Solar can already generate more energy than oil, says major scientific review And is twice as powerful than previously thought
from the study
Here we show strong downward trends of environmental impact of photovoltaics production, following the experience curve law. For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively.
if 10 years is longer than their lifespan why are the solar panels warrantied for 25 years?
that's what happens when you get your science from dubious sources
21 years off the grid and counting
So since 2008 the energy payback is now down to 2 years and the net energy return is as high as 11.4. oil production in the US is 11 and falling while solar is going up.
21 years off the grid and counting
So comparing the co2 footprint of building solar to extraction of oil eg the tar sands and fracking solar is less a co2 producer than oil and produces no co2 after that
While oil once it's sent to market is still producing co2 in copious amounts. not to mention solar now employs more people than the coal industry. And rising
21 years off the grid and counting
Beware of Bad Solar PV Panel Warranties
Here’s Why Your Solar Panel Was Probably Made In China
China is selling an enormous number of heavily subsidized solar panels to the U.S., but they’re not very green, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Beijing, under alert, orders factories to shut or cut output
Global Warming Versus Global Greening
Matt Ridley delivers the 2016 Annual Global Warming Policy Foundation Lecture at the Royal Society, London 17 October.
Cheap solar made in China by polluting factories can displace Canadian oil, but, at what cost to the environment?
However, China contributes most of the toxic coal pollution that's poisoning our atmosphere and 30% of the greenhouse gasses that some people believe are causing the weather to change.
All of Canada's oil industry including the oilsands contributes 1% of the global greenhouse gasses Canadian oil provides jobs for Canadian taxpayers, it puts a roof over their head and food on their table.
Is cheap Chinese solar really the best choice? Only for fools who would rather send jobs to China and contribute to the toxic pollution Chinese factories spew into the air and water and across the land. Pollution form Canadian fossil fuels is insignificant in comparison.
The city-sized Baogang Steel and Rare Earth complex dominates the horizon, its endless cooling towers and chimneys reaching up into grey, washed-out sky; stretching into the distance, lies an artificial lake filled with a black, barely-liquid, toxic sludge.
Dozens of pipes line the shore, churning out a torrent of thick, black, chemical waste from the refineries that surround the lake. The smell of sulphur and the roar of the pipes invades my senses. It feels like hell on Earth.
Even before getting to the toxic lake, the environmental impact the rare earth industry has had on the city is painfully clear. At times it’s impossible to tell where the vast structure of the Baogang refineries complex ends and the city begins. Massive pipes erupt from the ground and run along roadways and sidewalks, arching into the air to cross roads like bridges. The streets here are wide, built to accommodate the constant stream of huge diesel-belching coal trucks that dwarf all other traffic.
You may not have heard of Baotou, but the mines and factories here help to keep our modern lives ticking. It is one of the world’s biggest suppliers of “rare earth” minerals. These elements can be found in everything from magnets in wind turbines and electric car motors, to the electronic guts of smartphones, solar panels and flatscreen TVs. In 2009 China produced 95% of the world's supply of these elements, and it's estimated that the Bayan Obo mines just north of Baotou contain 70% of the world's reserves.
sea ice extent this year not looking good. an abrupt change from the norm
21 years off the grid and counting
Court ruling provides new way for climate scientists to fight intimidation
Penn State University climate change scientist Michael Mann.
2016%2f09%2f15%2f9c%2fhttpsd2mhye01h4nj2n.cloudfront.netmediazgkymde1lzaz.949e4By Andrew Freedman
2 hours ago
In a legal first, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a climate science researcher can proceed with defamation claims against writers who made false allegations about his scientific work.
The ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, found that a "reasonable jury" could find that two writers defamed Michael Mann — known for the famous "hockey stick" graph showing that modern climate change is unprecedented in human history — by making false claims about his work, and comparing him to a notorious child molester.
The court found that two writers for the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, may have defamed Mann by comparing him to Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted of molesting dozens of children in 2012.
Mann has been the subject of extraordinary criticism since his research was used as part of the foundation of a 2001 climate science report that found that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of global warming.
Other climate scientists have been subjected to similar criticism and even death threats over their work. The court's decision, which now allows Mann to proceed with a defamation case against CEI and the National Review, comes less than a month before the climate-denying Trump administration comes to power.
Employees from CEI, including Chris Horner, are on Trump's transition team for the EPA, raising concerns that harassment of climate scientists could become official government policy. Horner, for example, has spent years filing lawsuits against climate scientists, seeking email records and other information to prove allegations of research misconduct.
The case, which specifically concerns articles that appeared on the CEI website and in the conservative publication National Review, will now be remanded to a lower court for trial.
And the ruling may have wide-reaching implications.
The case may lay the groundwork for future lawsuits brought by climate scientists and scientists in other hotly contested fields who believe their reputations were damaged by press reports and even organized misinformation campaigns.
The opinion, written for the three judge panel by Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz, states:
To the extent statements in appellants’ articles take issue with the soundness of Dr. Mann’s methodology and conclusions — i.e., with ideas in a scientific or political debate — they are protected by the First Amendment. But defamatory statements that are personal attacks on an individual’s honesty and integrity and assert or imply as fact that Dr. Mann engaged in professional misconduct and deceit to manufacture the results he desired, if false, do not enjoy constitutional protection and may be actionable.
The court's majority opinion also found that making statements to gain advantage in a "no-holds-barred debate over global warming" are typically protected under the First Amendment. However:
... If the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.
Mann said he is "pleased" with the decision, and looking forward to moving on to a jury trial.
"We are particularly pleased that the court, after performing an independent review of the evidence, found that the allegations against me have been 'definitively discredited,'" he said in a statement.
While the climate wars that flared up during the George W. Bush administration subsided under President Barack Obama, scientists are girding for battle again, now that President-elect Trump appointed climate deniers to lead each of the environment-related cabinet agencies.
Mann himself has warned of what is to come, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post last week that he and his colleagues are now "bracing for a renewed onslaught of intimidation, from inside and outside government," given the coming changes in Washington.
"I fear the chill that could descend," he wrote.
21 years off the grid and counting
The Hockey Stick Collapses: 50 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable
By Kenneth Richard on 22. December 2016
Two fundamental tenets of the anthropogenic global warming narrative are (1) the globe is warming (i.e., it’s not just regional warming), and (2) the warming that has occurred since 1950 can be characterized as remarkable, unnatural, and largely unprecedented. In other words, today’s climate is substantially and alarmingly different than what has occurred in the past….because the human impact has been profound.
Well, maybe. Scientists are increasingly finding that the two fundamental points cited above may not be supported by the evidence.
In 2016, an examination of the peer-reviewed scientific literature has uncovered dozens of paleoclimate reconstructions that reveal modern “global” warming has not actually been global in scale after all, as there are a large number of regions on the globe where it has been cooling for decades. Even if it was warming on a global scale, the paleoclimate evidence strongly suggests that the modern warm climate is neither unusual or profoundly different than it has been in the past. In fact, today’s regional warmth isn’t even close to approaching the Earth’s maximum temperatures achieved earlier in the Holocene, or as recently as 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period), when anthropogenic CO2 emissions could not have exerted a climate impact.
In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that the warming in recent decades is not even unprecedented within the context of the last 80 years. That’s because the amplitude of the 1930s and 1940s warm period matched or exceeded that of the warmth in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in many regions of the world. Furthermore, between the warmth of the 1930s and ’40s and the warmth of the 1990s to present, there was a very widely publicized cooling period (late 1950s to early 1970s) that was heavily discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
meanwhile on the co2 front
from the copernicus obseratory
the lungs of the world look sick
21 years off the grid and counting
Note that CO2 levels are at the lowest in 300 million years, just above the 200ppm threshold to sustain vegetation.
Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2
Fig. 1. Our Atmosphere’s CO2 is like a big lake. It receives CO2 from two big rivers (Land and Ocean) and from one small river (Human). Temperature controls CO2 flow from Land and Ocean to Atmosphere. Lake level rises or falls until outflow equals inflow.
Let’s use an analogy to help understand Fig. 1. Let water in a lake represent Atmosphere CO2.
Two large rivers flow into the lake. One river represents Land CO2. The other river represents Ocean CO2. Together, they supply about 100 units per year to the lake.
Lake water spills over a dam. The inflow of 100 raises the lake level until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow.
Similarly, the flow of Land and Ocean CO2 into our Atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere. Increased Atmosphere CO2 increases CO2 outflow to Land and Ocean. Like the lake, Atmosphere CO2 is at equilibrium when outflow equals inflow.
If inflow exceeds outflow, the lake level (Atmosphere CO2) will rise until outflow equals inflow. If outflow exceeds inflow, the lake level will fall until outflow equals inflow.
The dam separates the CO2 spill into two parts. One part goes back to Land. The other part goes back to the Ocean.
Fig. 1 includes the much longer CO2 cycle where Land CO2 becomes Fossil Fuels. Human CO2 emissions complete this CO2 cycle by returning Fossil Fuel CO2 to the Atmosphere.
A small river, with a flow of 4, also flows into the lake. This small river represents the Human CO2 flow into our Atmosphere. This small river adds only 4 percent to the Land and Ocean flow of 100 into the lake. This small river raises the total flow into the lake to 104. This will raise the lake level until the outflow equals 104.
The contribution of Human CO2 to the new lake level (Atmosphere CO2) is only 4 percent of the lake level above the dam, or only 4 percent of the total flow into and out of the lake. Ninety-six percent of the CO2 flow into and out of our Atmosphere is due to nature.
Fig. 1 shows a scenario where the total inflow into the Atmosphere equals the total outflow, and where the Human CO2 contribution goes to Land to support vegetation growth. Because inflow equals outflow, Atmosphere CO2 will remain constant, whether Atmosphere CO2 is 400 or 300 or any other value.
Salby (2016) comes to the same conclusion. Salby (2012) authored the comprehensive textbook, “The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.”
Our Atmosphere does not treat Human CO2 any differently than CO2 from Land and Ocean. Human CO2 is simply another input to Atmosphere CO2 that will increase the outflow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land or Ocean by the same amount as the Human CO2 flow into the Atmosphere.
What a load of crapolla!
Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years
CO2 is currently over 400PPM, nowhere near the 200PPM threshold your claim it is.
I can not understand why you continually post such blatant falshoods
Second-warmest November on record globally!
By Brett Anderson, AccuWeather senior meteorologist
12/16/2016, 3:08:27 PM
NASA GISS has released their global surface temperature data for November 2016.
According to the report, last month ended up as the second-warmest November on record for land/ocean surface combined.
The warmest November on record occurred in 2015. Records go back to 1880.
Only 7.9% of NOAA temperature stations are accurate to less than 1C
Yet NOAA claims precision of global temperature estimate to 0.01C.
an engineering college in Kolkata has devised a combo of solar based generation and power storage system that can supply power perpetually 24 hours a day all through the year at a fraction of conventional battery cost. It is scalable to any size and are suited for any hilly area as well as multi storeyed buildings. A 100 kilowatt pilot project is already being planned in hills of East India, while its smaller version, producing 100 watts of power 24x7 is now running in Kolkata.
The system consists of a solar pump basically solar modules that would generate power during day and run a water pump. It also consists of two water tanks at two different elevations. The upper tanks would release water at half the speed at which it receives water from the lower pump. The falling water would rotate a turbine an equipment that generates electricity when rotated by an external force falling stream of water from the elevated tank in this case.
During day , water from the lower tank would be pumped to the upper tank. A portion of this water also flows down simultaneously into the lower tank generating power. The rest of the water in the elevated tank keeps flowing down during night, thus producing power the entire day . ... a 200 meter by 600 meter tank at two levels separated by 50 meters would be good enough to generate 1 mw of power non-stop. At this rate, solar power of 2mw would be required to generate 1 mw of power through the day.
Read more at:
They have been doing something similar at the Niagara Falls electrical generating plant for a long time, just the other way around!
The pump-generating plant in the Lewiston Dam is atypical, in that the dam was constructed not to control the flow of water in a natural river, but rather to contain a man-made 1,900-acre (770 ha), 22-billion-US-gallon (83,000,000 m3) upper reservoir (named the Lewiston Reservoir) which stores the water before being released into the forebay of the Robert Moses Power Station.
Water enters the forebay via tunnels from the Niagara River controlled via the International Control Dam upstream of the natural falls. Water in the forebay is then either pumped up into the upper reservoir or immediately sent down over the escarpment downstream of the natural falls into the Robert Moses Power Station turbines. The Lewiston Pump-Generating Plant houses 12 electrically powered pump-generators that can generate a combined 240 megawatts (320,000 hp) when water in the upper reservoir is released.
At night, a substantial fraction (600,000 US gallons (2,300 m3) per second) of the water in the Niagara River is diverted to the forebay by two 397-foot (121 m) tunnels
Electricity generated in the Moses plant is used to power the pumps to push water into the upper reservoir behind the Lewiston Dam.
The water is pumped at night because the demand for electricity is much lower than during the day. In addition to the lower demand for electricity at night, less water can be diverted from the river during the day because of the desire to preserve the appearance of the falls.
During the following day, when electrical demand is high, water is released from the upper reservoir through the pump-generators in the Lewiston Dam. The water then flows into the forebay, where it falls through the turbines of the Moses plant. Some would say that the water is "used twice".
This arrangement is a variant of what is called pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Engineers copied what had been built by Ontario Hydro, across the river, when a similar system was built during construction of the Sir Adam Beck generating station II in the 1950s.
This system allows energy to be stored in vast quantities. At night, the potential energy in the diverted water is converted into electrical energy in the Moses plant. Some of that electrical energy is used to create potential energy when the water is pumped into the reservoir behind the Lewiston Dam. During the day, part of the potential energy of the water in the Lewiston reservoir is converted into electricity at the Lewiston Dam, and then its remaining potential energy is captured by the Moses Dam, which is also capturing the potential energy of the water diverted from the river in real-time.
Once you see that your information came from "Anthony Watts, and his “SurfaceStations.org” project." That about says it all.
Just more crapolla!
"global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth."
Icky, Icky, Icky, Nasty polluting Canadian Tar Sands!
Antarctic Sea Ice INCREASING!
Published on December 19, 2016
Written by Josefino C. Comiso, Robert A. Gersten et al.
Scientists from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center found that the amount of sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing contrary to the theory of man-made global warming. American Meteorological Society confirms findings in published study.
Abstract: The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20×106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era.
The positive trend is confirmed with a newly reprocessed sea ice data that addressed inconsistency issues in the time series. The variability in sea ice extent and ice area was studied alongside surface ice temperature for the 34-year period starting 1981 and the result of the analysis show a strong correlation of -0.94 during the growth season and -0.86 during the melt season.
Arctic ice disappearing at an alarming rate
The November 2016 Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest in the 38-year satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
The record low was due to unusually high air temperatures, winds from the south, and a warm ocean.
Seven of the 11 months of 2016 have seen record-low Arctic sea ice, and the annual sea ice minimum in September was the second lowest on record.
Economic race to extract Arctic resources
There is traditionally no source of heat in an Arctic winter, with the sun always below the horizon, and air temperatures will drop typically to about -30C.
But if the ocean is uncovered, it will radiate heat; the Arctic Ocean surface water is going to be always warmer than -2C which is much warmer than the air above.
This warming from the ocean will cause convection up through the atmosphere, making smaller the volume of really cold Arctic air. More worryingly, it also diffuses the temperature difference between the Arctic and the rest of us.
It is this steep temperature gradient that generates the jet stream. It is the jet stream that creates the winter boundary - when it crosses a country, wintry weather arrives.
When the gradient is steep, the jet stream is as taut as stretched elastic.
In this condition, the weather changes often, so winter extremes are rare.
When this temperature gradient is diffuse, as is the case when Arctic ice cover is incomplete, the tautness goes from the jet stream, it no longer contains the cold as tightly, and is likely to become misshapen and slower-moving.
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
So, "Global Warming" is man-made after all.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 184|