The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.

What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

 

[timschochet]

Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.

The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.

If we can't control the price anyhow, then why is independence a virtue?

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

Then stop coming up with other excuses that make no sense and wasting everybody's time.

What excuses?

Let's start over:

1. If we could effectively and long term lower the cost of oil and coal by utilizing our reserves, I would strongly consider it.

2. But since we can't, all of your other reasons for doing it aren't worth the cost to our environment.

That's my reasoning. No excuses given.

 

[timschochet]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.

What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

I am not in favor of more drilling.

 

[jonessed]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

At this point, I don't think he is doing anything other than spitting out talking points and making excuses. He clearly doesn't understand the subject matter.If global warming is his only concern it really doesn't matter anyway.

 

[DiStefano]

Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.

The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.

If we can't control the price anyhow, then why is independence a virtue?

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

And if instead of producing that oil here, it is produced elsewhere in the world, that helps in reducing global warming how, exactly?

 

[msommer]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.

What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

I am not in favor of more drilling.

Do you think less drilling will mean less demand, when the reserves are known?

 

[timschochet]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

At this point, I don't think he is doing anything other than spitting out talking points and making excuses. He clearly doesn't understand the subject matter.If global warming is his only concern it really doesn't matter anyway.

And this is YOUR main talking point every time I disagree with you. No offense, but I have to say that you are one of the most patronizing people I have encountered in this forum.

If you think I don't understand something, then educate me. I will always be grateful for that, no matter how stupid it makes me look. But don't insult me. And please don't respond to this post with another of your patronizing, "You always do this, it's not worth my time," etc. If it's not worth your time, then don't respond at all.

 

[timschochet]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.

What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

I am not in favor of more drilling.

Do you think less drilling will mean less demand, when the reserves are known?

OK- when jonessed referred to "utilizing our oil reserves", I thought he was specifically referring to new drilling in places like ANWR, etc, which I am firmly opposed to. If it's true that shale oil extraction is currently having an effect on the world wide price of oil (I hadn't heard that before), then I'm not opposed to it necessarily.

BUT- I am opposed to the idea of spending more money and resources on oil and coal if we can avoid it. We have got to find a way to move on. That is my general belief, and I would respond to each specific question (like shale oil) with that as a guideline, though NOT as a straitjacket. Hope that's more clear.

 

[jonessed]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.

The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.

Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.

Every single day reserves are being converted into production. That production in then consumed. repeat until every well or shale deposit is dry.What exactly are you suggesting? That the US does not exploit their natural resources until all other resources globally are extinct?

At this point, I don't think he is doing anything other than spitting out talking points and making excuses. He clearly doesn't understand the subject matter.If global warming is his only concern it really doesn't matter anyway.

And this is YOUR main talking point every time I disagree with you. No offense, but I have to say that you are one of the most patronizing people I have encountered in this forum.If you think I don't understand something, then educate me. I will always be grateful for that, no matter how stupid it makes me look. But don't insult me. And please don't respond to this post with another of your patronizing, "You always do this, it's not worth my time," etc. If it's not worth your time, then don't respond at all.

How ironic. I'm patronizing to you and you call anyone that disagrees with you a teabagger (amongst other things). Careful of those glass houses.

People tried to educate you in the NSA thread. It takes countless hours and participants to unstick you even an inch. I'm not going through what Slapdash did. That guy should be sainted for dragging you along in that thread.

 

[msommer]

IMHO constricting supply does not necessarily reduce demand. It may bring about technology changes that either increase supply again ("Guys, what if we then process the tar sands...") or reduce demand ("Wait, if we make the cars more aerodynamic they will consume less fuel!").

If you believe climate change as a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels then you should be all in favor of reducing demand - even as a tax on consumption.

 

[timschochet]

IMHO constricting supply does not necessarily reduce demand. It may bring about technology changes that either increase supply again ("Guys, what if we then process the tar sands...") or reduce demand ("Wait, if we make the cars more aerodynamic they will consume less fuel!").

If you believe climate change as a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels then you should be all in favor of reducing demand - even as a tax on consumption.

Well, that's the progressive argument. I'm hoping there's a better way that doesn't cause as much pain.

 

[msommer]

IMHO constricting supply does not necessarily reduce demand. It may bring about technology changes that either increase supply again ("Guys, what if we then process the tar sands...") or reduce demand ("Wait, if we make the cars more aerodynamic they will consume less fuel!").

If you believe climate change as a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels then you should be all in favor of reducing demand - even as a tax on consumption.

Well, that's the progressive argument. I'm hoping there's a better way that doesn't cause as much pain.

The pain is transitory until the demand reduces. The main problem with taxes is that the windfall is built into the future spending so it is hard to remove them afterwards... However the tax route is very effective in driving technological advance, e.g if you use the money to incentivize alternate technologies such as hydrogen cars (could be anything less polluting). Key here, though, is to drive free enterprise in the direction of less pollution.

We can agree that the government regulating behaviour in this way is not going to win any libertarian friends (and that governments generally do a poor job of such endeavours). However, as long as pollution does not have an intrinsic cost, the free market will continue to pollute. This is exactly why publications such as The Economist continues to argue for a carbon tax/trading scheme.

 

[DiStefano]

Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.

The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.

If we can't control the price anyhow, then why is independence a virtue?

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

And if instead of producing that oil here, it is produced elsewhere in the world, that helps in reducing global warming how, exactly?

I am still waiting for you to tell me how producing oil elsewhere in the world, rather than in the USA, helps in reducing global warming.

 

[RCon]

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

But yet you advocate strongly for natural gas? If I'm not mistaken, not only is natural gas also a fossil fuel, but the fracking process is also horrible for the local environment. Seems like that is tripling down.

 

[msommer]

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

But yet you advocate strongly for natural gas? If I'm not mistaken, not only is natural gas also a fossil fuel, but the fracking process is also horrible for the local environment. Seems like that is tripling down.

According to the EPA natural gas, while a fosil fuel produces less C02 than burning coal or oil http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html

And most natural gas is produced without fracking - only natural gas from shale deposits is produced by fracking

 

[timschochet]

Rich, natural gas doesn't affect climate change nearly as much as oil and coal- at least that's my understanding. It seems to be a far cleaner alternative.

As far as fracking goes, it's true that progressives like NC Commish believe it to be very dangerous. The evidence for this however is slim and highly questionable. I am not enough of an expert to judge how credible the threat is, and obviously the value is high. So I remain enthusiastic yet cautious.

 

[msommer]

Natural gas emits about half the CO2 that coal does and about 20% less than gasoline and diesel according to epa.

http://www.epa.gov/cpd/pdf/brochure.pdf

However if you let it out instead of burning it, natural gas (methane) has 42 times the global warming potential of CO2

This is where cow farts come in....

 

[Sand]

According to the experts we can't stop this anymore anyway. Might as well focus on energy independence.

If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.

Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.

Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.

Metamaterials are starting to come online that are changing the baseline for solar. There are some really exciting things going on here.

 

[RCon]

Rich, natural gas doesn't affect climate change nearly as much as oil and coal- at least that's my understanding. It seems to be a far cleaner alternative.

As far as fracking goes, it's true that progressives like NC Commish believe it to be very dangerous. The evidence for this however is slim and highly questionable. I am not enough of an expert to judge how credible the threat is, and obviously the value is high. So I remain enthusiastic yet cautious.

The evidence that fracking causes earthquakes is not slim or questionable, IMO. I can't believe we allow this to go on when we know so little about the results.

 

[RCon]

Metamaterials are starting to come online that are changing the baseline for solar. There are some really exciting things going on here.

Solar is the future. We should take every dollar we pour into ethanol, wind, and other mediocre to terrible solutions and put it towards solar, especially solar from space. That the government doesn't only shows (as if we needed more proof) that the government's motive is not to solve energy problems, but to reward campaign contributors.

 

[msommer]

Natural gas does not come only from fracking.

Solar from space is hindered by lack of usable options for energy transfer to where used. Solar on Earth is of limited value in many parts of the world where e.g wind is more prevalent.

We likely need a wide palette of technologies to avoid using fossil fuels.

 

[datonn]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

 

[DiStefano]

Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.

The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.

If we can't control the price anyhow, then why is independence a virtue?

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

And if instead of producing that oil here, it is produced elsewhere in the world, that helps in reducing global warming how, exactly?

I am still waiting for you to tell me how producing oil elsewhere in the world, rather than in the USA, helps in reducing global warming.

In spite of your constant diarrhea of the mouth, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge your faulty logic.

 

[msommer]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS20_solar_power_tower

In operation

 

[timschochet]

Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.

The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.

If we can't control the price anyhow, then why is independence a virtue?

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

And if instead of producing that oil here, it is produced elsewhere in the world, that helps in reducing global warming how, exactly?

I am still waiting for you to tell me how producing oil elsewhere in the world, rather than in the USA, helps in reducing global warming.

In spite of your constant diarrhea of the mouth, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge your faulty logic.

I didn't answer you the first time because it's not faulty logic. The statement, "well, if we don't do it, somebody else will", is itself faulty logic, and also not what the United States is supposed to be about.

 

[Sand]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

 

[jon_mx]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

I have burnt many of ants using that theory. The man knows his stuff.

 

[DiStefano]

Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.

The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.

If we can't control the price anyhow, then why is independence a virtue?

Stable access, jobs, exports, etc. Isn't this obvious?

I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.

And if instead of producing that oil here, it is produced elsewhere in the world, that helps in reducing global warming how, exactly?

I am still waiting for you to tell me how producing oil elsewhere in the world, rather than in the USA, helps in reducing global warming.

In spite of your constant diarrhea of the mouth, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge your faulty logic.

I didn't answer you the first time because it's not faulty logic. The statement, "well, if we don't do it, somebody else will", is itself faulty logic, and also not what the United States is supposed to be about.

B#######.

 

[datonn]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

I have burnt many of ants using that theory. The man knows his stuff.

No schtick. You can use sunlight to melt asphalt and weld (not to mention cook, purify water, et al) using Fresnel lenses. And if you could harness, store, and/or re-apply that concentration of heat toward other purposes, you have yourself a pretty powerful resource.

Think steam engines of old...only instead of coal to keep a fire going hot enough to generate the steam to power the engine, using sunlight.

 

[Sand]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

I have burnt many of ants using that theory. The man knows his stuff.

No schtick. You can use sunlight to melt asphalt and weld (not to mention cook, purify water, et al) using Fresnel lenses. And if you could harness, store, and/or re-apply that concentration of heat toward other purposes, you have yourself a pretty powerful resource.

Think steam engines of old...only instead of coal to keep a fire going hot enough to generate the steam to power the engine, using sunlight.

Sigh. You think scientists haven't figured out solar concentrators yet?

 

[datonn]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

I have burnt many of ants using that theory. The man knows his stuff.

No schtick. You can use sunlight to melt asphalt and weld (not to mention cook, purify water, et al) using Fresnel lenses. And if you could harness, store, and/or re-apply that concentration of heat toward other purposes, you have yourself a pretty powerful resource.

Think steam engines of old...only instead of coal to keep a fire going hot enough to generate the steam to power the engine, using sunlight.

Sigh. You think scientists haven't figured out solar concentrators yet?

Most web developers (and graphic designers) haven't figured out how to properly format and optimize imagery for the web yet...and the internet has had graphics for ~20 years now.

 

[Doubtingthomas]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

I have burnt many of ants using that theory. The man knows his stuff.

No schtick. You can use sunlight to melt asphalt and weld (not to mention cook, purify water, et al) using Fresnel lenses. And if you could harness, store, and/or re-apply that concentration of heat toward other purposes, you have yourself a pretty powerful resource.Think steam engines of old...only instead of coal to keep a fire going hot enough to generate the steam to power the engine, using sunlight.

Sigh. You think scientists haven't figured out solar concentrators yet?

I'm guessing size needed for industrial scale?

 

[Sand]

The other thing about solar: the generation of heat...and heat = energy.

I don't understand why more people aren't working on this additional aspect of solar power. As anyone who has ever experimented with Fresnel lenses for more than 5-10 minutes understands the immense potential that can be gained from concentrating all that sunshine down on to a smaller, focused point.

Trying to figure out if this is schtick or not.

I have burnt many of ants using that theory. The man knows his stuff.

No schtick. You can use sunlight to melt asphalt and weld (not to mention cook, purify water, et al) using Fresnel lenses. And if you could harness, store, and/or re-apply that concentration of heat toward other purposes, you have yourself a pretty powerful resource.Think steam engines of old...only instead of coal to keep a fire going hot enough to generate the steam to power the engine, using sunlight.

Sigh. You think scientists haven't figured out solar concentrators yet?

I'm guessing size needed for industrial scale?

As msommer linked - is 20 megawatt good enough for you?

There is no magic in concentrators - that has been figured. The real gold that is being looked into now is metameterials, the search to replicate photosynthesis (which has a scary high efficiency), etc. I suspect we'll see a lot of incredible things in this arena in the next decade.

 

[msommer]

The next thing about the Solar concentrators is apparently finding another medium in which to store the energy, currently they are using water and can store for an hour. Looking at molten salt to get better/longer heat retention

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Sorry missed the link before posted. Fascinating stuff and I can see the future easily being something not at the forefront now.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I love when people say things like it hasn't snowed in Cairo in over 50 years so it must be GW. Well, what was the cause 50 years ago?

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know, but this winter seems to have forgotten the globe is suppose to be warming.

 

[culdeus]

I don't know, but this winter seems to have forgotten the globe is suppose to be warming.

We just had the warmest November worldwide since 1880

Please, no facts.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I love when people say things like it hasn't snowed in Cairo in over 50 years so it must be GW. Well, what was the cause 50 years ago?

Who said that?

People. I clearly stated that.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I don't know, but this winter seems to have forgotten the globe is suppose to be warming.

We just had the warmest November worldwide since 1880

Who is the "We" in that sentence?

 

[matuski]

I don't know, but this winter seems to have forgotten the globe is suppose to be warming.

We just had the warmest November worldwide since 1880

Who is the "We" in that sentence?

The people of Earth

And the fishes of the Earth.

 

[timschochet]

OK, Earth maybe, but what about other planets? They haven't complained.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I don't know, but this winter seems to have forgotten the globe is suppose to be warming.

We just had the warmest November worldwide since 1880

Who is the "We" in that sentence?

The people of Earth

I actually had one of the colder Novembers in my lifetime. Am I not a person or not on Earth?

 

[Sand]

OK, Earth maybe, but what about other planets? They haven't complained.

You always complain.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I love when people say things like it hasn't snowed in Cairo in over 50 years so it must be GW. Well, what was the cause 50 years ago?

Who said that?

People. I clearly stated that.

It's true. I heard him.

 

[Dr Oadi]

How is everyone celebrating the 17th year without global warming?

https://www.google.com/search?q=17+years+with+no+global+warming&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

 

[DiStefano]

How is everyone celebrating the 17th year without global warming?

https://www.google.com/search?q=17+years+with+no+global+warming&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

But, but, but...Ya gotta believe!

 

[timschochet]

How is everyone celebrating the 17th year without global warming?

https://www.google.com/search?q=17+years+with+no+global+warming&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

But, but, but...Ya gotta believe!

No you have to study the PERTINENT facts, ignore the pseudo science, and pay attention to real scientists rather that right wing talk show hosts

 

[Dr Oadi]

How is everyone celebrating the 17th year without global warming?https://www.google.com/search?q=17+years+with+no+global+warming&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

But, but, but...Ya gotta believe!

No you have to study the PERTINENT facts, ignore the pseudo science, and pay attention to real scientists rather that right wing talk show hosts

ooooo he typed pertinent with all CAPS!

 

[DiStefano]

How is everyone celebrating the 17th year without global warming?https://www.google.com/search?q=17+years+with+no+global+warming&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

But, but, but...Ya gotta believe!

No you have to study the PERTINENT facts, ignore the pseudo science, and pay attention to real scientists rather that right wing talk show hosts

ooooo he typed pertinent with all CAPS!

And misspelled "than" too.

The "real" scientists. of course, have been predicting all kinds of things that haven't happened. One of the great things about science is that it is experimental. And if the experiment doesn't work, blame the right wing talk shows.