21 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal Brain1, I have no significant money to invest in anything
If you are so sure solar is competitive with fossil fuels then put your money where your mouth is and invest in it to sell the electricity. When you lose money don't cry about it.
2, If I did invested money in solar, I will make sure I invest it where and when and in a way that is cost-effective thus I will not 'loose'.
3, I never said solar is 'competitive' with fossil fuels.
I repeatedly said it doesn't have to be competitive to be cost effective. How does that equate with saying it is 'competitive'? you are thick.
4, Just answer my questions and stop being evasive.
22 Mar 15
Originally posted by humy"I repeatedly said it doesn't have to be competitive to be cost effective. How does that equate with saying it is 'competitive'? you are thick."
1, I have no significant money to invest in anything
2, If I did invested money in solar, I will make sure I invest it where and when and in a way that is cost-effective thus I will not 'loose'.
3, I never said solar is 'competitive' with fossil fuels.
I repeatedly said it doesn't have to be competitive to be cost effective. How does that equate with saying it is 'competitive'? you are thick.
4, Just answer my questions and stop being evasive.
What are you saying then? How can solar reduce carbon if it cannot compete with fossil fuels? You are thick. What is the title to this thread? Have you forgotten?
22 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree with you for the most part, but fossil fuels will never run out. They might become very expensive because of supply shortages and other energy sources will overcome fossil fuels, but that will not happen for a long time.
I think it safe to say fossil fuels will run out after some length of time. During those days, fossil fuel will inevitably cost a lot more with no end in sight.
At some point, it will be cheaper to buy solar, run electric cars. Right now there is a company that will build a carport stacked with solar that can recharge an electric car.
Solar will get c ...[text shortened]... equire a trillion dollar investment in the infrastructure needed to get that power to the users.
I hope solar becomes more efficient so it is worth the investment some day. I am sure it will happen eventually, but that just might influence OPEC to increase output to lower the price to make their product undercut their competition. OPEC is doing that now so most fracking in the USA cannot be cost effective. All I'm saying is it could take longer than some think.
22 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe thread name is "Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative"
I hope solar becomes more efficient so it is worth the investment some day. I am sure it will happen eventually, but that just might influence OPEC to increase output to lower the price to make their product undercut their competition. OPEC is doing that now so most fracking in the USA cannot be cost effective. All I'm saying is it could take longer than some think.
US cannot ever be carbon negative with this line of thinking.
22 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSolar is already 'worth the investment' in many instances. There is a reason solar panels are being sold. Here in SA, solar is most cost effective for houses that are not easily connected to the electricity grid. It is often cheaper to go solar than to get on the grid.
I hope solar becomes more efficient so it is worth the investment some day.
Solar is already cheaper than producing electricity from OPEC products, but isn't yet cheaper than coal. The latest stats I saw showed that wind is currently the cheapest form of power at present even beating coal.
Sadly our country is thinking of getting more nuclear power - probably because of the corruption involved.
22 Mar 15
9 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat stat just by itself would appear to disprove the baseless sweeping generalization typically made by many of the people that oppose renewables that renewables cannot economically compete with fossil fuels (and I honestly don't understand their motivation for their opposition. Do they somehow honestly delusionally think renewables is some kind of 'threat' to their way of life? Or do they have some kind of political motive? Or are they just simply completely stupid? Or what? No idea ).
The latest stats I saw showed that wind is currently the cheapest form of power at present even beating coal.
And, just think, at the rate at which solar energy is becoming more cost effective, it may not be very long ( ~20 years? ) before solar will be cheaper than all types of fossil fuels in every part of the inhabited world EVEN in whichever part that gets the least amount of solar radiation! After all, a solar panel should be able to be designed so that, even on overcast days, it produces some useful amounts of electricity! (albeit about ~1/10th the amount in full sun. But I worked out even this amount can easily be enough for all our domestic needs ) And few places on Earth are overcast ALL the time!
When that day comes when solar out-competes fossil fuels everywhere, I guess that will finally put a stop to this stupid "renewables cannot compete" crap! I cannot wait.
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasCarbon-negative will never happen as I stated before. It is a fantasy that will never happen and it should not happen.
The thread name is "Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative"
US cannot ever be carbon negative with this line of thinking.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadOnly where there is no grid for fossil fuels to compete. I already pointed that out when I used the natural gas wells that have small solar panels in my area. Isn't it ironic that it is being used to contribute to the extraction of a fossil fuel?
Solar is already 'worth the investment' in many instances. There is a reason solar panels are being sold. Here in SA, solar is most cost effective for houses that are not easily connected to the electricity grid. It is often cheaper to go solar than to get on the grid.
Solar is already cheaper than producing electricity from OPEC products, but isn't yet ...[text shortened]... country is thinking of getting more nuclear power - probably because of the corruption involved.
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd these very answers illustrates quite well why I am pessimistic about the future.
Carbon-negative will never happen as I stated before. It is a fantasy that will never happen and it should not happen.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
23 Mar 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasbut, although carbon-negative would still be better, why can't be carbon-neutral rather than the more ambiguous carbon-negative be both achievable and adequate enough to avert a far more serious major disaster?
And these very answers illustrates quite well why I am pessimistic about the future.
I am personally optimistic that it is credible that we can use renewables in the future to turn what would otherwise become a major global disaster (killing millions ) into a much tolerable albeit still bad relatively 'minor' disaster (killing thousands instead of millions ). The main barriers are dirty politics and I guess just possibly the incredibly stupid climate deniers although not sure if enough people still really take their moronic rhetoric seriously enough for that to significantly effect future energy policy.
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by humyThe only way to achieve a carbon neutral state is if you stop using coal, natural gas, and oil and its products, not lesser than before, but not at all - then you are carbon neutral.
but, although carbon-negative would still be better, why can't be carbon-neutral rather than the more ambiguous carbon-negative be both achievable and adequate enough to avert a far more serious major disaster?
I am personally optimistic that it is credible that we can use renewables in the future to turn what would otherwise become a major global disaster ...[text shortened]... e their moronic rhetoric seriously enough for that to significantly effect future energy policy.
The only country in the world who realistically can achieve such a goal is Iceland. But carbon-negative? No, never.
I just hope the biosphere will heal spontaneously. And think of that USA, even the Western part, would be carbon-negative makes me smile.
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat still leaves China, the largest polluter on the planet ATT.
The only way to achieve a carbon neutral state is if you stop using coal, natural gas, and oil and its products, not lesser than before, but not at all - then you are carbon neutral.
The only country in the world who realistically can achieve such a goal is Iceland. But carbon-negative? No, never.
I just hope the biosphere will heal spontaneously. And think of that USA, even the Western part, would be carbon-negative makes me smile.
23 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIn the year of 2009 China's emission was 7.2 tonnes per capita.
That still leaves China, the largest polluter on the planet ATT.
The same year USA's emission was 17.2 tonnes per capita.
China has a lot of habitants, yes, but calculated per capita USA is the bad guy of the world.
22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyYou certainly have a lot of posts that indicate you are an alarmist to anybody with a brain.
Yes, survival. Not my personal survival; Not your personal survival; Not even the survival of the whole human species
(I only mention that to preempt the usual stupid straw man ), but the survival of thousands if not millions of people in future generations that would be worst effected by man made global warming. It is the case of just for once stop selfishly ...[text shortened]... hers that are/will be less fortunate than yourself. Do you understand the concept of 'morality'?
You wrote this in another thread:
"It seems that somebody here chooses to have selective blindness to all my anti-alarmist posts."
If you changed your mind at some point just say so. We would all like to know.