AuthorTopic: Agelbert's Newz Channel  (Read 1657596 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Annswer to Eddie's question about Utility Scale PV DC to AC conversion
« Reply #3210 on: December 30, 2014, 05:11:04 PM »
A photovoltaic power station, also known as a solar park, is a large-scale photovoltaic system (PV system) designed for the supply of merchant power into the electricity grid. They are differentiated from most building-mounted and other decentralised solar power applications because they supply power at the utility level, rather than to a local user or users. They are sometimes also referred to as solar farms or solar ranches, especially when sited in agricultural areas. The generic expression utility-scale solar is sometimes used to describe this type of project.

Most solar parks are developed at a scale of at least 1 MWp. As of 2015, the world's largest operating photovoltaic power stations have capacities of 550 megawatts and projects up to 1,000 MW are planned. About 21,000 MW or 15 percent of worldwide deployed PV capacity consists of solar farms larger than 4 MW.

Most Solar parks are ground mounted PV systems, also known as free-field solar power plants.[38] They can either be fixed tilt or use a single axis or dual axis solar tracker.[39] While tracking improves the overall performance, it also increases the system's installation and maintenance cost.[40][41] A solar inverter converts the array's power output from DC to AC, and connection to the utility grid is made through a high voltage, three phase step up transformer of typically 10 kV and above.[42][43]


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

There's PLENTY of technological progress though innovation going on out there constantly improving the output power efficiency of Renewable energy systems, whether they be Solar or Wind.   

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #3211 on: December 30, 2014, 05:59:45 PM »
Reposted from another thread for the benefit of people of Good Will.  8)


I don't understand push-back vs. solar or even wind. Right now we need, 'all of the above' including conservation. There isn't a consensus yet about cost. Some believe that a shift to renewables can be made relatively cost-free. I don't agree, there will be a very high cost in conventional terms, but certainly less than if our basic (credit + otherwise) infrastructure breaks down. I don't advocate suicide, but that is where carrying on business-as-usual ends up.

I keep waiting for self-preservation instinct to kick in, instead it's more bailouts for banks, more lies/nonsense from main-stream media.


Steve from Virginia,
Google Amory Lovins. Unlike Mking, he doesn't hide his credentials and has been doing the math on how much energy we REALLY need and how to get it for over 40 years. EVERYTHING he puts out there is peer reviewed.

A testament to the bankruptcy of MKing's claims is that MKing has a rather dim view, as voiced here more than once, of Amory Lovins.

Here's a tiny sample of real world, no nonsense energy solutions that this great scientist has published including many projects like the Empire State Building refit that saves them millions of dollars in energy costs per year. Amory Lovins specializes in "Negawatts" but he is active in pump design, engine design, air duct design insulation and several other "do the math" areas of energy use in our civilization. He INVENTED various instruments to measure thermodynamic efficiency back in the 1980's and has added to this package of precise instruments as the years have gone by.

He has conclusively proven (and peer reviewed published it) that the engineering texts are WRONG about turbulent versus laminar flow thermodynamics characteristics. This has caused a HUGE amount of inefficient improperly designed air conditioning machinery that, because fossil fuels were so "cheap", was never questioned. He is no cornucopian.

Quote

    Amory Lovins on Energy Efficency Breakthroughs (real world 90% plus waste reduction) that seem hard to believe:
"Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1zfO3HW6xCw#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/1zfO3HW6xCw#&fs=1</a>

2012 newer info from Lovins:
 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHOyfyGwpes#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHOyfyGwpes#&fs=1</a>


http://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/blog/amory-lovins-ted-talk-energy-and-systems-thinking

Quote
"If the new flameless fire is used properly (i.e. investing the profit into nature in order to achieve and sustain a Viable Biosphere instead of using the technofix greedily and stupidly to expand the economy and the population), we can make it do our work without it working our undoing." Amory Lovins

Natural Capitalism is the only REAL capitalism. The fake kind (industrial capitalism) we have had since the industrial revolution is stupid.

Amory Lovins is a scientist AND a true capitalist that thinks, correctly, that making money and providing a viable biosphere are not mutually exclusive. It's time to shit can FAKE capitalism and adopt NATURAL Capitalism. Video here:

Amory Lovins: Part 4 - Natural Capitalism and Biomimicry
Cambridge University             
Amory Lovins: Part 4 - Natural Capitalism and Biomimicry on Vimeo


http://www.w3schools.com/

As to MKing's DEBATING techniques, if FALLACIOUS debating techniques is what he means by that, yeah, the guy is world class!

A brief sample of Mking's "debating" techniques. I guess he's passing it along to his offspring. Perfidy is rather popular among the well to do these days. It's always about winning, truth be damned.  :emthdown:

Quote
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."


Poisoning The Wells: discrediting the sources used by your opponent. This is a variation of Ad Hominem.


Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam): if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it. There are some net.kooks who keeping reposting the same articles to Usenet, presumably in hopes it will have that effect.


Argument By Selective Observation: also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. Or, the claim "Technology brings happiness". (Now, there's something with hits and misses.)


Meaningless Questions:
irresistible forces meeting immovable objects, and the like.


Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis):
this is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid making good on a promise. In general, there is something you are not supposed to notice.
This is connected to various diversionary tactics, which may be obstructive, obtuse, or needling. For example, if you quibble about the meaning of some word a person used, they may be quite happy about being corrected, since that means they've derailed you, or changed the subject. They may pick nits in your wording, perhaps asking you to define "is". They may deliberately misunderstand you:
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 01:06:00 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #3212 on: December 30, 2014, 06:31:30 PM »


China’s hypersonic strike vehicle ‘in 3d test flight’ 


LOOK UP IN THE SKY!       WHAT IS THAT?        It's bird!        It's Plane! ....(RE jumps in to the conversation). "Now that is the biggest piece of Toast I have ever seen!"  :icon_mrgreen:.

Quote
A Pentagon representative confirmed the test to the WFB, but declined to provide further comment. 

http://rt.com/news/211575-china-hypersonic-missile-test/

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Empire Has a Bad Day...
« Reply #3213 on: December 30, 2014, 06:40:00 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/qvDw9LRcA7I#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/qvDw9LRcA7I#&fs=1</a>  ;D
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
2014 USA year in review...
« Reply #3214 on: December 30, 2014, 07:08:15 PM »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Part 3 o 3 The Lion Ranger - Death in the Kingdom
« Reply #3215 on: December 30, 2014, 08:50:09 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/BlzFsYjzizE#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/BlzFsYjzizE#&fs=1</a>
Kevin Richardson - Part 3 o 3 The Lion Ranger   :o  :emthup: - Death in the Kingdom

I love cats but there is no way in God's good Earth that I would play with THESE CATS! :o
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Strange Things Seen by Credible Witnesses
« Reply #3216 on: December 30, 2014, 11:14:30 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/nqe1dgpoUtA#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/nqe1dgpoUtA#&fs=1</a>
 :spacecraft:           

And this is REALLY far out:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/A9Z9lQZODPI#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/A9Z9lQZODPI#&fs=1</a>
Quote
Aliens Are Real! Top Lockheed Martin Scientist Gives Proof Before His Death!

Bushman shared details about aliens, UFOs, and anti-gravity technology – which he says is being developed by US, Russian, and Chinese scientists at Area 51 (the US military facility).

In the video, Bushman is seen holding up second-hand “photo evidence” of aliens while describing them to viewers.

“They were approximately four and a half to five feet tall,” the former top aerospace scientist said. “They have three back bones. They’re actually cartilage,” he added, stating that they had fewer ribs than human beings. These aliens have fingers and toes like human beings.

He went on to state that their eyes and noses are different from humans, and that they are telepathic mind readers.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/31/on-deathbed-former-lockheed-martin-engineer-with-top-secret-clearance-opens-up-about-aliens/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0vXw5d2Kj2o#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/0vXw5d2Kj2o#&fs=1</a>
INCREDIBLE UFO NEWS - LOCKHEED PHYSICIST REVEALS ALIEN PICS IN DEATHBED INTERVIEW Video

Published on Oct 28, 2014

Shortly before Boyd Bushman passed away on August 7, 2014, he was video recorded candidly speaking about his personal experiences with Area 51, UFOs, aliens and anti-gravity ideas. Boyd was a retired Senior Scientist for Lockheed Martin. His career spanned over forty years, was awarded many patents, and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/189050/LOCKHEED_PHYSICIST_REVEALS_ALIEN_PICS_IN_DEATHBED_INTERVIEW/#ixzz3HTtu4uiH




« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 11:24:44 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Ending 2014 With Hope (Cornucopians Need Not Apply)
« Reply #3217 on: December 31, 2014, 12:28:11 PM »
 
Ending 2014 With Hope

SustainableBusiness.com News

Since there's more than enough to be depressed about in the world today, we're ending the year with some projects that give us hope.

 In September, more than 30 countries signed the NY Declaration on Forests, which for the first time, puts a hard deadline on eliminating deforestation. The US, Canada and the EU are among the signatories, agreeing to cut deforestation in half by 2020 and fully by 2030. They also agreed to restore 1 million acres of degraded land over that time.

Africa is leading, assisted by the World Bank, UK government and nonprofits like Oxfam. Tanzania has restored 1.2 million acres, and efforts have been so successful in Ethiopia, that they pledge to restore 37 million acres by 2030. Other countries' pledges: Democratic Republic of the Congo (20 million); Uganda (6.2 million acres); Colombia (2.5 million); Guatemala (3 million hectares); and Chile (247,000).

Read our article, Namibia Models Economy Benefits And Wildlife Protection.

 In Indonesia, 10 years after the tsunami, villagers are restoring the very mangrove forests and coastal ecosystems that could have prevented much of the disaster that killed over 200,000 people.

 So far, 70,000 mangroves have been planted in the "Green Coast" project using microcredit finance. Birds have returned and the surrounding water is home to shrimp and crabs. Even green turtles are slowly returning. The country's new President,  Joko Widodo, campaigned on a commitment to reforest 2 million hectares of degraded land a year.

At this month's Climate Summit in Peru, Initiative 20x20 launched - an effort to restore 50 million acres of land in Latin America and the Caribbean by 2020. It's part of the Bonn Challenge, a global commitment to restore 370 million acres of land around the world by 2020, led by the World Resources Institute.

In the US, food companies are joining to improve agricultural practices on 50 million acres of farmland by 2020, preserving wild habitats and lowering emissions from agriculture.

In other words, more people understand that we've got to restore the earth's land (and water). 

Over the past 20 years, protected zones have expanded substantially and as of 2010, take up 12.7% of the earth's land - the size of Russia.

After traveling the world for eight years, photojournalist Sebastião Salgado captured the most remote, pristine places left on earth, to show people that despite the havoc, "some 46% of our planet is still as it was in the time of Genesis." His book Genesis, is a compilation of the photos - a photographic homage to our planet in its natural state.   


Here are some of the photos:
 

Website: www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/sebastiao-salgado-genesis-untouched-places_n_5832150.html

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26072



In 2015, let your Faith be Stronger than your Fear.


 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ER1PGYe9UZA#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ER1PGYe9UZA#&fs=1</a>
2015, HERE WE COME!  
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Free HEAT, EXTRA OXYGEN and Toxin Filtration!
« Reply #3218 on: December 31, 2014, 05:42:08 PM »
 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/f2jH8PcuOMs#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/f2jH8PcuOMs#&fs=1</a>
Free HEAT, EXTRA OXYGEN and Toxin Filtration! 

Just check out the zoning ordinances first. Many towns (RIDICULOUSLY  >:() do not allow a greenhouse to be attached to the house.

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The ONLY Kind of Black Gold Mankind REALLY needs is ANCIENT!
« Reply #3219 on: December 31, 2014, 06:11:25 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqp_H95wjPE#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/qqp_H95wjPE#&fs=1</a>

The Miracle Of Terra Preta 

 A large pre-historic civilization is found in the central Amazon. Archeologists and scientists are shocked. The soil there is thought to be impossible to grow sufficient produce in. How could upward of a million people survive here, over a thousand years ago?

Could this be the elusive El Dorado, the city of gold?

 Because there is a kind of gold here, in great abundance: bio char, or black gold. The most fertile soil on earth. It's no accident. Bio char is not naturally occurring in nature, it must be cultivated by man.

Bio Char is an ancient method of enhancing soil fertility and carbon sequestration with charcoal and organic matter. It helps the soil retain water and increase crop yields. It enhances microbiological activity. It retains nutrients for plants that would otherwise be lost to the atmosphere, or washed away by rains.

 This could represent a key strategy in breaking the cycle of slash and burn farming, and restore our soil.

 Now we know how this civilization thrived. At 30 minutes into this presentation, the miracle of Bio Char is explained. There is an 880% increase in crop yields when bio char is used!  :o  :emthup:   :icon_mrgreen:

 And here is something we didn't know: The great civilization in the Amazon left a precious legacy. In the last 10 minutes of this documentary we learn that the stuff actually renews itself!  ;D

 If we can unlock the secret to reproducing this black gold, we can save the planet!   

 --Bibi Farber

 This video was produced by the BBC
http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/26053.html#sthash.iZVKteBS.dpuf

Agelbert NOTE: I believe Bibi is a bit over the top in her optimism. However, Bio Char could be a large part of our "solution" AS LONG AS WE DID NOT use that to increase our population from this REALLY Green Revolution (unlike the FAKE one from fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers that actually deplete the soil and reduce the nutritive value of crops while increasing their size and weight!). A low carbon economy is still sine qua none for a sustainable civilization.

>Dr. Richard A. Houghton, acting president of the WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER says There Is No Alternative to a Low Carbon Economy
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Happy New Year!
« Reply #3220 on: December 31, 2014, 08:18:11 PM »
To my fellow homo SAPS who read my posts (those who don't miss all the fun!   ;D):
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39226
    • View Profile
Re: Happy New Year!
« Reply #3221 on: December 31, 2014, 09:27:28 PM »
3 hours still to go for me for New Years.  The Diner is THE place to be as we cross into the Great Beyond of 2015!  :icon_sunny:

I'm working up New Year's Day material here and have a Bottle of Sam Adams ready to pop the top on at midnite!

Monsta is already in 2015, Uncle Bob too!  I think I will be the last Diner to make it into the New Year, unless there is a Hawaiian Diner I don't know of yet.

RE
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 09:31:00 PM by RE »
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #3222 on: December 31, 2014, 10:38:58 PM »
RE,
Isn't Ka in Hawaii?

I've been thinking about the onslaught of Alzheimer's  ;) he has had lately in regard to Nicole Foss's history of support of fossil fuels and, despite her CYA talk about Faustian bargains and such with fracking and tar sands in 2011 and 2012, her SUPPORT for those technologies by awarding them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1. The instant she did that, she signaled to investors, as a credentialed energy expert, that they could MAKE MONEY off of them. THAT is SUPPORT, in my book. 

I do believe the old boy has the same crush on her that another Diner I have gone round and round with has.

So, here's a stroll down memory lane for Ka.  :evil4:

Two sides of Nicole Foss's mouth:
The "I'm not happy with this" side showing much concern for humanity after paragraph after paragraph of IGNORING global warming and GLOSSING OVER the enormous environmental damage the fracking causes:
Snippet From "Fracking Our Future" by Nicole Foss (crocodile tears are in evidence).
Quote
Given the poor economics and low EROEI of shale gas in general. It is very difficult to argue that fracking, particularly in areas like the Marcellus Shale, makes sense. Unconventional gas is far from being a clean fuel when the whole lifecycle is considered. In fact considering the substantial potential for releases of fugitive methane emissions, one cannot even argue that unconventional gas is an improvement in comparison with burning coal when it comes to climate impact, let alone an improvement on other environmental fronts.

Shale gas is simply another Faustian bargain that humanity should not be making. We run substantial long term risks, which we socialize, for the sake of short term private profits.

This is the typical human modus operandi, but it is high time we learned from our mistakes.
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/july-19-2011-fracking-our-future.html

HELLO? Who is "TRYING TO ARGUE" that Fracking makes sense? The ARGUMENT is not about "sense", dear. The ARGUMENT is about ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE COSTS. You just FLAT REFUSE to QUANTIFY THAT!  :emthdown:

Some compassionate words about  fracked gas not being an improvement over the damage of coal to the climate (without COST NUMBERS) DOESN'T CUT IT.

Now for the other side of her mouth.  THAT IS, whenever a Credentialed Energy Expert SAYS the EROEI of WHATEVER is ABOVE 1:1, they are engaging in DE FACTO support of said technology. They are TELLING investors that the technology is PROFITABLE. If Ka does not define that as support, it is due to his hairsplititis, an occupational hazard of self described scholars everywhere.  :evil4:

In 2012 she wrote an article with lots of graphs showing the EROEI of Fracked gas to be ABOVE 1:1. I wrote and told her that fracking was an obscenity. I cannot find the article or my comment. If anyone can find it, please post it HERE. I will not hold my breath waiting for Ka to do it.

I went back to comment on another article in the hopes of getting that "energy" expert to understand that pushing fossil fuels as "cheap" was inaccurate (i.e. the energy RETURN is LESS than that INVESTED so the number must be, for example 1: 0.1) when the climate costs are figured. The whole point (that she has ALWAYS danced around) was to tell her that externalized costs are real and they MUST be figured in the EROEI.
Ilargi, another one of Ka's pals(?),  took care of THAT:
Quote
July 9, 2012 at 3:48 am #4515 
Raúl Ilargi Meijer
Agelbert,
I deleted your obviously far too lengthy comment from this thread. Left it on the other thread for now. I thought I had been clear before. Apparently not. Any additional comments like this will be deleted. This is a forum for everyone, and it’s not to be bogarted.
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/peak-oil-a-dialogue-with-george-monbiot/#ixzz20DL0Ft2s

I wrote the Open Letter in 2013 (a year later). I showed conclusively how her predictions had NOT panned out and how her SUPPORT of technologies like tar sands and fracking (by ASSIGNING them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1 was bad for the  climate and beneath her as an "Energy" expert. I was polite, as Ashvin had requested me to be in PM's when we discussed it. She never answered.  :emthdown:

When I posted the letter HERE on the Doomstead Diner, the SILENCE was DEAFENING. Ka was not interested in talking about it. Neither was anybody else. And Foss was CERTAINLY NOT interested in eating crow. So it goes.

SNIPPET from the letter hi-lighting the OTHER side of Nicole Foss's mouth:
What does propaganda fostered by the fossil fuel industry for the purpose of denying Global Climate Change have to do with the subject of this letter to you?

A lot. I'll get to that but now I wish to remind you of a response you wrote to me in a comment forum about a year ago when I complained that you had not figured in the cost of poisoned aquifers from fracking gas drilling in the EROEI of fracked gas. I further said that, given the fact that Renewable Energy does not pollute, it actually is more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Why wait a year to answer you? Because I ran into exactly the same talking points in several other comment forums when the subject of fossil fuels versus renewable energy came up. So I set about to research your claims and predictions.

I have answered the statements and predictions you made. Nearly 100% of your predictions have not come about. In fact, in some cases the exact reverse of what you predicted has happened.

Also, some of your statements were factually incorrect at the time you made them, not just a year after you made them. Please read them and tell me if you have revised your views in these matters.

I have included your statements in exactly the same sequence as you made them without any alterations whatsoever.

Your statements are in brown color

My response in blue


Quote
Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.


(Phase 1)
Quote
  Energy from renewable resources—wind, water, the sun, biomass and geothermal energy—is inexhaustible and clean. Renewable energy currently constitutes 15% of the global energy mix.

http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/objectives/renewable-energy


Quote
They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices.


(Phase 2) So the huge demand destruction in fossil fuels this past year was ONLY related to the depression we have been in since 2008!!? Why then, didn't said demand destruction occur THEN? Why did that demand destruction DOVETAIL with the explosive growth of energy and wind in the USA in 2011 and 2012?


Quote
Charts: The Smart Money Is on Renewable Energy
—By Tim McDonnell
Mon Apr. 22, 2013

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/charts-renewable-energy-fossil-fuels


Quote
IEA Predicts Wind to Double and Solar Solar to Triple in 6 Years

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/wind-and-solar-energy-rush-goes-global-130712.htm


Quote
The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest public financial institution, has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its climate targets.


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/european-investment-bank-cuts-lending-to-fossil-plants-supports-renewables?cmpid=rss



Quote
They are more expensive than fossil fuels


(phase 3)

Quote
  When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


Quote
In the July 2011 PE magazine article “Why We Need Rational Selection of Energy Projects,” the author stated that “photovoltaic electricity generation cannot be an energy source for the future” because photovoltaics require more energy than they produce
(during their lifetime), thus their “Energy Return Ratio (ERR) is less than 1:1.”

Statements to this effect were not uncommon in the 1980s, based on some early PV prototypes. However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.
 

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf



Quote
because of their very low EROEI


(phase 3) See above. The EROEI of fossil fuels is lower than Renewable energy EROEI.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


Quote
However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.

Quote
Energy Payback Time = (Emat+Emanuf+Etrans+Einst+EEOL) / (Eagen–Eaoper)
where,
Emat: Primary energy demand to produce materials comprising PV system
Emanuf: Primary energy demand to manufacture PV system
Etrans: Primary energy demand to transport materials used during the life cycle
Einst: Primary energy demand to install the system
EEOL: Primary energy demand for end-of-life management
Eagen: Annual electricity generation in primary energy terms
Eaoper: Annual energy demand for operation and maintenance in primary energy terms

The traditional way of calculating the EROI of PV is EROI = lifetime/EPBT, thus an EPBT of one year and life expectancy of 30  years corresponds to an EROI of 1:30..

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf







Quote
and very large fossil fuel dependency.


(phase 3) Maybe that was true in 1980 but NOW it is only partially true. Norway has about 100% penetration of renewable energy in their electric grid. Other highly industrialized countries have high penetration as well. This mean the electric arc furnaces for smelting steel and other high temperature thermal processes dependent on electricity are using very little fossil fuels to make renewable energy machines in these places.

Also Nuclear power plants, something neither you nor I favor, have always been made with fossil fuels but that never stopped our government from making or heavily subsidizing that new energy technology. Why should it be different for renewable energy machines?
Observe below the Renewable Energy penetration of the electric grid in various industrialized countries



Electric Grid Renewable energy Penetration in Selected Markets

Although we technically do not have PV manufacturing plants or Wind turbine manufacturers driving EV trucks or mining with EV machines as well as powering their factories with wind and PV or some other renewable energy, it's just a matter of time.

WHY? Because of the HIGH EROEI of Renewable Energy devices. They pay for themselves in a few years and then, as long as they are properly maintained, last a number of decades while using ZERO fossil fuels throughout the entire period.

The fossil fuel powered internal combustion machine is not competitive with Renewable Energy technolgies UNLESS fossil fuels retain their massive subsidies and continue to limit the market penetration of renewable energy systems in the USA and elseware with the threadbare excuse, and untrue allegation, that they are "too intermittent".

Quote
The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy
Lester R. Brown

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2012/update107



Quote
In fact renewables is a minomer. The sun will continue to shine and the wind to blow, but steel is not renewable and neither are many other essential components.


Six Terrawat hours a year of energy is expended each year in the USA just to make the internal combustion engines and spare parts. How come you never complained of this massive amount of energy involving "non-renewable" steel used in manufacturing internal combustion machines?

Renewable Energy devices terminology refers to the FACT, that once they are constructed, they don't USE fossil fuels to output energy. And the metal used in Renewables is not high temperature alloy metal like that required for internal combustion engines which makes it recyclable with LESS energy than that required for internal combustion engine metals.

In fact, we need far less steel and other metals to replace the entire internal combustion independent infrastructure with renewable energy WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MINING by just cannibalizing the internal combustion machines for Renewable Energy machine metals as we make the transition.

Yes, I know about the rare earth metals mining pollution. I can only remind you of that phrase, "drop in the bucket" compared with the benefits of doing away with fossil fuels altogether.


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg25945#msg25945


Quote
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



Quote
The demand and price collapse will kill much of renewable development,


Prices have gone up for fossil fuels even as demand has gone down. This has actually spurred the switch to renewables , not dampened it.

Quote
Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013

http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp


Quote
Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more attractive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/fossil-fuel-prices-renewable-energy-attractive



Quote
especially at a large scale.


(phase 3)

Quote
To date, we've committed over $1 billion to renewable energy project investments, signed ... It may also be more feasible to build larger power installations .... and match their demand with utility-scale solution

http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/green/pdf/renewable-energy-options.pdf



Quote
You cannot run an industrial society on intermittent energy sources with low EROEI.

The Renewable energy blend eliminates intermittency and the low EROEI claim has been proven, not just inaccurate, but the exact reverse.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm

Quote
CSP technology can also be coupled with energy storage, one of the hottest topics in the renewable energy industry this year. Plants that include energy storage with molten salt can store solar power and dispatch it in the early evening and into the night. Tex Wilkins from the CSP Alliance thinks this application could make PV, which is often viewed as a threat to CSP, a complimentary technology. "The ability of CSP with storage to dispatch its power to the grid in the early morning and evening can combine with daytime PV to spread out the use of solar power from the time people get up early in the morning until they go to bed late at night," he explained. Wilkins said that in five years most CSP plants will include energy storage. Van Scoter from eSolar said in five years he expects that most CSP projects will include molten salt or ISCC technology. "There is also a high potential for projects involving industrial process heat, EOR and desalination," he said.
All CSP experts said that utilities are just beginning to recognize CSP's value - a renewable energy able to provide base load, dispatchable power. According to SkyFuel's Mason, "This attribute of CSP is its main differentiator from PV and wind, and will ensure its increasing uptake in the power market."


Quote
Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/21/intermittency-of-renewable-energy/


Quote
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



Quote
Feed in tariffs are already being cut worldwide, and without them renewable power is not competitive.


This is a generalization and is inaccurate as well.
It is also a faulty comparison. The MASSIVE subsidies fossil and nuclear fules get dwarf any feed in tariff "advantage" for Renewable energy.

If all fossil and nuclear fuel subsidies were removed, the ridiculously tiny Renewable Energy subsidies in the form of feed in tariffs and other paltry incentives would be even less significant than they are now.

I know you are adverse to feed in tariffs. It is not logical for you to be adverse to FIT and not ALSO be adverse to fossil fuel subsidies like THESE:

Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs

Percentage Depletion Allowance

Deduction for Tertiary Injectants

Geological and Geophysical Expenditures

Exception for passive loss limitations for oil and gas

Enhanced oil recovery credit

Marginal oil well credit

You eliminate ALL THE ABOVE and the pittance that FIT represents can be eliminated quite easily, thank you very much. Just google fossil fuel and nuclear power subsidies to date in the USA alone and then look at the tiny sliver of a percentage of subsidies for renewables to date.

Of course, fossil fuel industries want renewable enrgy to go away and are doing everything possible to make that happen. Eliminating FIT would be one step to that goal while keeping fossil fuel subsidies intact.



Quote
Said Brian Jennings, ACE executive vice president, in a release, “If oil companies cannot stand on their own two feet after 100 years of clinging to certain taxpayer subsidies, Congress shouldn’t hurt American consumers by repealing the RFS, a policy that helps level the playing field with oil a little bit by giving people affordable and renewable fuel choices.”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/03/big-oils-100-year-incentive-birthday-bash-hosted-by-biofuels



Quote
Since we cannot run this society on renewables, our society will have to change.


A logical conclusion based on the low EROEI incorrect premise and the intermittency incorrect premise.

With an incorrect premise, you will always come to the wrong conclusion.

The fact that renewable energy has grown in leaps and bounds for over three years now is proof that it is a more profitable energy source, as well as being non-polluting after manufacture, than the poisonous fossil fuels.

The renewable energy percentage use targets are INCREASING, not decreasing as you incorrectly believe. Here's just one example:


Quote
Vermont may have more foresight than other states it its ambitious 90% renewable energy target by 2050, but it’s really the sign of a paradigm shift in energy, says Dave.

http://www.ilsr.org/vermonts-standard-offer-renewable-energy-program-episode-10-local-energy-rules-podcast/


Quote
Prepare For Disruptive Solar Technology

Quote
In 2013, the landscape is drastically different. Solar power is here to stay, and the major manufacturers should be motivated to make big moves.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1504552-prepare-for-disruptive-solar-technology



Quote
We will have to learn to live within our means.

Most people in the world already do. It's people with giant carbon footprints that don't.

I think what you are doing in lowering your carbon footprint is laudable but be aware that every time you board an aircraft, you have just used up about 6 months worth of the carbon footprint of a person in the third world. That doesn't help.




Quote
This article was not about poisoned aquifers. I have written about that before though. I cannot cover everything in every article or there would be no focus. Of course fracking is obscene, the environmental risks are huge and a few well connected individuals are making a killing from the ponzi scheme. The price collapse will eventually prevent it, just not right now when there is still money to be made.

Yes, the environmental risks, and damages as well, are already huge. Fracking adds insult to injury. It's time to stop supporting this biosphere killing technology, regardless of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on governments and policy.

Quote
The country is in the midst of an unprecedented oil and gas drilling rush—brought on by a controversial technology called hydraulic fracturing or fracking.
Along with this fracking-enabled oil and gas rush have come troubling reports of poisoned drinking water, polluted air, mysterious animal deaths, industrial disasters and explosions. We call them Fraccidents.

http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states



Quote
The numbers are bad even with externalities excluded, and are of course much worse with them. Some of these things are very difficult to quantify, and over-quantification doesn't really help anyway.

Well, it DOES HELP the frackers in attracting investment capital to have energy experts publish EROEI numbers above 1:1, does it not?  A real world EROEI woud remind these planet poisoners of the repercussions of their actions AND make it HARDER for them to get investment capital.

The less happy the EROEI numbers, the less inclined they will be to engage in criminal and toxic activity. If energy experts don't do it, who is, besides the scientific community which is getting drowned out by the bought and paid for media?

I can show you a Buffalo University study about three years old (not the snow job that came later falsely claiming it was peer reviewed and forced to recant) that proved conclusively that Uranium traces would come up in the process of fracking and invade the aquifers, not at radiactive dose danger levels but as heavy metal pollutants.

There's a LOT more bad stuff going on out there. If you don't know about it, you should.

Gas fracking corruption posts:


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923


Quote
'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale, UB Research Finds

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/10/11885.html



Quote
This is real politik - the way the world really works.

You mean that's the way the POLITICAL WORLD works.
The planet and the biosphere, according to serious, objective, proven environmental science,  will become uninhabitable if we do not stop burning fossil fuels within a couple of decades (See video above in this document of panel of scientists where one British Scientist actually says that the REAL, "real world" is about to overwhelm the perception managed "real politik, real world" the fossil fuel industry and most of mankind falsely believe they live in. Note: Part 2 of that video is extremely informative as well.).

The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have casued so they have, for several decades, (See the George C. Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.

The disinformation has used the scare tactic that we are running out of fossil fuels. Sure, according to latest estimates, we have about 37 years left of oil and slightly over 100 years of coal.

I certainly think those numbers don't translate into an imminent collapse UNLESS the fossil fuel fascists (that isn't hyperbole) engineer one as an additional scare tactic.

Don't tell me the industry famous for contrived price shocks and oil resource wars is not capable of that.

Here's a PRIME example of what the fossil fuel industry has done to the USA and the world:

A quote from the following Peer Reviewed book:


Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Quote
"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.


Consequently, all extrapolated future scenarios the Peak Oil people come up with must have their premises scrutinized to see how much of that is fossil fuel propaganda.

I have. The collapse scenario does not add up.

In that video above, the scientific community makes it crystal clear that there is easily another 100 years of coal, a much more polluting fossil fuel than oil, available regardless of the state of petroleum depletion.

So it is not realistic to say everything is just going stop one day from a chain of collapses in economies. The available fossil fuels are still TOO available.

The worsening weather will be the ONLY thing that will spur change unless the 1% performs a coup d'état on the fossil fuel world power structure and even then we already passed the point a couple of decades ago when bioremediation was going to be fairly straight forward.

So the Peak Oil people and preppers, like you, are doing themselves a world of good by preparing for a lower carbon footprint and learning many low tech survival skills because, even in the best of the three scenarios I envisioned (no die off), we will still have to reduce our carbon footprint until we get all the bugs out of the 100% renewable energy PLUS 20-40% carbon sequestering economy implemented to GET BACK to below 350 ppm.

You are wrong to think it will all collapse but you are right to prepare for hard times and horrible weather. Hansen said the atmospheric and oceanic inertia is nearly 100 years. I had thought it was only about 30 years.  :P

That means we are experiencing NOW the effects of our generated pollutants (if you say the incubation inertia is 50 years or so) as of 1963!

Consider all the pollutants that have poured in to the biosphere since then and you start to understand why brilliant people like Guy McPherson are so despondent. There is NO WAY we can stop the pollution/bad weather clock from CONTINUING to deteriorate for another 50 years (or 100 if Hansen is right) even if we STOPPED using all fossil fuels today. :(

I'm not in charge and neither are you. But clinging to this fossil fuel fantasyland of cheap power and all we "owe" it for our civilization is not going to do anything but make things deteriorate faster.

If enough people reach the 1%, maybe they will wake up. It's all we can do in addition to trying to foster community.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that are saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a swtch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

My somewhat quixotic hope as fleshed out in the following article is that the 1% will respond to the crisis with a crash program to bioremediate the biosphere as a matter of enlightened self interest.



http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates  :icon_mrgreen:) in 2017.

So I would use that future melting now as a rallying point to wake people up and join in the effort to ban fossil fuels from planet earth. Expect the fossil fuelers to counter that polar ice melting catastrophic reality with propaganda about what a "wonderful" thing it is to have a new ocean to shorten ship traveling (i.e. TANKERS) distances. So it goes.

But if things go well for humanity and the 1% galvanize to save the biosphere and their stuff  :icon_mrgreen:, we will witness the dismantelling of the centralized fossil fuel infrastructure, it's use and, more importantly, the relinquishing of political power worldwide by big oil.



Quote

15 April 2013
James Hansen

1. Exaggeration?

I have been told of specific well-respected people who have asserted that "Jim Hansen exaggerates" the magnitude and imminence of the climate threat. If only that were true, I would be happy.
"Magnitude and imminence" compose most of the climate story.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf



Quote
It's about money and power.


Correct. It has ALWAYS been about POWER (which always brings easy money).

It has NEVER been about ENERGY beyond CONTROLLING the spigot to we-the-people.

That's why the fossil fuel industry simply didn't switch to the much more profitable and economical renewable energy technologies long ago (they certainly have the money to do so); they simply could not figure out a way to retain POWER and CONTROL with a distributed, rather than a centralized energy system.




Quote
The expansion phase of the bubble concealed that for a while by floating many boats temporarily.

No comment except that the forces of nature will overwhelm any bubble mechanics that corrupt central bankers or Wall Street can come up with.

The importance of financial activity pales in the face of climate change.




Quote
I wish that wasn't the way it worked, but it does, whether we like it or not. All we can do is to understand our situation and make the best of it.


Renewable Energy is making life and profits more and more difficult for the fossil fuel corporations.

But you are right that they run the corrupt system and do not want to cede their power (even if it kills all of us).


Quote
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other.

And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves.

If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/

This ends my response and rebuttal of your statements and predicitons.

<------------------------------------------------------>

Do you now recognize that what you told me, wittingly or unwittingly, was fossil fuel anti-renewable energy propaganda?

I have shown the error in your statements and request you reconsider your position on everything you said to me.

The fossil fuel industry and those who side with it, regardless of appearing to take a pro-environment position in their personal lives, are hurting our chances for a viable biosphere.

Those who, instead, simply stand their ground on the settled climate science and state unequivocally that fossil fuels must be BANNED from human use forever and the fossil fuel industries dismantled while a massive transition to a lower carbon footprint and 100% plus renewable energy economy takes place, are the only hope Homo sapiens has.

The question is, which side are you on?


Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as descriped by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:
 
 Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.)


A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. IT DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The ICE and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 11:12:39 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #3223 on: December 31, 2014, 11:06:37 PM »
NICOLE FOSS, is, and always has been, a stalking horse for Fossil Fuel Energy.

She, like Gail Tverberg and Charles Hall (and MANY other bought and paid for energy "experts" out there) is the EMBODIMENT of the following in EVERYTHING she has written in regard to ENERGY for several years:


Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as descriped by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:
 
 Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support (Nicole Foss SPECIALTY!)

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.)
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3332
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #3224 on: December 31, 2014, 11:27:19 PM »
Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject. 

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf
Thanks for the heads up!  I knew the ERRs were getting better, I didn't realize they had gotten that much better.  (Although if the EPBT in the SW US is 1.2 years and 1.8 for the average, where I live it's probably almost 3 years LOL... over 180 days are fully overcast and 120 days are partly cloudy.)  This does make me feel much more confident that technical solutions do exist, except our true problems are sociopolitical.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1917 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
971 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
1176 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 04:20:30 PM
by azozeo