He made that Sierra Club guy look like a spanked monkey!
The moderator was anything but unbiased. Same was the guy on the right whose only sentence was to say we forget the human costs of….of what ? AGW? It appears he might not get the point.
The funding comment was pretty devastating.
But the Siera Club guy’s comments were the full throated AGW steaming pile of fish guts. That anyone could spout that position – on tv even – amazes me.
Just watched part 2. Evidently Jim gets his talking points from George Clooney. Cheapest way to get power to kids with no power is solar and wind???
Really?
Yet another application of The Big Lie.
“Cheapest way to get power to kids with no power is solar and wind??”
I’d suggest that the fastest growing markets for Solar PV are in Africa and Latin America for a reason.
It’s a natural application for 3rd world rural communities. There is no grid to rural africa,
there is no standard for perfect electricity to consumers, so power that comes and goes isn’t
a big deal and the first 100 watts are a big deal because it allows charging cell phones,
and battery powered lights.
Diesel is pricey, imported and has to be trucked to the hinterlands.
I’d say it’s a good first step to use whatever can be used now, but use some of the energy to start building out the support grid and infrastructure. It would be worse than useless to rely on just what’s available as “renewable” now, it would trap people in a “just enough but no more” mindset of stagnation. Anyone building out an energy infrastructure now has the advantage of knowing how not to do it, based on early decisions made in developed countries, and how to do it better with more modern tech.
dn-guy sez:
‘ the fastest growing markets for Solar PV are in Africa and Latin America for a reason.
…There is no grid to rural africa,’
analogous to cell phone use. There are no copper lines so the “tower” system of the late 20th century completely leap-frogs the 19th century tech.
BUT,
Here — like so often — theory and practice fail to align. There exist many “solar” widgets to charge cell phones. In theory these should be widely used. In practice we observe mobs of people in rural Africa crowding in to share daisy-chained powerports and extension cords running from automobiles, gas generators, and even car batteries that have been charged on the city (grid) and moved by animal cart back to the village.
If solar were in fact competitive at present, any rural user of cell phones would be a user of a solar cell phone charger. They are not, and so we conclude from the empirical evidence that the theory is at present insufficient.
What revisions to your theory would account for the observed behavior of the system and still preserve your overall scheme?
Ya, a hand crank charger is more affordable than a solar cell.
And a crank charger works day and night, cloudy or sunny, wind or no wind.
To say that solar and wind are the cheapest way to get energy to 4th world basket-case hellholes is to spout ignorance at an unprecedented rate. Even in the advanced 1st world solar and wind have *failed* because the energy sources are too intermitent, efficiency too low, grid not modern, and no economical means of energy storage for the off-hours.
It’s failed so badly that the use of those sources required massive subsidy from central governments and it still failed.
Just more greenie-freak, bow-tied, pony-tailed, bespeckled, birkensyocked, bum-kisser sludge.
“Jumping from a few hundred million dollars to $5.7 billion, South Africa recorded last year the world’s highest growth in renewable energy investment, according to the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).
The spectacular surge, led largely by investments in solar power projects, comes as South Africa moves to reduce its dependency on coal, which accounts for around 86% of its energy. To achieve that, the country has set the ambitious target of generating 18 gigawatts (GW) of clean energy by 2030.”
It’s pretty easy to have a high growth rate when you’re starting from almost zero.
South Africa is a pretty developed country in Africa. Let’s hear about one of the many dirt-poor places in Africa.
Wait, you mean there are still people who watch CNN?
Morano was able to cite facts that undermine CAGW (i.e. polar ice levels) that average folks can fact-check. (He should have mentioned this year’s lack of hurricanes.) Brune made no attempt to demonstrate a link between CAGW and extreme weather.
On another note, Algore buttresses his reputation as the Sylvia Browne of environmental science.
Incidentally, try telling any Filipino about the lack of hurricanes this year. Or any Australian about the lack of wildfires, for that matter. I’ll make sure I’m some distance away from you.
(Sure, the Phillippines one wasn’t a hurricane. You really want to argue about terminology?)
I’ve got two positions on this issue, and they may sound contradictory. It seems to me that we need to get fossil fuel use under control. On the other hand, the way we are going about it is just about the worst possible. Wind and ground solar, which will never work for reasons based on basic physics (except, possibly, for some fringe low-power uses) are getting all the funding while approaches that might work get starved of money. I’m not going to trot out the list yet again.
He made that Sierra Club guy look like a spanked monkey!
The moderator was anything but unbiased. Same was the guy on the right whose only sentence was to say we forget the human costs of….of what ? AGW? It appears he might not get the point.
The funding comment was pretty devastating.
But the Siera Club guy’s comments were the full throated AGW steaming pile of fish guts. That anyone could spout that position – on tv even – amazes me.
Just watched part 2. Evidently Jim gets his talking points from George Clooney. Cheapest way to get power to kids with no power is solar and wind???
Really?
Yet another application of The Big Lie.
“Cheapest way to get power to kids with no power is solar and wind??”
I’d suggest that the fastest growing markets for Solar PV are in Africa and Latin America for a reason.
It’s a natural application for 3rd world rural communities. There is no grid to rural africa,
there is no standard for perfect electricity to consumers, so power that comes and goes isn’t
a big deal and the first 100 watts are a big deal because it allows charging cell phones,
and battery powered lights.
Diesel is pricey, imported and has to be trucked to the hinterlands.
I’d say it’s a good first step to use whatever can be used now, but use some of the energy to start building out the support grid and infrastructure. It would be worse than useless to rely on just what’s available as “renewable” now, it would trap people in a “just enough but no more” mindset of stagnation. Anyone building out an energy infrastructure now has the advantage of knowing how not to do it, based on early decisions made in developed countries, and how to do it better with more modern tech.
dn-guy sez:
‘ the fastest growing markets for Solar PV are in Africa and Latin America for a reason.
…There is no grid to rural africa,’
analogous to cell phone use. There are no copper lines so the “tower” system of the late 20th century completely leap-frogs the 19th century tech.
BUT,
Here — like so often — theory and practice fail to align. There exist many “solar” widgets to charge cell phones. In theory these should be widely used. In practice we observe mobs of people in rural Africa crowding in to share daisy-chained powerports and extension cords running from automobiles, gas generators, and even car batteries that have been charged on the city (grid) and moved by animal cart back to the village.
If solar were in fact competitive at present, any rural user of cell phones would be a user of a solar cell phone charger. They are not, and so we conclude from the empirical evidence that the theory is at present insufficient.
What revisions to your theory would account for the observed behavior of the system and still preserve your overall scheme?
Ya, a hand crank charger is more affordable than a solar cell.
And a crank charger works day and night, cloudy or sunny, wind or no wind.
To say that solar and wind are the cheapest way to get energy to 4th world basket-case hellholes is to spout ignorance at an unprecedented rate. Even in the advanced 1st world solar and wind have *failed* because the energy sources are too intermitent, efficiency too low, grid not modern, and no economical means of energy storage for the off-hours.
It’s failed so badly that the use of those sources required massive subsidy from central governments and it still failed.
Just more greenie-freak, bow-tied, pony-tailed, bespeckled, birkensyocked, bum-kisser sludge.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/business/bright-sun-bright-future-africa/
“Jumping from a few hundred million dollars to $5.7 billion, South Africa recorded last year the world’s highest growth in renewable energy investment, according to the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).
The spectacular surge, led largely by investments in solar power projects, comes as South Africa moves to reduce its dependency on coal, which accounts for around 86% of its energy. To achieve that, the country has set the ambitious target of generating 18 gigawatts (GW) of clean energy by 2030.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/africa/solar-sister-africa-light/index.html
http://www.esi-africa.com/bosch-responds-to-growth-in-solar-market/
I’m sure you know more then the Bosch company
It’s pretty easy to have a high growth rate when you’re starting from almost zero.
South Africa is a pretty developed country in Africa. Let’s hear about one of the many dirt-poor places in Africa.
Wait, you mean there are still people who watch CNN?
Morano was able to cite facts that undermine CAGW (i.e. polar ice levels) that average folks can fact-check. (He should have mentioned this year’s lack of hurricanes.) Brune made no attempt to demonstrate a link between CAGW and extreme weather.
On another note, Algore buttresses his reputation as the Sylvia Browne of environmental science.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/
Incidentally, try telling any Filipino about the lack of hurricanes this year. Or any Australian about the lack of wildfires, for that matter. I’ll make sure I’m some distance away from you.
(Sure, the Phillippines one wasn’t a hurricane. You really want to argue about terminology?)
I’ve got two positions on this issue, and they may sound contradictory. It seems to me that we need to get fossil fuel use under control. On the other hand, the way we are going about it is just about the worst possible. Wind and ground solar, which will never work for reasons based on basic physics (except, possibly, for some fringe low-power uses) are getting all the funding while approaches that might work get starved of money. I’m not going to trot out the list yet again.