

Specifically, pledges in the 1990s by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency to significantly reduce CO2 emissions and stop global warming were "never implemented."

This lack of action shows that the "federal government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources," Our Children's Trust has said.

In other words, the government has jeopardized such vital natural resources as the air, seas, coastlines, water and wildlife...........

Mark Jacobson: Barriers to 100% Clean Energy are Social and Political, Not Technical or Economic

The Solutions Project | November 20, 2015 8:53 am
http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/20/mark-...on-renewables/

As world leaders prepare to gather in Paris for a landmark climate summit, a new analysis from Stanford University and University of California researchers lays out roadmaps for 139 countries, including the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters, to switch to 100 percent clean, renewable energy generated from wind, water and sunlight for all purposes by 2050.

Mark Z. Jacobson, a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University and director of the school’s Atmosphere/Energy Program, said the roadmaps should give negotiators and leaders confidence that they can meet energy demands in all energy sectors—including electricity, transportation, heating and cooling, industry and agriculture—with clean sources.



“The main barriers to getting to 100 percent clean energy are social and political, not technical or economic,” Jacobson told members of Congress and ambassadors from countries participating in the negotiations during a forum Thursday in Washington, DC.

All the roadmaps are available via an embeddable collection of interactive maps on The Solutions Project’s website.

Jacobson and his colleagues found that future costs for producing clean energy are similar to a business-as-usual scenario of about 11 cents per kilowatt hour, similar to the average cost in America today. The air pollution and climate costs due to fossil fuels, however, are virtually eliminated by clean–energy technologies.

Overall, the analysis found, the business, health, plus climate costs of a 100 percent clean and renewable energy system were more than 60 percent lower than those of a business-as-usual system.

Switching to 100 percent clean energy would prevent four to seven million premature deaths each year globally from pollution associated with fossil fuels. By comparison, about six million people die prematurely each year from smoking, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Globally, the transition to clean, renewable energy would create more than 20 million more jobs than would be lost in the transition. It would also stabilize energy costs, thanks to free fuels such as wind, water and the sun; reduce terrorism risk by distributing electricity generation; and eliminate the overwhelming majority of heat-trapping emissions that contribute to climate change.

The researchers also calculated that just 0.3 percent of the world’s land footprint would have to be devoted to energy production under a 100 percent clean energy scenario. That is less than the size of Madagascar.

Jacobson and his colleagues are also slated to publish a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Nov. 23 which examines how to achieve reliability under a 100 percent clean energy scenario for the U.S.

The countries in the roadmap include the world’s major emitters, and were selected based on available International Energy Agency data. Last week, the IEA’s energy outlook concluded for the first time that renewables are already set to outpace coal as the world’s leading source of electricity.

“The past few years have seen dramatic increases in the growth of renewable energy,” Jacobson said. “Countries can ramp that up even faster and enjoy a host of economic and health benefits by doing so.”

Earlier this month, National Geographic highlighted Jacobson’s earlier research on clean energy roadmaps he drew up for all 50 U.S. states, calling the project a “blueprint for a carbon-free America.” The magazine will highlight his new research on the 139 country roadmaps to clean energy later this month. The paper, along with underlying data and tables are available on Jacobson’s faculty website. The analysis uses the same methodology as a previous study published in Energy and Environmental Science, and will be formally published in a journal next year.

Weather disasters have become twice as frequent in 20 years, UN says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/we...s-un-1.3331354

Amount due to climate change unknown, but upward trend continues
Thomson Reuters Posted: Nov 23, 2015 2:27 PM ET

Certain disaster types such as floods are 'definitely increasing,' said Debarati Guha-Sapir, professor at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at UCL University in Louvain, Belgium, which co-authored the U.N. report.
Certain disaster types such as floods are 'definitely increasing,' said Debarati Guha-Sapir, professor at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at UCL University in Louvain, Belgium, which co-authored the U.N. report. (IRIN/Tung X. Ngo)

Weather-related disasters such as floods and heatwaves have occurred almost daily in the past decade, almost twice as often as two decades ago, with Asia being the hardest hit region, a UN report said on Monday.

While the report authors could not pin the increase wholly on climate change, they did say that the upward trend was likely to continue as extreme weather events increased.

Since 1995, weather disasters have killed 606,000 people, left 4.1 billion injured, homeless or in need of aid, and
accounted for 90 per cent of all disasters, it said.

A recent peak year was 2002, when drought in India hit 200 million and a sandstorm in China affected 100 million. But the standout mega-disaster was Cyclone Nargis, which killed 138,000 in Myanmar in 2008.

While geophysical causes such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis often grab the headlines, they only make up one in 10 of the disasters trawled from a database defined by the impact.

The report, called "The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters," found there were an average of 335 weather-related disasters annually between 2005 and August this year, up 14 per cent from 1995-2004 and almost twice as many as in the years from 1985 to 1994.

"While scientists cannot calculate what percentage of this rise is due to climate change, predictions of more extreme
weather in future almost certainly mean that we will witness a continued upward trend in weather-related disasters in the decades ahead," the report said.

A damaged structure is pictured in this aerial photo in Index, Washington after a storm blew down trees and triggered mudslides and flooding, killing at least three people last week. Since 1995, weather disasters have killed 606,000 people and left 4.1 billion injured, homeless or in need of aid, a new U.N. report has found. (Jason Redmond/Reuters)

The release of the report comes a week before world leaders gather in Paris to discuss plans to curb greenhouse gas
emissions and prevent world temperatures rising.

The United Nations says atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that causes global warming,
have risen to a new record every year for the past 30 years.

'Floods are definitely increasing'

"All we can say is that certain disaster types are increasing. Floods are definitely increasing," said Debarati
Guha-Sapir, professor at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at UCL University in Louvain, Belgium, which co-authored the report..............

How Africa's fastest solar power project is lighting up Rwanda
East African plant is completed in less than a year – creating jobs and setting the country on the path to providing half its population with electricity by 2017
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ting-up-rwanda


The 8.5MW solar power plant, set among Rwanda’s famed green hills, has been operational since July 2014.


“Arise, shine for your light has come,” reads a sign at the entrance to the first major solar power farm in east Africa.

The 8.5 megawatt (MW) power plant in Rwanda is designed so that, from a bird’s-eye view, it resembles the shape of the African continent. “Right now we’re in Somalia,” jokes Twaha Twagirimana, the plant supervisor, during a walkabout of the 17-hectare site.

The plant is also evidence, not only of renewable energy’s increasing affordability, but how nimble it can be. The $23.7m (£15.6m) solar field went from contract signing to construction to connection in just a year, defying sceptics of Africa’s ability to realise projects fast.

The setting is magnificent amid Rwanda’s famed green hills, within view of Lake Mugesera, 60km east of the capital, Kigali. Some 28,360 solar panels sit in neat rows above wild grass where inhabitants include puff adders. Tony Blair and Bono have recently taken the tour.

From dawn till dusk the computer-controlled photovoltaic panels, each 1.9 sq metres, tilt to track the sun from east to west, improving efficiency by 20% compared to stationary panels. The panels are from China while the inverters and transformers are from Germany.

The plant’s construction has created 350 local jobs and increased Rwanda’s generation capacity by 6%, powering more than 15,000 homes. All this is crucial in an economy that, 21 years after the genocide, is expanding fast and aims to give half its population access to electricity by 2017.

Twagirimana, one of five full-time staff on-site, said: “The Rwandan government is in desperate need of energy. In 2013 they only had 110 megawatts. They wanted solar to increase capacity.”

The government agreed to a joint bid by Gigawatt Global, Norfund and Scatec Solar, backed by Barack Obama’s Power Africa initiative. Construction began in February 2014 and was finished by July. “It’s the fastest project in Africa.”

Its first year produced an estimated 15 million kilowatt hours, sending power to a substation 9km away, which has prompted mixed views in local communities. Twagirimana, 32, explained: “The neighbours say they want energy direct from here because they think it would be cheaper. It’s not true. We sell to the utility. Even our building gets power from the grid.”

The solar field is linked to a central server in Oslo and can be monitored remotely via the internet. Twagirimana believes it could be a template for the continent. “We have plenty of sun. Some are living in remote areas where there is no energy. Solar will be the way forward for African countries.”

Why are so many Americans skeptical about climate change? A study offers a surprising answer.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why...cid=spartandhp



Climate change has long been a highly polarizing topic in the United States, with Americans lining up on opposite sides depending on their politics and worldview. Now a scientific study sheds new light on the role played by corporate money in creating that divide.

The report, a systematic review of 20 years’ worth of data, highlights the connection between corporate funding and messages that raise doubts about the science of climate change and whether humans are responsible for the warming of the planet. The analysis suggests that corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.

“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” said Justin Farrell, a Yale University sociologist and author of the study, released on Monday in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

[As Congress debates climate change, global temperatures surge]

Numerous previous studies have examined how corporate-funded campaigns have helped shape individual views about global warming. But the Yale study takes what Farrell calls the “bird’s-eye view,” using computer analytics to systematically examine vast amounts of printed matter published by 164 groups—including think-tanks and lobbying firms—and more than 4,500 individuals who have been skeptical of mainstream scientific views on climate change.

The study analyzed the articles, policy papers and transcripts produced by these groups over a 20-year period. Then it separated the groups that received corporate funding from those that did not.

The results, Farrell said, revealed an “ecosystem of influence” within the corporate-backed groups. Those that received donations consistently promoted the same contrarian themes—casting doubt, for example, on whether higher levels of man-made carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere were harmful to the planet. There was no evidence of such coordination among the non-funded groups.

The existence of corporate money “created a united network within which the contrarian messages could be strategically created” and spread, Farrell said.

“This counter-movement produced messages aimed, at the very least, at creating ideological polarization through politicized tactics, and at the very most, at overtly refuting current scientific consensus with scientific findings of their own,” he said.

The report did not examine the impact of outside money on the messages of groups that encourage activism on climate change. Farrell suggested that there were qualitative differences between such groups and those that sought to advance corporate interests by promoting skepticism about science.

“Funders looking to influence organizations who promote a consensus view are very different from funders looking to influence organizations who have the goal of creating polarization and controversy and delaying policy progress on a scientific issue that has nearly uniform consensus,” he said.

[New York prosecutors investigate whether Exxon Mobil misled the public on climate-change risks]

The publication of the report comes two weeks after New York prosecutors announced an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change. The probe was prompted in part by reports in the Los Angeles Times and the online publication Inside Climate News, alleging that Exxon researchers expressed concerned about climate change from fossil fuel emissions decades ago, even as the company publicly raised doubts about whether climate-change was scientifically valid.

Exxon has declined to comment on the investigation while acknowledging that its position on climate-change has evolved in recent years. “Our company, beginning in the latter part of the 1970s and continuing to the present day, has been involved in serious scientific research, and we have been supporting since that time scientific understanding of the risk of climate change,” Exxon’s vice president of public and government affairs Ken Cohen told reporters after the New York probe was revealed.

Groups Calculate Tradeoff Between Big Oil Handouts and Social Assistance programs
New tool shows that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could support schools, veterans and low income household
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire...ial-assistance

WASHINGTON - As the new Congress begins its work, fourteen groups from across the country are taking a stand against business-as-usual spending priorities. Together, they are releasing a Fossil Fuel Subsidies Tradeoff Calculator (www.BigOilGiveaways.com) -- an online tool that compares the cost of government giveaways for Big Oil to the cost of crucial social programs, such as food stamps, Pell grants, healthcare for veterans, and many others.

Groups fighting for racial and economic justice are joining communities of faith and environmentalists to remind Congress that welfare for polluters is an unacceptable use of public money. As federal programs that feed the hungry and heal the sick struggle for funding, oil and gas companies continue to drain billions of U.S. tax dollars in the form of subsidies and other special interest giveaways.

Here are a few examples of how government handouts to dirty energy companies could be better spent:

A tax credit for manufacturers that Big Oil unfairly claims is equivalent to 78,282 slots for disadvantaged children in the Head Start Program.

Royalty-free leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is equivalent to 531,461 Pell Grants for low-income college students.

Government research and development programs that benefit fossil fuel companies are equivalent to average annual medical care for 192,905 combat veterans.

If budgets are ultimately about priorities, it is time to tell Congress that its real priority is the well-being of the American people, and not Big Oil’s bottom line.

“Leaving the social safety net in tatters and keeping Big Oil on the dole is not just a failure to prioritize. It is a failure of conscience,” said Lukas Ross, Climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “In the face of record inequality, crumbling infrastructure, and looming climate disruption, it is time for Congress to think hard about the government spending we need and the corporate welfare we don’t.”

"U.S. taxpayers know what the nation's spending priorities should be -- dignified jobs, resilient infrastructure, affordable health care, education without crippling debt, a clean environment," said Janet Redman, director of the climate policy program at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington DC-based think tank. Redman added, "It's an abomination that while Americans are working every day for a transition to a more sustainable, more equal and more democratic economy, members of Congress are willingly trading off our future for the short-term profits of fossil fuel executives. They should be ashamed - or better yet, fired."

“Our tax dollars should be invested in programs that lift up the American people not funneled to our country's wealthiest corporate polluters,” said Allison Fisher, Energy and Climate Outreach Director at Public Citizen. “This calculator demonstrates the exact opportunity cost of continuing to shower Big Oil with government handouts. And those costs are less dollars being spent on education, healthcare for our veterans and other critical social programs. That needs to change.”................

I guess a boomer can fulfill his prophet role if he is loaded with dough!

Gates to announce multibillion dollar fund to develop clean energy tech
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...n-energy-tech/

Bill Gates is expected to announce Monday the launch of a new multibillion dollar fund called “Breakthrough Energy Coalition” to research and develop clean energy technologies.

The effort, formed by a group of 28 investors from 10 countries, was first reported this week by ClimateWire and was confirmed by the White House in a statement released on Sunday.

In the press release, President Barack Obama said the U.S., France and 17 other countries would also launch their own multi-national funding push called Mission Innovation simultaneously with the the Gates-led initiative.

Countries joining the fund will double their own research and development budgets for clean energy over five years and be used for “early stage research and development.”

The statement reads:

On Monday in Paris, President Obama, President Hollande, and other world leaders will launch Mission Innovation, a landmark commitment to dramatically accelerate public and private global clean energy innovation.

Through the initiative, 19 countries representing 80 percent of global clean energy research and development (R&D) budgets are committing to double their respective R&D investments over five years. These additional resources will dramatically expand the new technologies that will define a future global power mix that is clean, affordable, and reliable.

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, an independent initiative launched simultaneously with Mission Innovation and spearheaded by Bill Gates, is a global group of private investors that will take the risks that allow the early stage energy companies that emerge from the research programs of Mission Innovation countries to come out of the lab and into the marketplace.

The announcement is slated to coincide with the start of the COP21 Climate Change Conference in Paris, where world leaders hope to reach an agreement on policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel emissions.

The Paris summit will start on Monday and continue through Dec. 11.

Gates made headlines earlier this year when he announced plans to donate $2 billion over the next five years for renewable energy projects.

Forbes estimates Gates’ net worth at $79 billion.