Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 Next
Comments 80001 to 80050:
-
adelady at 13:29 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
This item at Joe Romm's gives some cost/value comparisons for the USA. I'm a bit disappointed they didn't include tax/other concessions for the non-renewables, but I gather they were focusing on out of pocket costs to consumers rather than economic costs generally. -
barry1487 at 12:55 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
There is plenty of uncertainty in future costs, no matter who is making the estimates but all authoritative sources must be taken into account, not just the ones that support pre-conceived notions.
Are you referring to any sources supporting pre-conceived notions in particular? I must have missed whatever figures you are rebutting. -
quokka at 12:26 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Further on PV costs. Some UK Climate Change Committee estimates of cost of electricity from PV, nuclear and onshore wind for the next few decades. These are UK costs, so PV costs should be scaled downward for more suitable climates, perhaps by 30% or more and wind costs perhaps scaled upward for less suitable wind locations than the UK: 2011 Nuclear: 6-10 p/kWh On-Shore Wind: 8-9.5 p/Kwh PV: 31.5-46 p/kWh 2020 Nuclear: 5.5-10 p/kWh On-Shore Wind: 7.5-9 p/kWh PV: 17.5-33 p/kWh 2030 Nuclear: 5-10 p/kWh On-Shore Wind: 7-8.5 p/kWh PV: 11-25 p/kWh 2040 Nuclear: 4.5-9.5 p/kWh On-Shore Wind: 6.5-8 p/kWh PV: 8-19.5 p/kWh The Renewable Energy Review There is plenty of uncertainty in future costs, no matter who is making the estimates but all authoritative sources must be taken into account, not just the ones that support pre-conceived notions. -
adelady at 12:19 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
As an interesting aside to this discussion, climate crocks has a nifty entry. And the link wthin that to the India item is well worth following. As for the Moree PV installation, that's really a poke in the eye for all those people who sent the solar thermal proposal off to California. They could have had a better technology available now if they'd invested then. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:16 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Oh, yeah. My electrical power sources are hydroelectric and nuclear. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:16 PM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Call me a Skeptic or a Denier: it matters not to me. But, I can tell you what my family has done because it is the right thing to do for many reasons other than combating AGW. 1. I switched to a smaller 4WD SUV. I have to have 4WD because of my environmental consulting job I do. But, instead of a big pickup truck I'm driving a 2003 Nissan XTerra. That is as small as I can go and still do my job. 2. My wife is going to replace her 2004 Nissan Quest van with a smaller 4 door car in the next year. The kids are growing and we no longer need the space. 3. We compost, reduce, reuse and recycle in every case where possible. 4. We are switching over to fluorescent lighting from incandescent as light bulbs expire. 5. I succesfully lead my high school in a pilot environmental program (9 out of 256 public high schools). 6. I ride a bike, walk or run where possible. 7. My wife carpools to work (70 miles round trip) whenever possible. 8. We have replace our water heater and heat pump with more efficient units. I could go on, but I need to walk my dogs. The point is, I do all this stuff because it is the right thing to do regardless if AGW is a real looming catastrophe on one hand, or a ( -Snip- ) on the other.Moderator Response: (DB) Please refrain from putting ideology ahead of science. -
quokka at 11:43 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
#2 dana1981 You state that assertions about the high cost of PV are out of date. The best assessment of costs is always going to be actual project costs. Australia is to have a large (by solar standards) PV farm built at Moree as part of the government's "solar flagships" program. In is not unreasonable to assume that this project is "state of the art". Some reported details of the Moree project: Technology: One Axis Tracking PV Nameplate Capacity: 150 MW Capacity Factor: 30% Storage: none Completion: 2015 Project Cost: AUD $923 million If we notionally scale this up to the equivalent of 1GWe nuclear power we end up with a cost of ~$18 billion to generate about the same amount of electricity. Current nuclear build around the world range from about $1.7 billion per GWe (China, Sth Korea) to about $5 billion in Finland. The latter is for a first of a kind project (AREVA EPR) with substantial cost overruns. Likely levelized cost of electricity from the Moree project will be somewhere between $0.20 and $0.30 per kWh - maybe $0.25. Implement a similar project in eg northern Europe and the LCOE could well be $0.35 or more per kWh. The current average price of electricity on Australia's NEM (National Electricity Market) is about $0.07 per kWh. Further, the Moree PV plant will not supply reliable baseload electricity. Solar in Australia may be a reasonable match for daytime peaking demand, but that doesn't get rid of the coal burners. It is quite superficial to focus only on the cost of PV panels in an attempt to make some essentially political point about the cost of electricity produced by PV. Balance of plant costs are substantial. In the end, the only things that really count are actual projects costs and plant performance. It is these that both governments and investors will look at. -
Tom Curtis at 10:21 AM on 8 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Eric the Red @30, it is not to early to see that his retrodicted figures for the years 1850 to 1880 are way to low. Nor is it to early to see that, as Jeff T @15 has noted, this prediction is based on a logically incoherent position. It is also not to early to early to note that, as expected, his prediction is not matching the actual temperature trends, although this will not become embarrassingly obvious for several years yet. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:10 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Andy... Biofuels are coming along soon. One business jet manufacturer just made the first trans-oceanic flight on biofuel, flying one of its new (unmodified) jets to the Paris Airshow. We're in a similar circumstance with regards to family, only worse, being that my in-laws are in Chongqing China (where I'm post from right now). The aviation industry is being very proactive, as far as I can see, in attempting to address the challenges of climate change. There is a lot in development for making aircraft much more efficient. There are hybrid gas/electrics in the works for smaller aircraft. There are also pure electrics coming on line as well. My prediction is that the aviation industry is going to surprise everyone with what they accomplish in the coming decades. For auto transportation, we're hanging onto our 10 year old Camry until ready to switch over to a fully electric Tesla Model S. For those interested in looking at electric vehicles there's a series on Youtube called "Full Charged" where this guy test drives all the available EV and Hybrids out there. Very well done series. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:35 AM on 8 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
The immediate thought that pops into my head over Akosofu's idea of a recovery from the LIA is... recovery to what? I mean, even based on his diagram the "recovery" would produce ~1C of warming by 2100. Is he suggesting that a recovery from the LIA will put us equal to the peak of the holocene? A recovery that would reverse the orbitally forced trend of the past 6000 years? That's one heck of a recovery! A highly motivated recovery if you ask me. It strikes me that Akosofu did not fully inform himself on the full breadth of climate science before producing this piece. I have to tell you though, this work is certainly making the rounds in the denial-o-sphere. I've run into it numerous times. Many thanks go to Dana for looking into this one. -
adelady at 09:29 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
We're moving in a few days. We've had solar hot water since forever at this big old high ceilinged house, we're not used to the kind of power bills others get - we don't use airconditioning. So we're buying full solar PV there. Also looking at doubling up the glazing on the west and north facing windows - we can see the sea from the kitchen sink so we know we'll get maximum afternoon heat and a lot of cold wet winter wind from that direction. Whirlybirds to ventilate the roof to reduce heat buildup in summer. Also need a verandah or some other shading on the west - I can't imagine how people have lived there during hot weather until now. There's a park across the back fence, perhaps they picnicked under the trees. And we're used to having a rainwater tank, so that's top of the list also. We'll be walking distance from the train, not replacing the car just yet. Hoping for EV when we do. -
KR at 09:16 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Let's see - I'm telecommuting several days a week, rather than the 1.5 hour round trip through DC traffic, recycling all we can, and driving relatively small cars (Mini @28 MPG, Matrix at @24 MPG, mixed driving). Not perfect by any means, though... -
KR at 09:13 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
In my previous post, we're looking at >90% renewable referred to the amount of power coming from wind or solar, with the additional ~10% coming from fossil fuels. A huge reduction over coal... -
KR at 09:12 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD - It's been demonstrated that adding local storage (molten salt for CSTP, for example) can turn 25% availability into >75% for any one site. Add in a unified grid, really a requirement for renewables, plus a few gas turbines as fallbacks, and over a few hundred kilometers the off time for all inputs drops near zero. Yes, this requires overbuilding, as no single site will be running at full capacity all the time. But given distributed renewable inputs (wind, solar, with gas backup) we're looking at >90% renewable supplying the baseline with no outre assumptions whatsoever. Granted, there are areas like the UK where land is limited, sunshine poor, and only so much area for wind - I don't believe based on the studies I've read that the UK can support itself with internally based renewable energy. But add in North Africa, a lovely place to put solar power generators, NE Europe, excellent placement for wind power, etc., and it would be quite possible to import enough energy to supply European needs. Just replace oil imports with powerlines... I suspect that for areas such as the UK nuclear will be a preferable source, although I suspect some careful economic analysis is required - but claims that renewables cannot meet baseline needs (with some fossil fuel backups) are just not supportable. -
dana1981 at 08:59 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Andy - tough one. Tell the parents to move :-) Hopefully air travel will start moving towards biofuels. There's slight movement in that direction so far. Dave123 - I presume you mean '04, as there were no commercial hybrids in '94. I believe the interior of the Prius has more room than the Civic, or at least comparable. I frequently put the seats down and toss my bicycle inside the Prius. -
Dave123 at 08:49 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
We've had a Honda Civic Hybrid since 94...it performed better at the beginning, but has fallen well off of 48 mgp down to mid-to-high 30s. My sister-in-law has seen the same problem. Prius would have been nice but you have to be able to fit in car. Most light bulbs at this point are CFLs...living in a cold climate the benefit in winter is reduced vs incandescent...heat is heat. When we are in Europe we have no car, only foot, bicycle and public transport...except for rare occasions when we rent for business reasons. We've replaced all the windows in the house with much higher R-value double paned/e-filled, and we've done a fair amount of additional insulating. We also house share, so the per capita is reduced. If we have to replace the boiler, we'll go geothermal for the incremental money, but that's not part of the picture now. Buying local vs elsewhere? My wife signed us up for a farm share.... not sure how that works out cost or energy wise And going back and forth between Europe and the US? Well I only hope what I do causes enough energy savings to make up for the travel. -
BBD at 08:39 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
And capacity at any scale vs realistic demand scenarios. -
BBD at 08:38 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 We've been through all this. The missing element here is scalability. -
Andy Skuce at 08:34 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
I bought a Toyota Yaris rather than an a Prius because it was about half the price and we only drive about 4000 km a year. It would take a long time to make up the price differential and I'm not sure that it would even be worthwhile from a resource standpoint over the life of the car with such low annual mileage (assuming that it takes less to build a Yaris. Local taxi drivers use the Prius more and more and they all seems delighted with the gas money they save, since they drive a great deal of miles in the stop-go traffic that so suits the Prius. My big environmental quandary is what to do about air travel. My wife and I live in Canada and we both have ageing parents in Europe. Any other savings we might make are dwarfed by the emissions due to our unavoidable air travel. -
dana1981 at 08:27 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
That's not true. There are real-world examples of renewables providing baseload energy (geothermal, solar thermal, biomass, etc.). -
BBD at 08:16 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 AGW is supported by convergent observations. Renewable baseload is not. Surely someone seasoned in debating with 'sceptics' can see this? -
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 8 July 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Okay, some major confusion here and time for me to apologize. Parameterization is models usually refers ultimately to parts of the model where empirically determined relationships are used instead calculation directly from physics. Its a denialist meme that you can "tune" these to a desired result which is bunk. I now see that this is not what you meant. Observed forcing are just that - observed. They are the measured inputs to the model. In a really crude form a model is Output(eg temperature) = F(input) where F is the model. Input is climate state plus forcing. A forcing isnt modelled, but the measurement obviously has error bars too like any other. So forcing are: GHG, Albedo, TSI, and aerosols. GHG forcing is determined from atmospheric measurement. Confirmation of radiative change comes from both satellite and ground stations. Albedo, TSI are measured by satellite; aerosols are more complex involving sampling, satellite and ground observations. Uncertainties increase as you go back in time. For the model run, changes in albedo attributed to landuse change, change in GHG, and change in non-volcanic aerosols are anthro. Its important to realise that these are no free variables that the modellers can change at well to fit a result. The numbers are published by the relevant observing network. Meehl does not adjust model parameters to match observations. As to scenario C versus scenario B, its done to death in Hansen's 1988 prediction thread. In short, the 1988 model used by Hansen (also very primitive) had sensitivity of 4, while more recent research (IPCC models) estimate it at 3. -
dana1981 at 08:07 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
You can say anything is speculation until it's implemented. Climate science is 'speculation'. It's also supported by strong scientific evidence and modeling. Same with renewable baseload. -
BBD at 08:04 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981We're not saying that renewables must or even necessarily should provide most of our energy, what we're saying is that they could. This is true.
It is speculation. Coherent energy policy is not built on speculation. The stakes are too high. -
BBD at 07:38 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Unless there's rather more oil than the industry is telling us, ongoing electrification of personal transport is probably a necessity rather than a choice. I'm grateful to the early adopters. They're helping get the technology sorted out. Arguments over carbon accounting miss the point. -
dana1981 at 07:37 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
SkS doesn't endorse anything. SkS has a rebuttal to the myth that renewable energy can't provide baseload power. And "unrealistic view" is your opinion - again, I disagree. We're not saying that renewables must or even necessarily should provide most of our energy, what we're saying is that they could. This is true. Personally, if nuclear power can do a better job producing low-carbon power, I have no problem with that. I have serious reservations about nuclear power (primarily economic), but again that's my personal opinion. We're just here to discuss science and refute myths, not to endorse specific solutions. -
Wibble at 07:35 AM on 8 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
'15mpg?' '24mpg'? Bwahahahaha I thought USAns were supposed to be the best of the best of the best. Come on, get yer act together! :) -
dana1981 at 07:27 AM on 8 July 2011A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
daisym - LA is atypical of California. Sorry, your premise doesn't hold. I live in (northern) CA, and my electric rates (from the state's largest electric utility, PG&E) are barely higher than the national average. Back on topic, the governor of New Hampshire today vetoed a bill which would have pulled the state out of RGGI."an assessment by the University of New Hampshire found that RGGI’s cumulative impact through 2010 was a net benefit of over $16 million in revenue to New Hampshire...so far, the state has invested tens of millions of dollars in new projects for homeowners, schools and municipalities and trained more than 150 workers for new jobs in the energy efficiency field. The cost to ratepayers: 35 cents a month."
-
BBD at 07:25 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981That you're not convinced renewables can displace coal as fast as nuclear? My response is "okay". I disagree.
Fair enough. Thank you for hearing me out over the last few days. One question. SkS does a commendable job educating about climate change. It is increasingly and deservedly influential. Unfortunately SkS endorses an unrealistic view of the likely role of renewables in decarbonising the global energy mix. Is this risk-free? -
Eric the Red at 06:59 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Albatross, First off, I do not consider Wikipedia to be a valid scientific source - sorry Norman. That does not mean that it does not contain useful information, just that it is not proof-read for errors. Increases in low level moisture will enhance hail production. Decreases in wind shear will diminish the growth of hailstones. Yes, these are generalization, but as you mentioned, both of these are requirements for the production of large diameter hailstones. I am not disagreeing with your equations, but the conditions in a severe thunderstorm are so chaotic, that the equations may be too simple. I do like your approach to severe weather better than others on this thread. Looking at the occurrance and intensity of hail, tornadoes, and wind gusts are better indicators than rainfall amounts. When have I ever said that I was not interested in the physics? I suggest you re-read that thread for the proper context.Response:[DB] "When have I ever said that I was not interested in the physics?"
Perhaps you forgot this (and previous), from the Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu thread:
My mistake on the wood for trees index. Sorry. However, if his predictions are based on CRU, then the comparison must be made to CRU, whether or not you agree with the dataset. The point is, it is still too soon to evaluate his prediction, as it is still in line with the temperature measurements. If the temperature does not fall in the next few years, then lambaste him.
Dana, what does the term physics doesn't matter have to do with this?Emphasis added for clarity.
-
dana1981 at 06:56 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Well see I responded to Mark's comment, and you responded to my comment saying I hadn't convinced you. My goal in responding to Mark was obviously not to convince you of anything!"I'd be interested in your response to the comment though."
That you're not convinced renewables can displace coal as fast as nuclear? My response is "okay". I disagree. -
BBD at 06:38 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 Where did I say you weren't? Baffled ;-) I'd be interested in your response to the comment though. -
Eric the Red at 06:34 AM on 8 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
wingding. If he was using the GISTEMP met stations only, the 5-year moving average in 2000 was +0.55C. Akasofu's graph in Figure 5 above only shows a temperature anomaly of ~0.45. The GISTEMP 5-year moving average did reach 0.7 in 2003, and has remained there since. Two claims could be made: 1) Akasofu has underpredicted temperatures by 0.15C during the last 8 years, or 2) he misjudged the temperature peak by 3 years. Either way, it is still way too early to conclude that is 100-year prediction is wrong. -
BBD at 06:23 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 The externalities of coal are not in dispute. Nuclear can displace coal from the global energy mix. That is not in dispute. The question is whether renewables can displace coal from the global energy mix as fast or faster than nuclear. So far, the evidence does not convince.Response:[dana1981] I'm allowed to respond to other people's comments too, you know!
-
mspelto at 05:42 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Oh and professionally working on glaciers we backpack everything in, no helicopter support, generators etc. 2009 field season video-slideshow -
mspelto at 05:39 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
I have a Prius which is only crowded on longer trips with four people. I refuse to use anything but a rake and a shovel for the plentiful leaves and snow here in New England. Car pooling once a week to work as well. -
Albatross at 05:26 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric @301, Just to be sure, my comment at 302 was directed at your name's sake, Eric Red. -
Albatross at 05:24 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Oh and Eric, Maybe you can help Norman identify the two myths in the Wikipedia article on hail at #287. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:20 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Thanks Albatross for the feedback on Xie. Rest assured that I do not get any papers from the denialsphere or especially "the list". On the contrary, if a paper is on "the list" I will look for a different one. I agree with the basic thrust of your comments, particularly that this is an academic look at hail and got a few things wrong about the real phenomenon. Also, like the paper in 290, does not address severe versus ordinary hail. -
wingding at 05:14 AM on 8 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
In fact the GISTEMP met stations only anomaly for 2010 was 0.83C. If Akasofu had plotted that it would be above the top end of the IPCC projection curve on his graph. -
wingding at 05:10 AM on 8 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Re 26: Akasufo's graph uses GISTEMP met stations only, which is currently at about 0.7C -
Albatross at 05:08 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Re "This is precisely as pointed out previously when the maximum gradient between warm and cold air occurs." No, not always. You and others, once again, insist on making sweeping and gross generalizations when severe thunderstorms are very much about the details. And Re #299, This is such a site, pity you fail to recognize that. But as you volunteered on another thread, you are not particularly interested in the importance of physics. So I find your hyperbole and innuendo uncalled for, it only goes to show the weakness of your alleged 'arguments'. -
Eric the Red at 04:40 AM on 8 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Yes Albatross, As you notice the peak for severe storms in the northern U.S. is June. Hence, the peak in Canada occurs in July. This is precisely as pointed out previously when the maximum gradient between warm and cold air occurs. Thanks for comfirming our posts. -
Jedi at 04:40 AM on 8 July 2011An Interactive History of Climate Science
Based on a quick perusal of some of the 'skeptic' papers from just one year (2010) I found that 4 of the 6 papers I actually read (out of 27, I'm busy today) were *NOT* skeptic papers. In fact, in these papers the authors were in general looking at local climatological patterns, and short temporal scales, and in most cases implicitly or explicitly taking climate change into account. This is a small sample, but based on it I'm somewhat dubious about the proper classification of a sizable fraction of the papers in these sets. -
Albatross at 04:03 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Hi Dana and CBDunkerson, We love our 2005 Prius (so we do not have the electric only option)...we too are hoping that our next car will be an EV. Maybe I'll have a mid-life crisis and buy a Leaf or Volt ;) Seriously though, looking forward to buying either a plug-in or full EV next time round. We typically get 5.3 L/100 km in the city and highway combined, have had 4.8 L/100 km before. Winter is brutal though 6.5-7.5 L/100 km, but not bad considering the extreme cold. Ironically it is a car that loves to be driven, the more you drive it, especially in cold weather, the better the fuel consumption. Probably why so many cab drivers are now using them, and hybrids in general. -
John Hartz at 04:02 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Treehugger is an excellent source of continuous information about the sustainability issues raised by Dana in his informative essay. -
dana1981 at 03:46 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
CBD - thanks, though 50 mpg is just a ballpark. Usually it's a tad bit lower, but close enough. I'm hoping my next vehicle will be fully electric, or at least a plug-in hybrid. -
CBDunkerson at 03:43 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Hey dana. Nice writeup. Maintaining 50 mpg with the Prius is pretty impressive, I usually come out around 48... though given my lead foot that actually isn't too bad. I keep wishing that they had a way to set an 'acceleration control' (kinda like 'cruise control') such that you don't exceed 50 mpg unless you push the gas pedal past a cutoff point. I think that and increasing the electric only top speed to 30 mph (currently 25) would make a huge difference... currently when trying to stay on electric power in 25 mph residential zones I'm always winding up annoying the people behind me because I'm at 22 or hitting 26 for a second and having the gas engine kick on. Of course, plug-ins will probably make the Prius seem like a gas hog before too much longer. The Leaf and Volt already do that for people whose daily drive is short, but the next generation of these kinds of cars should see longer ranges and lower prices. -
dana1981 at 02:45 AM on 8 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Mark #173 - you have to keep in mind that fossil fuels are currently artificially cheap, and their true cost is actually higher than most renewable energy sources. We may not pay that high cost in market energy prices, but we pay it elsewhere, and so would developing nations which chose to install artificially cheap coal power. -
dana1981 at 02:34 AM on 8 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark H - 80-90% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use comes during operation, so the fact that the Prius is slightly worse during the ~5% which vehicle production accounts for makes little difference in lifecycle emissions. Your claims about solar PV are out of date. This is not the place to talk about nuclear power. Your claims that renewables 'can't fill the gap' are also incorrect. We are in agreement about a carbon price, however.
Prev 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 Next
