Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5 (5 total)
01:27 PM on 05/09/2011
Hold on just a moment - aren't these the same bunch of pal-reviewed 'experts' who said in 2005 that there would be 50 to 200 million climate change refugees by 2010, when in fact there weren't any.

And didn't they say in 2007 that all the Himalayan glaciers would have melted away by 2035, only to be found out that this spurious assertion had been lifted from a student's dissertation which actually said 2350? Etc, etc...

They might as well get a massive job-lot of those really annoying car stickers that say "powered by fairy dust", charge us all for the stickers through a big hike in our energy bills, then stick them all over everything and pretend it's actually working.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chocolateandcheese
Imagine if we could get 99% voter turnout
01:37 PM on 05/09/2011
The audacity of nope gets you nowhere. We should at least try to ease the burden with renewable energy.

If the waters are rising, pitch in and help build a levee...don't sit and gripe about the weather forecast.
01:51 PM on 05/09/2011
IMHO, easing the burden with renewables is a contradiction in terms, because the burden is crippling - ask Spain, UK, Italy, Germany and lately Australia, to name but a few.

I reckon you'll eventually be thankful that there seems to be a timely and burgeoning push-back in the US against this. We here in the UK can only pray (and vote when we can) to stop this madness.
photo
Sandman911
VOTE FOR ANYONE EXCEPT DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS
05:07 PM on 05/09/2011
Actually he's right. The EXPERTS predicted at least 50 million by 2010.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/envirorefugees.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
03:26 PM on 05/09/2011
Sorry, could you cite me the climate refugee claim, and the current status of climate refugees around the globe? I've not been following that issue.

As to the Himalayan glacier thing, you're picking out one prediction of THOUSANDS, and that's the only one they screwed up on, as far as I can recall, and they corrected it when they realized what they'd done.

That's a little like saying "conspiracies exist, therefor the tornadoes in the South were caused by a microwave weapon", only nobody would be crazy enough to say THAT, right?

Oh. Wait.

If you want to build a case for something, BUILD THE CASE. Show us your data, not just ways in which the people who are actually working on this didn't get it 100% perfect.
photo
Toddynho
I needs proof read more!
04:00 PM on 05/09/2011
Wonderful retort, fanned!
photo
Sandman911
VOTE FOR ANYONE EXCEPT DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:54 PM on 05/09/2011
"But the IPCC warned that further development of the sector will require significant investment in the next two decades – of as much as $1.5 trillion by 2020 and up to $7.2 trillion from 2020 to 2030."

The UN has and continues to be very good at spending other people's money, issuing reports that keep themselves in business and not being accountable for the money others provide to them. If there is money to be made in clean, the market will funnel money into it. Have the IRS allow me a tax credit to write off my investment for energy efficiency, force the utilities to take any excess energy I produce and pay me for it and then you will have millions converting overnight. Those monopolies won't like it any more than the coal and oil industries.
01:19 PM on 05/09/2011
"The UN has and continues to be very good at spending other people's money".

LOL. How about your own government? Perhaps you've heard: we spend $3 trillion to catch and kill one person. I'd say my own government is pretty good at spending other people's money, for things we'd rather not spend them on.

Also, your other comments are bizarre. In one sentence you claim the market will take care of things. In the next you demand strong government intervention on multiple fronts to make things happen. So which is it? Sounds like you need to re-think things a little. Consistency is not your strong suit.
05:55 PM on 05/09/2011
Have the IRS allow me a tax credit to write off my investment for energy efficiency­, force the utilities to take any excess energy I produce and pay me for it and then you will have millions converting overnight. Those monopolies won't like it any more than the coal and oil industries­.

From the commenter above is actually putting corporate utilities on the same playing field. It's two fronts. Not multiple.
12:49 PM on 05/09/2011
80% by 2050? Never gonna happen...at least with the proposed sources of energy. Capital investment, huge changes to infrastructure, etc. just too much.

Whether you believe AGW or are simply concerned about energy security there is only one technology that can possibly get us there and that is nuclear technology. Not conventional PWR reactors but Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactor (LFTR) technology.

LFTR is passively safe...Fukushima could never happen with LFTR. LFTR produces less than 1% the waste that PWR produces and is less toxic. LFTR can burn the waste from conventional PWR reactors. Once commercialized LFTR generated electricity will be less expensive than coal.

LFTR is proven; LFTR reactors were designed and built in the '60s and '70s but because they could not breed plutonium for bombs their development was abandoned. Interest groups accross the world are trying to get the message out. Pragmatic China recently announced a 20 plan to commercialize, manufacture and sell LFTR back to the rest of us.

Learn about LFTR if you are really serious about replacing fossil fuels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
Simple Fact: Energy Efficiency Pays - It Doesn't C
01:12 PM on 05/09/2011
No Thanks,

I am, however, serious about replacing fossil fuels with energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, pyrolysis biomass to electricity, wave and tidal. You are nothing but a propagandist for the nuclear power industry. Open up the grid to comeptition and nuclear will fall flat on its face.
01:25 PM on 05/09/2011
Most nuclear engineers have never heard of LFTR. All the people at Oak Ridge that built the first LFTR are now dead. The nuclear establishment has a huge disincentive to advance LFTR since it would kill their main revenue stream which is the expensive fabrication of fuel rods...LFTR fuel is introduced as inert fluoride salts.

If you learn about LFTR your irrational fears of anything nuclear will be calmed.

In a couple of countries LFTR as been proposed as a simple and inexpensive way to burn the huge stockpiles of the spent fuel from conventional PWR reactors. LFTR is radically different from PWR tech; learn about it before condemning it.
01:40 PM on 05/09/2011
"Open up the grid to comeptitio­n and nuclear will fall flat on its face. " ..True for conventional PWR reactors but since LFTR reactors are 30% to 50% less expensive and their operating and fuel costs are so low government subsidies are unnecessary. In fact its been estimated that LFTR cost per watt is only 2/3 that of coal.

"Open up the grid" and LFTR would leave every other tech behind.
12:48 PM on 05/09/2011
Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future. It is time to transition to alternative energy.

Nuclear -- gave us Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters
Oil -- gave us the BP disaster in the Gulf
Coal -- gave us the Massey coal mine disaster.

Nuclear, oil and coal prices are going up while wind and solar are dropping.
01:16 PM on 05/09/2011
Regarding nuclear safety you are wrong when it comes to LFTR reactors. They need no active redundant cooling (one of the biggest reactor costs). In a catastrophic failure the reactor core temperature would rise a little and then a freeze plug in the bottom of the vessel would melt draining the liquid fuel into convectively cooled non critical cooling tanks (the liquid would cool and solidify in less than 48 hours). Since water plays no part in reactor function hydrogen or steam explosions are impossible (Fukushima).

What is really amazing is that the reactors are estimated to be 30% to 50% less expensive to manufacture than PWR tech and there is no fuel fabrication costs (biggest operating expense) since the fuel is introduced as inert fluoride salts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chocolateandcheese
Imagine if we could get 99% voter turnout
01:41 PM on 05/09/2011
So....instead of spending millions on proven, renewable energy sources...you want us to put BILLIONS into an UNPROVEN nuclear technology?

Let me ask this: How do you keep your own reactor cool with no fans?
02:02 PM on 05/09/2011
I believe we have to be very careful when blaming conventional power sources for problems such as those listed above, when a lot of the renewable energy sources also cause massive problems.

Hydro power has ruined whole ecosystems, displaced millions of people against their will and destroyed huge swathes of useful land (not to mention irreplaceable ancient monuments).

Wind turbines require large amounts of rare metals which require mining, transportation and refinement at huge cost to the environment, not to mention the ongoing damage they do to the environment once they're installed.

Solar Panels similarly require rare metals that come from only a very small number of countries who pay their workers a pitance to extract and refine them, creating massive health problems, deaths and further environmental destruction.

The so-called 'renewable' burning of wood and the production of bio-fuels also have their rap sheets, with huge swathes of deforestation and millions pushed into starvation as commodity prices go through the roof on the back of food shortages.

What we get in the West are nice, shiny panels and wind mills that can be stuck on your roof or in the paddock at the back to boost one's eco-credential ego, without any hint of the waste, misery, poverty and destruction that has been left behind 1,000's of miles away.

The UN said 50 million climate change refugees by 2010, what they actually got were 200 million in starvation for a 5-10% ethanol additive to damage vehicle engines.
sej
nothin' micro about my biology
02:35 PM on 05/09/2011
it's important to distinguish between the materials used in building the device (a relatively fixed cost, occurring at the beginning of a 20+ year life), as opposed to the DAILY use that fossil fuels use (and also put into the air). Alternative energy has virtually no daily, monthly or yearly use of rare metals, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
06:48 PM on 05/09/2011
People plunk their butts in the river bottoms, then cry flood, flood.
build me a levi. They want to force more higher water downstream.
Get the hell up on the hill, people. build more recreational and
ecosystem lakes in the river bottoms. Spread the water out. DUH!!!
photo
yukonsam
This space reserved for self-referential irony.
12:10 PM on 05/09/2011
80% by 2050 is a modest goal... perhaps too modest, but definitely a start.

People who think this signals a return to living in caves are certainly welcome to do so, if they like, but a combination of improved insulation and some clever passive geothermal design can produce much the same stable temperature without the guano and stalagmites.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor.
11:55 AM on 05/09/2011
I think there's two things additional items worth pointing out: the first one is that if we DON'T have this done by 2050 (hey, check my moniker!!:)), our atmosphere will be out of control, and we will be considering the most radical geoengineering as a last-ditch effort to save the planet. An excellent book about us having very little time is James Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren." He's the world's most respected climatologist, he's NOT a liberal, and his book explains climate change in terms a layman can understand. I'd only quibble with him on his solutions overemphasizing nuclear as opposed to renewables, but he has published at least one subsequent paper that recommends renewables in more depth.

The second thing is that this article describes how the IPCC reports are edited. Which is that after the scientists get through, non-scientists take the reports and frequently blunt the findings. It involves more countries than just say Saudi Arabia--think about Russia as well. They have tons of oil--they have no interest either in global warming sounding alarming. An excellent book that describes the history of doubting climate change in America--and this dumbing down of IPCC's scientific conclusions--is Oreskes/Conway's "Merchants of Doubt." This brilliant book took five years of research, and you won't be happy at being taken for a rube. Get this. The same people who told you cigarettes don't cause cancer are leading the charge telling you there's no climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HLL
The way of truth & love has always won ~ Gandhi
12:02 PM on 05/09/2011
I'd fan you again if I could for this excellent post. Favd ☮
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor.
12:09 PM on 05/09/2011
I can barely wait for it to be attacked. Back at you.
11:42 AM on 05/09/2011
Contact NABCEP to locate a qualified Solar Professional in your area. A proper design estimate and a review of the rebates, tax breaks, and financing options in your area will easily show you the cost effectiveness and wisdom of this renewable energy choice. The industry standard now is a 25yr warranty on equipment, installation and energy production, and once paid for your system will provide you with free green energy for decades. No more rate hikes. Also remember that fossil fuel prices do not include the cost of the environmental damage they cause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor.
12:07 PM on 05/09/2011
20 years ago friends of ours chose to build a house. It cost them the same as any other house with the same square footage, except they worked a lot of passive solar in--windows facing the right way, good insulation and windows, a black tank to heat water with a pump (well, there's a little active there), and some other very modest features. Their winter energy bills in Colorado have never come to more than $50 a month, and this is a two-story four-bedroom four-bath house with a full basement and half the first floor with cathedral ceilings. One other thing that's a common building mistake, and I can't believe how often I see this with new homes--they didn't put their garage on the south side. Duh. That's where they put windows.

The point I'm making is you don't even need an active system. You need your house fixed up intelligently, and no, you don't need to build a whole new one either like my friends did. Estimates are that if all houses in the U.S. were insulated property we would cut our CO2 production by a staggering 57%. Think about that. HALF of our CO2 production. That also translates hugely into saving money. It hardly makes sense if everybody's paying big energy bills just because their houses are poorly insulated. That is literally throwing your money in a toilet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
Simple Fact: Energy Efficiency Pays - It Doesn't C
01:21 PM on 05/09/2011
Last year, my brother installed 4.3 Kw solar PV system along with geothermal heating & cooling. This past February his electric bill was $75. This was a particularly overcast and bitterly cold month in Missouri. The prior year's combined February electric and gas bill was $375. He is now replacing his lighting with LED's. I have been trying to get him to add solar hot water to augment his geothermal heating and hot water because the geothermal system is all electric.
11:33 AM on 05/09/2011
What an awful prospect that headline brings: inflated electricity prices, unreliable supplies, physically and aesthetically damaged environments, masses of people deprived of power. And all so unnecessary. Shale gas alone will beat renewables in fair fight.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
Simple Fact: Energy Efficiency Pays - It Doesn't C
11:41 AM on 05/09/2011
Does this mean you deny climate change? Does this mean you are willing to end subsidies for shale gas? What exactly do you call a fair fight?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor.
11:56 AM on 05/09/2011
I think it's a joke. Impossible to take it any other way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor.
11:43 AM on 05/09/2011
You're joking, right? I have read your post twice and can't imagine you could be doing anything else, although I will say if you had chosen tar sands it would have been even funnier.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HLL
The way of truth & love has always won ~ Gandhi
11:47 AM on 05/09/2011
F & F ☮
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgov
We have IRRECONCILABLE differences
11:00 AM on 05/09/2011
The only way 80% of the world energy coming renewable will occur is if we are all living in a warm environment, and we are all in caves (aven 50 degree temp). Now, if we could just get that global warming thing to happen faster, I wouldn't need to move south or dig a deeper hole to bury my head in. I took a solar engineering energy course in college over 35 years ago, and things have not improved enough for us to get there from here. Good luck. It is expensive, and not efficient use of resources (yet, maybe some day, but 2050?). Even with governement tax breaks, it is not economical where I lived, I just looked into it last year, and I need to live to 125 to pay for it. So I know we will not see 80% by 2050. You can quote me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhunkeyPhish
11:33 AM on 05/09/2011
http://earthship.org/ You don't need to live in the south. No, we can't get to 80% unless people are willing to change their lifestyle slightly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgov
We have IRRECONCILABLE differences
06:53 PM on 05/09/2011
Slightly..... define slightly. I always enjoy those who say we can conserve our way, these are usually the same people who want the government to spend more, and tax more. People who believe this crap should install windmills and solar collectors immediately. There are Federal tax credits and in many States, there are State tax credits as well. Utility companies will buy back any excess energy you have. So go for it, light the way. I have used fluorescent bulbs since the 1970's (before everyone heard of them), install programmable thermostats, insulated, new windows, but I do it because it is right, not because the government mandates it. The environmentalists should become energy sufficient, and brag about it, but stop telling me to live like them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chocolateandcheese
Imagine if we could get 99% voter turnout
01:48 PM on 05/09/2011
I won't quote you unless you cite a decent source for your garbage.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HLL
The way of truth & love has always won ~ Gandhi
10:58 AM on 05/09/2011
Yes we can!! If we can walk on the Moon and fly to Mars, we can green the planet Earth ☮

"He that plants a tree
loves others besides himself."
~ Thomas Fuller, English churhman and historian

A Plan to Power 100% of the Planet with Renewables by 2030
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

How a Solar-Hydrogen Economy Could Supply The World's Energy Needs
http://www.physorg.com/news170326193.html

Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs Launches Effort to Boost Renewable Energy Jobs
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/8812

Hemp4Fuel
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/news.php

etc.
photo
French Toast
MAPLE SYRUP
10:34 AM on 05/09/2011
We could cut energy consumption with strict building codes and by updating our existing homes to be a lot more efficient. America could cut its energy consumption in half doing just that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:49 AM on 05/09/2011
I could live with the strict building codes but who is going to pay for updating existing homes my friend?? Funny how most the experts have always said solar and wind will never be more than a small % Of our energy needs. Until i see a real replacement for oil,coal and nuclear this is nothing but talk.
10:56 AM on 05/09/2011
Hear, hear!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgov
We have IRRECONCILABLE differences
11:02 AM on 05/09/2011
You are 100% right!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgov
We have IRRECONCILABLE differences
11:10 AM on 05/09/2011
Lets just go to rolling black outs immediately, and cut the power available, that will cut energy consumption, reduce emissions and change life styles over night. In fact since some states now require a fixed amount of energy to come from renewable energy, let those who support its use prove to the rest of us (the deniers) that it works. With smart meters today, the customer could sign up for (more expensive) renewable energy only, and when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing, your meter stops "spinning."
photo
French Toast
MAPLE SYRUP
02:58 PM on 05/09/2011
I've actually had arguments with my power company that they thought there was a mistake because I use that little power. I use this laptop, I use my kitchen widgets, I have a TV that is only ever on when guests come over.

While what you say is severely punitive, it does have that Tyler Durden-esque charm to it. Less is more.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
10:31 AM on 05/09/2011
Exactly.

Who needs sustainable anything?

Crash and Burn is whole lot more exciting.
Guest211
Stars Exploded to Make Me
10:29 AM on 05/09/2011
I keep on saying, just learn how to harness this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNr2qBtETmk
10:00 AM on 05/09/2011
What a load of old cobblers - more finger-in-the-wind crud from the climate cranks.
photo
Toddynho
I needs proof read more!
10:37 AM on 05/09/2011
Holy mixed metaphors Batman - what insanity lies in this man's mind?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HLL
The way of truth & love has always won ~ Gandhi
10:48 AM on 05/09/2011
;-) ♥ ☮
10:54 AM on 05/09/2011
I agree, this Michael Casey fellow needs his head checking.
11:08 AM on 05/09/2011
It is such a simple calculation: oil/coal/gas is organic material that grew millions of years ago using energy from the sun and CO2 from the atmosphere. When we burn the stuff in an engine ca. 1/3 of the stored energy is lost as heat and the CO2 is resleased back into the atmosphere. I think it is easy to see that releasing millions of hours of sunlight and CO2 back into a relativly closed system (isolated by a vacuum) means changes in the way the system works internally.
photo
jbtex
founders, not saints
12:15 PM on 05/09/2011
Yes we are cashing in old energy created by photosynthesis over the eons. Of course there are other things mixed with the hydrocarbons, such as sulfur, and the presence of nitrogen in the atmosphere introduces byproducts when you burn in air.